Money for Pu$$y

[edger]

Well, all I'll say is this:

If it is indeed true that women "look" for guys with lots of money, because they're bilogically wired to do so, then it would reason to stand that women are "prostitutes/wh*res" by nature...because I'll tell you one thing, it really is no different from paying an escort anywhere from $300-1500 an hour.

 

[The Muscle Guy]

Well, all I'll say is this:

If it is indeed true that women "look" for guys with lots of money, because they're bilogically wired to do so, then it would reason to stand that women are "prostitutes/wh*res" by nature...because I'll tell you one thing, it really is no different from paying an escort anywhere from $300-1500 an hour.

Yes and no.

Game is selling women the hope that you will "take care" of her, when in reality, you will spend your hard earned money on yourself.

You tell her about your business that is growing, the trips around the world you will take, etc.

I sold a former girlfriend the dream of being with a future pro boxing champion, when in reality, I was a mediocre boxer. She spent thousands of dollars on me as an investment. She was hoping that once I made it big, we would get married. And when we got divorced, she would take her big payday.

 

[Lioric]

I sold a former girlfriend the dream of being with a future pro boxing champion, when in reality, I was a mediocre boxer. She spent thousands of dollars on me as an investment. She was hoping that once I made it big, we would get married. And when we got divorced, she would take her big payday.

And you are at ease with your conscience when you read what you wrote here?

You are admitting to the world that you are a gold digger yourself while in the very same post you are criticizing women... It's even more discomforting to see that maybe your former girlfriend never even thought about all this, she genuinely loved you and bought you gifts and this was your interpretation of the events.

Having ethical values is what makes us different than shallow, calculating and materialistic women we discuss in this forum.

 

[The Muscle Guy]

And you are at ease with your conscience when you read what you wrote here?

You are admitting to the world that you are a gold digger yourself while in the very same post you are criticizing women... It's even more discomforting to see that maybe your former girlfriend never even thought about all this, she genuinely loved you and bought you gifts and this was your interpretation of the events.

Having ethical values is what makes us different than shallow, calculating and materialistic women we discuss in this forum.

Don't impose your perception of morality on me. What is your value system based on? God? Some categorical imperative? What your mommy told you?

Where in my post do I criticize women? I don't put women on a pedastal like you and worship them. I just see them for what they are and accept it. She preyed on wealthy men. I preyed on her. She did what she did because I was a challenge to her.

"Shallow, calculating, and materialistic women."

Now who is criticizing women? Obviously you are carrying some baggage. A gold digger is no less a woman than a good girl. She is just a product of her environment. Do you know that gold diggers have been raped or molested and that is why they can put a price on their pu$$y.

My former girlfriend was raped. I held her in my arms and promised to protect her. All the while, I never forgot what she was. She cheated on her husband with me. Her husband is a very wealthy doctor. She spent his money on me.

You see the world through my little pony glasses. I see the world as it is.

 

[edger]

A gold digger is no less a woman than a good girl. She is just a product of her environment.

Come on, a woman who deceives a man, pretending to love him, but is really only out for is his money, is far from a good woman. That should be rather obvious. You're making excuses for women's bad behavior. That's all they need, is more ammunition from statements like this to justify their cause. This is why women are the way they are and behave the way they do. MuscleGuy, you're not helping "our" cause bro. It's pertinent that we stick together, like they do, yeah? Bros before hoes(don't mean "hoe" condescendingly) dude, remember that?

Gold-diggers tend to be hot, without a doubt, and I'd nail the sh*t out of any one of them, and use the sh*t out of them as my personal jizz bucket. Seriously, that's all they're truly good for.

 

[Lioric]

Don't impose your perception of morality on me. What is your value system based on? God? Some categorical imperative? What your mommy told you?

Where in my post do I criticize women? I don't put women on a pedastal like you and worship them. I just see them for what they are and accept it. She preyed on wealthy men. I preyed on her. She did what she did because I was a challenge to her.

"Shallow, calculating, and materialistic women."

Now who is criticizing women? Obviously you are carrying some baggage. A gold digger is no less a woman than a good girl. She is just a product of her environment. Do you know that gold diggers have been raped or molested and that is why they can put a price on their pu$$y.

My former girlfriend was raped. I held her in my arms and promised to protect her. All the while, I never forgot what she was. She cheated on her husband with me. Her husband is a very wealthy doctor. She spent his money on me.

You see the world through my little pony glasses. I see the world as it is.

Selling a dream to a woman, making her buy you things and then admitting this over the internet to the world is not in my book. What does it have to do with my value system? Anyone would consider this, at the very least, immoral. In that very post you slammed women for being attracted to wealthy people (you said "yes and no" to edger's previous remark on women being gold diggers). But, sorry, maybe that wasn't meant to be a derogatory remark, considering you intentionally did the same thing to your previous girlfriend.

What makes you think I worship women? Putting women on pedestal and intentionally stealing their (or their husband's) money are two different things. If that's how you perceive the world, I am sorry for you.

BTW, I am not carrying any baggage, I just said that there are some materialistic and shallow women (or men) in this world, which is certainly true. I have never engaged in behavior such as intentionally deceiving a person (woman or not) to gain benefit - but let me explain it further for you: This does not mean that I idolize women. I wouldn't do this to a man, either...

Finally, your argument on people being the product of their environment (or their upbringing) is a very cheap justification of your former gf's immoral behavior, i.e, cheating on husband, and spending his money for an "unreal" character. If that is relieving for you, keep on hypnotizing yourself...

 

[STR8UP]

Selling a dream to a woman, making her buy you things and then admitting this over the internet to the world is not in my book. What does it have to do with my value system? Anyone would consider this, at the very least, immoral.

I'm going to stay out of this debate, but I want to point out that there is a bit of hypocrisy in criticizing conscious manipulation while excusing the same behavior when someone else does it "naturally".

We ALL manipulate others....it just isn't PC to talk about it.

 

[The Muscle Guy]

Come on, a woman who deceives a man, pretending to love him, but is really only out for is his money, is far from a good woman. That should be rather obvious. You're making excuses for women's bad behavior. That's all they need, is more ammunition from statements like this to justify their cause. This is why women are the way they are and behave the way they do. MuscleGuy, you're not helping "our" cause bro. It's pertinent that we stick together, like they do, yeah? Bros before hoes(don't mean "hoe" condescendingly) dude, remember that?

Gold-diggers tend to be hot, without a doubt, and I'd nail the sh*t out of any one of them, and use the sh*t out of them as my personal jizz bucket. Seriously, that's all they're truly good for.

I'm not making excuses for her. Far from it, I recognized her predatory traits and gamed her accordingly.

I see a lot of emotions flowing towards women that are gold diggers, sometimes even hatred. That will mess up your game. You have to have the mindset of a master chess player.

By seeing a gold digger as a woman, it allows me to game her without any emotions.

I'm the same way as you. I'm going to lay as many gold diggers and party girls as I can. Have them buy me dinner and swallow my load after.

Then when I'm ready to settle down, I'll look for a good girl.

 

[Lioric]

I'm going to stay out of this debate, but I want to point out that there is a bit of hypocrisy in criticizing conscious manipulation while excusing the same behavior when someone else does it "naturally".

I don't believe money as an attraction mechanism triggers all these linear thoughts Muscle Guy is detailing, in women. Money is just like looks, character, and social status for them. I think Rollo Tomassi's post in this thread explains that extremely well. They don't go and say " hey, he's a governor, so maybe I'll get to use his connections" - they just see VALUE and SURVIVAL traits in wealthy people with social status, and they are attracted. That's it. The trigger mechanisms are hard-wired and the orders are not coming from their frontal lobe (they don't consciously understand why they're feeling attracted), rather, the urge comes from a way lower, instinctive level. They may not even be able to express the mechanism, if pressed to talk about it. Attraction happens quite compulsively, manipulation on the other hand takes time. It requires much more processing power because it's simulated and planned.

So, consciously planning to use someone's money has nothing to do with attraction, it's plain deception. It's a selfish, immoral activity for the sole purpose of gaining benefit.

I wouldn't blame a decent, honest woman for being attracted to a high-value, rich guy, because she might be feeling GENUINE attraction whereas a woman maliciously seeking wealthy targets, like the ones Jophil talked about, is behaving unethically...

There's a very thick line in between.

 

[ketostix]

I don't believe money as an attraction mechanism triggers all these linear thoughts Muscle Guy is detailing, in women. Money is just like looks, character, and social status for them. I think Rollo Tomassi's post in this thread explains that extremely well. They don't go and say " hey, he's a governor, so maybe I'll get to use his connections" - they just see VALUE and SURVIVAL traits in wealthy people with social status, and they are attracted. That's it. The trigger mechanisms are hard-wired and the orders are not coming from their frontal lobe (they don't consciously understand why they're feeling attracted), rather, the urge comes from a way lower, instinctive level. They may not even be able to express the mechanism, if pressed to talk about it. Attraction happens quite compulsively, manipulation on the other hand takes time. It requires much more processing power because it's simulated and planned.

So, consciously planning to use someone's money has nothing to do with attraction, it's plain deception. It's a selfish, immoral activity for the sole purpose of gaining benefit.

I wouldn't blame a decent, honest woman for being attracted to a high-value, rich guy, because she might be feeling GENUINE attraction whereas a woman maliciously seeking wealthy targets, like the ones Jophil talked about, is behaving unethically...

There's a very thick line in between.

This is I think a good way of reconciling the two opposing views and distinquishing the difference. Attraction is arguably not a choice (although I think it is somewhat since the conscious mind influence the subconscious), but acting on attraction and interest are. Not all women have exactly the same "attraction mechanism", some fall out of the normal range and are overdriven for things like wealth. One thing, and this my be controversial, is a woman can be interested in a man but not really attracted to him. Many women have married and been with guys that they were not in "love" with or attracted to. All that mattered to these women is security and provisioning. I alluded to it in an earlier post but I believe it's possible to not get any women and then come into wealth and then be able to find women who are interested in you. I don't believe these women are rally attracted to you. There are a lot of women out there who fit the bil of straight out gold diggers. Tehre are a lot of women out there today who don't really like men much and only see them for what provisions they can get.

 

[STR8UP]

So, consciously planning to use someone's money has nothing to do with attraction, it's plain deception. It's a selfish, immoral activity for the sole purpose of gaining benefit.

I wouldn't blame a decent, honest woman for being attracted to a high-value, rich guy, because she might be feeling GENUINE attraction whereas a woman maliciously seeking wealthy targets, like the ones Jophil talked about, is behaving unethically...

There's a very thick line in between.

So if it is a component of attraction, it's ok (unconscious but still self serving) but if you are aware of the action it isn't?

We are all in it for ourselves dude. People like to wrap up these unconscious, biologically driven acts with a cute little bow (or discount them altogether) to make them "acceptable", but it's six of one half dozen of another.

Not buying it.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Come on, a woman who deceives a man, pretending to love him, but is really only out for is his money, is far from a good woman. That should be rather obvious. You're making excuses for women's bad behavior. That's all they need, is more ammunition from statements like this to justify their cause. This is why women are the way they are and behave the way they do. MuscleGuy, you're not helping "our" cause bro. It's pertinent that we stick together, like they do, yeah? Bros before hoes(don't mean "hoe" condescendingly) dude, remember that?

Gold-diggers tend to be hot, without a doubt, and I'd nail the sh*t out of any one of them, and use the sh*t out of them as my personal jizz bucket. Seriously, that's all they're truly good for.

Its not deception!

They dont "pretend" to like you because of your money. The fact that you have money means that are attracted to you in most cases. It is a genuine attraction. Its a physical attraction. No different to your washboard abs or high social status that comes from being in a well known band.

Just like you WILL lose interest when they gain weight, so to will they lose interest when you cannot provide for them. Its not a conscious decision, its based on the superficial. Attraction is superficial. It takes character to stay with people when the attraction you feel for them subsides.

Gold diggers tend to be hot because a womans value is determined more by her looks than any other attribute when it comes to attraction. Does her job or education make her more ****able? That does not mean you will settle for any hot woman that comes along, they need the kind of personality and character you find appealing to keep you around for more than a short term fling. Money makes you ****able, but its not going to keep her around either.

Just like the hot gold digger, REGARDLESS OF HER CHARACTER, has higher value when it comes to genuine attraction, so too does the average looking guy with truckloads of money.

It really is quite simple

Either you believe that woman are attracted to social status or you dont. If you dont, then you are an AFC living in hollywood dreamland. Game theory is ALL to do with creating the illusion of social status. I dont see the point of creating an illusion instead of simply trying to create the reality.

Become a man of worth and you dont need to constantly check yourself at the door. Your options increase, your own tolerance level for bull**** goes out the window and your confidence levels increase off the back of it. Improve yourself instead of trying to figure women out.

 

[TheHumanist]

You could put it in the same context in friendships or other type of connections/bonds.


When you go buy a friend lunch/birthday present/drink/favor/wtvr, are you doing it because he's your friend or because you need to invest in him so he can return the investment in-kind?

Most likely, I would imagine, the person would be lying to oneself if one does not hope that the receiver will return it in some form, it is a semi-unconscious part of the person, but to discredit the desire to help-the element caring for another- is ignoring a major facet of the person.


Either the desire to help and is only a delusional lie one tell to oneself or another side of the person along with the self-serving side of "investing" in the person. So, when you go buy a drink for a good friend, what's going through your mind?


I don't think it is too far different if one replace friend with girlfriend/plate/wtvr. A woman with a man because she can use him as an atm machine and another woman who is attracted to a man with one of his attractive qualities is his wealth difference is concious and unconscious. However, the former see the man only as an object for utility and uses. The latter, I would hope, see the man as a man. Everyone, even between a parent and a child, can be viewed as self-serving, but is that the complete picture?

 

[STR8UP]

Attraction is arguably not a choice (although I think it is somewhat since the concious mind influence the subconcious), but acting on attraction and interest are. Not all women have exactly the same "attraction mechanism", some fall out of the normal range and are overdriven for things like wealth. One thing, and this my be controversial, is a woman can be interested in a man but not really attracted to him.

Attraction is almost entirely, if not 100% subconscious.

I agree with the "interest vs. attraction" thing to a point. The thing about those kinds of relationships is that to a guy who is clued up they are readily apparent. You just can't fake animalistic attraction.

But you still miss the point.

I have witnessed how this plays out in real life. I went from being an up-and-comer to being the guy who "made it".

And you know the funny thing? I realized that it wasn't the MONEY or even the perception of money that was dropping panties, it was my new attitude, my "swagger", if you will.

Being the psych buff that I am, I was able to decipher this behavior in real time.

After I began to realize that things were changing for me (I was attracting a lot more women) I started to pay attention to the circumstances that surrounded each interaction.

What I noticed was that MOST of these women had NO CLUE where I was at in life when I got their attention. They hadn't seen my cars or my rockstar townhouse. They didn't know that I was the guy that owns the business with the crazy TV commercials. It was only LATER that they discovered these things.

This taught me a valuable lesson. I learned that contrary to popular belief, it isn't the material possessions that create attraction; it is the aura of power and success that you project when you know you "got it" that attracts women. Same as with looks, the car and fancy pad will get you the audition, but you have to back it up with something else to create the attraction. In my case most of these women saw only what was "backing me up", money was not the primary attractant.

Its not deception!

They dont "pretend" to like you because of your money. The fact that you have money means that are attracted to you in most cases. It is a genuine attraction. Its a physical attraction. No different to your washboard abs or high social status that comes from being in a well known band.

Some guys will never understand this. Lack of perspective or ego investment can both be the culprit.

Just like you WILL lose interest when they gain weight, so to will they lose interest when you cannot provide for them. Its not a conscious decision, its based on the superficial. Attraction is superficial. It takes character to stay with people when the attraction you feel for them subsides.

And if you understand Attraction 101 (guys primarily value looks and women primarily value wealth/power/status) it isn't difficult to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the attraction is REAL.

Gold diggers tend to be hot because a womans value is determined more by her looks than any other attribute when it comes to attraction. Does her job or education make her more ****able? That does not mean you will settle for any hot woman that comes along, they need the kind of personality and character you find appealing to keep you around for more than a short term fling. Money makes you ****able, but its not going to keep her around either.

Shhhhhhhh......don't say this out loud......

Seriously, they don't want to hear that they are priced out of the market for the highest grade pu$$y.

When you break it down in it's most simplistic terms it kills the fantasy. People don't like it when you kill the fantasy.

Either you believe that woman are attracted to social status or you dont. If you dont, then you are an AFC living in hollywood dreamland.

Most of them are only HALFWAY out of AFCland. They can't swallow the harshest of truths.

Game theory is ALL to do with creating the illusion of social status. I dont see the point of creating an illusion instead of simply trying to create the reality.

Become a man of worth and you dont need to constantly check yourself at the door. Your options increase, your own tolerance level for bull**** goes out the window and your confidence levels increase off the back of it. Improve yourself instead of trying to figure women out.

And there you have it folks!

I don't begrudge guys trying to learn "game". More power to ya.

But for me, I'd rather kill two birds with one stone. Conquer the world. Enjoy the fruits of your labor AND the spoils of your conquests.

I sense too many guys out there who would rather make excuses for their lack of masculine ambition rather than grow a pair, get out there and BECOME the man every woman desires.

Becoming the illusion of that man is all good and fine and it might get you laid, but in the long run it's the guys who ARE that guy who have it made.

Great post.

However, the former see the man only as an object for utility and uses. The latter, I would hope, see the man as a man. Everyone one do, even a between a parent and a child can be viewed as self-serving, but is that the complete picture?

It is a lot closer to the same thing than you realize. Both are "utility". One is more accepted by society because it is veiled. The other....not so much so. Doesn't mean that the bottom line isn't for all intents and purposes the same.

 

[ketostix]

Attraction is almost entirely, if not 100% subconscious.

Well I don't think it's 100% subconscious, but my point was that the subconscious is affected by the conscious mind and vice versa. and the there's the distinction between interest and attraction.

I agree with the "interest vs. attraction" thing to a point. The thing about those kinds of relationships is that to a guy who is clued up they are readily apparent. You just can't fake animalistic attraction.

But you still miss the point.

I have witnessed how this plays out in real life. I went from being an up-and-comer to being the guy who "made it".

And you know the funny thing? I realized that it wasn't the MONEY or even the perception of money that was dropping panties, it was my new attitude, my "swagger", if you will.

Being the psych buff that I am, I was able to decipher this behavior in real time.

After I began to realize that things were changing for me (I was attracting a lot more women) I started to pay attention to the circumstances that surrounded each interaction.

What I noticed was that MOST of these women had NO CLUE where I was at in life when I got their attention. They hadn't seen my cars or my rockstar townhouse. They didn't know that I was the guy that owns the business with the crazy TV commercials. It was only LATER that they discovered these things.

This taught me a valuable lesson. I learned that contrary to popular belief, it isn't the material possessions that create attraction; it is the aura of power and success that you project when you know you "got it" that attracts women. Same as with looks, the car and fancy pad will get you the audition, but you have to back it up with something else to create the attraction. In my case most of these women saw only what was "backing me up", money was not the primary attractant.

I'm not missing the point Str8up, you are changing the point from money causes attraction to money causes a mental state change that attracts females. What you're really saying here is a confident and relaxed mental state leads to attracting females.

Some guys will never understand this. Lack of perspective or ego investment can both be the culprit.



And if you understand Attraction 101 (guys primarily value looks and women primarily value wealth/power/status) it isn't difficult to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the attraction is REAL.



Shhhhhhhh......don't say this out loud......

Seriously, they don't want to hear that they are priced out of the market for the highest grade pu$$y.

When you break it down in it's most simplistic terms it kills the fantasy. People don't like it when you kill the fantasy.

I do agree that wealth, power and status is a big attracter for females. But what I'm saying is women can be interested in a guy and not really all that attract to him. I wish things were so simple as "get more money" and problem solved.

 

[TheHumanist]

It is a lot closer to the same thing than you realize. Both are "utility". One is more accepted by society because it is veiled. The other....not so much so. Doesn't mean that the bottom line isn't for all intents and purposes the same.

Again, my good fellow poster, both are "utility." however, when you friend calls you up for a favor: is the desire to help him only a delusional lie (as you seem to be arguing) or genuine? The former is obviously less accepted and the latter is more. It is not too far to apply that line of thought to attraction.

---

Now to make a bolder statement. BTW str8up, it might help your argument is you stop making counter-arguments saying "can't swallow the hardest of truths," basically making an all or nothing argument where even the slightest disagreement is implying being delusional. Though, as unconfident to pose the thought, I'm not the most qualified to make that statement, it does put you in a position that you are saying you know everything when I read before that you don't pretend to.

The basic disagreement is that there are women who takes a man for only utility purpose of cold-hard cash. One thread had that article about wives leaving/throwing fits when the husband ask her to cut back. I remember it exploded into a long thread on the same argument as this one here. As I recalled, those women exploded as they found they 3 trips to the hair salon a week trimed to two. It sounds more like griping over the loss of lifestyle than loss of attraction.

In this forum at least, I don't think anyone don't recognize that having some kind of status and wealth, even in the smallest form, will turn a woman on as looks does for a man, rich or poor in character. The disagreement is recognition is the existence and proportion of those attracted to a lifestyle and look for a man for utility versus actually attracted to the man which part of the equation is wealth (or qualities it takes to acquire it).

 

[Lioric]

So if it is a component of attraction, it's ok (unconscious but still self serving) but if you are aware of the action it isn't?

We are all in it for ourselves dude. People like to wrap up these unconscious, biologically driven acts with a cute little bow (or discount them altogether) to make them "acceptable", but it's six of one half dozen of another.

Not buying it.

No, you are missing the point. If you forget about the stigma attached to attraction-money duo and accept that money is just another parameter like physical fitness (See RT's post in the thread-, I don't know how to quote it) it'll make it easier. Attraction is not necessarily self-serving. I can imagine a plethora of cases where being attracted to the wrong guy causing a lot of trouble for the woman. The attraction system does NOT always work for the absolute benefit of the woman - it's an evolutionary mechanism that is the outcome of a predictive tool. And like many other evolutionary tools, it's not working with %100 efficiency. It's primitive, outdated and poorly predicting the true potential of the man. Jerk - Nice guy dilemma is a prime example to observe how the attraction mechanisms of women backfire on themselves. Often times, nice guys are objectively very good candidates whereas their true value is grossly underrated by women, and unfortunately they cannot do anything to fix this - nice guys have to "man up" to trigger "genuine attraction". So here, there's no malicious intent in the beginning, it's pure, old attraction at work... And you cannot judge a human-being for feeling attracted... Remember: Love and liking can be observed physiologically. I haven't checked it, but I am sure there are gazillions of papers out there investigating how such and such neurotransmitter level increases in females that are attracted to male subjects, how their brain scans look different and so forth...

Conscious manipulation, and thinking about free dinner while looking a woman (or man) in the eye is gravely different than what this is. It's despicable behavior.

 

[jophil28]

Having ethical values is what makes us different than shallow, calculating and materialistic women we discuss in this forum.

I'm warming to this guy already.

 

[SXS]

I disagree. Since in Brazil the lower areas don't get married as such. they go for the "union libre" (i.e. men and women live under same roof but not married). This of course is until the man finds himself another woman and lives the first girl behind. Hence the reason why in brazil one man can father several womens children. In middle-upper class they tend to do less union libre and actual marriages

You disagree with actual statistics ?

What you are saying is not true anyway, cause in those areas, single motherhood has less % too.

Also, as you can see here, the rate of marriage where I live is 7,4, and the average in the country is 6,3. Not much of a difference in there. In fact, in some of the other areas, not only there are more marriages, but people marry earlier too. A marriage lasts around 12 years, not having much difference by area of the country.

http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/presidencia/noticias/noticia_visualiza.php?id_noticia=774

 

[edger]

Its not deception!

They dont "pretend" to like you because of your money. The fact that you have money means that are attracted to you in most cases. It is a genuine attraction. Its a physical attraction. No different to your washboard abs or high social status that comes from being in a well known band.

Yes, I understand these women are genuinely attracted to these wealthy men, but it's an attraction based on "lust", not "love". She lusts for him because he's wealthy. Just like when a guy lusts for a woman because she's "hot"...he just wants to use her as a jizz bucket , but has no emotional attachment to or love for her.