Quote:
The dinner and drinks setting is one of affluence and a woman seek "orbiters" and a "dugout" of men, who hold out the expectancy of a life of financial security (and ultimate financial independence upon divorce) for the women.
The man must invest (clothes, job, home, "interesting hobbies,") , perform, etc, in order to exchange all of that for the woman's physical company for an hour. Remember the PUA advice of having a cool place to live? The exchange could not be more skewed and mercenary. In sum, if you met a woman at the disco and told her to have sex with you in your car where you live, the answer would be no. Same man different material promise- cool home vs. living in a car. These informal experiments like the Ferrari experiment, crudely use a control and experimental group:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWvH7jEpMdA and show the same result-
a would be hookup only with the promise of material advantage. The exchange of sex evaporates upon the women discovering that the man does not own the Ferrari, even though it is the same man.
There is a point to that. What sounds more attractive? "I had sex with him in his Ferrari," vs. "I had sex with him behind a dumpster". Same for the man. "I had sex with a bikini model," vs. "I had sex with a fat chick."
But I have to mention that a woman, too, invests. You can take an attractive woman, put her in rags, no makeup, unwashed, and see how the turnaround is. Unless she's a
very beautiful woman. The 'material' gain here is gaining a higher standing in society. No one will 'admire' a man that had sex with an unattractive woman, but he'll be higher up in the ranks amongst his buddies if he has sex with a hot woman.
Quote:
You mentioned alcoholics, which is not on point because women and men are enablers of alcoholics. JR Ewing was an alcoholic, and was followed by gold diggers; apparently Prince had a substance abuse problem with a similar experience of being followed by opportunists.
Yes, but guess what else asides from alcoholism these men had in common? MONEY. Women are willing to trade on some things in exchange for others. The same with men. Men might consider a very beautiful woman even if she's lacking in other areas of her life.
Quote:
The entirety of PUA is to cater to women materially, because the advice rarely strays from the disco or bar. The DHV is text book Warren Farrel. I cannot in good faith say to anyone that women will have sex with you for free, without some inkling of advantage for the women. No man in this forum places any requirement upon a woman other than she be attractive. Not surprisingly PUA encourages men to endure the "
shit test"- one's standards for a woman in exchange for our financial advantage could not be lower.
Yes, and no. Let's take an overweight unattractive woman. Let's assume she has low self-esteem. A person with low self-esteem might not value themselves as highly and thus, might not think they are worthy of the admiration a beautiful woman might get. She might be grateful just for the mere fact a man fancies her and wants to bed her. So, material gain like drinks and dinner, a hotel room, whatever, she might forego because she's grateful enough a man looked her way. So, she just might have sex with you for free, like you say. Whereas a very beautiful woman might demand more of the man in exchange for her attention.
Actually, plenty of men place requirements upon potential partners, but it depends on what they are looking for. If it's just for a hookup, or something casual, then her looks might be enough. But if he's looking into commitment, beauty might not suffice. There are plenty of men out there that are looking for an attractive woman that can also provide financially, have an education, etc. There are also other men that could care less what a woman does, as long as she's beautiful and can be a potential nurturer to him and his children. Usually those men are in a higher socioeconomic range.
CHAT
. Sarabellum doesn't acknowledge real world experience if it isn't backed by the scientific community....