There were some good comments on my last article, so I thought that rather writing a few long comments I’d combine them into a post. Again, I’ll just be picking through my brain which will make the structure disjointed.
I’m not trying to lay into the commentors. On the contrary, their messages have helped the cogs in my head to turn and for me to get a better understanding of the situation.
The last disclaimer, before we begin, is that I understand how the nature of the world was never mine to change. I’m writing these posts to get the ideas out of my brain and onto the page and of course there are moments of jealousy based on the grass being greener (in some circumstances, in others we know that our own grass is greener). So yes, in some ways I’m envious, but there’s nothing I can do about it.
To begin with, I agreed: having a lot (a lot) of money means that you can buy the house and the yacht, hire the DJ, provide the alcohol, and throw the party. On a smaller scale it might be the guy in the club with the table and the bottle. Either way, he’s getting social proof.
But then I thought about two things: validation and quality attention.
To begin with, if men get validation from sex (and women from attention), then a man is going to have to hire prostitutes if he wants to purely use money. However, (I hear) that’s not as fulfilling as getting the girls for free, which would mean playing some variety of provider Game and/or exploiting the social proof that the money can generate.
On top of that, barring those who inherited enormous fortunes, you still have to generate the money through some kind of work, plus implement the Game itself. They both require you to work for you to get your validation (sex). On the other hand, a girl just has to show up to get her validation (attention).
But what about the quality of that attention? This links into prostitution. A man can pay for a prostitute but he doesn’t feel as good as if it were “for free”. A girl can get a lot of attention from guys, but will still crave it from a high-quality man. In both cases we see that validation is not a commodity, it competes on quality.
All in all, I agree with Cat but perhaps not in the way he intended. I think that having loads of money is similar because you get a tonne of mediocre attention but still want the top shelf stuff.
The second comment from MDA is one I disagree with. Average looking girls can still get their “alpha fucks” because men will commonly lower their quality standards for casual sex (Evolution of Desire, Buss). By extension, women are getting the validation I talked about in the first response from high quality males.
Who here can say, hand on heart, that they’ve never fucked a girl whose pictures they would be embarrassed to show their friends? And that’s just the ones they’re embarrassed to show the pictures of! Think about how many “average girls” they’ve fucked!
No, they won’t get that attention for a long period of time, but remember you choose the partner for the child, not the partner itself. As far as her body is concerned, she’s got what she came for!
The last part is, I believe, a little unrelated but it brings up a good point: SMV diversification in men. We’re not handed our lot at birth and can work different channels, so that even with average looks we can be considered a top tier prospect.
The last comment was written by some German guy who has a Thomas Crown poster on his wall which he kisses every night before going to sleep 😉 . He’s also clearly never seen this:
https://www.shewee.com/the-original-shewee.html
Yours unfaithfully,
Thomas Crown
Thomas Crown PUA 
I think you’re projecting men’s obsession and high valuation of sex onto women. Sure, a mediocre girl can get pumped and dumped by a high value guy if she makes it easy enough for him (see rockstars and groupies). But that’s not the same as commanding his attention/interest.
What do women really value? Relationship and commitment from a high value guy. They don’t nearly care as much about sex as men. Otherwise, we would see a lot more normal girls with very high notch counts (which is clearly not the case, at least in Europe). When the average girl gets her “alpha fucks”, it’s because she knows instinctively that she won’t be able to get the guy to commit, so she chooses to relinquish the sex as her next best option. They not only want the partner for the child, they want the partner himself. High status male partner that invests and commits to the girl equals higher chance of survival.
Commitment for girls = sex for men.
My point is that as a female 6-7, your SMV is static/declining and securing the commitment and investment of a HSMV guy is near impossible. Whereas for the average guy, having sex with a HSMV girl is hard, but he has the power to change his SMV and achieve his goals if he chooses to do so.
So instead of being envious of the few girls that hit the genetic lottery, we should be thankful that as men we have the ability to vastly increase our chances in the mating game.
-> “By extension, women are getting the validation I talked about in the first response from high quality males.”
Definitely disagree with this one. Check out this post https://krauserpua.com/2014/06/16/the-supply-problem-scarcity-reversal-girl/
LikeLike
“I think you’re projecting men’s obsession and high valuation of sex onto women” – no, I’m saying men value sex as women value attention.
I think men and women are trying to optimise the same thing: the potential success of offspring. Maybe the alpha might not help with raising the kid much, but it’s worth it for the good genes. I agree that they want relationship and commitment from a high value guy, but with some divergence of thought: he could be high value in many ways (lots of money to provide with or good genes to provide).
LikeLike
Tom,
There‘s a big flaw in your writing.
No, not the poster—OF COURSE I have you pinned against my wall… behind my cushion where KGB Agent and Blue Eyes get their fair share of Philander cum, and occasionally you, too (so I‘m not into kissing it, no)
;-p
I think you commit the same mistake than Neil Strauss in his book The Truth (I will post my review soon): it‘s NOT sex, the act itself, that validates men (and makes usually the motivation for daygame). It‘s rather the conquista, the breaking the resistance of the girl, passing (or shortcutting, in the case of game) her selection filter. Sex is all in the head. That‘s why rich guys who buy one top notch whore after the other or maintain a gold digger are unsatisfied, feel shallow, their ego knows it‘s not the real thing.
It‘s a power thing at the end, I believe. Feeding the ego, and in that respect it converges with women’s need, who after initial attention (a stare, an interruption of his talking etc.) often seek more—‚let‘s see what else this guy will do for me without me giving him anything than a smile‘ (Sometimes they bite on the bait of a player, then good luck).
LikeLike
I agree, but it’s only a successful conquest if you get the sex at the end (I’m not referring to someone who’s still in the initial phase; the sort of guy for whom just getting a date is a big win). That’s why I sex provides the validation. From a biological POV, your body isn’t wholly satisfied until your cum is inside her.
I think guys don’t enjoy sex with golddiggers or whores as much because they instinctively know that she wouldn’t be a good mother.
LikeLike
True, sticking it in (or two thrusts, according to Krauser) defines the conquest.
But I don’t believe in all that biology stuff. I don’t want her to be a good mother because I don’t want to be a father.
OK, I may not count. But then why are models the beauty ideal who get all the rich guys? They are extremely slim, skinny and even anorectic, thus unhealthy and biologically not optimal to give birth?
LikeLike
Fair play, but my view on the good mother angle is that you can’t control your body with regards to attraction. Your body makes you more attracted to the good mother (as far as you can tell). Maybe with the skinny girls it’s that you see a familiarity with your own mother or a past experience? (Just spitballing here and I know it’s Freudian)
LikeLike
Going back to part 1, I don’t think it wise to say we’ll never feel as great as hot girls because there is always another batch of 18-22 year olds. Instead, look to the girls in your age group. I certainly do.
Case in point, I have an attractive family friend, Chinese American (not into Asians myself), 28 years old can pass as 24 due to genes and not drinking – solid 7. She is also in San Francisco, where there is a huge surplus of dudes and scarcity of attractive girls. But at 28, she is having trouble finding “quality guys.” None of the guys she dates want to act serious. I suspect while she might have a passing interest in those sorts of guys, some of them at least would act serious for a hotter/younger girl. Even in SF, for a girl in her late 20s, the amount of “high value” 28-32 year old guys seems scarce because they are either wifed up, have serious girlfriends or are going after YHT. SF girls may also have higher standards due to being around a plethora of cock for the last decade. I know London aint’ easy but at least there is a more than ample supply of competition coming in from the continent.
I personally find I get the worst blowouts from 28-32 year old SINGLE women during daygame (not my first choice but gotta stay warm at times). I believe it’s because they are frustrated and depressed that the Chad Thundercocks of the world have moved on from them and now they only get occasionally opened by a 5’8 23 year old with unremarkable looks ( i do my best to optimize but it is what it is lol).
That being said 28-32 year old women in committed relationships are EXTREMELY nice to me when i approach. Never goes anywhere, but their is a deep sense of relief in them for lack of a better word owing to the fact that their biology is satisfied with their hypergamous commitment achievement.
As for my 28 year old friend, I offered a helping hand. I’m introducing her to my 36 year old midwestern friend. I omitted the fact that he is my wingman and has no intention of taking her “seriously”
LikeLike