Are Asian men only valued for their money? If so that sucks!

[WilliamSmith]

It’s not disproving my point at all. Women are notoriously fickle. The reason divorce happens more likely if the woman gets a promotion is because you can’t earn the same amount or less then the woman or she will lose attraction.

The Chinese guys you mentioned are being smart. You should never let your woman make more money then you do. It’s a threat to your marriage.

Hey, I'm still friendly as usual, so sorry if this is starting to sound like a variant on "I know you're not but what am I" or rather "Yeah it is" / "No it isn't" / "Yeah it is x10" / "No it isn't x20" etc, but in fact is IS demolishing your own point and you've got it completely bass-ackwards:
You're saying that a man should use his current level of income (or possibly existing money) to attract a woman, which is a terrible idea since it'll attract gold-diggers. And worse: Even if he was OK marrying a gold-digger, he than maximizes the odds she'll dump his ass if his income level goes down or he loses his job, and/or if she ends up in a higher-earning business or position herself. Obviously that is exactly why you SHOULDN'T use money to try to attract women, and you should even hide your earnings from her if you have high earnings, in my opinion.
Doing it that way maximizes the odds a man will attract women who aren't that into him without his earnings, and maxes the odds they'll dump him if he loses those earnings or they go down.
(Also I don't think you had the right spin on the study you cited because the most likely thing in the world is those women who filed for divorce after they were earning more $$$ than the men, the men were probably betas who thought they should attract via money, and then when the women were earning more than the betas they weren't that into to begin with anyway, they filed for divorce so he couldn't get a claim on her financial assets instead of vice versa.)

This is why so many bulletproof womanizers won't let the women early on know how much they earn (or even lie claiming to earn less), because obviously if you engage in that folly of trying to attract based on your income then you'll attract gold-diggers (or at best chicks looking for "sugar-daddies," but I wouldn't be interested in that and I don't think that applies to you either, since you're talking traditional marriage in your sphere of interest).

If you want to get a 100x stronger basis for the relationship, you're better off being practically a bum with a lot of seductive charm who can blow a woman's mind in bed and make her fall in love in other ways, compared with playing this "money game." (If you were just trying to bag some chicks that's one thing, but if you're looking for a good wife who would stick with you through thick and thin, I think this money game is the absolute worst way you could possibly go about it.)

Not that you have to be practically a wandering vagabond, of course: The optimum is probably to come across as financially self-sufficient without disclosing any more detail about that than necessary, but otherwise getting a chick into you via primal male/female attraction dynamics, whether it's charm, seductiveness, good rapport in various other ways, or @Lucas88's preference for coming across as more of a physically exciting stud (which I also like, but I think the charm and understanding women's psyche more is the best long-run approach because that can keep you up to your ears in women even if something bad happened like a major injury that made it hard to keep up the Chet Yorton-esque muscleman physique into the golden years).

As for that Chinese example:
I don't know the full background on that Chinese guy's decision (and wasn't dissing him anyway), but it's just right out there how backward his and your logic is on this particular point:
He had the woman he wanted right there wanting his nuts (or to put it more formally, 100% interested in getting into a permanent relationship with him) for the long-run (marriage even) but he had a woman who ALREADY made more money than him (so he already knew she wasn't a gold-digger!!) and yet his notions about him needing to have higher "status" and earnings in order to save face had him turning her down unless she quit her job.
So he wasn't being smart, he was being an idiot and doing the exact opposite of the right thing: Now if that dumbass gets a different chick who he tried to impress because he has higher earnings at the time they meet (making it even more beta if he's someone else's employee instead of running his own business), he got rid of the chick who wanted him for non-monetary reasons, and he'll have a wife that's much more likely to dump him if he loses his money (or if she gets higher earnings, like the chick who wanted to marry him when she was actually earning more).

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88 and @WilliamSmith The way I see it, I wouldn't marry a woman who was obese. I don't even like a girl to be slightly overweight. I also would not marry a woman who had a low, or possibly even a medium sex drive. It would have to be a girl who desires sex frequently. I have no moral justification for being that way. Its purely a matter of thinking my life will be much more pleasurable that way. I have superficial desires myself. I will not blame a girl for having her own superficial desires.

The girls you go for are not going to be more loyal or faithful. Primal masculinity is attractive, more so then to any other kind of girl, to flighty, novelty seeking women who crave what's "exciting" more then anything. No matter how well you think you are doing, with these type of women, the clock is always ticking because they are easily bored and will eventually move on to something new. To those girls, you may have been the most delicious pizza on Earth when they first met you but eventually eating you every day made them get tired of you. I don't think you would even deny that the girls, at least that WilliamSmith is with, are not traditional, stay with one man your whole life type girls. The kind of girls who sleep with a guy who makes no money but has primal attraction are the type of girls who will bang another guy as soon as somebody who can provide her more thrills comes along. My strategy may attract girls with gold digger tendencies. Not blatant gold diggers, but a girl who has some gold digger tendencies, yeah my strategy probably attracts those types... But hey, girls like that will show loyalty, stick around for you, and pretty much do whatever you want them to do if you give them what they want. The girls y'all are talking about? hell no, those girls are the least loyal girls on Earth. Y'all's women put our "gold diggers" to shame.

Let's be real for a second... Asian girls have the biggest reputation for being gold diggers. Let's be honest about what our favorite girls are like. Asian girls care more then any other race of girls how much money you make. Yet they are statistically the least likely to get divorced or cheat on their husband. This is despite the fact that Asian girls are overwhelmingly married to guys y'all would call, "unattractive betas who have to rely on their money." Black girls probably have the highest level of attraction to "primal masculinity" with Latina girls being second place. Both demographics of women are the most likely to get divorced or cheat on their husband. This is because the behavior that y'all promote, the PUA tactics, they work on R-selected women. They enjoy spontaneity, novelty, risk, excitement. They crave those things and that's why a provider type guy cannot lock down an R-selected woman by having money because R-selected women crave novelty and excitement more then anything. The tactics y'all advocate, however, don't work on women who are very strong in the K-selected genetic patterns.

My co-worker recently proved that. He was talking to a Filipina girl and he actually waited after a few weeks of talking to her but eventually just straight up said "hey I'm trying to f**k" and she responded by telling him to stop talking to her and blocking him. That aggressive, direct approach does not work with K-selected women. I've seen guys who look and act exactly like you think guys should be like, attempt the exact same strategies you advocate for, on K-selected women and the attempt falls flat on its face. I saw a muscular, Greek God looking dude who is extremely extroverted and super confident. He slept with probably 50 girls in the time he was my roommate. He tried to seduce a conservative, religious girl that hung out with my group of friends at the time. Complete failure, she barely spoke to him again. Just because y'alls tactics work on a lot of girls doesn't mean you've cracked some sort of code that will work with every woman on Earth.

Now, I don't pretend that having money is going to work on thrill seeking, R-selected women. I have made it very clear in my time on this forum that my strategies will not work on a lot of women, I don't think they'd even work on most women. They do work, very well, on a certain type of girl though, and I've already seen enough results from this strategy to know that, while it could use fine tuning and better preparation, overall, it is working.

For the kind of woman I'm searching for, some degree of gold digger tendencies are inevitable so I don't consider them to be a red flag. K-selected women crave stability, safety, and reliability more then anything, that's why they tend to have what many men consider gold digger tendencies. Because a man's earning potential is a big part of what makes him stable and reliable. It also correlates with a woman who will not be ambitious and seek a career outside of the home, which, I would not want even in the situation you described of "a woman who wants my nuts." I want a woman who will prioritize me and our family. That's a rule I will not compromise on.

[Cornfed]

It's likely that the threat of being kicked to the curb once the wife/girlfriend begins to make more money only seriously applies to the relatively financially successful yet otherwise unattractive betas who have little to offer other than their salary and professional status. It doesn't seem to apply anywhere near as universally to alpha males like my uncle who are desirable for other reasons such as primal masculinity and an above average male physique that get many females wet on the most primal level as well as unusual charm, charisma and a fun-loving vibe.

It shows how feminised Western men really are that you would unironically conflate being kept around for some woman's amusement with being "alpha".

[Shemp]

...alpha males like my uncle who are desirable for other reasons such as primal masculinity and an above average male physique that get many females wet on the most primal level as well as unusual charm, charisma and a fun-loving vibe.

It shows how feminised Western men really are that you would unironically conflate being kept around for some woman's amusement with being "alpha".

He and William Smith and PUAs all make this mistake, of thinking the man's role is to be the sex object, and that gigolos and pimps are the pinnacle of masculinity, versus military officers, leading scientists and businessmen, etc. When I was a little boomer, heterosexual boys aspired to be astronauts, now they all want to be male beauty pageant contestants like Cornfed.

[Lucas88]

The girls you go for are not going to be more loyal or faithful. Primal masculinity is attractive, more so then to any other kind of girl, to flighty, novelty seeking women who crave what's "exciting" more then anything. No matter how well you think you are doing, with these type of women, the clock is always ticking because they are easily bored and will eventually move on to something new. To those girls, you may have been the most delicious pizza on Earth when they first met you but eventually eating you every day made them get tired of you. I don't think you would even deny that the girls, at least that WilliamSmith is with, are not traditional, stay with one man your whole life type girls. The kind of girls who sleep with a guy who makes no money but has primal attraction are the type of girls who will bang another guy as soon as somebody who can provide her more thrills comes along. My strategy may attract girls with gold digger tendencies. Not blatant gold diggers, but a girl who has some gold digger tendencies, yeah my strategy probably attracts those types... But hey, girls like that will show loyalty, stick around for you, and pretty much do whatever you want them to do if you give them what they want. The girls y'all are talking about? hell no, those girls are the least loyal girls on Earth. Y'all's women put our "gold diggers" to shame.

Mmmm, I don't think that the dichotomy which you've thought up accurately represents reality. Your argument is based on the assumption that women attracted to money and professional status (or with gold-digger tendencies) are naturally going to be more monogamous while women attracted to primal masculinity, physique, charm and charisma are naturally going to be more promiscuous and thrill-seeking, but I don't think that this is even true. By "primal masculinity" I'm not necessarily referring to thuglike behavior from the ghetto lifestyle. It would be a mistake to assume that. Primal masculinity may include more constructive manifestations of raw physically masculine behavior such as peak physical fitness, weightlifting, combat sports training, and more importantly, a dominant alpha male mentality (though not necessarily abusive). Developing a great body through weight training and exercise, which I consider a core component of primal masculinity, is extremely attractive to most women. It's an optimal way to get them wet quickly and wanting to sleep with you. Then things like charm and charisma come into play. Women love a guy who can hold their interest in a conversation and who are enjoyable to be around (i.e., having wit, stimulating conversation, social intelligence, a polished communication style, etc.). It's not just promiscuous and thrill-seeking women who want a man like this. Plenty of naturally monogamous women do too because such a man undeniably has a lot of qualities that make him attractive to many women and so to them he is often a keeper. Plenty of naturally monogamous women need more sources of attraction than just money and professional status in order to form a meaningful relationship with a man or at least certainly desire them.

I can understand those women too. If I try to put myself in their shoes for a second, I can completely understand why they don't like professionally successful yet otherwise unattractive betas. Sure, those guys have money if they've been sensible with their earnings and have relatively higher status in the corporate/business world, but many of them don't have very attractive physiques (no muscle mass or definition, not even basic physical fitness in some cases, often pudgy or skinny-fat physiques, little physical masculinity) and are uncharismatic bores if not total charisma vacuums. I'm not trying to hate on those guys, but I can see why few women are ever turned on by them at a deeper sexual level and why they are no fun to be around, even if they do flaunt their cash and professional status. I can totally see why a woman like my aunt for example would rather choose as her long-term romantic partner a guy who displays a highly masculine demeanor, has a sexy fit body that uncontrollably turns her on at the level of her primal female psyche, peak physical fitness, and an abundance of magnetic charm and knowing how to show a lady a good time, as opposed to a physically unfit, unsexy, uncharismatic beta who just has a bit of money.

With regard to the career woman who left her man as soon as she started making more money than him, it just seems like traditionalists making excuses for that woman's shitty behavior if you ask me. I really can't understand why a traditionalist who values love and family above everything else would ever want to be with a woman like that. For me that would be a major red flag. I mean, for a traditionalist, surely it would be better to marry a more simple girl with a high level of nobility, soulfulness, spiritual values and romanticism and a low level of materialism. The woman who left her man after her promotion at work is just a materialistic modern woman. Her actions make it clear that she has no concept of loyalty. She'd be better off with an equally materialistic, money-obsessed modern man than with any traditionalist husband.

The topic of men refusing to be with a woman who earns more than they do out of fear of losing face despite her already being attracted to them is equally absurd in my opinion. Why would I see it as a negative if my woman started making a whole lot more money? Surely it would be a good thing, right? Like if my girlfriend's YouTube channel just blew up to viral levels and she started making or ton of ad revenue. Or if her online business suddenly started to prosper like crazy. I wouldn't feel threatened at all. I certainly wouldn't feel inadequate. I know that I have qualities that make me attractive outside of money and professional status. I also would never be with a woman who was materialistic and money-obsessed (not even if she had awesome titties). Men with primally masculine virtues and charisma such as my uncle and even myself to an extent can handle being with a woman with more money than ourselves. It seems to be mostly the beta bux guys with their fragile egos who can't.

[Cornfed]

I know that I have qualities that make me attractive outside of money and professional status.

So you basically see the world as a woman or some kind of panhandler then.

[Lucas88]

Asian men aren't only valued for their money, but it's hard to find a truly handsome or rugged Asian man. That Toshiro Mifune samurai type that could be dirt poor and still slay p***y like a demon, it's a rare breed especially nowadays with all the effeminate game-addicts out there:





To say they don't make Asian men like they used to is an understatement, for sure. It's a far cry from the Mifune's of yore to the @Winston-esque creatures of today. But to look masculine, and be masculine, one needs discipline, hard work, its a lifestyle. If you don't have that grit, money is your next best bet. Better yet, though, a man ought to have both a steady income flow as well as be masculine. You can't really be a wilting little flower and pull a lot of women.

I wholly agree with your comment. Just because social pressures in Asian societies have strongly encouraged the beta provider type of masculinity doesn't mean that what @WilliamSmith and I refer to as primal masculinity doesn't work there. From what William has explained in other threats, it seems that primal masculinity works extremely well in Asia too since women are widely turned on by it regardless of culture, and maybe even better in Asia since it is now so lacking in countries like modern Japan. The few Asian men who still do embrace their own primal masculinity can indeed attract their own women easily. As can foreign men who go to Japan with their own primal masculinity.

From a man's perspective it is better to go against the beta provider masculinity social programming and then connect with and develop our primal masculinity in order to become optimally attractive to the opposite sex. That indeed does require sustained effort and discipline (guys have to turn off the PlayStation and hit the gym among other things). Having a steady income flow is just a matter of necessity and common sense. It's still good to have decent sources of income even if it's just to make your own life better. It just doesn't have to be your greatest asset when you have other things going on for you too.

[Outcast9428]

The girls you go for are not going to be more loyal or faithful. Primal masculinity is attractive, more so then to any other kind of girl, to flighty, novelty seeking women who crave what's "exciting" more then anything. No matter how well you think you are doing, with these type of women, the clock is always ticking because they are easily bored and will eventually move on to something new. To those girls, you may have been the most delicious pizza on Earth when they first met you but eventually eating you every day made them get tired of you. I don't think you would even deny that the girls, at least that WilliamSmith is with, are not traditional, stay with one man your whole life type girls. The kind of girls who sleep with a guy who makes no money but has primal attraction are the type of girls who will bang another guy as soon as somebody who can provide her more thrills comes along. My strategy may attract girls with gold digger tendencies. Not blatant gold diggers, but a girl who has some gold digger tendencies, yeah my strategy probably attracts those types... But hey, girls like that will show loyalty, stick around for you, and pretty much do whatever you want them to do if you give them what they want. The girls y'all are talking about? hell no, those girls are the least loyal girls on Earth. Y'all's women put our "gold diggers" to shame.

Mmmm, I don't think that the dichotomy which you've thought up accurately represents reality. Your argument is based on the assumption that women attracted to money and professional status (or with gold-digger tendencies) are naturally going to be more monogamous while women attracted to primal masculinity, physique, charm and charisma are naturally going to be more promiscuous and thrill-seeking, but I don't think that this is even true. By "primal masculinity" I'm not necessarily referring to thuglike behavior from the ghetto lifestyle. It would be a mistake to assume that. Primal masculinity may include more constructive manifestations of raw physically masculine behavior such as peak physical fitness, weightlifting, combat sports training, and more importantly, a dominant alpha male mentality (though not necessarily abusive). Developing a great body through weight training and exercise, which I consider a core component of primal masculinity, is extremely attractive to most women. It's an optimal way to get them wet quickly and wanting to sleep with you. Then things like charm and charisma come into play. Women love a guy who can hold their interest in a conversation and who are enjoyable to be around (i.e., having wit, stimulating conversation, social intelligence, a polished communication style, etc.). It's not just promiscuous and thrill-seeking women who want a man like this. Plenty of naturally monogamous women do too because such a man undeniably has a lot of qualities that make him attractive to many women and so to them he is often a keeper. Plenty of naturally monogamous women need more sources of attraction than just money and professional status in order to form a meaningful relationship with a man or at least certainly desire them.

I can understand those women too. If I try to put myself in their shoes for a second, I can completely understand why they don't like professionally successful yet otherwise unattractive betas. Sure, those guys have money if they've been sensible with their earnings and have relatively higher status in the corporate/business world, but many of them don't have very attractive physiques (no muscle mass or definition, not even basic physical fitness in some cases, often pudgy or skinny-fat physiques, little physical masculinity) and are uncharismatic bores if not total charisma vacuums. I'm not trying to hate on those guys, but I can see why few women are ever turned on by them at a deeper sexual level and why they are no fun to be around, even if they do flaunt their cash and professional status. I can totally see why a woman like my aunt for example would rather choose as her long-term romantic partner a guy who displays a highly masculine demeanor, has a sexy fit body that uncontrollably turns her on at the level of her primal female psyche, peak physical fitness, and an abundance of magnetic charm and knowing how to show a lady a good time, as opposed to a physically unfit, unsexy, uncharismatic beta who just has a bit of money.

With regard to the career woman who left her man as soon as she started making more money than him, it just seems like traditionalists making excuses for that woman's shitty behavior if you ask me. I really can't understand why a traditionalist who values love and family above everything else would ever want to be with a woman like that. For me that would be a major red flag. I mean, for a traditionalist, surely it would be better to marry a more simple girl with a high level of nobility, soulfulness, spiritual values and romanticism and a low level of materialism. The woman who left her man after her promotion at work is just a materialistic modern woman. Her actions make it clear that she has no concept of loyalty. She'd be better off with an equally materialistic, money-obsessed modern man than with any traditionalist husband.

The topic of men refusing to be with a woman who earns more than they do out of fear of losing face despite her already being attracted to them is equally absurd in my opinion. Why would I see it as a negative if my woman started making a whole lot more money? Surely it would be a good thing, right? Like if my girlfriend's YouTube channel just blew up to viral levels and she started making or ton of ad revenue. Or if her online business suddenly started to prosper like crazy. I wouldn't feel threatened at all. I certainly wouldn't feel inadequate. I know that I have qualities that make me attractive outside of money and professional status. I also would never be with a woman who was materialistic and money-obsessed (not even if she had awesome titties). Men with primally masculine virtues and charisma such as my uncle and even myself to an extent can handle being with a woman with more money than ourselves. It seems to be mostly the beta bux guys with their fragile egos who can't.

I’m not saying she should have left him or making excuses for her. I’m saying that’s indicative of how much, making more money then your wife matters. It wasn’t an individual case either. The study involved hundreds of participants and looked at their marriages over 5 years. With the no promotion group, about 12% of them got divorced within five years. If the woman got a promotion, 25% would get divorced within that 5 years. If the man got a promotion only 9% got divorced.

The point I was trying to make is that the women’s empowerment movement is directly incentivizing the breakdown of marriages by making women compete with men. The best scenario for marriages to stay together is for women to be deincentivized from having careers at all. Ideally staying at home, if not, limiting her work to a part time job if the family cannot get by otherwise.

The picture you are painting of reality simply isn’t true. Women who go for the traits you described are thrill seeker women. They are notoriously flighty. WilliamSmith has tried to say that alpha male types don’t ever get cheated on but that is not true whatsoever. From what I’ve seen those guys get cheated on the most because they do stuff like y’all are doing and say that women being independent or competitive in her career is cool. Well independent women do not value faithfulness, they value freedom. And to them, freedom means being able to sleep with whoever she wants or do anything she wants. Your lifestyle draws those kind of girls to you because that’s what you, yourselves value.

Women like you describe do not exist. Women don’t fall in love with men for no reason other then liking your personality. You have to give them something that fuels that love. It’s either an attraction to your wildness or it’s an attraction to your stability and reliability. Basically your ability to be her caretaker. Women who are attracted to stability and reliability care about money, women who enjoy wildness and variety care about physique and primal masculinity. If a girl doesn’t care about either one, she’s usually not very physically attractive and has low standards because of that. I can’t think of a traditional woman who wouldn’t care about how much money I make. Plenty wouldn’t mind being with a guy who isn’t rich. But I can’t imagine any of them going for a guy who’s unemployed or makes hardly anything. Primal masculinity has traditionally been the tool that guys use to make up for their lack of intelligence or work ethic that would make them capable providers. Traditional women want a provider and the better provider a man is the more beautiful of a woman he’ll get. I’m sorry but I’ve seen the kind of girls y’all post and are interested in and, putting it as politely as I can… They would be invisible to me.

@Shemp summed it up better then I possibly could though. You guys seem to believe that it’s men’s role to be the sex object in a relationship.

[Outcast9428]

Asian men aren't only valued for their money, but it's hard to find a truly handsome or rugged Asian man. That Toshiro Mifune samurai type that could be dirt poor and still slay p***y like a demon, it's a rare breed especially nowadays with all the effeminate game-addicts out there:





To say they don't make Asian men like they used to is an understatement, for sure. It's a far cry from the Mifune's of yore to the @Winston-esque creatures of today. But to look masculine, and be masculine, one needs discipline, hard work, its a lifestyle. If you don't have that grit, money is your next best bet. Better yet, though, a man ought to have both a steady income flow as well as be masculine. You can't really be a wilting little flower and pull a lot of women.

I wholly agree with your comment. Just because social pressures in Asian societies have strongly encouraged the beta provider type of masculinity doesn't mean that what @WilliamSmith and I refer to as primal masculinity doesn't work there. From what William has explained in other threats, it seems that primal masculinity works extremely well in Asia too since women are widely turned on by it regardless of culture, and maybe even better in Asia since it is now so lacking in countries like modern Japan. The few Asian men who still do embrace their own primal masculinity can indeed attract their own women easily. As can foreign men who go to Japan with their own primal masculinity.

From a man's perspective it is better to go against the beta provider masculinity social programming and then connect with and develop our primal masculinity in order to become optimally attractive to the opposite sex. That indeed does require sustained effort and discipline (guys have to turn off the PlayStation and hit the gym among other things). Having a steady income flow is just a matter of necessity and common sense. It's still good to have decent sources of income even if it's just to make your own life better. It just doesn't have to be your greatest asset when you have other things going on for you too.

What you mentioned about Japan isn’t correct. I know this because I’ve read about the correlates of virginity in Japan. The guys in Japan who are in the top 25% of income have a 1% chance of being virgins by the time they are 30. For men in the middle 50%, it’s 2%. For men in the bottom 25% on the other hand, it is 80%. Nearly all of Japan’s virgins come from that specific income group. It’s not like it is in the US where virgins can pretty much be from any economic tier. In Japan, it’s specifically the guys who can’t provide for a woman who can’t get laid.

Personally I want universal marriage though. If women didn’t have economic independence then the low tier women would mostly marry the low tier men. But with female independence, women can choose not to be with anyone if they don’t satisfy their standards.

I have read of PUA artists who went to Japan and other Asian countries and struggled, saying Asian women don’t know how to flirt and get scared when men approach them. Winston himself described Taiwan as being like that. This is almost universal in Asia. Aggressive approaches do not work there except on women considered bottom tier by the locals. I even read a guy shouting online about Asian women “hating alpha males.”

Why do Asian women in the US not choose to date primally masculine men in the US despite the US being full of guys like that? Why are nearly all of them in relationships with nerds or boy next door types? Why are Kpop guys so popular in Asia when they have no primal masculinity at all?

[WanderingProtagonist]

The girls you go for are not going to be more loyal or faithful. Primal masculinity is attractive, more so then to any other kind of girl, to flighty, novelty seeking women who crave what's "exciting" more then anything. No matter how well you think you are doing, with these type of women, the clock is always ticking because they are easily bored and will eventually move on to something new. To those girls, you may have been the most delicious pizza on Earth when they first met you but eventually eating you every day made them get tired of you. I don't think you would even deny that the girls, at least that WilliamSmith is with, are not traditional, stay with one man your whole life type girls. The kind of girls who sleep with a guy who makes no money but has primal attraction are the type of girls who will bang another guy as soon as somebody who can provide her more thrills comes along. My strategy may attract girls with gold digger tendencies. Not blatant gold diggers, but a girl who has some gold digger tendencies, yeah my strategy probably attracts those types... But hey, girls like that will show loyalty, stick around for you, and pretty much do whatever you want them to do if you give them what they want. The girls y'all are talking about? hell no, those girls are the least loyal girls on Earth. Y'all's women put our "gold diggers" to shame.

Mmmm, I don't think that the dichotomy which you've thought up accurately represents reality. Your argument is based on the assumption that women attracted to money and professional status (or with gold-digger tendencies) are naturally going to be more monogamous while women attracted to primal masculinity, physique, charm and charisma are naturally going to be more promiscuous and thrill-seeking, but I don't think that this is even true. By "primal masculinity" I'm not necessarily referring to thuglike behavior from the ghetto lifestyle. It would be a mistake to assume that. Primal masculinity may include more constructive manifestations of raw physically masculine behavior such as peak physical fitness, weightlifting, combat sports training, and more importantly, a dominant alpha male mentality (though not necessarily abusive). Developing a great body through weight training and exercise, which I consider a core component of primal masculinity, is extremely attractive to most women. It's an optimal way to get them wet quickly and wanting to sleep with you. Then things like charm and charisma come into play. Women love a guy who can hold their interest in a conversation and who are enjoyable to be around (i.e., having wit, stimulating conversation, social intelligence, a polished communication style, etc.). It's not just promiscuous and thrill-seeking women who want a man like this. Plenty of naturally monogamous women do too because such a man undeniably has a lot of qualities that make him attractive to many women and so to them he is often a keeper. Plenty of naturally monogamous women need more sources of attraction than just money and professional status in order to form a meaningful relationship with a man or at least certainly desire them.

I can understand those women too. If I try to put myself in their shoes for a second, I can completely understand why they don't like professionally successful yet otherwise unattractive betas. Sure, those guys have money if they've been sensible with their earnings and have relatively higher status in the corporate/business world, but many of them don't have very attractive physiques (no muscle mass or definition, not even basic physical fitness in some cases, often pudgy or skinny-fat physiques, little physical masculinity) and are uncharismatic bores if not total charisma vacuums. I'm not trying to hate on those guys, but I can see why few women are ever turned on by them at a deeper sexual level and why they are no fun to be around, even if they do flaunt their cash and professional status. I can totally see why a woman like my aunt for example would rather choose as her long-term romantic partner a guy who displays a highly masculine demeanor, has a sexy fit body that uncontrollably turns her on at the level of her primal female psyche, peak physical fitness, and an abundance of magnetic charm and knowing how to show a lady a good time, as opposed to a physically unfit, unsexy, uncharismatic beta who just has a bit of money.

With regard to the career woman who left her man as soon as she started making more money than him, it just seems like traditionalists making excuses for that woman's shitty behavior if you ask me. I really can't understand why a traditionalist who values love and family above everything else would ever want to be with a woman like that. For me that would be a major red flag. I mean, for a traditionalist, surely it would be better to marry a more simple girl with a high level of nobility, soulfulness, spiritual values and romanticism and a low level of materialism. The woman who left her man after her promotion at work is just a materialistic modern woman. Her actions make it clear that she has no concept of loyalty. She'd be better off with an equally materialistic, money-obsessed modern man than with any traditionalist husband.

The topic of men refusing to be with a woman who earns more than they do out of fear of losing face despite her already being attracted to them is equally absurd in my opinion. Why would I see it as a negative if my woman started making a whole lot more money? Surely it would be a good thing, right? Like if my girlfriend's YouTube channel just blew up to viral levels and she started making or ton of ad revenue. Or if her online business suddenly started to prosper like crazy. I wouldn't feel threatened at all. I certainly wouldn't feel inadequate. I know that I have qualities that make me attractive outside of money and professional status. I also would never be with a woman who was materialistic and money-obsessed (not even if she had awesome titties). Men with primally masculine virtues and charisma such as my uncle and even myself to an extent can handle being with a woman with more money than ourselves. It seems to be mostly the beta bux guys with their fragile egos who can't.

I’m not saying she should have left him or making excuses for her. I’m saying that’s indicative of how much, making more money then your wife matters. It wasn’t an individual case either. The study involved hundreds of participants and looked at their marriages over 5 years. With the no promotion group, about 12% of them got divorced within five years. If the woman got a promotion, 25% would get divorced within that 5 years. If the man got a promotion only 9% got divorced.

The point I was trying to make is that the women’s empowerment movement is directly incentivizing the breakdown of marriages by making women compete with men. The best scenario for marriages to stay together is for women to be deincentivized from having careers at all. Ideally staying at home, if not, limiting her work to a part time job if the family cannot get by otherwise.

The picture you are painting of reality simply isn’t true. Women who go for the traits you described are thrill seeker women. They are notoriously flighty. WilliamSmith has tried to say that alpha male types don’t ever get cheated on but that is not true whatsoever. From what I’ve seen those guys get cheated on the most because they do stuff like y’all are doing and say that women being independent or competitive in her career is cool. Well independent women do not value faithfulness, they value freedom. And to them, freedom means being able to sleep with whoever she wants or do anything she wants. Your lifestyle draws those kind of girls to you because that’s what you, yourselves value.

Women like you describe do not exist. Women don’t fall in love with men for no reason other then liking your personality. You have to give them something that fuels that love. It’s either an attraction to your wildness or it’s an attraction to your stability and reliability. Basically your ability to be her caretaker. Women who are attracted to stability and reliability care about money, women who enjoy wildness and variety care about physique and primal masculinity. If a girl doesn’t care about either one, she’s usually not very physically attractive and has low standards because of that. I can’t think of a traditional woman who wouldn’t care about how much money I make. Plenty wouldn’t mind being with a guy who isn’t rich. But I can’t imagine any of them going for a guy who’s unemployed or makes hardly anything. Primal masculinity has traditionally been the tool that guys use to make up for their lack of intelligence or work ethic that would make them capable providers. Traditional women want a provider and the better provider a man is the more beautiful of a woman he’ll get. I’m sorry but I’ve seen the kind of girls y’all post and are interested in and, putting it as politely as I can… They would be invisible to me.

@Shemp summed it up better then I possibly could though. You guys seem to believe that it’s men’s role to be the sex object in a relationship.

I have to disagree with @Lucas88 about the men fearing women that earn more than them thing. It's not even about that, you have to look at how women with more money think, and how they behave. Clearly there are far more women with money who would look down on a man that earn less than she does vs women that wouldn't even do that. You have to look at how bad it is in China with the women that make more than the men. A lot of Chinese women overlook men who aren't on their level of success. So you got all these single lonely men in China that are being overlooked by judgemental twats that refuse to be seen with a man that has little to nothing in comparison to herself. This is why some of these men don't want career women, or women to earn a lot. They have every right to feel the way they do about high earning females. So I can relate. That's why I would never go for wealthy women unless they could prove they aren't a financially well off asshole thinking they're above me because of their wealth.

To be fair women with money rarely even date men who are poor, this is why they always shackle up with someone they feel is their equal. In other words someone who also has wealth. That's like trying to get a female MMA type to date a regular small guy that find tough women sexy but isn't tough himself. They just would never do it. Plus I've seen plenty of muscular men act and behave like feminist and betas on twitter to know muscle mass doesn't equate to male dominance when some of these guys are running around sucking up to feminist and supporting them right alongside of the queer men with no mass at all.

Dwayne the Rock Johnson is one of them, including Triple H who married a feminist and has three daughters that he spoils and treats like princesses. Both of those men still look like Greek Gods at their age. But at the same time they tend to still support women that want to take charge and dominate society. I'm not sure but I think Dwayne even supported Hilary Clinton at some point. I know Arnold supported Galvin Newsom, and even said "it was good Californians chose to keep him."

But back on this female with wealth thing. I for one would never be interested in women with a lot of money simply because by default they're all the same anyway in how they think. This is why there are no true to life stories about Queens marrying a Pauper, they only seek Royal cock to build a legacy with. I'm also too sick to even work to be honest, and because of my learning disabilities I've always had no choice but to take low skill work. The thing about me is that, I just don't feel like entertaining women to keep them happy or from becoming bored of me. It sounds quite tiresome. I mean how would they feel if I had this attitude where it's like "keep me entertained or I will replace you if you can't."

What I have come to realize in America is that women shit on broke men all the damn time, even if she's not all that well off herself. Honestly if I ever did work out and get into all that fitness stuff I wouldn't do it for women. Maybe that's why it's easier for me to just make sacrifices than most other men. I have reasonable standards. I can settle for a Wynoda Ryder type and be happy, and I'm talking about looks wise.

For years pornography has painted the picture that having a masculine body will make you more desirable, Hollywood has done the same thing with action films using guys like Stallone, Arnold, Jason S, The Rock, etc. There was an interview I watched once where they were asking women what type of men they liked based on physique, and some of them said they weren't interested in men with muscle at all and some even strongly said they preferred chubby men because they loved the teddy bear appeal to them. This interview was done in Asia. I don't remember if it was Japan, Korea, or some other country but I do remember a lot of the women mostly choosing men that weren't muscular at all. Some even said men like that were too intimidating to them even if they weren't.

[Lucas88]

I’m not saying she should have left him or making excuses for her. I’m saying that’s indicative of how much, making more money then your wife matters. It wasn’t an individual case either. The study involved hundreds of participants and looked at their marriages over 5 years. With the no promotion group, about 12% of them got divorced within five years. If the woman got a promotion, 25% would get divorced within that 5 years. If the man got a promotion only 9% got divorced.

I'm not denying that there is a subset of women who do require that their husband make more money than they do and have gold-digger tendencies. We already know that's the case, especially in extremely materialistic societies such as the US and East Asia. The study which you cited - assuming that the figures are an accurate representation of reality - simply gives us an idea of the extent. A subset of women like that certainly do exist, but not all women are like that and probably not even the majority, even if the RedPill and MGTOW crowds wish to vehemently assert the contrary. There are still droves of women who value masculine qualities other than money and professional status and require those things in order to be truly attracted to a man and form a meaningful romantic relationship. Despite the strong materialistic tendencies of Anglo and East Asian societies, not all people are one-dimensional homines oeconomici who only care about careers and acquisitive power. From what I've seen there are still plenty of normal people who have other values and interests and only see money as a means for economic survival. There are different types of women each with different priorities.

My argument was never that those women don't exist. My argument was that they're the wrong type of woman for any man who's not materialistic and money-obsessed himself and that it makes little sense for a traditionalist man of all people to want to be with a woman like that.

The picture you are painting of reality simply isn’t true. Women who go for the traits you described are thrill seeker women. They are notoriously flighty. WilliamSmith has tried to say that alpha male types don’t ever get cheated on but that is not true whatsoever. From what I’ve seen those guys get cheated on the most because they do stuff like y’all are doing and say that women being independent or competitive in her career is cool. Well independent women do not value faithfulness, they value freedom. And to them, freedom means being able to sleep with whoever she wants or do anything she wants. Your lifestyle draws those kind of girls to you because that’s what you, yourselves value.

Why is it not true? Why do you assume that women who go for masculinity, a sexy male body and charm/charisma are necessarily thrill-seekers? Does this assertion really reflect reality or is it simply a misleading prejudice of the RedPill/tradcon crowd?

While lovers of full-on "bad boys" (i.e., thugs and criminals - i.e., defective alphas) and other hybristophilic women are usually flighty thrill-seekers and are often just plain fcuked in the head, there are still normal women who seek a masculine guy with a good body, sex appeal, charm and charisma yet at the same time a respectable gentlemanliness and who would prioritize these traits over earnings and professional status. And yes, some of those women are monogamous and in search of a monogamous relationship. Like I said before, not all people are materialists hyperfocused on money, even if modern industrial society tries to promote that vision of life. I am under the impression that the RedPill crowd is only capable of focusing on the messed-up and sociopathic aspects of society. For some reason they seem blind to any decent and normal people/relationships that still remain. Plenty of normal women respond positively to physique/sex appeal and charm/charisma too. It's not just the female sociopaths/wrong-uns/thrill-seekers, and I certainly don't think that my uncle's marriage is such an unusual case.

Anecdotally, both of my Latina long-term girlfriends were extremely monogamous women (the first being deeply religious and conservative as well as intellectual and professional, and the second being a very pure and noble soul with strong spiritual instincts) and they were incredibly attracted to my primally masculine qualities which I consciously began to develop since the early 2010s. Even most conservative women are turned on by primal masculinity accompanied by gentlemanliness. Men with those traits can offer powerful sources of attraction that the one-dimensional beta bux guys can't!

Women like you describe do not exist. Women don’t fall in love with men for no reason other then liking your personality. You have to give them something that fuels that love. It’s either an attraction to your wildness or it’s an attraction to your stability and reliability. Basically your ability to be her caretaker. Women who are attracted to stability and reliability care about money, women who enjoy wildness and variety care about physique and primal masculinity. If a girl doesn’t care about either one, she’s usually not very physically attractive and has low standards because of that. I can’t think of a traditional woman who wouldn’t care about how much money I make. Plenty wouldn’t mind being with a guy who isn’t rich. But I can’t imagine any of them going for a guy who’s unemployed or makes hardly anything. Primal masculinity has traditionally been the tool that guys use to make up for their lack of intelligence or work ethic that would make them capable providers. Traditional women want a provider and the better provider a man is the more beautiful of a woman he’ll get. I’m sorry but I’ve seen the kind of girls y’all post and are interested in and, putting it as politely as I can… They would be invisible to me.

I've never said that women will like men for nothing or simply for our personality. I've consistently argued ever since we all started discussing the topic of attraction on this forum that men must develop certain masculine traits that attract women. Attraction is won through virtues.

Again, I'm not convinced that your dichotomy between stability and wildness is necessarily representative of reality. It strikes me more as a black-and-white preconception of a subset of ideological tradcons about how they think society/people are supposed to be rather than something based purely on objective observation. Plenty of primally masculine and physically cultivated men are stable and reliable. Not all of them are volatile thugs and delinquents with a ghetto mentality. Plenty of athletes for example are perfectly reliable men and some are even in monogamous relationships. Not all primally masculine men are unintelligent either. Oftentimes they have high IQ. And some of them even make decent amounts of money too. Plenty of them behave in a perfectly respectable manner.

In my estimation, primal masculinity is the single most effective way to attract women. Other virtues are certainly not mutually exclusive with it either. I think this is why the subject of primal masculinity as the single most effective source of attraction riles up so many guys. The betas can bust their asses working some high-paid job yet at the same time primally masculine men are still more attractive to most women than they are. It's so much of a bummer to the betas that whole communities of men don't stop talking about it in the Manosphere. Since such betas are often bitter to some degree, they seem to like to propagate the idea that all alphas/primally masculine men are dysfunctional thuggish brutes. Many are not. The betas just want to generalize the behaviors of the defective jerks to the rest. That's because many of them are frustrated and envious.

But things aren't set in stone. A man can develop and cultivate his repressed primal masculinity and adopt a different sexual strategy than that of the beta. This is the sexual strategy which WilliamSmith and I advocate to men who struggle with women. Our message is one of hope!

I’m sorry but I’ve seen the kind of girls y’all post and are interested in and, putting it as politely as I can… They would be invisible to me.

You're referring to the big butt girls, right? Why would you assume anything about a woman's moral disposition or level of wifeliness just because she's got a big butt?

I can't speak for WilliamSmith, but for me the more hoeish-looking photos are just fap material (chosen only for the size and shape of their booty). They're usually not representative of the kind of girls who I prefer to date in real life. My two real-life girlfriends were both conservative women. I have no interest in dating tatted-up girls with a ghetto mentality. I prefer a pure and somewhat innocent aesthetic, often more on the average side than like a supermodel. My only special preference other than her being a Latina is that she has a big thick ass.

[WanderingProtagonist]

To a degree its not untrue to suggest that a man is essentially a sex object to certain modern women. In my wilder days there have been times when I felt I was little more than a walking dildo to some girls. Likewise, some men are seen only as walking wallets. This is not ideal but it ultimately is, what it is.

Sex appeal, height, fitness, penis size, facial aesthetics, stamina, performance all come into play especially when hookups are involved.

And me being desired for any of those things above my character and who I am as a person would be rather disappointing. But I suppose that's just me and how I feel about this.

[Lucas88]

What you mentioned about Japan isn’t correct. I know this because I’ve read about the correlates of virginity in Japan. The guys in Japan who are in the top 25% of income have a 1% chance of being virgins by the time they are 30. For men in the middle 50%, it’s 2%. For men in the bottom 25% on the other hand, it is 80%. Nearly all of Japan’s virgins come from that specific income group. It’s not like it is in the US where virgins can pretty much be from any economic tier. In Japan, it’s specifically the guys who can’t provide for a woman who can’t get laid.

Japan is a place where people generally marry for social status and economic reasons. The romantic ideal of a union based on love that we have in the West is much less ingrained in the Japanese psyche. Marrying for social status and wealth is the norm in Japan but that doesn't mean that those are happy marriages. Indeed much has been discussed about Japan's pitiable sexless marriages. Many women in Japan might marry high-income betas due to social expectations (Japan is an extremely conformist society) but that doesn't always imply that they are truly sexually attracted to their husband. Japan is a society with a dark underbelly. A lot of cheating goes on behind closed doors. It's just that the Japanese are far more discrete about it than Westerners. Who are the women cheating with? I would assume that they are cheating with guys who they find more attractive than their beta husbands. Maybe guys who are more masculine, sexually desirable and exciting. There are indeed some pretty masculine dudes in Japan even if most Japanese guys are painfully beta (no disrespect to them but, when I was there, I was astonished by how beta and unmanly so many of the men were). I'm guessing that the masculine ones get laid quite easily.

Japan as a society aggressively promotes a form of beta provider masculinity similar to what you seem to promote but I think that Japan would only disappoint you if you were to live there. It doesn't represent the kind of conservatism/traditionalism that you cherish. Japan does enforce strict behavioral patterns on a societal level as you advocate as a method for your traditionalist ideal but it mostly directs people's energies almost exclusively towards relentless industry and consumption even to the detriment of everything else. Japan is a hypercapitalistic industrial dystopia.

I have read of PUA artists who went to Japan and other Asian countries and struggled, saying Asian women don’t know how to flirt and get scared when men approach them. Winston himself described Taiwan as being like that. This is almost universal in Asia. Aggressive approaches do not work there except on women considered bottom tier by the locals. I even read a guy shouting online about Asian women “hating alpha males.”

Many Japanese women don't know how to flirt. They are often shy and socially awkward because the culture doesn't promote self-expression and many people are therefore somewhat inhibited. I noticed this after a while. Also, Japanese social interaction is generally not as aggressive as its Western counterpart. Western PUAs who don't adapt to the Japanese style of communication won't do too well due to too many cultural misunderstandings. I'd also say that knowledge of Japanese is a must in most parts of Japan. But just because Japanese social interaction isn't generally aggressive doesn't mean that Japanese women are not attracted to masculine men. Western guys who do make an effort to adapt to the culture seem to do okay with the ladies. But learning the cultural differences requires time and effort.

Why do Asian women in the US not choose to date primally masculine men in the US despite the US being full of guys like that? Why are nearly all of them in relationships with nerds or boy next door types? Why are Kpop guys so popular in Asia when they have no primal masculinity at all?

Are US-born Asian women really nearly all in relationships with nerds or do nerdy men just notice Asian girl - White nerd relationships more due to their own identification with the concept? I doubt that it's nearly all nerds. I'm sure that there are also quite a few Asian girls with normal or masculine guys even if they are as a group more willing to date nerdy guys.

I have a question for you. How desirable are Asian females as regarded by White males in the US (in general terms)? How common is preference for Asian females?

My impression is that in Western countries Asian females are somewhat of a niche preference. Most White guys seem to prefer White women or sometimes Latinas. If my observation is correct, then Asian women wouldn't occupy the highest rung of desirability in the US collective consciousness (they'd probably occupy the third rung) and therefore a significant number of them might see the nerdy White guys as a more realistic option than the more typically masculine American guys, especially if they are Caucasophiles themselves and see even a nerdy White guy as preferable to an Asian guy. Just a hypothesis of mine.

The K-pop guys are popular because they are being promoted as "cool" by the media. It's just a recent fad.

[Outcast9428]

@Lucas88 Given that these are two posts, I apologize in advance if I forget to respond to a certain point.

I do not try to claim that all women in any certain society are one way. I make generalizations frequently because I see that certain groups of people, different races, and different countries are much more likely to behave a certain way then other people are.

I think its worth keeping in mind what kind of image you provoke in a person's mind when you say "primal masculinity." Let's say you are talking about a man like Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones. I don't think of him as "primal masculinity." To me, he's just masculine. When you use the term "primal masculinity," my thoughts go to any type of guy who is highly aggressive, crude, ape-like in his mentality, and wants to sleep with dozens or hundreds of girls. Call it "macho," or whatever. There's definitely an interpretation of how to be masculine out there that's harmful. Let's go back to the Indiana Jones type character. As long as he's monogamous, he's cool with me. No problem with him. But you seem to go back and forth. Sometimes it sounds like you talking about a gentlemanly type of masculinity, like Indiana Jones... And other times, it sounds like you're talking about frat boy or hood nigga behavior.

I'm not saying a girl having a big butt makes her morally inferior. I'm just saying I'm not attracted to them. And girls with large butts do tend to be involved with frat boy and hood nigga types more often. Although that could be because those types of guys tend to like them more often. Either way, there's definitely more of a compatibility there.

I'm not as unrealistic about Japan as you think I am. Japan has, for quite awhile, been a traditional nation that's kind of failing at its own objective if that makes any sense. Not when it comes to the sexual issues. Japan is still very conservative on moral issues. But yes, Japanese society is definitely too focused on work. I think calling it a dystopia is too harsh. I would probably like it better then where I am. But its not my ideal society. I think it has all the foundations for my ideal society but it isn't there as of right now. That's why I talk about Thailand and the Philippines more. They are closer to my ideal society.

I don't know what you would categorize this as. I don't know if you consider it masculine, beta, alpha, or what. But my image of how men should act, in many ways, is basically behaving like a Shakespeare character . I think part of the reason some girls like the more sensitive kind of Latino men is because sensitive Latino men do act that way. Italian and French guys have a bit of a reputation for that too. A lot of Filipino and Thai guys seem to act that way towards girls too.

The Japanese guys would probably never have to worry about a sexless marriage again if they approached romantic relationships like Shakespeare characters do. If they acted like the male lead from "Crazy Rich Asians" they'd be fine. In my experience, Asian girls, more so then any other girls except maybe Latina girls from actual Latin American countries (not US latinas) seem to really love displays of romanticism that would be regarded as embarrassing by most modern, Western women. When Asian girls idolize the West, I notice they always seem attracted to or love the really old Western values. Their image of "Western men" is more like how men behaved in the 1800s then how Western men behave today. They seem particularly fascinated with the Victorian England aesthetic. If a guy in America acted like a guy from the 1800s, he'd be considered a dork but Asian girls really eat that up. I think the Japanese women just want their men to be more expressive about their affection. If a man in Japan is expressive with his affection, morally virtuous, and has money, he's set. His girl will never leave him.

I've never met an Asian girl who wasn't dating a nerdy or boy next door type guy. Even one Asian girl I knew back in college who was aggressively Westernized (her favorite music genres were Rap and EDM) was still attracted almost exclusively to nerdy guys. I had an Asian therapist back in college, also dating an anime nerd. My ex obviously dated me and several other guys in her past who were like me. I had a really strong friendship for a little while with another Asian girl who was also dating a nerdy guy. My brother's longest relationship was with an Asian girl. I met a Korean couple that my grandparents knew, same type of pairing. In college, an actual Japanese girl actually asked for my phone number and even asked me out on a date. Whenever I see Asian girls walking with a guy, he always seems to be the same type of guy.

One thing I do think separates White nerds from Asian nerds, is that White nerds do, as I mentioned, actually do tend to act like Shakespeare characters in relationships . We are usually too over the top with our affection and romantic displays for White girls and they see us as needy, beta, or annoying because of that. Most of the time Japanese girls date White guys, they date a guy who is constantly complimenting her, saying romantic things, touching her and playing with her hair... Stuff like that. Most White guys in America don't act this way, but White nerds specifically really do act like the overly romantic and expressive Romeos that Japanese girls tend to like.

I also find that Asian girls are much much more tolerant of you being shy and reserved early in the relationship. But they do want the more expressive, affectionate side to come out at some point.

[WanderingProtagonist]

@Lucas88 Given that these are two posts, I apologize in advance if I forget to respond to a certain point.

I do not try to claim that all women in any certain society are one way. I make generalizations frequently because I see that certain groups of people, different races, and different countries are much more likely to behave a certain way then other people are.

I think its worth keeping in mind what kind of image you provoke in a person's mind when you say "primal masculinity." Let's say you are talking about a man like Harrison Ford's portrayal of Indiana Jones. I don't think of him as "primal masculinity." To me, he's just masculine. When you use the term "primal masculinity," my thoughts go to any type of guy who is highly aggressive, crude, ape-like in his mentality, and wants to sleep with dozens or hundreds of girls. Call it "macho," or whatever. There's definitely an interpretation of how to be masculine out there that's harmful. Let's go back to the Indiana Jones type character. As long as he's monogamous, he's cool with me. No problem with him. But you seem to go back and forth. Sometimes it sounds like you talking about a gentlemanly type of masculinity, like Indiana Jones... And other times, it sounds like you're talking about frat boy or hood nigga behavior.

I'm not saying a girl having a big butt makes her morally inferior. I'm just saying I'm not attracted to them. And girls with large butts do tend to be involved with frat boy and hood nigga types more often. Although that could be because those types of guys tend to like them more often. Either way, there's definitely more of a compatibility there.

I'm not as unrealistic about Japan as you think I am. Japan has, for quite awhile, been a traditional nation that's kind of failing at its own objective if that makes any sense. Not when it comes to the sexual issues. Japan is still very conservative on moral issues. But yes, Japanese society is definitely too focused on work. I think calling it a dystopia is too harsh. I would probably like it better then where I am. But its not my ideal society. I think it has all the foundations for my ideal society but it isn't there as of right now. That's why I talk about Thailand and the Philippines more. They are closer to my ideal society.

I don't know what you would categorize this as. I don't know if you consider it masculine, beta, alpha, or what. But my image of how men should act, in many ways, is basically behaving like a Shakespeare character . I think part of the reason some girls like the more sensitive kind of Latino men is because sensitive Latino men do act that way. Italian and French guys have a bit of a reputation for that too. A lot of Filipino and Thai guys seem to act that way towards girls too.

The Japanese guys would probably never have to worry about a sexless marriage again if they approached romantic relationships like Shakespeare characters do. If they acted like the male lead from "Crazy Rich Asians" they'd be fine. In my experience, Asian girls, more so then any other girls except maybe Latina girls from actual Latin American countries (not US latinas) seem to really love displays of romanticism that would be regarded as embarrassing by most modern, Western women. When Asian girls idolize the West, I notice they always seem attracted to or love the really old Western values. Their image of "Western men" is more like how men behaved in the 1800s then how Western men behave today. They seem particularly fascinated with the Victorian England aesthetic. If a guy in America acted like a guy from the 1800s, he'd be considered a dork but Asian girls really eat that up. I think the Japanese women just want their men to be more expressive about their affection. If a man in Japan is expressive with his affection, morally virtuous, and has money, he's set. His girl will never leave him.

I've never met an Asian girl who wasn't dating a nerdy or boy next door type guy. Even one Asian girl I knew back in college who was aggressively Westernized (her favorite music genres were Rap and EDM) was still attracted almost exclusively to nerdy guys. I had an Asian therapist back in college, also dating an anime nerd. My ex obviously dated me and several other guys in her past who were like me. I had a really strong friendship for a little while with another Asian girl who was also dating a nerdy guy. My brother's longest relationship was with an Asian girl. I met a Korean couple that my grandparents knew, same type of pairing. In college, an actual Japanese girl actually asked for my phone number and even asked me out on a date. Whenever I see Asian girls walking with a guy, he always seems to be the same type of guy.

One thing I do think separates White nerds from Asian nerds, is that White nerds do, as I mentioned, actually do tend to act like Shakespeare characters in relationships . We are usually too over the top with our affection and romantic displays for White girls and they see us as needy, beta, or annoying because of that. Most of the time Japanese girls date White guys, they date a guy who is constantly complimenting her, saying romantic things, touching her and playing with her hair... Stuff like that. Most White guys in America don't act this way, but White nerds specifically really do act like the overly romantic and expressive Romeos that Japanese girls tend to like.

I also find that Asian girls are much much more tolerant of you being shy and reserved early in the relationship. But they do want the more expressive, affectionate side to come out at some point.

Japanese guys are done for, they're too busy getting off to self defeat pornography these days right up there with the self hating white boys of the West that introduced them to it. And they don't even try to improve themselves, they just look for more and more shitty ways to defeat themselves. Plus it's only the young girls that are drawn to all that victorian like stuff. I doubt older Japanese women are into that. Ever since all the Kawaii little girl stuff took over that country it really crippled them. Fast forward to 2020 now you got Japanese guys over on Pixiv creating artistic porn involving Japanese women with Queen of Spade symbolism all over them. It won't be long before all the goofy ass white men in Japan start doing the same shit the whites in America is doing. "Hey baby, can I watch you f**k a black man because he's muscular and superior than I am? And will you get a QOS on your ass for me too like all the white girl are doing nowadays in my shit country?" I can definitely see shit like that happening if they keep importing them weak ass white boys over there who are influencing the Japanese men in a very bad way. Them fools are just as bad as white feminist women that like to go abroad and teach feminism to women. White men do the complete opposite and teach other men how to be cuckolds and train them in the arts of self defeat and failure. If they want to avoid that they'll stop letting those nerdy white men live there in large numbers. I mean how else did Japanese men know about the QOS cult? Weak white males.