Money for Pu$$y

[taiyuu_otoko]

There are two sides of the attraction coin for women...
...Again, you fail to factor in the duality of female attraction. Women want a man who basically does not exist, so they swing branches, cheat, etc. to try to fulfill their "needs".

How do you know that that's really true? Sometimes I wonder if some women are really prewired for two types of man, or if man becomes two types from before a marriage and kids to after marriage and kids. Somehow he feels that his efforts are over, since he's got the girl, and relaxes, effectively changes who he presented himself as before the lifelong committment. So to a man, it would APPEAR that a woman wants two men, but she she really wants the man to stay the same as he was before the committment. Perhaps if a man would stay congruent THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE in how he with who he was and how he acted and how he treated the world and his woman.

Maybe it is this change from pre commitment behavior to post commitment behavior that gives rise to the "women try to change their man" idea. Perhaps what women are really doing is trying thier hardest to $HIT TEST him back to the way he was before he got soft.

I mean, put yourself in her shoes. If your wife/girlfriend suddenly gained 200 lbs (the equivalent of you suddenly shifting from DJ mode to AFC mode in marriage or a relationship) wouldn't you kind of hint to her to hit the gym?

And wouldn't she go complaining to her friends that "bwoo hoho ha men are evil, they try to change you, they really want TWO women...bwo hoho hoo"

 

[Aenigma]

How do you know that that's really true? Sometimes I wonder if some women are really prewired for two types of man, or if man becomes two types from before a marriage and kids to after marriage and kids. Somehow he feels that his efforts are over, since he's got the girl, and relaxes, effectively changes who he presented himself as before the lifelong committment. So to a man, it would APPEAR that a woman wants two men, but she she really wants the man to stay the same as he was before the committment. Perhaps if a man would stay congruent THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE in how he with who he was and how he acted and how he treated the world and his woman.

Maybe it is this change from pre commitment behavior to post commitment behavior that gives rise to the "women try to change their man" idea. Perhaps what women are really doing is trying thier hardest to $HIT TEST him back to the way he was before he got soft.

I mean, put yourself in her shoes. If your wife/girlfriend suddenly gained 200 lbs (the equivalent of you suddenly shifting from DJ mode to AFC mode in marriage or a relationship) wouldn't you kind of hint to her to hit the gym?

And wouldn't she go complaining to her friends that "bwoo hoho ha men are evil, they try to change you, they really want TWO women...bwo hoho hoo"

A good point- and I would agree with you if were it not for one thing. The shift from Alpha to Beta isn't due to complaceny on the part of men (or at least not entirely). Women have a peculularity written into their genetic code. They're attracted to Alpha males, but when they snag one they nag him into Beta status, in an attempt to secure their mate, if they can.

That's why Rollo always says you need to know who you are and stick to your masculinity and identity- no matter how much a woman will hem in haw about it, in the short term, she'll remain attracted to you because you continue to display the Alpha and masculine characteristics that her sexuality desires.

 

[Colossus]

Money cant buy happiness, but it CAN buy security and freedom. So indirectly, if you are wise with your money, it can improve your happiness.

Having unlimited wealth is really a true test of someone's character. It's easy to sit here and say what we 'would' do with it, but when you can buy almost anything, being modest about it is probably not as easy as it seems.

If I DID have that much wealth, lol, I dont think it would make any difference in quantity of women I landed. Most of the things I like to do dont directly involve women anyways; so if anything changed it would be just my clothes and maybe having a nice (but not over-the-top) vehicle. I would probably spend most of my time outside doing cool stuff anyway.

 

[STR8UP]

That's why Rollo always says you need to know who you are and stick to your masculinity and identity- no matter how much a woman will hem in haw about it, in the short term, she'll remain attracted to you because you continue to display the Alpha and masculine characteristics that her sexuality desires.

The one really "good" woman I had in my life was the WORST at complaining about me having to work long hours, etc. It was the thing that ATTRACTED her to me before a relationship that she attempted to suppress once she HAD me in a relationship.

As for the two sides of a coin with women.....they don't necessarily WANT two different men, they would love to find the desired traits in one man, however, even if one man does have both traits, he tends to hand over his balls in a marriage and thus loses his appeal on that end, as you alluded to.

A person should not be measured by his/her preferences in life, but how he/she treats others. Just because a mans preference in life may be to aquire an abundance of wealth, does not make him a "good" guy. People need to be looked at and evaluated on their code of conduct towards others; how well they treat their fellow neighbor. That's what needs to be looked at.

You can be a crusader, or you can suck it up and live with it.

"Should not" and "Need to be" do not equate to reality.

Matter of fact your idealized notion that that wealth shouldn't play a role in things is in fact completely flawed, due to the fact that it is NECESSARY for survival for people to factor these things into the equation.

All of this "it shouldn't be this way" talk is just as ridiculous as saying "it HAS to be". The truth lies in the middle, where it isn't 100% money that motivates most people, and it most certainly isn't 100% "love" either.

You claim she gives you all the signals that she wants to have sex with you, even blatantly mentions it to you I think you said, but you've turned her down if I remember correctly, because you don't really care if you f*ck her, or you're not sexually into her, or you are afraid that if you f*ck her, she'll get attached and you'll have to reject her, and because of that, it'll kill your friendship with her or some crap like that.

This is why I know better than to post any type of interaction I have with women. Even if I'm simply trying to pick apart a situation because I find the interaction fascinating (which is why I am on this site at this point at all) it gets turned around into this discombobulated STR8UP bashing free for all with people telling me how I'm this and that and the other.

There's no such thing as a having a civil conversation about a subject with anyone aside from a select few posters who actually TRY. The rest just jump on the wagon and start tossing tomatoes.

I see nothing has changed so I have to go back to keeping my mouth shut. Or not posting at all. that's probably an even better idea.

Come on Str8up, I've heard it from the horses mouth and so has everyone else. If not those exact words("I'm wealthy"), then definitely indirectly or in a round-about-way.

You make the same assumption everyone I know makes. Based upon limited information, you assume something to be true. People can own businesses, drive nice cars, and live in the best part of town and not be wealthy. And wealth can come and go. Like I said, I have had to make some drastic changes to get myself back on the right track, but I know I'm headed in the right direction and one day I WILL be what I would consider to be "wealthy".

BUT, I will say, I still don't need to be "wealthy" to be happy, all I need to be "happy", is to be able to live "comfortably" wher I can do all those things I mentioned, which could be at a middle-income level.

Nobody claimed anything to the contrary, but as with any thread having to do with money, you have certain passionate ideas in your head about the way things are or the way they should be, so the subject changes from "How would you use your money to get pu$$y if you had an unlimited supply" to "You don't have to be rich to be happy and pull chicks".

You see how that is completely irrelevant to the topic?

 

[bigjohnson]

"Should not" and "Need to be" do not equate to reality.

Matter of fact your idealized notion that that wealth shouldn't play a role in things is in fact completely flawed, due to the fact that it is NECESSARY for survival for people to factor these things into the equation.

That pretty much sums the whole thing up. The women who try to not be swayed by material things seem to always be doing so either because (1, very rare) they are already rich or (2) someone convinced them it was bad. Factoring a males ability to provide into attraction is as basic an instinct as it gets for them.

 

[ketostix]

To say being wealthy doesn't help you attract women is as silly or more silly than saying being extremely goodlooking doesn't help you attract women. Being wealthy gets you more respect from others and buys confidence and status. How can anyone think that confidence and status isn't attractive to woman?

 

[edger]

You can be a crusader, or you can suck it up and live with it.

"Should not" and "Need to be" do not equate to reality.

Matter of fact your idealized notion that that wealth shouldn't play a role in things is in fact completely flawed, due to the fact that it is NECESSARY for survival for people to factor these things into the equation.

All of this "it shouldn't be this way" talk is just as ridiculous as saying "it HAS to be". The truth lies in the middle, where it isn't 100% money that motivates most people, and it most certainly isn't 100% "love" either.

Str8up, I never said ones wealth shouldn't be a factor in whom a woman chooses to settle down with for the purpose of having kids. I've been telling you for the past months, that yes, the guy should have wealth(by wealth, I mean be secure financially), but he doesn't need to be "wealthy". Again, of course a woman should make sure she settles down with a guy who can provide financial security for her if she's looking to have kids. That's perfectly understandable and the most rational thing to do..BUT, what I'm trying to say, is that, she doesn't need a "wealthy" CEO, Doctor, Lawyer, or Wall St. Stock Broker to provide her that security..she can get it perfectly fine with a guy who earns a middle-income salary who's living comfortably. Get it?

You make the same assumption everyone I know makes. Based upon limited information, you assume something to be true. People can own businesses, drive nice cars, and live in the best part of town and not be wealthy. And wealth can come and go. Like I said, I have had to make some drastic changes to get myself back on the right track, but I know I'm headed in the right direction and one day I WILL be what I would consider to be "wealthy".

I could swear I remember you in the past making reference to how you are "wealthy".

Nobody claimed anything to the contrary, but as with any thread having to do with money, you have certain passionate ideas in your head about the way things are or the way they should be, so the subject changes from "How would you use your money to get pu$$y if you had an unlimited supply" to "You don't have to be rich to be happy and pull chicks".

You see how that is completely irrelevant to the topic?

Dude, like I said, I knew what your topic was about when I first read your thread. If I would've responded to your initial post in this thread, I would've never brought "money" and "happiness" into it, as well as "women" and money". It just happened to get turned into that. I never changed the premises of your topic. All I did was respond to Mr. Positive's post and give him a thumbs up on it, that's all.

 

[edger]

Guys, I just remembered 2 more situations in which the attractive woman turned down the wealthy guy. As we keep talking about this, the more I remember instances. What I'm about to tell you, again, proves a point. Check it out:

My attractive aunt that I've neen talking about, yrs ago, caught the interest of a "wealthy" man. She told me he wanted to get involved with her, but she TURNED HIM DOWN. If women were so inclined to hone in on "wealthy" men, then why did my aunt turn him down? He had money up the ass, she could've had a mansion today, a $50,000 car, and whatever else comes with the wealthy lifestyle. But she chose not to be involved with him.

My attractive 26 yr old sister, last yr or so, was being pursued(I don't know if she still is) by a wealthy guy. She told me she turned him down. Her exact words, "He had a lot of money, but I wasn't into him". Why all these cases that I keep mentioning, guys? These seem to be a little more than just "exceptions".

 

[edger]

A lot of these situations where you see attractive women honing in on wealthy guys, has to do with how they're raised. Face it guys, a lot of dads bring their daughters up preaching and conditioning them to hone in on marrying "wealthy". Society too drills this same thing into their heads.

 

[edger]

Double post, my mistake.

 

[STR8UP]

My attractive 26 yr old sister, last yr or so, was being pursued(I don't know if she still is) by a wealthy guy. She told me she turned him down. Her exact words, "He had a lot of money, but I wasn't into him". Why all these cases that I keep mentioning, guys? These seem to be a little more than just "exceptions".

The point is, "All things being equal".

All things are rarely equal. Women have biological needs on the other side of the coin as well, as I mentioned earlier.

Wealth doesn't guarantee anything. But it IS a factor that every woman takes into consideration, and if she DOESN'T, it is out of an unnatural societal pressure (she feels "guilty" for having a preference for the wealthier guy).

You like to downplay wealth as a means to attract women, but I'm here to tell you, the good, the bad, and the ugly are influenced by a mans ability to acquire wealth.

 

[edger]

You like to downplay wealth as a means to attract women, but I'm here to tell you, the good, the bad, and the ugly are influenced by a mans ability to acquire wealth.

You keep telling yourself that . Tell me how you're doing in 5 yrs(if you can't already tell me now) when you become richer, ok?

 

[edger]

and if she DOESN'T, it is out of an unnatural societal pressure (she feels "guilty" for having a preference for the wealthier guy).

Right, that's what you wanna believe. To make up for some deficit in attracting hot women maybe?

 

[Mr.Positive]

The point is, "All things being equal".

All things are rarely equal. Women have biological needs on the other side of the coin as well, as I mentioned earlier.

Wealth doesn't guarantee anything. But it IS a factor that every woman takes into consideration, and if she DOESN'T, it is out of an unnatural societal pressure (she feels "guilty" for having a preference for the wealthier guy).

You like to downplay wealth as a means to attract women, but I'm here to tell you, the good, the bad, and the ugly are influenced by a mans ability to acquire wealth.

Str8up, look at it this way. In "most" women's eyes, a man needs to provide. That does not mean wealth necessarily.

Most women would jump at the chance with a decent guy, who makes enough to get by and provide for shelter, security, and "has his sh!t together". He does not need to be wealthy.

You see a different world than I do, and (hopefully) most guys do.

I really wish I could show you somehow that women are not all about money! But, I can't. A small percentage of women are, and I think you seem to run across that small percentage.

The reality of it is, as long as a guy can have a decent job, with a decent salary...and he's a QUALITY man, he will do well with women.

It really doesn't matter if you have 1 million or 1 billion dollars in the bank, as long as you are living the lifestyle that you want to live!! After that, it's gravy.

Therefore, if, and I say IF, I come across a large sum of money (your original question)..I see no reason to flaunt it.

I'm living the lifestyle I want right now. I'm completely content and happy. Anything extra..gravy.

Numbers in a bank. If I buy a ferrari to flaunt it, well..I'd just bring people into my life that like guys with ferrari's, flaunting their wealth. I see no point in that.

Honestly, there's a ton of HB's out there that are more than just your bank account, your flat, your clothes, and the car that you drive.

Str8up, think about it. Edger, and Lookyoung, are 100% correct here. Money can not buy you happiness. As long as you have enough money, to live the life you want to live.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

People often say that we were sold a lie because we believe women like money. To be honest, we were sold the lie when we were told that women are not attracted to money.

Money = power, security, opulence, social status and comfort

You tell me what women is not attracted to that. Its hard wired into them. If you believe that attraction is something primal then its impossible to disagree that women dont like men with money. The more of if you have the better. It does not mean that you HAVE to have money. It just means that without it you need to put more effort in with very good looking women.

If a womans attraction is increased by displaying social value, high levels of confidence and strong character (power) then why would one automatically ignore the one thing that hands that to you without even opening your mouth? They are not attracted to the money, they are attracted to what comes with the money. ITS INDIRECT.

The problem is that people prefer not to believe that women like money. They think its wrong and superficial. These are the same guys that wont give a fat pig the time of day even though she would be easy to talk to and would love you regardless of what you were.

Attraction IS superficial. Its based on looks for men. For women, its based on looks and a whole lot more. You can either learn to accept this or you can stick to the disney fantasy we were sold as kids. This does not mean that the average Joe cant bang 9's and 10's. It just means he needs to put in a hell of a lot more effort and time to do so.

 

[STR8UP]

People often say that we were sold a lie because we believe women like money. To be honest, we were sold the lie when we were told that women are not attracted to money.

Exactly. The matrix at its best.

Talk to a group of women sometime and they will sound pretty much the same as these guys who play down the power of wealth. They woulndn't admit to wealth being a factor in attraction to save their life. 1) They don't even realize that they DO factor it in. It is a subconscious process for the most part. 2) It would be social suicide for them to admit to being "Money grubbing" and "materialistic".

It does not mean that you HAVE to have money. It just means that without it you need to put more effort in with very good looking women.

I think we have both made this very clear, yet it falls on deaf ears.

They are not attracted to the money, they are attracted to what comes with the money. ITS INDIRECT.

Bingo.

Women have evolved mechanisms for weeding out the con artists (which of course isn't fool proof) and ways to spot potential in a man. they are attracted to the swagger more than the big house and the car. Women don't even have to see those things if other people talk you up (you have status) and you carry yourself as if you have or could have or WILL have those things one day.

I've said it before.....back when I lived in my rockstar townhouse I think I got more play BEFORE they knew where I lived and saw the two cars in the garage and learned that I own a certain business. The material things are just the icing on the cake....the final "confirmation" that you are the real deal.

Attraction IS superficial. Its based on looks for men. For women, its based on looks and a whole lot more. You can either learn to accept this or you can stick to the disney fantasy we were sold as kids. This does not mean that the average Joe cant bang 9's and 10's. It just means he needs to put in a hell of a lot more effort and time to do so.

And this is what people need to acknowledge and move on. Like it or not, right or wrong, this is how it is, and how it always will be.

Str8up, think about it. Edger, and Lookyoung, are 100% correct here. Money can not buy you happiness. As long as you have enough money, to live the life you want to live.

I agree with your point, however you have oversimplified things.

There is a little thing called financial security that can only come from true wealth.

You might have a job that pays you enough money to live the life you want to life. Great, but what happens when you get into a car accident and can't work?

There is a whole other realm of "happiness" in the peace of mind that comes with knowing that you can do whatever you want with your life (whether it be build skyscrapers or feed the homeless) and that you will never have to worry about having a roof over your head and a plate of food on your table.

I can assure you 100% that if you are happy now, you would be happier if you had more. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I I said before.....money only makes you more of who you are. Happy=happier. Depressed=more depressed. it works both ways.

 

[synergy1]

There is a little thing called financial security that can only come from true wealth.


I can assure you 100% that if you are happy now, you would be happier if you had more. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Disagree; financial security can come from much more modest portfolios - not just "true wealth". Being in debt is a proven source of depression, but when one attains the basic needs and sits on a comfortable money. I believe that the proportionality of happiness to ones net value exhibits diminishing returns once the basic needs are met. I am a true believer of this. I have been subjected to very rich kids and family's and frankly found them much more miserable.

Would I love more money? you bet your ass. I could travel more, work a bit less and get that Friggan Hot Bugatti Veyron and be a high roller in the ally near The Estate in Boston. I'd be buying hockey clinics all over the country and be banging hotter chicks than now. Would I be happier? Probably not. Why? Because I am who I am. Thus I am happy where I am as I will ever be now.

 

[STR8UP]

Disagree; financial security can come from much more modest portfolios - not just "true wealth".

I don't know what you consider to be a "modest portfolio", but financial security is measured in the number of years you could sustain your current lifestyle with passive or at least semi-passive income.

Having a couple hundred grand in a money market account or mutual funds is hardly "financial security".

Having $500k-$1mil in income producing commercial real estate would provide you with a moderate passive or semi-passive income.

$5mil in anything that produces more than a paltry 8-10% annual return and you're living pretty well.

$10mil you would have to either be a ballsy highroller in business or a total dumbass to lose it and not be able to live like a king for the rest of your life. And if you are a ballsy highroller and you lose it you can make it back so it doesn't matter.

Being in debt is a proven source of depression, but when one attains the basic needs and sits on a comfortable money.

Not necessarily. It depends upon what kind of debt and how you view debt as a whole.

I believe that the proportionality of happiness to ones net value exhibits diminishing returns once the basic needs are met. I am a true believer of this. I have been subjected to very rich kids and family's and frankly found them much more miserable.

It's always the same story. "I knew such and such and they were rich and miserable so most people who are rich must be miserable".

Unless you saw their balance sheet you were ASSUMING they were high net worth. Lots of people out there make a couple hundred grand a year and spend $250k. They LOOK like they are wealthy, but they aren't any different than the average joe who is one paycheck from losing everything..

Would I love more money? you bet your ass. I could travel more, work a bit less and get that Friggan Hot Bugatti Veyron and be a high roller in the ally near The Estate in Boston. I'd be buying hockey clinics all over the country and be banging hotter chicks than now. Would I be happier? Probably not. Why? Because I am who I am. Thus I am happy where I am as I will ever be now.

That was the contradictory statement of the century.....

 

[Vulpine]

Has anyone mentioned "choice"?

What if someone's hobbies, goals, and pleasures were cheap? Or, "simple"?

Let's say I want to build a log cabin. How much would that cost? Tools and land, right? What would the other millions do? More land than I need?

How much does it cost to hunt? The cost of a rifle and bullets, right?

How much does it cost to fish? The price of a rod, reel, and hooks, right?

How much does a garden cost? The cost of seeds and tools, right?

How much does it cost to heat your home? The cost of land: trees grow for free, you just harvest them.

People's lives are generally far more complicated than they need to be. This thread is a perfect example of "overly complicated".

In a provider sense, if I could hunt, fish, chop wood, and build a log cabin wouldn't a woman find that attractive?

Only an imbecile would say "no".

This is the core of this discussion: direction, motivation, ambition. It's not the money that's attractive, it's those traits in a man that equate to a "provider".

In modern society, money affords a home, buys food, and pays the heat bill. So, direction, motivation, and ambition to make money means the man is a "good provider" for that widely popular consumerism/materialistic lifestyle.

But, there are several lifestyles to CHOOSE from.

If you remove "money" from the equation, and the man can build a home, grow or hunt food, and he can heat the home, then is he not a "good provider" as well?

I bring it up with this spin because I recently read a study in a psychology magazine regarding depression. In the study, it was determined that there is a direct relation of the high rates of depression diagnoses to the modern "consumer" lifestyle. Essentially, in the modern way of life, there is a distinct lack of "victories" or "accomplishments" compared to the lifestyles of 30 years ago (or more). For example, dinner. Today, you can just swing through the KFC drive through and pick up (meat, vegetables) dinner on the way home. The sense of accomplishment is relatively small. Whereas previously, you had to hunt, or raise your own animals, as well as grow your own vegetables. So, killing the animal: victory! Dragging the animal home: victory! Gutting/skinning the animal: victory! Cooking the animal: victory! Oh, yeah, the vegetables... let's say cole slaw and potatoes. Plowing the land: victory! Planting the seeds: victory! The seeds sprout: victory! The vegetables are harvested: VICTORY! Cause for celebrations! Cooking the vegetables: victory!

Having all these victories come together to have the meal: victory!

See, when you look at it like that, modern lifestyle IS depressing.

Whoopee... another day, another dollar. Stop at the store, spend the dollar. Off to work tomorrow to make another. Just another cog in the wheel chasing the dangling carrot of the American Dream. Seventy years can be summed up in one sentence: go to school, get a job, save up for a wife, buy a house, have kids, kids leave home, retire, die. Blah-blah-blah-blah...

Well, I'll say this about money: it can buy you sweet anti-depressant medications.

 

[ketostix]

Essentially, in the modern way of life, there is a distinct lack of "victories" or "accomplishments" compared to the lifestyles of 30 years ago (or more). For example, dinner. Today, you can just swing through the KFC drive through and pick up (meat, vegetables) dinner on the way home. The sense of accomplishment is relatively small. Whereas previously, you had to hunt, or raise your own animals, as well as grow your own vegetables. So, killing the animal: victory! Dragging the animal home: victory! Gutting/skinning the animal: victory! Cooking the animal: victory! Oh, yeah, the vegetables... let's say cole slaw and potatoes. Plowing the land: victory! Planting the seeds: victory! The seeds sprout: victory! The vegetables are harvested: VICTORY! Cause for celebrations! Cooking the vegetables: victory!

Well the lifestyle of doing every single thing for yourself you described is more like from the early parts of the 1900's or earlier, not 30 years ago. I think you have a point that a lot of people's work is not tangible, but if you are doing a skilled trade then there are many victories in a day's work. Also if your work and goal is to make money there are many victories along the way to earning that money especially for an enterpreneur.

Nothing raises your status more than having money and having women. The two or should I say the three go hand in hand and feed on each other, Money, women and status. And it's very rare to see someone have one of the three and not all three. So if some are arguing that it's about personality and not money, well those same personality traits give you status leading to women and money. It's a vicious cycle, but what I'm saying is even if you don't have the personality but if you have money then you have status and women.