article: Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife

[STR8UP]

See Str8up you are insinuating that every woman has the same nature. If this were true then we wouldn't find some percentage of attractive women that marry a guy who isn't rich and stay with him through hard times. There is a percentage of women like this whether it's 40% or 20% or whatever.This article wasn't about these women not sticking with their man through hard times. They were out the door the minute the wealth was reduced.

I realize what the article was about. My point is that there isn't a black and white line between golddiggers and "normal" women, as a lot of guys would like to believe. They WAAAAAY underestimate the role that a man's ability to provide has in attracting (and keeping) a woman. If you think it is "wrong" for a woman to lose attraction when the sh!t hits the financial fan, then you have to think it is wrong for a man to lose attraction toward a woman who loses her beauty. If you believe that a man has a "right" to lose attraction to a woman who gets fat, yet it is horrible for a woman to lose attraction for a man who loses his job, you either don't have a very good understanding of the nature of attraction or you are being hypocritical.

What I'm saying is these women were evidently there only for that criterion. We can find plenty of women who choose a guy who isn't near as wealthy as other options she has. Not all women put means above everything else.

The key phrase here is "everything else being equal".

I know that it's NEVER equal, but if it were (and the woman did not risk being judged), the woman would choose the guy with greater means.

I don't think it's completely analagous between how a man is attracted to a woman's overall physicality and how a woman is attracted to wealth. If anything women are hardwired to respond to several criteria, the guy's overall persona and his appearance, along with his economic stature.

For lack of a better model, let's refer to The Ladder Theory to illustrate a breakdown of how attraction is different between men and women.

You may or may not agree 100% with the two pie charts, but I would guess that it's about as accurate as you're gonna get, especially how women's criteria are 50% wealth/power, and men's are 60% looks. If you agree with the proportions of these charts I think it's safe to compare the two.

Well maybe so but when women feel safe they are less inclined to go looking for male protection. Same thing when they have financial security whether that's through their own ability to earn or find another rich sucker. They're less inclined to be agreeable or loyal.

So when a man loses his ability to acquire resources, wouldn't it make sense that a woman might feel a little less "safe"?

My point is for better or worse not every woman marries solely for money which these women did. So I think it's eroneous to say "all women are hard wired like these ones".

Again, my point was that all women ARE wired to be attracted to wealth and resources, and that a woman losing attraction for a man who loses some of the things that attracted her to him in the first place is no more right wrong than a man losing attraction toward a woman who loses her beauty. The women in this article are obviously extreme examples, and nobody wants a chick that is with him only for his money, but if you think that for some women these things aren't even a factor you are living in a fantasy.

Again the problem is these women weren't attracted to any quality of the man, just his wealth. You are making the insinuation that we know what women are attracted to and it's wealth. I believe that women are fundamentally attracted to a man's mental makeup and his appearance stemming from that, his mood, expressions etc.

We can run around debating the details of attraction all day long, but I think it's safe to say that most of us are in agreement that wealth and power play a huge role in attraction. You can even break it down into individual traits that drive women crazy, but when yuo do it's easy to see that these traits are nothing more than indicators of the ability to acquire wealth and power.

I am interested in hearing your idea of how the pie charts should be broken down.

If woman were all carbon copies controlled by nature's programming, then the common held belief that women from 3rd world countries are different from US women wouldn't be true.

Of course women aren't carbon copies. You are missing the point. On a basic level they all want about the same thing, but the esoteric nature of female attraction (actually mens too, but even moreso womens) leads it to manifest itself in different ways with different women.

Women aren't really attracted to money itself per se. They want money of course, but what they are attracted to is a man's ability to succeed and his power and influence over others. Some women will get with a man only for money and not actually be attracted to his qualities as a person. The instance the money's gone, the women are gone. That's the point I was making.

This I agree with 110%.

The entire premise of the PUA community is based upon a bunch of geeks who were fed up with not getting laid, so they sat down and studied **GASP** evolutionary psychology and figured out a way to capitalize on the fact that women use "shortcuts" to determine the suitability of a mate, which (until the awareness the PUA movement brought) were actually a more reliable way to determine fitness fo a mate.

In other words, women are attracted to the qualities, not things.

I'm just not a believer in moral relativism, evolutionary psychology, or that human behavior is as predictable as low order animals based in instinct. I think enviromental conditions and nurture are big factors, at least the equal of "evolution" or so-called hard wiring.

If nature played only a 50% role in determining our behavior, we would be wiped off the planet within a few generations.

It might appear that we have it all figured out and that we are "in control", but when it comes down to it, the basic needs to survive and reproduce will trump anything society tries to throw at it.

 

[Luthor Rex]

If woman were all carbon copies controlled by nature's programming, then the common held belief that women from 3rd world countries are different from US women wouldn't be true.

I think both sides of this debate are missing what's really going on here.

All women are like ice cream.

Women are all the same in the sense that they are all ice cream, but they are all different in the sense that there are different flavors of ice cream.

Some flavors of ice cream will be sweet or loyal or emotional or hootchie whatever else. So when you've taken a taste of a new girl you may think "she is so unique" and she may be a rare flavor, but she's still ice cream.

So you could meet a woman who has extra strong loyalty in her, but she will still get nervous if you slip in your provider role, it just may take her longer before she thinks her man has failed.

I think it confuses men because they taste the different flavors, but don't understand that it's all still ice cream.

God I hope this drunken post made some kind of sense.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

Men, please try to wrap your brains around what I'm about to say to you:

In this day and age where the majority of western women have the ability to earn almost as much as the average man--------ANY woman who STILL uses money as her MOST IMPORTANT criteria when picking a man to marry is really a woman that doesn't actually qualify as a potential wife in the most traditional use of the term.

In fact, by consciously making material gain her main goal, she has actually only succeeded in revealing to that man what she REALLY is...


...and now the only thing that's left for them to do before walking down the aisle is to simply haggle over her "price".

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Men, please try to wrap your brains around what I'm about to say to you:

In this day and age where the majority of western women have the ability to earn almost as much as the average man--------ANY woman who STILL uses money as her MOST IMPORTANT criteria when picking a man to marry is really a woman that doesn't actually qualify as a potential wife in the most traditional use of the term.

In fact, by consciously making material gain her main goal, she has actually only succeeded in revealing to that man what she REALLY is...


...and now the only thing that's left for them to do before walking down the aisle is to simply haggle over her "price".

Its not a conscious decision!!!!!

I dont understand why people struggle to differentiate between the two. Its a primal thing. She does not like the money, she likes the resources that the money can provide. Its wealth that they are attracted to, not the money itself. Even the possibility that you could one day be wealthy is enough to peak her interest. Why do you think women swoon and brag about the lawyers and doctors they date?

When we say women are attracted to money, we are not talking about bog standard middle class either. That is not wealth. Wealthy would be 2 or 3 holidays homes, the latest sports cars, memberships at exclusive country clubs, 2-3 months vacation a year. Your 200k a year job is not wealth. Her ability to put food on the table is not wealth.

You want evidence? TRAVEL. FFS guys, TRAVEL. Go to any developing country and see how the woman treat you. I can promise you it has FVCK ALL to do with the fact that you were born in the USA or UK. It has nothing to do with the fact that she likes your easy going personality or the fact that you dont beat her senseless once a month. And I can promise you all that hard arse **** you learned on the interwebs reading Mystery Method comes naturally to the local men who struggle to survive daily. So it has nothing to do with your "game" and acting "Alpha"

Your status is elevated because you are wealthier and have better prospects. A wealthy man by western standards is going to have better prospects with western woman. Western women would fawn just as much when you are above average. Average women dont want average men. They SETTLE for average men. They divorce average men.

Fvck it. I am sick of these "money means nothing and if it does she is a low quality woman" threads. For all the talk of breaking through the matrix, half of you are no different to Cypher eating steak in the restaurant telling Agent Smith you would rather reject reality because you prefer dreamland.

 

[jophil28]

Men, please try to wrap your brains around what I'm about to say to you:

In this day and age where the majority of western women have the ability to earn almost as much as the average man--------ANY woman who STILL uses money as her MOST IMPORTANT criteria when picking a man to marry is really a woman that doesn't actually qualify as a potential wife in the most traditional use of the term.

In fact, by consciously making material gain her main goal, she has actually only succeeded in revealing to that man what she REALLY is...


...and now the only thing that's left for them to do before walking down the aisle is to simply haggle over her "price".

The voice of reason speaks once again.

Where you been lately ,soldier ?
AWOL ?

 

[jophil28]

Its not a conscious decision!!!!!

I dont understand why people struggle to differentiate between the two. Its a primal thing. She does not like the money, she likes the resources that the money can provide.
.

The point of this thread is lost in that kind of rant.

Both you and STR*uP are right - many women ARE attracted to money, wealth and do pursue those men who accumulate resources. Nobody disputes that, so it is pointless both of you hammering away at that nail.

THe OP was pointing out, via a news item, how readily some women ABANDON their marriages when the flow of money dries up and their twice weekly salons visits have to be cut back to one a week.
The impact of the GFC has revealed the shallowness of some women , as the anecdotes point out in no uncertain ways.
Their attraction to, or marriages to wealthy husbands was not under attack, or even scrutiny in the articles. Their abandonment of their husbands was.
Those woman were not contributing partners in a committed marriages, they were non-fare paying passengers on a magic carpet ride.

 

[Trader]

Its not a conscious decision!!!!!

I dont understand why people struggle to differentiate between the two. Its a primal thing. She does not like the money, she likes the resources that the money can provide. Its wealth that they are attracted to, not the money itself. Even the possibility that you could one day be wealthy is enough to peak her interest. Why do you think women swoon and brag about the lawyers and doctors they date?

When we say women are attracted to money, we are not talking about bog standard middle class either. That is not wealth. Wealthy would be 2 or 3 holidays homes, the latest sports cars, memberships at exclusive country clubs, 2-3 months vacation a year. Your 200k a year job is not wealth. Her ability to put food on the table is not wealth.

You want evidence? TRAVEL. FFS guys, TRAVEL. Go to any developing country and see how the woman treat you. I can promise you it has FVCK ALL to do with the fact that you were born in the USA or UK. It has nothing to do with the fact that she likes your easy going personality or the fact that you dont beat her senseless once a month. And I can promise you all that hard arse **** you learned on the interwebs reading Mystery Method comes naturally to the local men who struggle to survive daily. So it has nothing to do with your "game" and acting "Alpha"

Your status is elevated because you are wealthier and have better prospects. A wealthy man by western standards is going to have better prospects with western woman. Western women would fawn just as much when you are above average. Average women dont want average men. They SETTLE for average men. They divorce average men.

Great point. It's not about money per se, it's about the *lifestyle* that your money can provide that attracts girls.

I once took a girl out for dinner and I left a nice tip - I always tip generously. And later on she was like: 'Honestly, it is every girl's dream to marry a rich man, but you also have to find a rich man who is willing to spend the money.'

She probably thought that since I tip a lot - that I would spend a lot of money on her so she could live some *grand lifestyle* if we were to officially date. She totally misread that one.

Fvck it. I am sick of these "money means nothing and if it does she is a low quality woman" threads. For all the talk of breaking through the matrix, half of you are no different to Cypher eating steak in the restaurant telling Agent Smith you would rather reject reality because you prefer dreamland.

I completely agree. Acknowledge reality and deal with it. It's neither good nor bad that girls place value on *wealth* - it just is - this is just how nature works - just like how no matter how many achievements a girl has, the only thing we will ever remember is how she looks

 

[STR8UP]

Its not a conscious decision!!!!!

I dont understand why people struggle to differentiate between the two. Its a primal thing. She does not like the money, she likes the resources that the money can provide. Its wealth that they are attracted to, not the money itself. Even the possibility that you could one day be wealthy is enough to peak her interest. Why do you think women swoon and brag about the lawyers and doctors they date?

Or what about panty wetting rock stars?

A lot of them are butt ugly, and besides that, what useful PURPOSE would it serve for women to be attracted to such men? According to this "women today have the ability to earn their own living and thus are LOW QUALITY if they even think about wealth/power" thing, rock stars shouldn't be fukking thousands of women.

VU....you're a pretty intelligent guy (as is jophil, keto, and others) but you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off base here. I know you have to try to uphold your anti evolutionary psychology stance, but you just can't argue against it in some cases- this being one of them.

Don't confuse your own personal idea of utopia with reality. Sure, we would all love to level the playing field to where we could all be banging the hottest, highest quality ass without having to go to the gym everyday after a long day of conquering the world, but no amount of female autonomy is going to change the things that make women attracted to a man.

When we say women are attracted to money, we are not talking about bog standard middle class either. That is not wealth. Wealthy would be 2 or 3 holidays homes, the latest sports cars, memberships at exclusive country clubs, 2-3 months vacation a year. Your 200k a year job is not wealth. Her ability to put food on the table is not wealth.

Exactly.

A lot of women might be out there opening doggie boutiques and cake decorating services, but even those women get wet for the guys who are out there to TRULY build an empire.

I'm not trying to brag here, but I think it's important to point out that I personally have had a taste of what it is like to experience the magnetic pull that wealth and power exert over women. When you on the rise to the top women can SMELL it on you. It's almost too easy. They absolutely swoon for a man who walks with the air of confidence that can only be won through hard fought battles of the financial kind. You really cannot grasp this until you experience it firsthand.

You want evidence? TRAVEL. FFS guys, TRAVEL. Go to any developing country and see how the woman treat you. I can promise you it has FVCK ALL to do with the fact that you were born in the USA or UK.

This is the perfect way for a guy who doesn't necessarily have extravagant means in the west to be able to see firsthand how this dynamic works. I was in Republic of Georgia for a couple of weeks and had two best friends fighting over me. I'm talking one pouting at the table while I danced with the other. It's something that every man should experience once in his life. Gives you a whole new perspective on things.

Average women dont want average men. They SETTLE for average men. They divorce average men.

If I had one piece of advice to pass on to the next generation of men, it would be "Aspire to greatness; everything else will fall into place".

Some men are too preoccupied trying to fit a square peg into a round hole looking for that mythical chick who doesn't give a sh!t that he has no ambition beyond trying to land the night manager position at McDonalds that they deny the truth that is right in front of them- wealthy, powerful guys will always have the upper hand, all else being equal.

Fvck it. I am sick of these "money means nothing and if it does she is a low quality woman" threads. For all the talk of breaking through the matrix, half of you are no different to Cypher eating steak in the restaurant telling Agent Smith you would rather reject reality because you prefer dreamland.

I agree. Lots of guys THINK they have broken through the matrix, but in reality they are trapped somewhere in the middle.

 

[ketostix]

There's a lot of promblems with your generalization that it';s almost silly.

Its not a conscious decision!!!!!

I dont understand why people struggle to differentiate between the two. Its a primal thing. She does not like the money, she likes the resources that the money can provide. Its wealth that they are attracted to, not the money itself. Even the possibility that you could one day be wealthy is enough to peak her interest. Why do you think women swoon and brag about the lawyers and doctors they date?

No one is disputing that women are attracted to wealth, material things power, status, and fame. When a man has money often he has some of those other qualities though. The difference is that some women will marry a man of means solely for his means with no interest or attraction in the man. While other women will mary a man for the qualities he has.

When we say women are attracted to money, we are not talking about bog standard middle class either. That is not wealth. Wealthy would be 2 or 3 holidays homes, the latest sports cars, memberships at exclusive country clubs, 2-3 months vacation a year. Your 200k a year job is not wealth. Her ability to put food on the table is not wealth.

You want evidence? TRAVEL. FFS guys, TRAVEL. Go to any developing country and see how the woman treat you. I can promise you it has FVCK ALL to do with the fact that you were born in the USA or UK. It has nothing to do with the fact that she likes your easy going personality or the fact that you dont beat her senseless once a month. And I can promise you all that hard arse **** you learned on the interwebs reading Mystery Method comes naturally to the local men who struggle to survive daily. So it has nothing to do with your "game" and acting "Alpha"

Well this isn't entirely true, for one thing statistics show that "foreign brides" are more loyal than American ones. Also we could find western men who travel to foreign countries who don't do as well with the women there as other western men with even less money. There must be more to it than just money.

Your status is elevated because you are wealthier and have better prospects. A wealthy man by western standards is going to have better prospects with western woman. Western women would fawn just as much when you are above average. Average women dont want average men. They SETTLE for average men. They divorce average men.

Western women don't exactly fawn over wealthy men as much. And they divorce wealthy men all the time. The truth is the vast majority of young and attractive women are with some guy close to her age that is below average in wealth.

Fvck it. I am sick of these "money means nothing and if it does she is a low quality woman" threads. For all the talk of breaking through the matrix, half of you are no different to Cypher eating steak in the restaurant telling Agent Smith you would rather reject reality because you prefer dreamland.

But no one said money means nothing. What we said was there are women who marry just for money and they are low quality. You don't know reality as well as you think. There's plenty of women dating broke guys because they like their looks and persona. Money is only one of many aspects that attract women.

 

[ketostix]

Or what about panty wetting rock stars?

A lot of them are butt ugly, and besides that, what useful PURPOSE would it serve for women to be attracted to such men? According to this "women today have the ability to earn their own living and thus are LOW QUALITY if they even think about wealth/power" thing, rock stars shouldn't be fukking thousands of women.

Yeah but you can find broke guys in a band that attract lots of women so obviously more is going on than just money. Another thing is not all women are interested in the proverbial rock star. So if you can find a certain pecentage of young and attractive women who choose their BF of modest means, then there's nothing wrong with saying she's higher quality than the band groupies.

VU....you're a pretty intelligent guy (as is jophil, keto, and others) but you are WAAAAAAAAAAAAY off base here. I know you have to try to uphold your anti evolutionary psychology stance, but you just can't argue against it in some cases- this being one of them.

But we can just some people don't want to consider other scenarios reality presents.

Don't confuse your own personal idea of utopia with reality. Sure, we would all love to level the playing field to where we could all be banging the hottest, highest quality ass without having to go to the gym everyday after a long day of conquering the world, but no amount of female autonomy is going to change the things that make women attracted to a man.

I don't get it. Str8up you seem to be saying all it takes is money to be universally attractive to most all women. What I'm saying is women are attracted to a combination of things and just having money won't make you really attractive to women.

A lot of women might be out there opening doggie boutiques and cake decorating services, but even those women get wet for the guys who are out there to TRULY build an empire.

I'm not trying to brag here, but I think it's important to point out that I personally have had a taste of what it is like to experience the magnetic pull that wealth and power exert over women. When you on the rise to the top women can SMELL it on you. It's almost too easy. They absolutely swoon for a man who walks with the air of confidence that can only be won through hard fought battles of the financial kind. You really cannot grasp this until you experience it firsthand.

But there's more going on here. if you had the money but for some reason were depressed and feeling down (hey it's known to happen) do you think you'd get the same response from women? There are guys who aren't that wealthy but who are charismatic and good looking and have women fighting over them.

This is the perfect way for a guy who doesn't necessarily have extravagant means in the west to be able to see firsthand how this dynamic works. I was in Republic of Georgia for a couple of weeks and had two best friends fighting over me. I'm talking one pouting at the table while I danced with the other. It's something that every man should experience once in his life. Gives you a whole new perspective on things.

Well lets put aside all the things a western man represents to these women besides just being wealthier. I would say this is an indicator of how a woman's enviroment and socialization have a big influence on how she behaves. it's not so simple that these women are responding to just wealth that's hard-wired into from evolutionary psychology. It's more a case of a woman's behavior due to her lost standing enviromental conditions.

If I had one piece of advice to pass on to the next generation of men, it would be "Aspire to greatness; everything else will fall into place".

Some men are too preoccupied trying to fit a square peg into a round hole looking for that mythical chick who doesn't give a sh!t that he has no ambition beyond trying to land the night manager position at McDonalds that they deny the truth that is right in front of them- wealthy, powerful guys will always have the upper hand, all else being equal.

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with aspiring to greatness or that wealth isn't an advantage. What I'm saying is I can show you lots of guys that have women and little wealth. Wealth will attract women who aren't only interested in wealth, but it will also attract women who are. There is a such thing as a spoiled gold digger woman. Some women are more gold diggers than others.

 

[radiodude]

Stories like these always make me think about how many women I got living only in an efficiency apartment (1 big room and a bathroom) and driving a decent but aging car. (Monte Carlo)

I personally remember bringing at least 5-6 women back to my little pad with me. 2 of them would be at least 9's. The others were decent 7-8's. All this in the course of just a year. And this was all when I was younger and still 'learning' the ways of women.

$25,000 a year income...

Shopped at the standard mall, Wal-mart, Target. Family giving me stuff from time to time.

And the majority of them were more than happy to come back again.

I guess when it's all about the money...it's all about the money and NOTHING more!

 

[Trader]

Stories like these always make me think about how many women I got living only in an efficiency apartment (1 big room and a bathroom) and driving a decent but aging car. (Monte Carlo)

I personally remember bringing at least 5-6 women back to my little pad with me. 2 of them would be at least 9's. The others were decent 7-8's. All this in the course of just a year. And this was all when I was younger and still 'learning' the ways of women.

$25,000 a year income...

Shopped at the standard mall, Wal-mart, Target. Family giving me stuff from time to time.

And the majority of them were more than happy to come back again.

I guess when it's all about the money...it's all about the money and NOTHING more!

Of course you were able to get those HB7+ girls with little or no money. You were in non-serious relationships.

The point is that when girls are looking for MARRIAGE, $25,000 *usually* is not going to cut it. Accept it and move on.

 

[TheHumanist]

A few questions.

Are you arguing that fact in context to the women in the article or the evolutionary psychology of women? If it in the context of the article, how is this one of those cases that cannot be argued against? One must examine the women and the men in the article and ask if the women left because they lost their "love" via their nature or just a spoiled brat who just lost their squeeze? Obviously, if a man loses he job, of course she will be shaken no matter what they say, I remember Rollo said that once. That is nature. On the extreme end, everyone can agree if the man proceed play World of Warcraft 18 hours a day and nothing else productive, that is justified and rightful course when the wife leave and that is arguable also nature. Is a man who hit a major but temporary snag, and the wife bolt immediately, is that nature or was she in it just to be able to send 1k a day on sh!t and left when that's gone (bad character brought by bad nurturing)?

If she left because her million dollar husband became 6 figures, then one can argue that it's nuture for her spoilled attitude came from an entitled mindset (via lack of hardships, feminism, parents, wtvr).

If it nature, then all the arguments about quality or being her fault is null. It also brings great implication if nurture means little to the actions of the person as well as free will. It nullifies all the complaints about the decline of qualites since the 50's, cost of feminism, and etc. I also have to remember about the latest culture have influence today's men, which man have point more now more femine/afc or something along that line. There's so be no reason that nurture play a larger role over men than women.

Obviously, I tend to think that it is a mix. But, what do you think.

----

The foreign women example brought up another point. Many people on this site and other places argue to go for foreign women because they are better for various reasons and American women are incredibly low quality. Are foreign women better because they are more feminine, giving, and loyal due to second wave feminism have not warped their personalities or just because they are in the presence of an American man and the preceived status surrounding that.

 

[ketostix]

A few questions.

Are you arguing that fact in context to the women in the article or the evolutionary psychology of women? If it in the context of the article, how is this one of those cases that cannot be argued against? One must examine the women and the men in the article and ask if the women left because they lost their "love" via their nature or just a spoiled brat who just lost their squeeze? Obviously, if a man loses he job, of course she will be shaken no matter what they say, I remember Rollo said that once. That is nature. On the extreme end, everyone can agree if the man proceed play World of Warcraft 18 hours a day and nothing else productive, that is justified and rightful course when the wife leave and that is arguable also nature. Is a man who hit a major but temporary snag, and the wife bolt immediately, is that nature or was she in it just to be able to send 1k a day on sh!t and left when that's gone (bad character brought by bad nurturing)?

Right, there is a difference between a woman who leaves a man who isn't making anything or even trying and she's paying the bills and this example where the woman was living an extravagant lifestyle and bolted the instance the money decreased.

If she left because her million dollar husband became 6 figures, then one can argue that it's nuture for her spoilled attitude came from an entitled mindset (via lack of hardships, feminism, parents, wtvr).

that's what I'm arguing.

If it nature, then all the arguments about quality or being her fault is null. It also brings great implication if nurture means little to the actions of the person as well as free will. It nullifies all the complaints about the decline of qualites since the 50's, cost of feminism, and etc. I also have to remember about the latest culture have influence today's men, which man have point more now more femine/afc or something along that line. There's so be no reason that nurture play a larger role over men than women.

Obviously, I tend to think that it is a mix. But, what do you think.

I've been saying it's a mix and enviroment and nurture are huge factors. But some seem to think enviroment and nurture are silly "man made" conditions. I don't think so. I think a lot of things that people do that some say are man-made and working against hardwiring are actually part of hard-wiring as well. but either way behavior is strongly influenced by enviroment.

The foreign women example brought up another point. Many people on this site and other places argue to go for foreign women because they are better for various reasons and American women are incredibly low quality. Are foreign women better because they are more feminine, giving, and loyal due to second wave feminism have not warped their personalities or just because they are in the presence of an American man and the preceived status surrounding that.

Well I think the proof is in the statistics that these foreign brides are more loyal than western ones even after years of being in the US . That pretty much tells you that western women have been spoiled and corrupted in their nurturing.

Honestly it's the matrix that says a man has to have lots of money to get and keep a woman. it's the matrix that beliefs in evolution, evolutionary psychology, and moral relativism. So I don't know where guys who preach that stuff get the idea that they're more out of the matrix than those who don't. They are buying into and accepting what feminist want men to accept. You don't have to be wealthy to attract and keep a girl. The majority of guys who do that aren't particualrly wealthy.

Personally I think these guys can't attract women too well without money and they use it as a crutch. The problem is the woman only wants them for their money. Then they make their necessity a virtue by proclaiming all women are hard-wired through evolution to be like that. I don't think there's anything wornng with attracting women with wealth, you do what you got to do to get the result you want. The problem I have is they're not being honest with themselves about how much attraction from the woman they have and what kind of women would put being extremely wealth above everything else.

I don't really see how there's a debate, all women are interested in wealth but some women are gold diggers.

 

[ketostix]

Last night I had one pretend to stumble into my arms and whisper in my ear "I am so drunk (she wasn't), I should lay down, can we leave now and go to your place?" She went from cold to wanting to have sex within one hour from seeing my vehicle. I've also had women that were crazy attracted to me when I was poor. Women are attracted to value and value comes in many forms.

Well I think there in lies the distinction. I would never consider the first girl's attraction in me genuine and I would not take her serious and just use her for sex. I would consider her "low quality" for their purposes of having integrity or loyality. The second I would consider had attraction in the qualities of me as a person. I would consider her more suitable for a relationship. Of course that's based on that info alone and there are other factors. If someone were to say the first girl's attraction was just as valid as the other girl's, I would disagree. I know that women don't particular like guys who they get alot things out of. And for someone to say they do is imo them putting a different set of blinders on.

Maybe we should drop the quality vs. low quality women angle and look at as quality vs low quality relationship. Wealth or not a woman who is there to get things from you doesn't constitute a quality relationship.

 

[jophil28]

Once again -- the point of the OP was to point out how rapidly some women abandon their luxurious marriages with a wealthy man when the going gets tough.
It was not a piece about why women are attracted to wealth per se.
THat is an entirely separate debate.

The OPs point has been hijacked by that old and tedious debate about what attracts women and why.
The OP was NOT about attraction it was about abandonment, but I guess the 'attraction ' debate is more exciting.

 

[STR8UP]

Honestly it's the matrix that says a man has to have lots of money to get and keep a woman. it's the matrix that beliefs in evolution, evolutionary psychology, and moral relativism. So I don't know where guys who preach that stuff get the idea that they're more out of the matrix than those who don't.

So scientific research is bunk?

If you have a better model to explain mating behavior than the studies that have been done (formal and informal) i would like to see it. Just seems that the "other side" of the argument has plenty of opposition with nothing to back it up. Until I see some credible evidence that I'm on the wrong track, i will stick to the idea that I am indeed a little closer to being out of the matrix than the guy who doesn't have a leg to stand on to support his opinions.

They are buying into and accepting what feminist want men to accept. You don't have to be wealthy to attract and keep a girl. The majority of guys who do that aren't particualrly wealthy.

This is where you and jophil are confused. Read his response to the other thread here.

You are mistaking acceptance of the truth for approval.

Do I approve of a woman who does something that goes against my personal best interests as a man? Of course not. But I do accept the reality of it. And that means not being disillusioned about santa claus, the tooth fairy, or the "quality" woman who has been so well programmed socially that she is willing to give up her own biological advantages to serve those of one man.

Personally I think these guys can't attract women too well without money and they use it as a crutch.

It's quite the opposite, actually. It's the guys who don't think they will ever HAVE wealth and power who argue so vehemently against the idea that it could possibly play such a large role in attraction.

The problem is the woman only wants them for their money. Then they make their necessity a virtue by proclaiming all women are hard-wired through evolution to be like that. I don't think there's anything wornng with attracting women with wealth, you do what you got to do to get the result you want. The problem I have is they're not being honest with themselves about how much attraction from the woman they have and what kind of women would put being extremely wealth above everything else.

I don't really see how there's a debate, all women are interested in wealth but some women are gold diggers.

1) Another thing that you guys are missing is that it isn't all about MONEY. It is about WEALTH and POWER, which are inextricably linked. People get so fired up when the word MONEY is used (which is a bullsh!t knee-jerk socially conditioned response, but that's beside the point) when it actually isn't about money in and of itself.

2) You speak of "attracting women with wealth" as if it were a fishing lure that you tie on the end of your line to catch a golddigger. Whether you are a restaurant manager, the president of the USA, a rock star, or simply a popular guy in your neighborhood, your stature in the community and your ability to acquire allies and resources are a part of WHO YOU ARE AS A MAN. Some guys don't like to hear that cause it isn't P.C. and they don't think they will ever go far, but it's 100% truth. You ARE defined by women and other men by things other than your character. Like it or not, it's the truth.

 

[MrLuvr]

So let me understand this correctly, if a woman is attracted to a man because of his wealth, she is NOT a quality woman?

What about women who are attracted to men that have a sculptured, muscular physique? How come those women are not derided and called "muscle diggers" or low quality women?

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Once again -- the point of the OP was to point out how rapidly some women abandon their luxurious marriages with a wealthy man when the going gets tough.
It was not a piece about why women are attracted to wealth per se.
THat is an entirely separate debate.

The OPs point has been hijacked by that old and tedious debate about what attracts women and why.
The OP was NOT about attraction it was about abandonment, but I guess the 'attraction ' debate is more exciting.

HOW?

These women leave their men because they can no longer provide the lifestyle they used to. Its no different to a man who starts ****ing around on his wife because she put on 20lbs.

It is relevant. We vilify women for being gold diggers when it is in their nature to be that way. No one says what is happening is nice but its further evidence that your ability to provide is vital.

Some woman will stick with you through thick and thin. Some women. And most of those are not doing it because its the right thing to do. They are doing it because they have limited options. Men expect women to display the same character traits we do. Things like blind loyalty and commitment when times are tough are not two qualities that come naturally to most women I am afraid.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

There's a lot of promblems with your generalization that it';s almost silly.

No one is disputing that women are attracted to wealth, material things power, status, and fame. When a man has money often he has some of those other qualities though. The difference is that some women will marry a man of means solely for his means with no interest or attraction in the man. While other women will mary a man for the qualities he has.

Yes, this happens. No one denies this. Some men on this forum though refuse to acknowledge that woman can be attracted to money. Its GENUINE attraction. They dont fake the attraction they have for those men just because they want access to his bank account. A lot of them are genuinely attracted to those men. Its not a sideshow they put on.

People have watched way too many Hollywood movies. Yes, those men would not have landed those women if not for their cash. The fact that they have that money means that women are genuinely attracted to them because of it

Well this isn't entirely true, for one thing statistics show that "foreign brides" are more loyal than American ones. Also we could find western men who travel to foreign countries who don't do as well with the women there as other western men with even less money. There must be more to it than just money.

They are more loyal because they have not been mind****ed with the sense of entitlement feminism has instilled in our women. The fact remains that they are attracted to you initially because of your higher status. It really is that simple. Its the lifestyle you can give them.

They are more traditional. I know this. I worked and lived in Russia for 2 years. Those same traditional women expect you to pay for everything. They expect you to work so she can raise kids. Half the "players" on this forum would never date a woman like this because she wont go dutch. They would be mortified that they would have to pay for all her drinks. These are women with masters degrees in the sciences in some cases. These are the traditional quality women most men would want, but the western perception of wealth in a relationship has become so skewed they would next this "gold digging *****" within a few weeks.

Those traditional women admit they want to attach themselves to a man that can provide. Its why you see younger women dating older men everywhere in the world. Its not just Russia and Eastern Europe. Its the same in South America and Africa. Its the same in Asia.

Western women don't exactly fawn over wealthy men as much. And they divorce wealthy men all the time. The truth is the vast majority of young and attractive women are with some guy close to her age that is below average in wealth.

Again, no one disputes this. It can also not be disputed that we sit with a 50% divorce rate of which 7/10 have been the result of the women calling it quits.

WHY?

People often say that good looks get you the interview but you need the characteristics of what she is looking for to keep her. Hence the **** tests. Wealth gets you that interview too. You still need to have your **** together, but there are FEWER **** tests. Which means that you have a better chance of staying married if you have money in your pocket.

It should also be noted that women will share a successful man. They wont date a loser but they will gladly **** that married man who buys her diamond earrings every now and then.

But no one said money means nothing. What we said was there are women who marry just for money and they are low quality. You don't know reality as well as you think. There's plenty of women dating broke guys because they like their looks and persona. Money is only one of many aspects that attract women.

The number of women who marry just for money is FINITE. Even those that most label as gold diggers are not gold diggers. They are acting the way women are pre programed to work. Women have a genuine attraction to men who display wealth. Its not fake. Its not a put on in an attempt to raid his bank account. Its is a genuine attraction. An attraction as strong as she feels for the gym instructor built like a brick sh1thouse.

The only women who dont resort to that are normally average women who dont have the opportunity to do so. Other than the odd nutcase who believes her fat arse is entitled to the Brad Pitts of the world, most gold diggers are smoking hot. They have options. The more options they have, the more selective they are. The more options they have, THE FEWER CHARACTERISTICS OF A QUALITY WOMAN THEY WILL DISPLAY, if quality is measured in much the same way we measure men.