Feed on

Anonymous comments,

CH is fond of saying that $$$ has poor return in terms of women. I suspect you need real wealth (>$10 M) and live a truly different lifestyle (weekend trips to st Barths, aspen, other global hotspots) in order for it to make any real difference.

Below the level of extravagant male wealth, money doesn’t make a huge DIRECT impact on women’s attraction to men. If a man has a nice car and condo, no economically self-sufficient careergirl will be wowed by that. The benefit of money comes from the confidence it instills in men, which women DO love.

Another anon has doubts about the efficacy of money to pull women,

I feel like a distinction should be made about “high-status men” in what context. My experience says that now “high-status” is almost completely determined by “hookup criteria” and not long-term considerations until chick hits the wall (but preaching to the choir).

If modren Western women are indeed switching to an r-selected reproduction strategy — i.e., focusing on short-term hookups that advantage cads over dads and chads over NOWAGS — then a man’s earning power will have a smaller impact on female attraction than it historically has had in more patriarchal (aka Regulated Monogamy) times when women weren’t paper pushing corporate whores who could afford their own mortgages and streaming pussyhat entertainment packages.

Of course, this will not end well for civilization. When the big bulging mass of beta providers realize they can’t leverage their provisions for a loyal young babe who isn’t saddled with a porn star’s sexual history, they will drop out of the mating market and make just enough to satisfy their immediate needs. Then after the fiat economy collapses from the disengagement of its most competent and conscientious men, there goes the female workforce it enabled, and we’re right back to the primordial patriarchy of young, chaste, dependent women locking down that beta provider while she still has miles of virgin road left on her hodometer.


Comments are closed.