The Importance of Money in Men's SMV

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

Money is awesome.
(Not a big salary, but wealth. And especially assets that produce passive income. Read your “rich dad, poor dad” and internalize.)
Also building wealth is really fun and satisfying experience. You should really go for it, the younger you are, the better. Financial independence and FU money is the antithesis to slaving your whole life in corporate job and slowly dying from inside.

But remember to go after money for moneys sake! Do not do it to get chicks!

1. If you have poor game, then it’s really dangerous by to DHV with money. Especially in poorer countries. Typical golddiggers game is much stronger than your AFC:s and AFC is F:ed. In a bad way.
2. If you are good looking / have game, then displaying provider qualities really complicates things. You are in much better position to transition into LTR from lover frame than from provider frame, in case you seek LTR.
3. Spending money to impress girls is pretty much stupidest form of supplication there is. It's also runs counter to mindset that gets you wealthy.
4. In many case provider sex is contractual sex. Eg sh1tty.

 

[SW15]

I think the issue with the semi-successful man is that they tend to lack game/energy from their jobs or arrogance and think they are a good catch to a woman in their eyes. A woman that makes her own money would rather settle for a guy that makes less than them, but tickles their pvssy over a guy that makes similar or slightly more that doesn't provide anything else. Women will always choose a guy that tickles their pvssy over a boring guy that relies on his job for game. If you can be a stable guy that tickles her pvssy or in the words of Coach Greg Adams.. "Tupac with a Degree" then you are a king in her eyes

A lot of men who make above average but not exceptional salaries (originally cited as $75,000 - $125,000/annual, but could even be $75,000 - $149,999 annual) think that their job can be the basis of their SMV. It can't be. In most parts of the USA, it needs to be at least $150,000 and more likely $200,000+ to truly impress women.

When you talk about women settling for more who make less than them, it is something that might work in the shorter to medium term but eventually these women won't be happy with that arrangement of making more $$$ than their boyfriends/husbands.

The "Tupac with a Degree" concept is a good concept. It is desirable to have bad boy type traits with a white collar type job derived from a bachelor's or advanced degree.

 

[Manure Spherian]

when in reality MOST corporate guys even successful ones are worn down pathetic losers.

How? What makes them losers?

I don’t work in corporate America, so I don’t know what such men are like.

 

[kavi]

How? What makes them losers?

I don’t work in corporate America, so I don’t know what such men are like.

Bro, just watch that 'documentary' The Office. You have men and women in corporate world just sitting on desks messing around, all mingling with other losers, all the energy in these places is terrible. you also have men and women working together in offices, gossiping together, socialising together, becoming each other, so we have men spending time with women in crappy corporate cutlure for 8hrs a day every day and then what happens ofcourse if a guy is spending 8hours a day being a boring wage-slave doing the same **** as women then he is just gonna become that hence all these men their energy is too low.

I sweat this sh1t is not gonna last putting men and women together in 'work-pens' ie corporate environments may be ok for women but ALL the men in that game will become just like the women and absorb all that weak energy and then when they go home they will still be those guys they cannot be anyone else as a guy cannot be 'alpha leader' at home if he spent 8hours every day being the same wage-slave as the women he works with.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

I sweat this sh1t is not gonna last putting men and women together in 'work-pens' ie corporate environments may be ok for women but ALL the men in that game will become just like the women and absorb all that weak energy and then when they go home they will still be those guys they cannot be anyone else as a guy cannot be 'alpha leader' at home if he spent 8hours every day being the same wage-slave as the women he works with.

Well, you are not going to F every woman you meet. So personally I value them in the same way as male co-workers. Are they useful, smart and competent? Can I trust them to do their job well?

And to be honest, in my work I have seen equally many useless males as females. While there actually are helpless females that expect the white knight to come and rescue, their male equivalent is the semi-autistic neck beard loser with really fragile ego devoid of any social skills. And there seems to be also pretty much equal amount of princesses in both genders.

So your train of thought about men absorbing weak feminine energy is not my experience at least.

 

[kavi]

Well, you are not going to F every woman you meet. So personally I value them in the same way as male co-workers. Are they useful, smart and competent? Can I trust them to do their job well?

And to be honest, in my work I have seen equally many useless males as females. While there actually are helpless females that expect the white knight to come and rescue, their male equivalent is the semi-autistic neck beard loser with really fragile ego devoid of any social skills. And there seems to be also pretty much equal amount of princesses in both genders.

So your train of thought about men absorbing weak feminine energy is not my experience at least.

Well tbh I dont disagree and I dont dislike women at work, I actually agree about the low quality men there.

But that also makes my point, the men at these places are just too weak and negative, and to a large extent I do believe the enviromment is more difficult for men than for women, it could be that a degrading corporate environment affects men psychologically more than women. Women can take a sumissive position towards management and the corporate culture because women in general can take submissive positions without losing 'feminine value' but men if they feel they are taking a submissve position it will hurt their ego more so thats another reason I think this economy hurts men alot more.

Thing is women DONT WANT a feminine non-assertive guy, women may talk about equality and all that but they ALL want masculine men where there is major male-female difference ie dimorphism. If you have men and women at work for 8hours behaving much the same, followingf the same rules, culture and behavours it kinda makes them the same, and women will not want those men, which is why so many corporate worker guys have little value to women and why relationships dynamics are so low.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

Women can take a sumissive position towards management and the corporate culture because women in general can take submissive positions without losing 'feminine value' but men if they feel they are taking a submissve position it will hurt their ego more so thats another reason I think this economy hurts men alot more.

Now I have to kill some limiting beliefs. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'm not trying to change it, but for the sake of people reading this.

I understand were you are coming, but on the other hand behaving like a high value male doesn't mean to be a **** and to boss people around.

How to avoid slaving in corporate hell, to build wealth:
1. Choose your industry better, find a industry that you are actually enthusiastic about. Your skills might serve you in other industry also.
2. Choose better company to work in. There are actually differences in employers.
3. Do not try to blend in and suck up to boss, be the best. Simply changing you own frame can really change how you behave and experience things. You will be in much better position when monkey swinging to new job.

and the most obvious one:
4. Dont be employee. Be your own employee. Be entrepreneur. Even changing to freelancing can make a world of difference to your ambition and mindset.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

The guy has been married for like 25 years, it's complete opposite of what he preaches. His book the rational male is fun but it doesnt reflect reality, lot of interesting concepts on paper that are counter productive when applied in real life, lot of BS and generalizations about women.

When you have some experience with women and dating you know. The guy is a douche, a Youtube clown. He hasnt fvcked a new pussi in almost 3 decades, and redpillers and other pua losers see him as God. Funny.

Well, I haven't read Rollos books, only some reviews of them and also listened some of his content, so take this comment with the grain of salt. I agree that that he simplifies things and some of his content is presented in a way that might cause bad afc:s to go full retard.

In my opinion we need to separate the usefulnes and impact of someones content from the actual person that created the content.
Couple of analogies:

Should you believe what this small bodybuilder says about muscle hypertrophy?

Pro-tip, you should.

Or people calling Robert Kiyosaki a fraud:

The Ultimate Hypocrite: Robert Kiyosaki and His Company's Bankruptcy

Robert Kiyosaki's company declared bankruptcy, which highlights his financial hypocrisy, like other financial pundits you've seen on TV.

thecollegeinvestor.com

While his book has set more people to the path to become millonaire, than anything else.

Take in what is useful and use your brain to integrate the knowledge. Never blindly follow anyone.

 

[CornbreadFed]

In my opinion we need to separate the usefulnes and impact of someones content from the actual person that created the content.
Couple of analogies:

I fully disagree, one would find little substance not worth the torture of finding. Putting it on the other side, would you delve deep into a feminist pit to find the needle in the haystack useful information? I don't think so.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

Well, yes. Until he started tweaking his studies to prove a result in recent years. Otherwise, Schoenfeld is great.

You gotta give us a link!

Just train to failure. It works, it has worked, and it always will work.

Pretty much did that for the first 12 years of lifting
It worked awesome, but eventually I didn't recover well enough.

Nowadays it's more Mike Israetel influenced stimulus to fatigue ratio optimization. Mental therapy of failure is reserved for higher rep ranges and more to the end of the mesocycle before deloading.

..the sad things one has to do for connective tissue when getting older..

On the other hand I'm pretty much in as good of a shape at middle forties as in early thirties, so I'm not shedding a tear yet!

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

I fully disagree, one would find little substance not worth the torture of finding. Putting it on the other side, would you delve deep into a feminist pit to find the needle in the haystack useful information? I don't think so.

Do I find anything really new and surprising there? Not really because I already consumed pretty much everything there is years ago.

But for some poor shmuck afc already brainwashed by the feminist pit, the Rollos content is a kick to his ass that is really needed.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

Watch here if you're interested (it's not that interesting tbh).
TL;DW: Schoenfeld doesn't blind his studies.

The S:F stuff is great. His RIR method is bunk, at least when compared to consistently training to failure. It depends how you work it though; failure training should only be 3-4x a week with low to moderate volume - on an undulating system.

If you want to train more than that, failure training isn't ideal. I'd still argue that you get better results from training to failure though.
A more interesting video on failure training (opposed to scientific beef in the above video) skip to 4:20 for hypertrophy:

TL;DW: stimulus per rep are best in the last 5 reps (known via Schoenfeld study, lol) to failure, but it spikes at RIR 2, and continues to spike at RIR 0. It's hard to quantify "beyond failure training", but it's not unreasonable to guess we'd see more of the same results at beyond failure.

Too interesting stuff to be simple derail, perhaps this would need a separate thread in health&fitness?

But I pretty much agree on Nortons take on the subject. I would just add couple of nuances:

1. Hypertrophy vs strength: As Layne commented failure training all the time is not optimal for expressing maximal strength. If optimal sport performance is your thing, keep this in mind.

2. Training age: In total beginner stage everything goes as a hypertrophy stimulus so concentrate on learning great form and mind muscle connection. After this, for a long time, for most people, failure training makes things, such as tracking performance increases, much easier. When gains stagnate with pure failure training, then its time to figure out something more. Usually people get too strong to go to total failure in everything and still recover. Then periodization and fatigue management starts to come to table.

3. Individual differences. If you are fast-twich dominant and good at recruiting those fast-twich fibers you typically get good stimulus even without failure training. And one total failure set would mean that rest of your sets are in junk volume territory. Of course there are lot's of other individual differences also.

4. Physical age and connective tissue. Failure training in bigger compound lifts really takes a toll on your connective tissue once you are strong enough. If you don't agree just do for example four 5 rep sets of deadlifts to total failure couple times a week for half a year when you are over 40... That's only 8 sets of volume per week, but boy I would sh1t a kidney after couple of weeks if I tried that..
On the other hand higher rep sets in isolation movements where you try to reach hypertrophy stimulus from metabolic stress the failure training and beyond failure training is really awesome.

In my opinion failure training is great and time efficient tool that works for most people for really long time.

 

[TheGrindEqualsHappiness]

Well, the issue with your example is that it certainly isn't low volume-high intensity. I don't do 8 sets of anything throughout the week. My leg days as a whole are only like 12 sets.

Failure training doesn't work well for compounds regardless - I think Layne covers that in the video as well.

Perhaps a bad example, but I still disagree on the basis of connective tissue. Reason being that most gripes and groans for joints are related to inflammation, not tissue tears. I would argue that you're causing less inflammation by keeping your working sets lower in volume.


It's okay if we disagree here, this is just my train of thoughts and experiences of what I've heard from others who train like me. Most of them say that their body feels better on HIT than otherwise.

If you haven't, you might find Fortitude Training by Scott Stevenson to be both joint friendly and HIT. Just an unsolicited suggestion.

Thanks for the good faith conversation

I think that we actually agree on more points than disagree.

For heavy compound lifts, especially the spine loading ones, the issue is keeping the form really good when approaching failure with heavy loads. Something little bit off on last reps of bicep-curl? who cares. Something little bit off in 5RM deadlift? Might need surgery, sh1tload of physical therapy, mk-677 and bpc-157 to fix that at this age..

Also the systemic fatigue is totally something else so SFR would be un-optimal also.

And I of course include some failure training myself, from 5 week mesocycles two last weeks before deload are failure weeks and last week has some beyond failure components. Streched partials for these are my favorite nowadays.

Thanks for the fortitude-training tip, I bet it's interesting concept to check out!
Good discussion!

 

[Solomon]

The more I'm on this forum the more I realize most guys talking about money don't know what they are talking about
It's either 2nd hand information or just regurgitating Redpill talking points, it's very easy to see the guys that make money and the guys that don't.

If you're leading with your wallet, you will finish with your wallet. It's really quite simple if you wanna be a magician then go ahead be a trick. Real ones know money matters only for women in the initial stages when it comes too

• Access-meeting women, you usually wouldn't be able to meet i.e.private parties, functions, venues etc
• Logistics-Being downtown, uptown, or in a city where it's popping in a nice condo/apartment and house etc typically the hottest women tend to live in that area, which makes them more abundant as well (goes hand in hand with access)

For Example:

College guys have access to the hottest girls in their state/city, why they are on campus.
The guy making 150K a year working remotely has the best logistics why? cause he's in 4K a 4 K-a-month condo in uptown where some of the hottest women are etc.

Most guys who talk about money talk about it from a trick's point of view and not from a DJ's point of view. I got more women when I was broke then when I started making money. (time and access)

Genuine desire and attraction, which are fundamental for a good relationship don't involve money

Mic drop!

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Much lower than most guys think. Unless you think being looked at like an ATM or a simp is a good thing

 

[HaleyBaron]

I won't speak to any specific races. I will say that the lighter your skin [and more european your features], the less money you need to get the top girls. The darker your skin, the more of money you will need and just about every other stat. I'm generalizing but I would likely make it a bellcurve for lighter skins [get more average and above average women with ease] and a high slope for everyone else [much harder to bid for any women above average and above].

 

[SW15]

College guys have access to the hottest girls in their state/city, why they are on campus.
The guy making 150K a year working remotely has the best logistics why? cause he's in 4K a 4 K-a-month condo in uptown where some of the hottest women are etc.

The college guy on campus has better access to more attractive than the post-college guy (let's say he's early 30s) making $150,000 per year with a nice urban condo in a big city. That early 30s urban condo guy can find attractive women at nightlife venues and maybe at a few non-bar venues. However, because he's not able to be on campus, the quantity would be less and the median age of the hotties he is seeing are older (maybe 25-26 instead of 20).

 

[parabellum]

The college guy on campus has better access to more attractive than the post-college guy (let's say he's early 30s) making $150,000 per year with a nice urban condo in a big city. That early 30s urban condo guy can find attractive women at nightlife venues and maybe at a few non-bar venues. However, because he's not able to be on campus, the quantity would be less and the median age of the hotties he is seeing are older (maybe 25-26 instead of 20).

In a way, college is a sort of pssy heaven. I wish I could sponsor an awareness campaign for all high schoolers so they prepare accordingly, because boy, not an easy thing to recover if you completely miss out college action.

 

[corrector]

You need to make $1K to be with this lady.

 

[Gamisch]

Make no mistake, money is #1.

Mostly cap in this thread with all due respect.

A man's smv is connected to his money, because money allows you to buy health. With money you can constantly update whatever flaw you're having such as hair, teeth and other physical problems.

On top of that money = a better wardrobe, crib, car ,more opportunities to travel ect. So imo money especially means you have more opportunities to do what YOU like and take a woman with you along that journey. I rather have money and "pay" for a woman's service than being broke and needing women to compensate for my lack of finances ( because that's what's happens when you are broke . Talking from EXPERIENCE! A broke man will use women to say that he is just as good as the next man with money).

I do agree that it's never the end all be all. Because women will switch from broke guy to guy with money. When she sits in a rented small room without air-conditioning in the hot summer watching you play Call of duty she'll long for money guy who can take her to places in a nice car to drink expensive ****tails. And then when that gets old she wants the existing broke guitar player again.

So whatever you pick, it will never be waterproof. There will ALWAYs be a dude with variables that make her wetter somehow.

Some men choose to be the badboy with the occasional jail time. It will get him women. The corporate guy will also get his fair share. Fitness dude, musician ect. You can combine some of these and yet there will always be another man who SHE sees as a better option.