>
>>> Telling a guy who is broke that some women don't want some guy who
>>> doesn't
>>> have money doesn't get him laid, but money WILL get him laid.
>>
>> That sentence makes no sense at all. I think you were intending to
>> say: "Telling a guy who is broke that some women don't want a guy with
>> money doesn't get him laid. But, money will get him laid."
>
> Left a "not" in during the editing.
>
>
>>
>> See how much better that tracks?
>
> Lucky for him he could focus on that rather than aswering the question and
> hope no one would notice his deflection.
That's because there is no question to answer. Did you not notice
that? The statement that you intended to make is on it's face,
correct, if simplistic.
>
>
>>>>I know your
>>>> worldview does not allow for that possibility, but it remains true
>>>> nonetheless.
>>>
>>> Even true it's irrelevant unless the guy is getting the same women
>>> without
>>> money that he could get with money (never the case).
>>
>> You're right. The woman he gets without money isn't a gold digger.
>> Wouldn't that be a good thing?
>
> If he's getting women without money, odds are she's a looksdigger or a
> minddigger, and equally shallow.
Now, since you're such a bear for proof, sir, I suppose you can produce
statistical information that proves that? Hmmm?
Not all men are born with looks. I was,
> so I didn't need money to get laid.
Again, where's the proof you're getting laid? You know, the same proof
you demand of me.
I am 6'2", but most men are shorter and
> don't have that advantage as well. These men also want to get laid, and
> don't want to settle. Money accomplishes that for them.
>
> The guy with money who thinks that his woman isn't a golddigger is wrong 99
> times out of 100, same as an HB10 likes to delude herself into thinking
> something other than her looks attracted her man to her.
And you can prove those numbers, hmmmm?
> Part of golddigger "game" is convincing the wealthy targets that "it's not
> the money." Most of the time, all that's required is that the golddigging
> be hidden and denied.
I'm sure that's what you believe. Of course, you also believe you are
psychic.
>
>
>>> If the guy's problem were his attitude, personality, or anything else,
>>> money
>>> wouldn't be able to fix it.
>>
>> Really? A a guy whose personality is bad can't pay for instruction in
>> how to improve it?
>
> If the guy he's paying to instruct him is using the money he makes teaching
> to get women, then that's more evidence that it's not the personality but
> the money.
No, if the guy's improved personality gets him more women it proves
that his personality can be fixed by the simple application of money to
the problem. It doesn't even matter what the teacher does.
>
> If this poster were supporting commercialism in general, he would not take
> sides when it comes to individual products. Most guys who make this
> argument, however, suddenly become specific product endorsers when this is
> pointed out. In other words, it's okay for someone trying to make money as
> long as it's their guy.
Where did I take sides? Did I mention any particular product? Are you
asserting that I'm going to? That pretty much proves that your psychic
powers are a bit sketchy. I don't have a "guy." And all your
assertions to the contrary are simply lies.
>
> Fixing one's personality is the domain of the practice of psychology. How
> many seduction gurus are licensed psychologists?
But you claim to be a guru. Are you saying that Foxhunting and
Stripper Gold and all of your other methodology have no behavioral
science-related aspects? So, when did you get your license to practice
psychology?
>
> That an AFC has a "bad personality" because some dumbslut doesn't want to
> fuck him is also a weak premise to begin with.
I agree, which is why I didn't proceed from that assumption.
>
>
>>Isn't that a lot of the stuff that gets sold
>> online?
>
> He finds THIS group yet didn't figure that out for himself? Or maybe he did
> and wants to appear like he didn't.
Or, maybe, just maybe, someone who claims to be an author should be
able to recognize a rhetorical question when he sees it.
>
>>Money can generally be used to correct most flaws.
>
> It can also be used to buy women.
Why do you insist on repeating a point upon which I have not disagreed
with you? Let me lay it out for you since you seem to be incapable of
grasping the whole gist of my argument: Yes, money can get you women.
My point (and it is hardly difficult to grasp for someone of even
medium intelligence), is that it is not the only way to get laid by
quality women. You're not going to stop it from happening, women who
want to sleep with rich guys are going to. so whining about it is
pointless.
>
>>If you
>> have a bad nose you can pay to have it fixed.
>
> By someone trained, licensed, and qualified, AND who is accountable for any
> mistakes.
You give advice on seduction. Are you trained, licensed, qualified and
will you be responsible for any mistakes?
>
>
>>If you have bad vision
>> you can pay for contacts or laser vision correction.
>
> By a trained, licensed, and qualified eye doctor who has had eight years of
> schooling and three years of internships and residencies, and who is
> accountable to a medical board, working with science rather than lay
> psychology.
>
> *slight* difference.
Same question as above.
>
>>If you have bad
>> breath you can buy mouthwash.
>
> Created by trained, qualified, licensed and accountable chemists who are
> strictly regulated by even more qualified government regulators.
See above
>
>
>>If you have body odor you can buy soap.
>
> See above.
Ditto.
>
>
>> That *some* guys can get laid without money
>>> doesn't erase the fact that money is a sure thing for the man who has
>>> enough
>>> of it.
>>
>> Hardly new or startling news. That some guys can get laid without
>> money DOES erase the need to use it as your only means of getting laid.
>
> The gurus themselves use money to get women they couldn't get without it.
According to you...
> As Nixon's attorney general said: DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY. WATCH WHAT
> WE DO.
As Frank Sinatra said: DO BE DO BE DOOO...
>
> Of course it is profitable in the richest countries of the world to tell the
> men that they aren't wealthy and don't need money to get laid. They do this
> to get the wealthy men to spend money on product.
According to you...
>
>
>>> Any proper analysis of seduction must begin and end with the role of
>>> money.
>>
>> Really? Okay. Men with money have an easier time getting laid. Wow!
>> We've certainly expanded the boundaries of human understanding with
>> that revealation! Is this actually news to you? I can assure you that
>> no adult male is rocked by this discovery. We just don't find it as
>> limiting as you apparently do.
>
> "we?" Does he have DID or something?
>
> Knowing the role of money in getting men laid (including the gurus, who use
> it as their primary means of getting women)
According to you... with not the slightest proof. Proof you seem to
positively require from others.
is vital to understanding the
> rather severe limitiations of "game" in a society where every man is coming
> into contact with the "theory."
And yet, men without money still get laid? How can this be so?!
>>
>>>> BTW, a $20 dollar cover charge is hardly cost-prohibitive for most men.
>>>> You don't have to be rich to handle such a charge.
>>>
>>> Actually, on a global scale, you do.
>>>
>>> That one would think $20 is not a lot of money shows right then and there
>>> that they don't even realize how wealthy they are, since there are
>>> prositutes in poor countries who look like beauty queens and cost about
>>> that
>>> for an entire night of sex. The reaosn they do this is that the men in
>>> their country can't afford them.
>>
>> Geez Ray, so I am better off than a citizen of the Third World? No
>> kidding. Most people living in poverty in the US are better off than
>> citizens of the Third World. That you make so extreme a comparison
>> only shows the bankruptcy of your argument. It's like saying I
>> comparatively tall when placed against midgets and dwarves.
>
> Those poor countries have many beautiful women who serve themselves up to
> American men, even those with average incomes here. That is extremely
> relevant to seduction, because these women are a genuine option for the
> typical American man.
A typical American man who wants to fuck a whore. I aim a little
higher than that.
>
>> I don't live in the Third World. I don't pick up women in the Third
>> World. I live in the USA. I work in the USA and I play in the USA,
>> where, comparatively, I am not rich.
>
> He doens't have to live in the Third World to benefit from the relative
> wealth. "Comparatively" he is very rich compared to most of the globe.
>
> In the internet era, women from poor countries can connect much more easily
> with wealthy foreign men, and relative to those women, he is wealthy.
This is stupid. I'm not looking to meet impoverished foreign women.
So the fact that they exist confers no benefit to me. Stop arguing
fantasies and "what if's." Try to stay on the topic. Can you do that?
>
> Notice also that he'd lkely say it was not anyone's business if asked for
> specifics on his financials, yet he wants to use them as the basis for his
> argument.
That's right. You used your looks as part of your argument, but except
for one rather unattractive picture on the Internet, I have no idea
what you look like. If the commonly shown picture is actually you,
your looks argument fails spectacularly.
>
>
>>However, I can swing a $20 cover
>> charge without plunging into destitution.
>
> If the $20 is so meaningless, why is it charged? You think beautiful women
> pay it? It's a "sarging tax."
This has been explained, but you just appear to be to dense to get it.
Clubs have costs, for liquor, lights, decor, and food among other
things. Those costs are called overhead. In order to pay the costs,
the club owner needs a steady clientale. Knowing that men will come
where women are, he doesn't charge women for their entry, but makes up
his money by charging men for entry. He also makes money by collecting
money for drinks and food purchased by men AND women at the club.
That's the way the market works. Grown-ups can deal with that. But
hey! Let's do it your way. Charge everyone, let the women stop
coming, so the men will stop coming, the bars will all close and we can
all sit at home on the weekends.
>
> So can many men, but why should they? Doing this only puts money in the
> pockets of women and other men while depleting his resources. In fact, that
> $20 could be invested anid grow over time to the point where he goes from
> "not rich" to "rich."
How's that investment plan worked out for you?
>
> $20 TWICE A WEEK adds up over time, as do the hours spent chasing pussy that
> he could have spent working.
But, if he scores then that money is probably thought of as well-spent.
>
> Beautiful women in America get wealthy off of all the financial sluts who
> contribute to their six-figure "hired gun" incomes. These women are priced
> out of the market for the typical American man as a result.
So you say. Maybe they're just priced out of the market for you. And
I don't suspect it's money at issue in your case.
>
>
>
>
>>Hell, even when I had a
>> menial job, I could afford to spend $20.
>
> So he's "not rich" but now doing better than someone with a "normal job" in
> one of the wealthiest nations in the world?
You should learn what words mean. "Normal" does not mean the same
thing as "menial." Menial jobs are characterized by a lack of a
required skill. Being a vendor of hot dogs is a "normal" job. Picking
up paper with a pointy stick is a "menial" job.
>
>>Anyone who finds that too
>> difficult to swing maybe ought to give chasing women a break and
>> concentrate on other things -- like climbing out of the abject poverty
>> in which they obviously live.
>
> Money doesn't matter, but broke men should just "take a break" from chasing
> them. Interesting.
It's interesting how you miss the point every time. All I'm saying
(quite clearly to most), is that a man who is living in poverty should
devote himself to getting out of poverty. Not for women, but because
it sucks to be poor.
That's your whole problem, well, one of many. You can't understand
that men do things to make their own lives better, STRICTLY in order to
accomplish that. If a man owns a nice car, maybe it's because he wants
a car that is reliable, dependable and luxurious, because he feels that
he deserves such a perk. If that car attracts women, so much the
better. But THAT isn't the reason to by the car.
If a man owns a nice house, maybe it's because he's worked hard and
feels he deserves a place to live that offers comfort and style and
reflects the success he's achieved. It's a "home" not a "nest," as you
so like to describe it.
I don't live my life, trying to achieve things to impress women. Women
come and go. I live my life trying to make myself happy. I suspect
most men do. Because, you see, one thing women find attractive is a
guy who's doing something with his life, who will go on doing it, even
if there was no woman in his life. It doesn't have to be something
big. He doesn't have to own a mansion and a yacht. He just has to be
trying to accomplish something in his life. Sitting around, spewing
pointless lawsuits over the Internet probably doesn't impress many
women. Nor, I suspect does living with mommy and having piece-meal
jobs.
>
> A man who thinks a $20 cover charge is a waste of money is in "abject
> poverty" rather than just prudent.
Then fine, be prudent. The rest of us will be inside meeting women.
Also, what if it's about denying the $20
> to the women rather than worrying about whether or not the man can afford
> it?
I give my money to the doorperson. I've never seen him then hand it to
a woman in the bar. You fantasies aside, the women aren't getting my
money.
>
>
>>> Why should I pay a $20 cover charge to get into ANY bar where the women
>>> are
>>> going to want the rich guys anyway? Let THEM pay for the women, which is
>>> what the AFCs are doing when they help the club to make money.
>>
>> I guess I don't enter a bar with an "I'm already beaten" mentality.
>
> I don't either. That doesn't mean I should pay $20 for the right to enter a
> bar just because some hot women are there.
Then don't. But don't assume that other men should feel the same way.
>
> Very, VERY few men pick up women consistently in bars and clubs, and those
> who do usually have looks or money.
>
>
>> Hmmm... maybe that's why I still meet and seduce and have sex with
>> women from those places, even though I'm not a millionaire.
>
> Got proof? Very easy to post that one is having sex this way with these
> women, not so easy to prove it. Of course, if product is bought and sold
> without proof, it's not like it's necessary, now is it?
Got proof of all those strippers you've supposedly "plucked" from
clubs? You sure haven't been in a hurry to provide it. You've never
proven one of you assertions in all the years you've been posting here.
Truly, you have huge testicles to request proof from anyone.
>
> "not a millionaire" also doesn't mean that money isn't coming into play.
But, you can't prove that it is, can you?
>
>
>
>>> Women have conned men into competing for them financially to the point
>>> where
>>> men don't even check to see if their money they spend is resulting in
>>> their
>>> getting laid. Let the rich guys pay for the women, and let the women
>>> have
>>> to fuck them in order to do so, or let them lower their prices (or
>>> eliminate
>>> them) for the "good" men they claim to want.
>>>
>>>> Bottom line is, I know in a head-to-head competition I'm not gonna get
>>>> the same women Marilyn Manson gets. Oh no! If only those weren't the
>>>> last women that the world will ever produce! Oh, wait a minute...
>>>
>>> Get more money than MM and you'll get better women than MM. Once a man
>>> knows this, and isn't distracted, he can accumulate money relatively
>>> easily.
>>
>> Of course, a real man doesn't base his accumulation of money on women.
>
> Ooh the "real man" definition. Real men don't PRETEND not to be using money
> to get laid when they are.
Care to prove that? What, you can't? So then, this is just you
twisting reality to fit your questionable theories? Should've known.
>
> This guy is throwing a temper tantrum similar to that of a hottie who is
> told that men only want her because of how she looks.
According to you. You tend to see tantrums whenever someone blows your
"logic" to rags.
>
>
>
>> He bases it on his desire for security and freedom.
>
> Because some guy on the internet said he should?
I've already addressed this. Stop being obtuse.
>
> Since "security" is part of what attracts women, it's the same thing.
Not if the man does it because he's concerned about his OWN security.
> Still, most men go for money because doing so gets them women.
Proof? Statistics? Cites?
>
> None of this changes the impact of money on getting a man laid, of course.
>
>>I'm sure Marilyn
>> Manson became rich by figuring out how to market himself and his music.
>> The women came as a result of his success.
>
> Because women are golddiggers and for sale.
All women, Ray? All hot women, Ray? It is that very definitiveness
that proves your lack of credibility.
>
>
>>. They weren't the
>> motivating factor, most likely.
>
> Most likely, they were, since money is the primary common denominator among
> the men who get to have sex with the world's hottest women on a consistent
> basis.
Still being obtuse, I see...
>
>>I shouldn't have to explain this to
>> you. I mean, Al Pacino did it pretty well in "Scarface."
>>
>> First, you get the money.
>> Then, you get the power.
>> Then, you get the women.
>
> Which is only true if women are into money.
>
> This knowledge is the proper foundation for *any* seduction method.
>
>
>> Even Tony Montana ( from the Third World) knew that you don't get money
>> just to get women. The women are a by-product, like radiation from a
>> nuclear pile. A man earns money for himself.
>
> FOOD and HOUSING are also byproducts of money. Those things are BOUGHT.
They are bought because that's what a man WISHES to spend his money on.
He doesn't HAVE to spend his money on gold diggers. I can get women
without buying them. But, the only way I'm getting a house is to buy
it.
>
> If women are a "byproduct" of money it means that they are FOR SALE, and
> that moeny trumps game.
No it doesn't And if it did, you'd be screwed. Because, while you
claim to have game, you don't have money. So your game would be
useless. Yet, you claim to lay hotties with your game. How can this
be?
>
>
>>>> ...You mean there are other attractive women in the world? Women who
>>>> might actually be attracted to me? G'wan, get out of here. What's
>>>> that? There are so many women in the world that I don't ever really
>>>> have to feel like I'm in competition with any man?
>>>
>>> Oh please. Unless you'd rather have 8s than 10s, have them for less
>>> time,
>>> less often, and on inferior terms, you are competing against the wealthy
>>> and
>>> powerful men who are getting the women you want.
>>
>> First off, I'd rather have an 8 that cared about me for me, than a 10
>> who just wants my money.
>
> Translation: he's willing to settle, and thinks he can read minds. Now he's
> like an HB10 who is obsessed with finding a guy who isn't into her body.
Now, youre a misogynistic twit who hates and fears women and thinks all
of them are lying. You are hardly someone who can be trusted to offer
theory to any other man.
>
> A man who wants an 8 definitely doesn't need money, though he's still not
> going to get as many of them or get them as favorably as he would have if he
> had it.
>
>
>>Hell, an 8 who truly cares for me is a 10 in
>> my book.
>
> Women are not honest (another foundation of PUA theory), and will lie about
> stuff like this, especially if the guy is rich.
PUA theory is not the be-all and end-all of human relations.
>
> A woman who isn't into money would avoid wealthy men because of all the
> competition these men bring for something that she doesn't even care about.
>
> Would someone looking for a drink at a neighborhood bar bother trying to get
> past the velvet rope at a trendy nightclub with a $20.00 cover charge?
That point actually has none. Remarkable. A woman who isn't into
money has no reason to avoid rich men. That's like saying a guy who's
a leg man should never be attracted to a woman with okay legs, but
great breasts.
>
>
>
>>Secondly, you can't prove that I'd be with them for a shorter
>> amount of time or on inferior terms.
>
> I don't have to. Researchers since Darwin have proven it over and over and
> over again.
Then, you should be able to reproduce those findings. Hell, I can
allege that researchers have authenticated the existence of The Loch
Ness Monster, Bigfoot and The Mothman. If I did so, I'd show my proof.
>
> I also know what I could get at any time with money, and without it, a man
> cannot match that because he has to find a willing female, something which
> *may* happen, as opposed to something that *will* happen if he has the cash.
But you claim to bed hotties (without proof) So apparently, you can
find willing women without money, just as you could if you had it. If
you can do this consistently, so can any other guy, well-heeled or not.
Congratulations, you just blew up your own argument. Thanks for
playing.
SNIPPED for pure pointlessness.
>
>>>> Just about everything a PUA takes for granted as part of "game" is
>>> NONEXISTENT for the true alpha males, since shit tests, flaking, LMR, or
>>> any
>>> of the other bullshit will cost the hottie a man she knows REALLY IS THE
>>> PRIZE.
>>
>> If a men knows he's the prize, wealthy or not, he can "Next" any woman
>> who is a bitch to him.
>
> A man who is not wealthy is not a prize to the world's sexiest women, the
> 9.5s and above.
Proof? Stats? Cites? Thought not.
>
> Sure, there are 8s who don't care, or who have rich families and don't need
> the cash, but that just means their golddigging was accomplished in another
> way. They are still golddiggers, just not hungry.
Because you say so, right?
>
>
>>>>Stop! Now you're
>>>> just being silly. Next, you'll be trying to tell me that "Financial
>>>> Sluts" have no effect on a confident man's game.
>>>
>>> Actually that's what he'd be trying to tell me, but he'd be wrong,
>>> because
>>> if some finanicial slut has just given the hottie you want enough money
>>> to
>>> pay her bills, she can afford to be a bitch to you or every other guy.
>>> Worse yet, she can indulge her badboy fantasies and literally make you go
>>> through hell to have a shot with her, since she doesn't have to worry
>>> about
>>> finding a provider, thanks to the financial slut.
>>
>> No, she can't make me do anything I don't want to do.
>
> Attraction isn't a choice for women but it is for men? If she's hot enough,
> she generally can.
>
> Or does he claim to be like Spock in his love life?
Don't be an idiot, Ray. Attraction may not be a choice. Self control
is. One does not have to be Mr. Spock to not want to accept shitty
treatment. Apparently you just get so dazzled by hotties that you'd
let them treat you like a pet, or worse. That's your weakness, not
mine.
>
>
>>So, if she wants
>> to test me, she can move the hell on. I know that there are other
>> women in the world. It is not a finite pool.
>
> Actually, it is.
No it's not, Ray. Women turn 18 everyday.
>
>>If you arte so desperate
>> to be with a 10 and you don't believe any 10 has character enough to
>> choose an intelligent, witty, confident guy over a douchebag with
>> money, then I'm sure you can be manipulated. I
>
> There arne't enough 10s in the world to go around for all the "intelligent,
> witty, confident" men, and as the real world shows time and again, the 10s
> go for the wealthy and famous guys.
>
> That's how women are. Deal with it.
>
>
>>can't. I don't need
>> sex bad enough to trade my self-esteem for it. Sad, if you do.
>
> Since most seduction gurus use their money to get their women, I guess he
> just insulted them.
Since I don't hold with your theory about how other Gurus get their
women, I haven't insulted anyone. Why don't you stop being a quisling,
expecting to draw others into a debate to fight your battles for you?
Not that you couldn't use the help.
>
>>> Wake up and smell the market.
>>
>> Wake up, stop bitching and get in the game.
>
> This pathetic, anonymous pussy is the one BITCHING because he can't handle
> the truth about women.
You wouldn't know truth if you woke up next to it.
>
> For all we know, he's hiring hookers as we speak. Maybe that's why he's
> replying like white-on-rice and furiously denying the obvious.
For all we know, the only pussy you've ever had is the one that had
you.
>>Stop blaming other men fo
>> your shortcomings.
>
> So not having money is a shortcoming now, but money doesn't matter.
No, your shortcoming is that you can't get women. Was I unclear?
>
> Cowardice is a shortcoming, and he posts anonymously, likely because he
> already knows I'm right and can't stand it.
I post anonymously because it's my right to do so. As you say, DEAL
WITH IT!
>
>
>>You want to compete with rich guys? Do it!
>
> Been doing it for twenty years.
And, if you've been doing it successfully, then money is not the be-all
and end-all, since you have none.
>
>>You
>> don't want to? Don't! Either find a way to be as rich as they are, or
>> learn how to win without their advantages.
>
> This man can't prove he's gotten women without money, or gotten anything
> close to the same women he'd get with it. He wants to claim his victory
> without a shred of proof.
>
> Internet props!!
You're the king of them, aren't you?
>
>>But, for God's sake, don't
>> expect anybody to jump on your whiny bandwagon.
>
> He can't stand the truth about money and women so he resorts to
> cyber-AMOGING. How quaint.
>
>>You can say you're
>> trying to help men, but I've seen how all you've ever done is try to
>> cock-block every guy in this group, regardless of his approach.
>
> He thinks disagreement is cockblocking now, and by flaming me, he's the one
> engaging in it.
>
> All because he cannot handle a simple truth about money and women. Boy, I
> struck a nerve in the boy.
>
>>You
>> aren't looking to help anyone but yourself.
>
> And notice how he thinks men who charge thousands of dollars are "helping
> others." Now we're back to commercialism being okay as long as it's his
> guru.
That is a flat-out lie. I NEVER said that the others were helping
people. Saying what you're NOT doing is no testament to what others
are doing. It's easy to win the argument if you get to put words in
MY mouth. We aren't "back" to anything. Well, we are back to you
trying to establish a false premise by twisting words.
>
> He wants to claim authority on this topic yet has never offered any evidence
> of seducing any women of quality.
Nor have you.
>
>
>>You just want everyone to
>> get as upset as you, so maybe things will change and you won't have to
>> try.
>
> Boy, he's WHINING now. All because he can't handle a simple truth about
> money and women.
>
> He's also not showing his face, and could have hidden commercial interests.
And you could be a mole man from the center of the earth. We can play
this game all day.
>
>>Won't work. One, because other men aren't intimidated by rich
>> men and their buying power.
>
SNIPPED for pure idiocy.
>
>>Two, even if you fantasy came to pass
>> there would still be one small point that would trip you up: Women are
>> never going to choose whiny crybabies over any other man.
>
> He's cockblocking again by calling other men "whiny crybabies."
I called YOU a whiny crybaby. And only you. And you know it.
>
> What's interesting here is that it's generally not wise to insult people who
> pay you. Hotties who insult the financial sluts who give them money are
> only going to cut off their gravy train. This has already happened with the
> strippers, who called their customers LOSERS so many times that men stopped
> being their customers, and they had to resort to prostitution to make up for
> the lost income.
Jesus. Get help.
I remain
The Gentleman
