Much debate has been held within the manosphere (particularly over at Roosh’s forum) regarding the eternal battle between money and game. Men have taken sides and fought doggedly over the issue of which counts for more with women, but the reality is far more nuanced than the discussions have shown.
The dilemma for women
Women have competing interests when it comes to seeking a mate. On one hand, there is a strong desire for a genuinely “sexy”, attractive man who can hit all of her more primal attraction cues (mental and physical). On the other, there is a strong and very practical desire for a provider, someone who can keep her and any of her potential offspring safe from danger and well taken care of (plenty of food, shelter, etc).
Rarely do these dueling desires coexist within the same male. Most men skew to one extreme or the other, with only a very fortunate few managing to be both genuinely attractive dudes and good providers. This creates a dilemma for many women, as they have evolved to want both of these qualities, but can only rarely find a man who has them together.
Some women, however, don’t need to deal with this dilemma. When we begin talking about young, western girls (focusing on those aged 18-24), we see a prime example of females liberated from this eternal conflict. Let’s use a case study to illustrate. Here we have a young western female:
She’s an attractive, 18-24 year old student in her physical prime and looking the part (an ideal catch for many a guy). Ask yourself: what does a typical American female fitting her description really need? She’s physically protected (the American suburbia in which she probably grew up is much safer than most of the planet is or has ever been). She’s got food and shelter pretty much taken care of thanks to parents (probably at least middle class suburbanites, if not more affluent). She’s safe, secure and well provisioned.
The reality of being young and attractive
And, if at any moment these realities falter, she has an army of (unattractive, but desperate and dedicated) white knights to uphold them and shield her from any cold realities. Maybe she’ll feel those realities more later as she moves out from under her parents’ wing, loses the ability to maintain a large white knight army and starts to hear a biological clock, but chances are that time will come well after she exits the 18-24 age range in which she is most desirable.
So ask yourself: what need does this young woman or any other similarly aged woman in a similar socio-economic state (and there are hundreds of millions of these across the western world) have for any individual provider as a mate?
The answer is not much. This reality should inform any discussion in a game vs. money debate: one must understand the kind of woman you’re dealing with. If you’re dealing with a woman like this, you have to understand that for her, money (and the providing capacity it enables) may hold less appeal than it otherwise would.
She’s got enough of money as is (usually basic needs all met and then some), and she doesn’t yet need to deal with many of the realities (ex: student loans, fertility clocks, aging) that might make a typical provider and his (not balling, but still high and probably hard-earned) low to mid six figure salary useful.
Perhaps she’ll think a little differently at 27-30, but for now she’d probably prefer to seek the more intangible qualities held by attractive men (read: game). She can afford to do this, because she’s not got many tangible issues to worry about. She does not need a provider or a potential father, just a guy who turns her on, knows how to have fun and makes her look good in front of her peer group.
Does game trump money?
The successful young six-figure earning banker/consultant/lawyer is not much better than the broke but “hot” fratstar, the charming starving artist, or the struggling but handsome semi-pro athlete. Her provisioning allows these guys to compete on one (mostly) level playing field where cash-flow can’t tip the scales too greatly.
Thus, when pursuing a woman similar to the example above (young, pretty, western, middle-class and in her prime), money is best primarily used to enhance the returns of said game (i.e. purchase better logistics with a more centralized/nice pad, buy better style, etc), and not as a substitute for it. In her case, game will (in all probability) trump money.
Could money still appeal to her?
Of course…but you’ll probably need much more of it (more than 99.5% of men will ever be able to muster) in order for her to actually notice. If you don’t meet this standard, the inherent romantic utility of your cash is diminished, especially in areas where there are many high earners and even a quarter-million dollars a year does not stand out as much as you’d think (ex: New York, LA).
Are there other situations in which money could hold more appeal than game? Sure, plenty. Are you outside of the West? If so, you’re probably surrounded by women who do not have access to the wealth and privilege afforded the everyday western woman used in the example above. They struggle a bit more financially and/or don’t have the social safety nets and white-knight armies to protect them that western women do. Their greater proximity to cold realities means money (and its ability to enable provision) may go further with them, even in their prime.
And then there are the cougars
The same goes for older western women who, having gone beyond their youthful prime, are forced to think more about the cold realities a provider might be useful for dealing with. Back when she was 23, a guy merely needed to turn her on and be “hot/cool” enough to earn the approval of her peer group. Now she needs to pay bills, probably desires a child, and her status among her peers is more closely tied to the kinds of things a provider can give (ex: how big is her home, what does her BF/Husband do, how big was her wedding/wedding ring, where does the she/her family vacation, etc) than to the more superficial “hot/cool” standard of her youth.
The point, however, is that there is too much nuance within the “Money vs. Game” debate to declare a true, undisputed winner in all cases. Whether or not money or game will provide a higher return with a given group of women depends heavily on their age, their geographic location, and their culture. It is up to the individual man to decide which tool will provide more romantic utility for him and where.
Read Last Week’s Column: Why Demographics Matter For The Younger Man
Why not have both?
Nobody says you can’t. The only caveat is that so few men do.
Most rich people are socially intelligent because they know how to work the system. So most of them have some kind of natural game, i think you are underestimating that aspect
Well, I can’t prove you wrong, nor can I prove myself correct in this regard. While I have known a large number of rich people who do in fact lack game when it comes to women (this is why I am confident that wealth does not automatically equate to romantic acumen), I can’t really prove that most fit this description. There simply aren’t numbers on this.
I will say the following, however:
1. Many rich people may know how to work the system (I don’t know about most, but I’ll just give you that for the sake of the argument). I would question the notion that this translates to instant “natural game” within the context of their relationships with women. It is entirely possible to understand how to work the system very well and succeed while still having very little success with women and very little understanding of how they work, and thus failing to maintain high quality relationships. I have not seen convincing evidence that this possibility is not at all a common occurrence.
2. Even if we do assume the validity of the premise that most “rich people” have natural game, my original statement (which claimed that very few men in general have both solid game and wealth) would still stand. Rich people are not numerous enough to invalidate that statement, and it cannot be said (based on what we know) that most of the non-rich even have solid game by itself.
After graduating college and living with my parents without a job, I had a pretty easy time getting laid because of all the free time on my hands. I could meet up with girls (who also didn’t have shit to do) during the afternoon when people were working, late at night when people were sleeping, whenever.
Getting a 9-5 job, I noticed immediately having no free time was the biggest obstacle to getting pussy. I was suddenly turning down girls who wanted to meet up for sex because I simply didn’t have time. No more Sunday 2 am rendezvous. No more 2pm meetups with bored coeds.
I’ve found my rhythm again, utilizing happy hours and getting more SNLs, but the point is everything weighs against each other differently. Unemployed/underemployed can actually be a great way to get laid with girls who’re also in school/unemployed/underemployed.
Probably not a good long-term strategy though.
Money means shit. I got laid off about 2 months ago. At first I thought it would hurt my game with women – boy was I wrong. I’ve easily banged more girls in this 2 month stretch than any other similar time frame in my life. I attribute it mostly to having more time to game, but I also feel my general aloofness towards finding some other shitty menial 9-5 bitch job attracts women as well. Obama (and all of you, thanks!) pay my salary and it’s plenty for me to pay the bills and still go out and have fun (within my means). Somebody’s paying my bills and all that matters to me is partying and getting laid – it’s like I finally have the life all those rich kids I grew up near did.
It should be noted that all the girls I’ve slept with are in the 21-25 range as you mentioned, though I’m only 27 so that’s typically the range of girls I go for anyway.
This article did not adress one point in the money vs. bitches debate; a key point in favor of the “money” side of the argument: There is more to life than women. The life of a true alpha male does not revolve around his woman/women, they revolve around him. You shouldn’t dress well just to impress chicks, you should dress well because you respect yourself. You shouldn’t travel just because “wahh American women are fat,” you should travel to broaden your horizons and experience new and interesting people, places, cultures, etc. You shouldn’t have a nice pad just because it helps prevent LMR, but because you are a man and a man needs territory to rule. Like a king.
I’m not necessarily saying that women should only be a secondary concern. They shouldn’t. But they should not be your only concern. Live a full life.
I fully agree with this. The reason this argument doesn’t factor much into this discussion is because I attempted to assess the value of money primarily within the context of dating/romantic success and its ability to achieve that. My point here is to say that, if your goal is to get involved with pretty, attractive young western women, money may not be as helpful in and of itself as you thought.
In other facets of life (security, knowledge, general enjoyment/fulfillment of passions, etc), money can take a clearer lead. I’m just saying it might not always do so when it comes to pursuing a certain kind of girl.
Of course, the irony is that when you broaden the context in the way you’ve done (removing the focus from women and pushing money towards improvement in other aspects of life), you generally become more attractive to women. But that’s a post for another day.
Money & game should be calibrated to the women you screen
If you have low money, high game, screen for chicks who arent gold diggers & have great chemistry
If you have high cash, high game, go for a trophy gf, be prepared to fend her off with a swat team … never take her clubbing & other sleazy public spots …
If you have high cash, low game, go learn game, or get screwed by girl game
Your ability to screen chicks, is the determining factor in successful game
You can have the most advanced game in the world, but screen for the wrong uncalibrated chick & you’re in for a world of uncalibrated, unrelatable, mismatched chemistry & a world of pain …
Screen for chemistry first, then screen for money & any thing else you look for in a chick
You’re ability to screen for chicks you enjoy being around, & have chemistry with, is just as important as hotness
The game is alot more scintillating if you want to be around the chicks you game, instead of hotness
Screen incorrectly & get ready for a dull unsatisfactory relationship
Screen correctly & you can easily lead to & juggle MLTR’s, 3somes, etc., pretty much anything you want
What’s that old saying? “you lose money chasing women, but you never lose women chasing money?”
sounds perfect to me.
Hell, you usually gain women. That drive gives tingles.
I live by this saying. That being said, I recognize its limitations, which is why I made this post.
When chasing money, you do generally gain greater access to a larger number of females in the long term. That doesn’t mean, however, that a) you might not lose certain individual females along the way and b) that you’ll be able to keep the females you now have access to and maintain high quality relationships with them.
Even with the money, other factors (read: game) have a role to play.
When pondering this question, I look to the advice of guys that have had both. Movie starts, celebrities, etc,
They say money! And, they are the guys who would know.
In my experience, guys with both say money.
Guys with neither say game.
Guys with money but not game say game.
Guys with game but not money say money.
I say both.
The fact that you are so keen to intellectualize the rather simple set of things that women want rather than focusing on what makes a man attractive in general signals to me that you’re more interested in attacking female bio psychology than actually helping guys become dudes who girls want to have sex with.
At the end of the day, money is power and power is confidence. If a girl can’t appreciate your power then find an intelligent one who can. That simple.
Not sure I buy this critique. There’s no attack of female biology/psychology here-they are how they are. The point of the post was to shed some more light on precisely how a certain type of (particularly desirable) woman is in order for some guys to gain a better understanding of what may or may not hold sway with them.
Contrary to your statement, I think that my reasoning here could do much to help individual guys become dudes who these women wish to sleep with (or, at the very least, understand why they may not be one of those dudes at the moment). They need to know what these women are looking for, and (in the case of the particular type of woman I’ve described above) it may be helpful for them to understand that not all of them care that much for high cashflow.
The fact that you think you know how women “are,” and are so snarkily portraying it here like some National Geographic narrator illuminating the mating patterns of a wildebeest or rhinoceros is indicative of arrogant delusion on a grand scale.
According to you, the girl is going to fuck the fratstar before she fucks the guy with a future–as if all, or even most, women are stupid enough to do that. I personally witness successful men, most of whom have no concept of “game” perfectly capable of getting quality women. Fact of the matter is, you really don’t seem to know what women are looking for and are just parroting the same game blogger tropes that have been repeated ad nauseum on Heartiste’s site.
“The fact that you think you know how women “are,” and are so snarkily portraying it here like some National Geographic narrator illuminating the mating patterns of a wildebeest or rhinoceros is indicative of arrogant delusion on a grand scale.”
Argument to tone.
You can actually choose to address the points at issue or just quit posting here. There’s no in between.
“According to you, the girl is going to fuck the fratstar before she fucks the guy with a future–as if all, or even most, women are stupid enough to do that. ”
I did not make the absolute statement you say I made here. My words were as follows:
“The successful young six-figure earning banker/consultant/lawyer is not much better than the broke but “hot” fratstar, the charming starving artist, or the struggling but handsome semi-pro athlete. Her provisioning allows these guys to compete on one (mostly) level playing field where cash-flow can’t tip the scales too greatly.”
I implied a level playing field, which is not to say that the “fratstar” always wins, but that his more tangibly successfully, affluent male equivalent does not necessarily have an advantage over him when it comes to appealing to a certain kind of woman.
I also did not say that ALL women will select said “fratstar” over his counterpart. The entire argument is focusing on a certain kind of woman to begin with (not ALL of them), and even among that subset it does not imply that all will make the same decision. It is only concerned with the things that may (or, as I argue in the case of cash flow, may not) influence that decision.
“I personally witness successful men, most of whom have no concept of “game” perfectly capable of getting quality women. ”
None of what I said precludes this possibility. You are fighting a strawman.
If you’re trolling, troll better next time.
If you are not a troll and this is a legitimate complaint (looking doubtful), you’ll need much stronger reading comprehension and reasoning next time. Thus far, your entire line of argument has been a logical fallacy.
Guess what–I know what all black people want: chicken.
I am now going to make blog posts detailing how to interact with blacks from the premise of a chicken salesman. This will give my readers a healthy perception on how to cultivate and foster relationships with blacks. Along the way, I will toss in kernels of evolutionary psychology to back my assertions that all blacks are predisposed toward chicken seasoned in a certain way and that if you wish to acquire them as friends or clients, you must adhere to the principles outlined.
This is what you sound like when you make posts about what women “are.”
Also, don’t try to backtrack now and play this off like you were only referring to the subset of skanks who actively reject you at bars–you were making blanket statements about all women and it’s evident from your very first sentence:
“Women have competing interests when it comes to seeking a mate…”
That’s right, it’s not “some women,” or “a paltry few women,” it’s just “women.” Let’s compare this to me saying:
“Blacks have competing interests when it comes to acquiring Kool-Aid packets…”
How well is my argument that I was only referring to “some blacks,” or “jus’ dem niggaz” going to hold up when placed under scrutiny? It’s not. I’m going to be mocked and lambasted as a racist for doing that.
And what you are is a bitter misogynist. Yeah, go ahead and shrug it off as a consequence of taking the “red pill.” You guys have no idea how idiotic you look when you intellectualize the fuck out of stuff that’s common sense.
You don’t really get the protest I’m raising here: it’s that you think that a dude’s charm is some quality that rises ethereally and has no direct relation to their social status, wealth, or relative power. The very premise of your argument is inane and your conclusions run counter to all common sense and the experiences of guys who are actually out DOING things in the real world.
You’re like a professor who’s read up on warfare trying to tell a battle-hardened general how to win a war.
“Guess what–I know what all black people want: chicken”
I’ll stop your useless comparison right here since it has no bearing on this discussion. The fact that women have competing interests when it comes to sexual attraction (and that men who hit each of these interests can alter their behavior) is not a mere cultural/social construct.
“Also, don’t try to backtrack now and play this off like you were only referring to the subset of skanks who actively reject you at bars–you were making blanket statements about all women and it’s evident from your very first sentence:“Women have competing interests when it comes to seeking a mate…””
1. Your ad-hominem exposes the weakness of your position. How are you so sure I even frequent bars?
2. Let’s review for context, since you’ve entirely missed it. Here is what you said:
““According to you, the girl is going to fuck the fratstar before she fucks the guy with a future–as if all, or even most, women are stupid enough to do that. ””
I responded to this with this statement:
“I implied a level playing field, which is not to say that the “fratstar” always wins, but that his more tangibly successfully, affluent male equivalent does not necessarily have an advantage over him when it comes to appealing to a certain kind of woman.”
You now come back and state that I did in fact generalize with regards to these points, but you back that up by referring to an entirely different point I made.
I may have indeed generalized with regards to the fact that women, generally, have competing interests when it comes to mate selection. That was a more blanket statement.
Your claim as quoted above, however, was not about that statement. Rather, you focused on the notion that I generalized that a) the “fratstar” always wins (your quote: “the girl will fuck the fratstar before she fucks the guy with a future”-not what I said) and b) all women prefer said fratstar (“as if all, or even most, women are stupid enough to do that”-also not what I said).
These are not claims that I made-they are red herrings inserted by yourself, and now conflated with an entirely different portion of my argument. Women have competing mating interests and I stand by that statement, but this does not mean that a) fratstar always wins and b) ALL (or even most) women prefer said fratstar. Those are your words, not mine.
“And what you are is a bitter misogynist. ”
Ad-hominem.
“You don’t really get the protest I’m raising here: it’s that you think that a dude’s charm is some quality that rises ethereally and has no direct relation to their social status, wealth, or relative power.”
Here is yet another case of you creating strawmen and fighting them vigorously absent any effort on my part. I did not say that a man’s “charm” (I assume that by this you mean to refer to his ability to attract women) has no direct relation to their status/wealth/relative power. That possibility is not precluded by my argument.
What my argument does do is put forward the notion that it is possible for a man who lacks wealth in particular (while still possibly maintaining status and relative power, factors that I posit are not tied inexorably to wealth) to have charm (itself possibly derived from said status/relative power even in the absence of wealth) and for a certain kind of woman to find such men as appealing (if not more so) as those who possess more wealth. This is why I conclude that money is not always as romantically crucial as it is made out to be, at least not with all women.
Your protest is not difficult to comprehend, it just isn’t logically used as a rebuttal to my argument.
“You’re like a professor who’s read up on warfare trying to tell a battle-hardened general how to win a war.”
Judging by the quality of your reasoning thus far, I have to conclude that you lack the standing to make such an analogy.
Good post. Totally agree why young women need game- they already have provisions from white knights, society/government and father figures. Game tells her who the males with the best genes are in society so they can mate with them.
The reason why older women (separate from cougars) want money is because all their time collecting cum from alpha males is likely to have given them a child. That male may or not have hung around but either way, kids cost money. The more money a partner has, the more he can potentially give her, which she can use to provide shelter, food etc for her child. Hence, older women want provisions.
The THIRD section is for cougars. These are a different kettle of fish to older women as cougars are only a recent phenomenon. Why? Because only recently have we seen older women shacking up with hotter, younger guys. Cougars are women who are approaching the wall and DO NOT have kids (or have a desire for them due to their dwindling egg supply). Hence they desperately need the best genes in society to pass on to their offspring. Where do they find these genes? In young, hot alpha males with game. So now we find women approaching the wall having a) spent their lives chasing a career and now childless, b) spent all their time chasing cock and using contraception to “have fun” and not have kids, who now want to get the most out of their genes and mate with hot young alphas. Examples? Demi Moore, Jennifer Aniston, Courtney Cox, Eva Longoria?, Shakira
So there you have it. Cougar. Coming to a Western City near you now.
The sad reality for men in their 20’s is that financial success is not an adequate substitute for game even for the highest earners. That’s not to say it is a negative, just that you won’t, for example, be able to compete with a charismatic, muscular bartender if you have inferior game even if you make fives times what he does.
If you stop to ponder the macroeconomic implications of that, you get a picture that does not bode well for the economy. If it yields no reward in the sexual market, men will be less likely to put forth maximum effort in their job. Or even find a job.
But of course, even that doesn’t tell the whole story. There are a few guys who, absent success in the SMP, will plunge head first into their career. If you want to change course, these are the men you must reach. They are the safety net that women rely on to break their fall. Teach them game or marry them off early and you might win the war.
Athlone McGinnis made it impossible for me to reply directly to his last comment, so I’m doing it here:
First, I’m mocking the very premise here where your fabricated social constructs for women are somehow valid. You set up this dichotomy where a woman desires both a “sexy” man and a “provider,” as if the two are mutually exclusive. Remember, you made this distinction yourself and said that these two qualities are rarely manifest in the same man. Now you’re backtracking, just like you’re backtracking on the fact that you’re making generalizations about all women. Don’t accuse me of somehow putting words in your mouth when you made these distinctions YOURSELF.
Fact of the matter is: your generalizations are so far from reality that they need to be mocked and ridiculed into irrelevance. Again, I’m going to continue harping on the ridiculous idea that you’ve got all women on the planet figured out and, by extension, all MEN on the planet figured out because you think that it is “rare” for men to be both sexy and provisional at the same time. You are implying that women don’t find the ability for provision sexy, even while admitting the fact that there reaches a point where a man’s provisioning ability (wealth) DOES become sexy for women. In your case it’s supposedly the .05 percentile of men in the United States. Do you see how ridiculous you sound?
This is like me saying “women don’t like black men unless they’re in the .05% of blackness.”
The fact that you think an alcoholic FRAT DUDE with 30k in debt is on an equal level with women as a doctor, successful entrepreneur, or banker highlights the grand delusion I’m talking about here. If you put a woman between these two types of men in the same room and told them to compete for access to her vagina, the successful man with money is going to win in all cases where the girl isn’t suffering from dementia.
That you somehow find within your average frat star or “starving artist” a quality of fuckability that wouldn’t be manifest thirty times over in a successful man is so insane that it’s inconceivable. It just demonstrates that you’re trying to cram square reality pegs into this incredibly limited “game theory” triangular crevice– a form of intellectualization which you think fools women into looking past your obvious faults.
Fact of the matter is, if you had any real world experience, which I highly doubt you do given the manchild intellectualization you’re performing here, you’d have come to the same conclusion. I’m bringing this up in case some poor, frustrated dude out there is actually going to buy this bullshit and pursue “game theory” rather than putting his energy and time into more PRODUCTIVE endeavors that will get you pussy PASSIVELY.
” You set up this dichotomy where a woman desires both a “sexy” man and a “provider,” as if the two are mutually exclusive. Remember, you made this distinction yourself and said that these two qualities are rarely manifest in the same man. “
Rare in combination =/= mutually exclusive.
“Now you’re backtracking, just like you’re backtracking on the fact that you’re making generalizations about all women. Don’t accuse me of somehow putting words in your mouth when you made these distinctions YOURSELF.”
You accused me before of claiming that “fratstar always wins” and “all women prefer the fratstar”. These were not my statements, nor were they implied by my argument. You put those words in my mouth, and that is a fact that anyone reading this can see.
“You are implying that women don’t find the ability for provision sexy, even while admitting the fact that there reaches a point where a man’s provisioning ability (wealth) DOES become sexy for women. In your case it’s supposedly the .05 percentile of men in the United States. Do you see how ridiculous you sound?”
I am implying that the ability to provision BY ITSELF is generally not enough to build sexual attraction. The same is true of raw attraction by itself, UNLESS said women already have provisioning taken care of (a reality that allows them to focus more exclusively on the less tangible raw attraction traits of a male). When basic provisioning is generally taken care of, it takes a much larger amount of resources for a provider male to stand out.
“This is like me saying “women don’t like black men unless they’re in the .05% of blackness.””
Another poor analogy (don’t think I haven’t noticed the consistent attempts to hint at my race and use it against me-troll more discreetly next time).
“Blackness”, unlike wealth, is not a tangible trait. Furthermore, I didn’t say that “women don’t like men unless they’re in the .05% of wealth”, which would be the equivalent of the analogy you put forward here. I said that “wealth does not provide a large advantage for men in the pursuit of certain kinds of women unless they are in the .05% of wealth”.
This is a very different argument, as it does not disallow the possibility that men who are not in the top .05% of wealth may be appealing to women.
“The fact that you think an alcoholic FRAT DUDE with 30k in debt is on an equal level with women as a doctor, successful entrepreneur, or banker highlights the grand delusion I’m talking about here.”
Another misrepresentation. While I did indeed say that a fratstar (assuming relative power and high social status) who lacks money may compete on an even level with a much more affluent male romantically, I did not state that this was true “with women” in general, as you’ve claimed. This is only true with young, very well provisioned women in his peer group for whom the money a more affluent professional male could provide is less of an issue due to her insulation from the colder, more practical realities of life. Because the financial advantage the professional male maintains does not hold as much sway with this specific kind of woman, other men who lack that advantage (but possess other advantages, i.e. game, social status) can compete on a more even level.
“If you put a woman between these two types of men in the same room and told them to compete for access to her vagina, the successful man with money is going to win in all cases where the girl isn’t suffering from dementia.”
Assuming the following:
1. The girl is not well provisioned.
2. Both men, while disparate financially, have relatively equal levels of game, social status, etc.
If you put a hot, well provisioned 21 year old sorority girl in a room with a popular fratstar with game and a banker who, despite having much more money, lacks any game or concrete understanding of women at all (not a rare occurrence among white collar professionals), you’ could possibly see a much more even competition UNLESS the banker is rolling in an exorbitant amount of cash (read: much more than the low-mid six figure salaries that most are earning).
My point is that merely being a white collar professional is not an automatic, unassailable advantage with ALL women. It isn’t that simple, especially when we start to take provisioning into account. With some (not all) women, the advantage is much more muted and can be overcome by men who lack it.
“That you somehow find within your average frat star or “starving artist” a quality of fuckability that wouldn’t be manifest thirty times over in a successful man is so insane that it’s inconceivable.”
It is a fact that, with certain well provisioned women at a certain stage in their lives, a more financially successful male does not AUTOMATICALLY maintain an advantage “30 times over” a less financially successful male.
” It just demonstrates that you’re trying to cram square reality pegs into this incredibly limited “game theory” triangular crevice– a form of intellectualization which you think fools women into looking past your obvious faults.”
I’m not trying to fool anyone, nor am I under the delusion that I could do so successfully. My argument has been made quite clearly-if you don’t get it now, I doubt you ever will.
“I’m bringing this up in case some poor, frustrated dude out there is actually going to buy this bullshit and pursue “game theory” rather than putting his energy and time into more PRODUCTIVE endeavors that will get you pussy PASSIVELY.”
Yours is the kind of dull logic that has young guys expecting to start running through hot girls just because they make $160k a year and drive a Porsche Boxster. You’d have them think that their banking/law/medical gig in and of itself gives them a near absolute advantage with all attractive women (particularly those in their physical prime) over all who are lower on the socio-economic ladder, as though their job makes them immune to competition from dudes lower on the totem pole.
That ain’t how it goes. And don’t underestimate my experience when it comes to this topic-that would be a mistake (and an unfounded assumption).
I can’t be bothered (or care) to read your back and forth essays, but I did catch this line by Jason while skimming through:
“The fact that you think an alcoholic FRAT DUDE with 30k in debt is on an equal level with women as a doctor, successful entrepreneur, or banker highlights the grand delusion I’m talking about here. If you put a woman between these two types of men in the same room and told them to compete for access to her vagina, the successful man with money is going to win in all cases where the girl isn’t suffering from dementia.”
As I mentioned above, though I am not a “FRAT DUDE,” I am unemployed with plenty of debt (way more than 30k, btw). I’ve often found myself in the same room as both A) a woman and B) other men (either friends or random dudes) with wayyyy more money and success in business than myself. Ipso facto, I must be fucking tons and tons of these hot, demented women who all the successful guys apparently must feel pity for since they keep buying all of her drinks.
Perhaps it might work to my disadvantage if/when a girl is considering my long-term prospects vs. Dr. Boringbutrich, but in my experience it matters quite little when “competing for access to her vagina,” as you so eloquently put it. However, since I’m not interested in anything long-term right now, I’m quite content to move on to the next one until she gets bored in 2-3 years and wants to come back and cheat on her husband with me 🙂
Athlone – Jason is a mangina troll from CH (I am assuming he’s the same jackass), he isn’t worthy of response, though I admire how you bitch slapped his every assertion. Fantastic post btw.
MONEY, EVERYTIME….NO BITCH IS WORTH MORE
GAME IS A GREAT SKILL, BUT MONEY IS BETTER
Money + you must be good at approaching women & know where to find the sluttiest of them 🙂
Spot on Roosh.
Money edifies the man not the woman. I’d even extend this to a post-prime lass as well. Though she may eventually select for money/resources she’ll still desire the badboy of her tender years.
Make money for yourself, not bitches. Add game to that mix and you’re a man with endless options.
A wise man once told me:
Chase women and you will have no money
Chase money and you will have women
What you said it’s true but the only problem would be if your chasing money but still getting no women.
And that’s where game comes in.
If I were to add to that quote it would also include “Chase yourself and all things fall into place.”
Hell, for a small fee I can go out and slam a 5 hour orgasm into my veins that will never run the risk of getting pregnant or cheat on me or give me a horrific disease (unless you subscribe to the mid-20th century notion of addiction as disease). After all, we’re only chasing after feelings, feelings which can be had in far more powerful doses than what any woman or number of women can provide.