The Importance of Money in Men's SMV

[BaronOfHair]

A man needs a hearty income to enjoy the fruits of this deeply flawed yet nonetheless magnificent civilization we inhabit... SMV isn't even a tertiary motive for us to sweat such a thing

That said, this "looks" vs "money" debate is yet another Manosphere false dichotomy which refuses to die. Attractive people of both genders make more money, are promoted more often, and have all sorts of doors opened for them that those who don't put time and effort into their appearance never receive. Thus, this knee-jerk revulsion that both The Woke and Red Pillers have to so-called Looksmaxxing remains puzzling, at least to me

 

[anonymous12345]

I am reading this over and over, along with “most men are trash” (said by other men), and “beta male husband”. Can you give me a TLDR rundown how nearly all men with women are no good?

What’s a low quality bf?

Think AFC'ish. Can't dress, doesn't work out, little experience, comfort and safety seeking. I'm sure he has good qualities, but according to the collective wisdom/perception of SS, one can do a lot better.

But sure, maybe I'm tripping on some cognitive bias. Of course there's good men, and plenty that are better than me.

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

What’s a low quality bf?

Some penniless fifty-plus pervert lacking faculties still functioning in younger men, I reckon.
Probably lures her to his depraved lair with promises of kinky lust and taboo games with copious amounts of rope and some sharp implements.
No doubt to leave her ruined for all normal men.

 

[Solomon]

Continued

I have read on here a few times that men who “use money,” do so to “make up for their personality”. Is the reverse true? Are “charming” men making up for their lack money (although one can have both)? Most rich men do have other desirable qualities, which is partly why they are rich.

Cope 1: “Money doesn’t matter.” Says the man who isn’t rich or was never close to rich people or wasn’t a rich boy who pulled up to high school with a car his teachers couldn’t afford.
Cope 2: “Status doesn’t matter.” Says the man who doesn’t have status, doesn’t have authority over others, isn’t part of a group respected or feared by others.
Cope 3: “Muscles don’t matter.” Says the man who never experienced women looking at his body with lust or copping feels on his arms, shoulders, and upper back as they talk to him or never had a nude-body-worship massage with a happy ending by one.

As a person who has made some money and been around money and status (D list celebs i.e. popular youtubers, people in the finance field etc) I'm not going to be disingenuous and say money doesn't matter the problem with the money argument is you have people arguing about money from a perspective of broke people who are going of 2nd hand information or what they see on a Tik Tok Redpill video

They can't fathom that a rich guy can get a hot girl and keep the spending cost low or not trick off at all if he doesn't want too. The biggest things money does with women in my experience is Better logistics which then translates to better access,>>>social circle (social proof).

A guy who is 30 years old making 30 grand isn't going to have the access of a guy who is 35 making 350K a year. It's a different ballgame. The guy who is 35 can live in a logistical haven, he can live in the best part of town or in an area that's abudnant with hot women. Whether it's near or on a college campus, downtown, uptown etc. Heck typically if you live in the best part of town in most cities the hottest women tend to be there!

I have said before once I moved closer to the city my lay rate went up 8X back in 2008 simply moving 20 miles increased that. The 35 year old also has access to a social circle that most men in their 30s won't have access too. The trope that rich people tend to hang out with other rich people is true. There is so much more that goes into it than I care to post because most guys won't understand unless you run in those circles!

The only way the 30-year-old making 30 grand will have that type of access is if he has connections, That doesn't mean the 30 year old can't bang hot chicks but having access with social proof/status etc makes a whole world of difference, your foot is basically in the door already and the girls are waiting on you (the mythically "finished line" your favorite redpiller loves to talk about)

A man needs a hearty income to enjoy the fruits of this deeply flawed yet nonetheless magnificent civilization we inhabit... SMV isn't even a tertiary motive for us to sweat such a thing

That said, this "looks" vs "money" debate is yet another Manosphere false dichotomy which refuses to die. Attractive people of both genders make more money, are promoted more often, and have all sorts of doors opened for them that those who don't put time and effort into their appearance never receive. Thus, this knee-jerk revulsion that both The Woke and Red Pillers have to so-called Looksmaxxing remains puzzling, at least to me

As I said before the reason why the Redpill has become obsessed with the LMS/HIgh-value man debate in the last 4-5 years is because deep down a lot of men don't have access to the women they really want. It's very obvious. You use to be able to meet a wife back in college even if you weren't the best-looking guy. People still meet in college don't let the RP fool you into thinking that all women in college are riding the carousel some girls find a b/f and then end up married to him after college etc. Most men are bitter they didn't get to experience the college life of smashing hot girls etc and so you have these guys hoping that by improving their LMS they will be able to bang those hot 21 college sority girls they messed out on when they were in their 20s. The reality is the HIgh value man trope is an illusion in itself as 90% of men will never reach it.

You have a better chance of getting jacked or in shape and then banging those type of girls

 

[BaronOfHair]

As I said before the reason why the Redpill has become obsessed with the LMS/HIgh-value man debate in the last 4-5 years is because deep down a lot of men don't have access to the women they really want

They're chasing what's trendy in the culture at large: Overthinking the ever-living piss out of everything, while being violently averse to asking themselves: "What are our goals, and what do we do to achieve them?"

Which is really sad. As was mentioned in a couple of different recent threads: If creating more vibrant lives is really what we modern men desire, we can start by putting ourselves in better stead each and every day, by simply freshening up, first thing in the morning. There's long been empirical evidence demonstrating as much https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/health/the-axe-effect-is-real/1880428/ , the likes of which has been replicated at least once https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.de...030616/the-axe-effect-is-real-scientists.html

Yet we instead live in a world where dudes spending days on end in the same clothes + Refusing to wash their rear ends on a daily basis, then attributing no one wanting to be around them mostly to MeToo, has become a serious problem

 

[HaleyBaron]

His face has that expression of "Im going to bang a very hot girl tonight and I know it". Is that Taylor Swift in the yellow dress? I dont recognize the others but that girl wearing white is not half bad

Yep, it's her. Considered the diamond in media but she was already likely gangbanged by multiple producers.

 

[SW15]

In TLDR fashion, can you describe a good marriage with children (aside from sex)?

Regular sex, no infidelity, healthy communication and problem resolution, and living up to marital vows taken on the wedding day.

 

[HaleyBaron]

Regular sex, no infidelity, healthy communication and problem resolution, and living up to marital vows taken on the wedding day.

And most of all: the woman submitting to the man of the house and the man being able to lead. Very very important.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Continued

I have read on here a few times that men who “use money,” do so to “make up for their personality”. Is the reverse true? Are “charming” men making up for their lack money (although one can have both)? Most rich men do have other desirable qualities, which is partly why they are rich.

Cope 1: “Money doesn’t matter.” Says the man who isn’t rich or was never close to rich people or wasn’t a rich boy who pulled up to high school with a car his teachers couldn’t afford.
Cope 2: “Status doesn’t matter.” Says the man who doesn’t have status, doesn’t have authority over others, isn’t part of a group respected or feared by others.
Cope 3: “Muscles don’t matter.” Says the man who never experienced women looking at his body with lust or copping feels on his arms, shoulders, and upper back as they talk to him or never had a nude-body-worship massage with a happy ending by one.

The equivalent would be someone who acts like a clown to make women laugh and hope that gets them laid.

It's just another form of not having respect for yourself.

 

[SW15]

And most of all: the woman submitting to the man of the house and the man being able to lead. Very very important.

Yes, add that

 

[plumber]

Different types of SMV scales.

Ones for provider and one for lover.

Money has everything to do with provider and nothing to do with lover. Yeh.. can argue about access that money can buy. Ultimately the pool boy and others have access to the same.

Some will again argue that the money... its the respect that others give to the money that can... work. You arrive in a good suit, others are licking your ass. This treatment your getting is attractive. Can get the same from the boys n the hood that respect you for other reasons. There are so many good looking women that do not have access to rich circle. This is where we get confused, is when WE think that the cute babe is pick us for a lover when we have high provider smv.

Its good to have money. Because you can buy stuff that is fun.

If you have tight game, it is possible to be a master provider and live good and get respectful treatment. But don't confuse that with being desired as a lover. Sometimes in our quest to become alpha... we really just become a very smart beta.

 

[Manure Spherian]

Ones for provider and one for lover.

Some men are both, especially those who get money from criminality.

 

[plumber]

Some men are both, especially those who get money from criminality.

That is true.

 

[SW15]

The biggest things money does with women in my experience is Better logistics which then translates to better access,>>>social circle

This is mostly true. Money will help in getting housing in better parts of the city closer to a lot of the post-education phase 20s/early 30s women in a larger USA city.

I have noticed in my city that the more attractive women tend to rent in more upscale apartment complexes as compared to the more mediocre ones.

There is one glaring exception to this and it's a college campus. Those in the college mating scene have better access to more attractive women than those who don't attend college or those who went to college and are now in the post education phase of their lives.

As I said before the reason why the Redpill has become obsessed with the LMS/HIgh-value man debate in the last 4-5 years is because deep down a lot of men don't have access to the women they really want. It's very obvious. You use to be able to meet a wife back in college even if you weren't the best-looking guy. People still meet in college don't let the RP fool you into thinking that all women in college are riding the carousel some girls find a b/f and then end up married to him after college etc. Most men are bitter they didn't get to experience the college life of smashing hot girls etc and so you have these guys hoping that by improving their LMS they will be able to bang those hot 21 college sority girls they messed out on when they were in their 20s. The reality is the HIgh value man trope is an illusion in itself as 90% of men will never reach it.

You have a better chance of getting jacked or in shape and then banging those type of girls

This topic was likely mentioned in the famous "college sex" thread (see below). When a man is on the campus of a reasonably sized college/university, he has access to the most good looking and unmarried 18-23 year old undergraduate students. This is great. However, it's not really as great as it initially seems. Most 18-23 year old undergrads have a boyfriend at a given time. When they exist and they are easy to spot in the real world, they may not be receptive to approaches. This is still a better setup than in the working world. A guy could run daygame in a large USA city and mostly encounter women with boyfriends if he's in daygame venues where typically unmarried 22-34 year old women tend to spend time.

Yes, people still do meet in college and form longer term relationships from it. However, look at the chart below about longer term heterosexual couples forming from college. This was something that gradually rose from 1970-2000 as more and more USA residents started attending college. Around 2000 is when is fewer longer term couples started forming in college, 2000 is right around when Millennials started to arrive on college campuses. Forming a longer term while in college has fallen off in favor of shorter term sexual relationships. There are many reasons for that. When I was on campus as an undergrad from 2001-2005, this was consistent with my experience and what I observed from my classmates. Few of the relationships that my college peers formed while in college stood the test of time. Most were over within 2-3 years of graduation (5 at the absolute maximum).

I agree that there are a lot of 30s/40s Millennial and late Gen X men out there who have a bad taste in their mouths from the college mating scene. They are displeased that they didn't get to smash as many attractive women in college as they would have liked and they want to make up for it via LMS now.

Observations about college sex life from someone that went to a party school.

I thought I'd share this as someone who went to a party school and was in a fraternity there as well. Not wanting to give too much about myself but I went to UGA and graduated a few years ago. While Athens has its hot girls, I do feel like the quality got worse every year due to the admission...

www.sosuave.net

 

[Manure Spherian]

Has anyone here been around men who were born rich/high status?

 

[HaleyBaron]

This is mostly true. Money will help in getting housing in better parts of the city closer to a lot of the post-education phase 20s/early 30s women in a larger USA city.

I have noticed in my city that the more attractive women tend to rent in more upscale apartment complexes as compared to the more mediocre ones.

There is one glaring exception to this and it's a college campus. Those in the college mating scene have better access to more attractive women than those who don't attend college or those who went to college and are now in the post education phase of their lives.



This topic was likely mentioned in the famous "college sex" thread (see below). When a man is on the campus of a reasonably sized college/university, he has access to the most good looking and unmarried 18-23 year old undergraduate students. This is great. However, it's not really as great as it initially seems. Most 18-23 year old undergrads have a boyfriend at a given time. When they exist and they are easy to spot in the real world, they may not be receptive to approaches. This is still a better setup than in the working world. A guy could run daygame in a large USA city and mostly encounter women with boyfriends if he's in daygame venues where typically unmarried 22-34 year old women tend to spend time.

Yes, people still do meet in college and form longer term relationships from it. However, look at the chart below about longer term heterosexual couples forming from college. This was something that gradually rose from 1970-2000 as more and more USA residents started attending college. Around 2000 is when is fewer longer term couples started forming in college, 2000 is right around when Millennials started to arrive on college campuses. Forming a longer term while in college has fallen off in favor of shorter term sexual relationships. There are many reasons for that. When I was on campus as an undergrad from 2001-2005, this was consistent with my experience and what I observed from my classmates. Few of the relationships that my college peers formed while in college stood the test of time. Most were over within 2-3 years of graduation (5 at the absolute maximum).

I agree that there are a lot of 30s/40s Millennial and late Gen X men out there who have a bad taste in their mouths from the college mating scene. They are displeased that they didn't get to smash as many attractive women in college as they would have liked and they want to make up for it via LMS now.

Observations about college sex life from someone that went to a party school.

I thought I'd share this as someone who went to a party school and was in a fraternity there as well. Not wanting to give too much about myself but I went to UGA and graduated a few years ago. While Athens has its hot girls, I do feel like the quality got worse every year due to the admission...

www.sosuave.net

View attachment 12823

You can see the traditional methods go down as women liberation took over in the west. Online is the exception, but it's still part the same problem.

 

[EmiliaBenn]

Money counts when charm fails

 

[BaronOfHair]

Has anyone here been around men who were born rich/high status?

Yes

 

[AmsterdamAssassin]

Money counts when charm fails

How original

Money counts when charm fails.

 

[BaronOfHair]

A less convoluted way of thinking about this:

A few bucks in his pocket = A man being received more warmly by society in general. Especially in Post-Industrial nations, where we do everything in our power to keep the impoverished and bedraggled out of sight, so that we can endlessly ogle the affluent and the glamorous

That said, millions in your bank account won't make you especially attractive to the ladies, if your vibe is more Louis Tully

than Peter Venkman