>>> That would be true if all women wanted the same things. While most of
>>> us are impressed by displays of wealth and import, the world is full of
>>> women, many of whom are not seduced by a man's money.
>>
>> Nice fairy tale, but the FACT remains that money will get a man things
>> from
>> women -- many, many things -- that not having it will not.
>
> It's not a fairy tale just because you don't wish to believe it.
That applies equally to everyone.
>I'm
> sure it plays hob with your "All the other men in the world are keeping
> me from getting laid" conspiracy theory.
Nothing keeps any man from getting laid. I was talking about how money
enables men to get laid by some incredibly hot women, almost all by itself.
For most men, especially older ones, it's easier to get rich than it is to
stay youthful looking and fit.
Rich older men get young women who don't even allow men their age to pursue
them, so the younger men assume these women aren't even on the market.
>> 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.
>>>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. Not all men are born with looks. I was,
so I didn't need money to get laid. 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.
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.
>> If the guy's problem were his attitude, personality, or anything else,
>> money
>> wouldn't be able to fix it.
>
> Really? A aguy 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.
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.
Fixing one's personality is the domain of the practice of psychology. How
many seduction gurus are licensed psychologists?
That an AFC has a "bad personality" because some dumbslut doesn't want to
fuck him is also a weak premise to begin with.
>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.
>Money can generally be used to correct most flaws.
It can also be used to buy women.
>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.
>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.
>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.
>If you have body odor you can buy soap.
See above.
> 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.
As Nixon's attorney general said: DO NOT LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY. WATCH WHAT
WE DO.
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.
>> 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) is vital to understanding the
rather severe limitiations of "game" in a society where every man is coming
into contact with the "theory."
Ten years ago, you had AFCs with money against PUAs with game and no money.
Now you get PUAs without money against PUAs with it, so the main advantage
of the theory is gone.
>>> 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.
> 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.
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.
>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."
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."
$20 TWICE A WEEK adds up over time, as do the hours spent chasing pussy that
he could have spent working.
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.
>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?
>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.
A man who thinks a $20 cover charge is a waste of money is in "abject
poverty" rather than just prudent. Also, what if it's about denying the $20
to the women rather than worrying about whether or not the man can afford
it?
>> 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.
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?
"not a millionaire" also doesn't mean that money isn't coming into play.
>> 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.
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.
> He bases it on his desire for security and freedom.
Because some guy on the internet said he should?
Since "security" is part of what attracts women, it's the same thing.
Still, most men go for money because doing so gets them women.
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.
>. 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.
>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.
If women are a "byproduct" of money it means that they are FOR SALE, and
that moeny trumps game.
>>> ...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.
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.
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?
>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.
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.
>That's just more of your
> supposin'.
>
> That you don't see or
>> acknowledge the competition doesn't remove its presence.
>
> That you think that all women act and think the same adds no creedence
> to your theory.
Men already know what money can do for them with women. All women don't
have to act the same way for money to get a guy what he wants.
Until a man can get without money, the exact same deal he gets with it,
money will be useful as a seduction tool.
For example, if I want a threesome with two strippers in a hotel room, I can
get that for about $1,000.00. The sex will be just as good regardless of
the motivation the women have for having it. Of course, if I have that kind
of money, golddiggers will whore themselves out indirectly for it, but the
transaction is still substantially the same.
Telling a man money doesn't matter because YOU don't want women who are into
it doesn't change a thing.
>> 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.
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.
>>>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?
>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.
>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.
>> 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.
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.
>Stop blaming other men fo
> your shortcomings.
So not having money is a shortcoming now, but money doesn't matter.
Cowardice is a shortcoming, and he posts anonymously, likely because he
already knows I'm right and can't stand it.
>You want to compete with rich guys? Do it!
Been doing it for twenty years.
>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!!
>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.
He wants to claim authority on this topic yet has never offered any evidence
of seducing any women of quality.
>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.
>Won't work. One, because other men aren't intimidated by rich
> men and their buying power.
And these rich men have a good laugh at the HAVE-NOTS while they are in bed
with the 10s who don't give the broke guys the time of day.
Ask the rich guys or the women if they really care, and ask most people who
they would rather be.
Perhaps he's the jealous one.
>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."
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.
