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

[WanderingProtagonist]

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

You are thinking like a man… You think the man being the breadwinner is simply a matter of practical application. It is not. It is tied to deeply biological instincts in women. Lots of guys who don’t understand women’s nature intentionally go for girls they see as self-sufficient, thinking she won’t need him to make money if she’s got plenty of her own. Big mistake, if your woman earns $75,000 you better earn $100,000 or your chance of divorce goes way up.

There are studies showing that if a woman gets promoted at her job, that her chances of divorcing her husband in the next five years are doubled. Basically the simple act of earning more money makes her twice as likely to want a divorce. If the man gets a promotion on the other hand he is slightly less likely to get divorced. This is why I despise the “womens empowerment” movement. If you have a man and a woman competing for the same job it should always be given to the man because there’s no practical benefit to financially empowering women unless you like splitting up families. Explain how a woman getting a promotion would make her lose attraction to her husband using man logic. Of course homosexual men are not like this because they are wired differently from women.

The truth is, a woman who earns nothing at all sees you as the most attractive because you are her caretaker. It’s not about how many $$$$ you have it’s about you fulfilling your role as her caretaker which in the modern era means making the bread. You don’t have to be rich but it is very helpful to earn enough money to provide a middle class lifestyle on your income alone.

If I went to Japan, the Philippines or Thailand, plenty of girls would be happy not to work. Even in Japan only 38% of women actually say they want to work. The reason there aren’t more housewives in Japan is because the government is pushing them into the workforce and because a lot of the men there can’t afford to let his wife stay at home. The same applies to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines but lots of women there who are married to wealthier men are stay at home moms. The ones who aren’t are usually too poor to be stay at home moms… It’s not because they oppose the idea. Women like that in Asian countries are a minority except in Korea.

The dependency of the arrangement makes your relationship stronger. When you have both the morals and competence to be a girl’s caretaker that is what makes her fall in love with you. If your wife is not dependent on you, the bond simply isn’t as powerful. Unfortunately so many White women have been so brainwashed by feminism they think this is oppression now but with Latina, Black Arab or Asian girls it is still something that makes a man very desirable to them.

Then why don't those Asian women abandon Asia? They obviously want to work other wise they would move to a country where they are less likely pushed into being in the work force. Women everywhere have careers, @WilliamSmith would know something on this matter. We live in a world where men cannot force women not to work. Try that and you will be called an oppressor. When Islamic women move here to the U.S. what is the first thing they do? They don't become stay at home mothers, they go straight to school and get careers. I know it because I see a lot of them in the medical field even holding positions as doctors. It's nonsense to make this claim that women want to be stay at home just because of some , they don't. You also seem to believe that all women will have a man to support them. They do not. Nor do every woman even want let alone desire this either. The empowerment movement isn't that strong to convince women globally to get careers, women have the ability to object to it. But there are women in the world that view the whole stay at home shit boring.

And you cannot force every woman to be okay with accepting this because they would spit in your face if you did. Take my cousin for instance, my oldest. She never studied feminism a day in her life, yet she still always wanted to be a nurse. So that's what she became. Besides I'm never getting married anyway, I honestly hate the shit heterosexuals have to deal with just to keep a woman. It's garbage. I hate sounding like a gay ass liberal on this one but if I had a choice? I'd rather just be gay than to put up with all this nonsense about me having to earn more money than a woman. Life to me isn't about money, you'll die someday and when you do you won't be able to take any of that shit with you to the next life if there is a next life. All I know is there are a lot of unhappy heterosexual men in this world, people say the same thing about women. But I don't believe this.

Japan doesn’t put anymore pressure on women to work then the US and Europe does. They’re just catching up to us now. Traditionally half of women with children were stay at home moms and 35% of all women overall were. As far as traditionalism goes it’s either Asia or the Middle East. Nowhere else is it normal for women to not have careers.

Although Hungary and Poland might change that . Viktor Orban is pretty much doing exactly what you said, he is openly attacking the women’s independence movement. His government recently said that the education system needed to be redesigned so that they wouldn’t get so many women going to college .

Well I believe it, but the United States is a very large country compared to most other countries. Even Chinese women hold careers and the Chinese are suppose to be anti all that the U.S. stand for, yet they have so many Chinese women that are highly educated and wealthy. In fact Chinese women have more wealth than Japanese women do. And probably twice that of Korean women. I don't see the Chinese gov trying to prevent women from going to school and maintaining careers.

[Outcast9428]

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

You are thinking like a man… You think the man being the breadwinner is simply a matter of practical application. It is not. It is tied to deeply biological instincts in women. Lots of guys who don’t understand women’s nature intentionally go for girls they see as self-sufficient, thinking she won’t need him to make money if she’s got plenty of her own. Big mistake, if your woman earns $75,000 you better earn $100,000 or your chance of divorce goes way up.

There are studies showing that if a woman gets promoted at her job, that her chances of divorcing her husband in the next five years are doubled. Basically the simple act of earning more money makes her twice as likely to want a divorce. If the man gets a promotion on the other hand he is slightly less likely to get divorced. This is why I despise the “womens empowerment” movement. If you have a man and a woman competing for the same job it should always be given to the man because there’s no practical benefit to financially empowering women unless you like splitting up families. Explain how a woman getting a promotion would make her lose attraction to her husband using man logic. Of course homosexual men are not like this because they are wired differently from women.

The truth is, a woman who earns nothing at all sees you as the most attractive because you are her caretaker. It’s not about how many $$$$ you have it’s about you fulfilling your role as her caretaker which in the modern era means making the bread. You don’t have to be rich but it is very helpful to earn enough money to provide a middle class lifestyle on your income alone.

If I went to Japan, the Philippines or Thailand, plenty of girls would be happy not to work. Even in Japan only 38% of women actually say they want to work. The reason there aren’t more housewives in Japan is because the government is pushing them into the workforce and because a lot of the men there can’t afford to let his wife stay at home. The same applies to Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines but lots of women there who are married to wealthier men are stay at home moms. The ones who aren’t are usually too poor to be stay at home moms… It’s not because they oppose the idea. Women like that in Asian countries are a minority except in Korea.

The dependency of the arrangement makes your relationship stronger. When you have both the morals and competence to be a girl’s caretaker that is what makes her fall in love with you. If your wife is not dependent on you, the bond simply isn’t as powerful. Unfortunately so many White women have been so brainwashed by feminism they think this is oppression now but with Latina, Black Arab or Asian girls it is still something that makes a man very desirable to them.

Then why don't those Asian women abandon Asia? They obviously want to work other wise they would move to a country where they are less likely pushed into being in the work force. Women everywhere have careers, @WilliamSmith would know something on this matter. We live in a world where men cannot force women not to work. Try that and you will be called an oppressor. When Islamic women move here to the U.S. what is the first thing they do? They don't become stay at home mothers, they go straight to school and get careers. I know it because I see a lot of them in the medical field even holding positions as doctors. It's nonsense to make this claim that women want to be stay at home just because of some , they don't. You also seem to believe that all women will have a man to support them. They do not. Nor do every woman even want let alone desire this either. The empowerment movement isn't that strong to convince women globally to get careers, women have the ability to object to it. But there are women in the world that view the whole stay at home shit boring.

And you cannot force every woman to be okay with accepting this because they would spit in your face if you did. Take my cousin for instance, my oldest. She never studied feminism a day in her life, yet she still always wanted to be a nurse. So that's what she became. Besides I'm never getting married anyway, I honestly hate the shit heterosexuals have to deal with just to keep a woman. It's garbage. I hate sounding like a gay ass liberal on this one but if I had a choice? I'd rather just be gay than to put up with all this nonsense about me having to earn more money than a woman. Life to me isn't about money, you'll die someday and when you do you won't be able to take any of that shit with you to the next life if there is a next life. All I know is there are a lot of unhappy heterosexual men in this world, people say the same thing about women. But I don't believe this.

Japan doesn’t put anymore pressure on women to work then the US and Europe does. They’re just catching up to us now. Traditionally half of women with children were stay at home moms and 35% of all women overall were. As far as traditionalism goes it’s either Asia or the Middle East. Nowhere else is it normal for women to not have careers.

Although Hungary and Poland might change that . Viktor Orban is pretty much doing exactly what you said, he is openly attacking the women’s independence movement. His government recently said that the education system needed to be redesigned so that they wouldn’t get so many women going to college .

Well I believe it, but the United States is a very large country compared to most other countries. Even Chinese women hold careers and the Chinese are suppose to be anti all that the U.S. stand for, yet they have so many Chinese women that are highly educated and wealthy. In fact Chinese women have more wealth than Japanese women do. And probably twice that of Korean women. I don't see the Chinese gov trying to prevent women from going to school and maintaining careers.

Nah China’s government is center right, liberal conservative. Thailand, India, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia are the only truly traditional countries out there outside of the Middle East.

[Lucas88]

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.

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. Because those men have much more to offer than just money and professional status, they can earn less than their woman and still be perceived as more attractive than other men. Hardworking yet otherwise unremarkable betas on the other hand don't have that luxury and so they prefer to emphasize earnings and professional status. The more incelistic of these betas often get upset when women aren't attracted to them and would rather be with less financially successful yet more attractive and charming alphas.

I also think that men often pursue the wrong kind of women. If a man's wife/girlfriend leaves him as soon as she gets a higher salary then she was always a money-grubber to begin with and never really worth his time. Contrary to what the simplistic "RedPill" ideology asserts, not all women are soulless money-grubbers who are only interested in relationships for monetary gain or even social status (even though the RedPill "gurus" would have us believe that literally all women are exactly the same without exception). Beyond the false picture of reality painted by the RedPill crowd there are plenty of women who value very different things in a man or a relationship such as physical attraction, romantic connection, a spiritual bond and shared interests among other things and view money only as a means to an end. I know that such females exist. Both of my Latinas were like this. Not all women behave like materialistic NPCs in a predetermined game of maximum acquisition.

If a guy has above-average looks, an awesome body, raw sex appeal and abundant charisma then he can most likely attract even a career woman who earns more than him as my uncle's case shows. He need not feel insufficient because he evidently possesses other desirable virtues outside of money and professional status. Only the financially successful yet otherwise unattractive beta should feel threatened by the more successful career woman since he is getting beat in the field of his only forte and doesn't have anything else to compensate for this.

[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.

[MarcosZeitola]

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.

[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.