Money Matters

In his most recent post, Blue Pill Alphas, Rollo asks the following question:

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait?

Before I try and answer that, here is the surrounding text for context:

While I do concur with the assessment about women’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, I would also argue that this difficulty is a result of women’s prioritizing long-term security (emotional and provisional) as part of their sexual strategy reprioritizations that come in the wake of their Epiphany Phase. Ergo, this would explain the ease in gaming women pre and post Epiphany Phase. Provisioning and long term security are low sexual priorities for these demographics of women.

But does that make a capacity for provisioning inherently a Beta trait? I think it’s easy to misconstrue that capacity as Beta, because provisioning is a high-value attribute that is expected from Beta men according to their own sexual strategy. Provisioning is associated with Betas because it is integral to their sexual strategy, and also part of the Blue Pill plan for which women are hoping to fulfill at a point in their maturity when they are subjectively at their most necessitous.

What do you think?

It is easy to presume that provisioning, or a man’s access to resource/Money is something that is purely “Beta.” After all, a steady job hardly moves the needle when it comes to sexual attraction from a woman. However, this does not mean that Money/resources mean nothing.

In my page “What do Women Find Attractive in Men?” I lay out what attributes women look out for when it comes to male sexual attractiveness. Some snippets:

While visual features do play a part, and other physical features have their role as well, there are other things which can make him attractive to women. It is well established throughout history that money is something which women find attractive in men, along with that undefinable characteristic known as charisma, and women have long been known to be drawn to men of high station. When all of this is analyzed in the context of female behavior like hypergamy, it is possible to discern the triggers for male attractiveness to women, and categorize them based on their nature. There are three principal categories under which male attractiveness is analyzed: Appearance, Personality, and Externalities, or APE for short. Under these three categories are five more specific subcategories which contain the sets of attributes which determine male attractiveness: Looks, Athleticism, Money, Power, and Status, or LAMPS for short.

Incidentally, you will see this model sometimes called the LAMPS or PSALM model (the reason for which I explain next).

There is no universal female measure of what makes a man attractive. Some women are more attracted to one attribute over the other, just as men are attracted to different women in varying degrees. Each woman has her own set of preferences, so there is no single standard. As a mental exercise, one can view these as a point system, where a man has a certain value from 1 through 10 in each LAMPS subcategory. Then they are added together some sort of weighted average is applied. Theoretically, as long as you have enough in certain areas, it can make up for deficiencies in others. However, based on personal observations, anecdotes and the vast amount of empirical research provided by the PUA community, it is clear that certain attributes/subcategories tend to be more important than others for most women. In general the (not universal) order of importance:

1) Power- Clearly the most important set of attributes, well above the others. Charisma is king.

2) Status- Also extremely important, plays a significant role in interacting with female hypergamy.

3) Athleticism- Of middling importance, perhaps because resources are plentiful, but still something which women like in men.

4) Looks- With the exception of height, this set of attributes provides little bang for your buck; it might get you initial attention but won’t keep it for you.

5) Money- Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

Money comes last in importance, and let me repeat again what I just said: Great wealth is required for this attribute to be meaningful, likely a product of a resource-rich culture where women can easily provide for themselves.

We live in an age where material comfort is the norm. The overwhelming majority of Western women have no concept of what it is to “do without.” They can support themselves, or they can rely on the state (i.e., other anonymous men) to support them. Thus, it takes a lot of Money/resources for this particular attribute to move the needle re: sexual attraction. I would argue that 6 figures isn’t enough, not any more. Now it takes millions, at least.

With that in mind, we should also remember that Money/resources plays into those Desirable traits that women want as well. Since “desire” and sexual attraction are not the same, the fact that Money is also a desirable trait only really matters when women are looking for desirable traits in the first place. And as Rollo and others (myself included) have explained elsewhere, most women in the West care about them the most while in their Epiphany phase.

Hence, it just seems like Money or provisioning is a “Beta” trait. Rather, it is a low priority PSALM/LAMPS trait that rarely affects a man’s sexual attractiveness. After all, most men aren’t millionaires. And those who are usually have other traits going for them, blurring the lines somewhat.

 

Advertisements

16 Comments

Filed under Alpha, APE, Attraction, Blue Pill, LAMPS, Red Pill, Women

16 responses to “Money Matters

  1. Donal, I suspect it is a co-occurring trait. Men with resources have confidence, which is attractive. But which came first? It varies, of course.

    I also think that it’s not the resources per se, but how she perceives them enhancing her status in the herd. A gracious woman deals with the issues and demonstrates grace.

  2. I would say that Money (due to women’s ability to self-provision, as you have correctly stated] is neither all-important nor insignificant: it’s a make-or-break trait.

    A man who has a stable job is quite simply nothing new. It doesn’t add anything, but it doesn’t take it away either. And the bell curve means that for the average 60% of men, who typically have a stable job, some debt, no amazing surplus and a few material assets, are simply what is expected.

    However the top 20% of men who have a surplus of wealth, no debt, masses of material assets, and the bottom 20% of men who live in the red, have significant and insurmountable debt and no material assets, are both impacted by the Money factor.

  3. Novaseeker

    I think the discussion there was more about sexual attraction and arousal. Alpha traits were being defined as those which tend towards a woman’s arousal and sexual attraction, whereas beta traits were defined as those which do not tend towards a woman’s arousal and sexual attraction, but which can, depending on circumstances, contribute to a woman’s comfort attractions, or non-sexual attraction.

    Within that paradigm, which differs from LAMPS, I do think that provisioning falls under the beta rubric, because it almost never generates arousal or sexual attraction, but can sometimes generate non-sexual, comfort/security attraction.

  4. The great thing about gold is that it attracts gold diggers.

  5. MK

    Male traits that lead to resources correlate to sexually attractive traits. So resources are a good objective bet for women. Super above gets to the core issue: women compete for the top 20-40% (even if they have to take turns). Why? Some 60% of men don’t pass on their genetics beyond a few generations. So from a woman’s POV resources are a very good, objective gauge who those top men actually are. And remember, if she doesn’t breed with a top 40% man, her genetics are history very quickly. So it’s not the resources themselves, but what they represent about the relative male rank and survival traits. The resources themselves, in this era of wealth and peace, don’t mean as much, just icing on the cake.

    Summary: War and violence are the norm in human history. The men who acquire surplus resources prove themselves tough competitors and thus a better genetic bet. So she puts her money on the rich guy; his genetics (brains and aggression) are most likely to survive over time and carry her genetics along with it. All the women who thought otherwise? They are no longer with us.

  6. anonymous_ng

    The honesty and self-awareness in gold diggers is … refreshing. Several years ago, Millionaire Match was in the news. I made a throwaway profile and logged in to see what was up.

    The gold diggers wrote stuff like “I’ll never have a headache.” and “You’ll be glad to have me on your arm.”

    Seems like a better option than trying to find a diamond amongst the straw of out of shape women with inflated sense of their self-worth, advanced degrees in social work, and the obligatory photo ops from their social justice tourism to the third world.

    Well, a better option if you’ve got the means anyway.

    I still say that if you’re not a Christian, you probably have no reason to get married at all.

  7. @ Nova

    There are studies showing that greater money = more orgasms for women.

    —————————-

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/navigating-the-biblical-basis-of-attraction-and-marriage-with-others/

    I wrote here that it seems like:

    1. Protector + Provider, ideally

    2. Protector > Provider, other factors being equal.

    3. Provider > Protector, if a woman can noticeably jump in status and socioeconomic level

    4. Provider OR Protector > Protector + Provider, if fame is involved. Branch swinging and/or serial monogamy or flings with celebrities, famous athletes, and the like.

    5. Dominance with women is the X factor. If a man is charming and charismatic with women he will tend to have many suitors regardless of a mediocre or potentially non-existent Protector and/or Provider.

    6. Potential confounding factors may be the overall stability and socioeconomic level of the background culture. For example, in a culture with more anarchy a Protector may be valued more than a Provider because the skills inherent to a Protector can generally reliably secure more provisions through force. On the other hand, a strong enough Provider may be able to secure body guards or force through provision.

    In terms or provisioning, I think “provisioning” is only significant if it can lead to an increased standard of life. For example, the concept of “tiers” of money per year seems to be a best fit:

    Tens of millions > millions > hundred of thousands > median US income (40-50k-ish) > poverty level

    Each “tier” is a significant jump in standard of living such that it becomes significantly attractive enough to be a factor.

    When the government (welfare, unemployment), child support/alimony, or priority of a woman shifts to jobs, the “provisioning” status becomes much less important.

  8. Novaseeker

    Super above gets to the core issue: women compete for the top 20-40% (even if they have to take turns).

    Except that this is objectively untrue. There are tons of men who are in the top 20% in resources or even the top 10% who have zippity-do-da attraction from women other than obvious gold diggers. If you go to the Bay Area or Seattle you can see them in force, but it’s present in every major US city. If you are in the 7 figures, well *that* is different, but that isn’t the top 20-40%, it’s more like the top 0.5%. Women compete for that. In 2016 no way is there stiff female competition for the top 20-40% of men in terms of resources. Not reality on the ground.

  9. @ an observer

    Donal, I suspect it is a co-occurring trait. Men with resources have confidence, which is attractive. But which came first? It varies, of course.

    As has already been pointed out, there are plenty of rich men who are confident about a lot of things… except when it comes to women.

    @ Super

    Eh, plenty of near destitute men get plenty of action from women. In fact, I seem to recall that Rollo said he found the most “success” when near broke. Since it matters so little, it isn’t a huge repellent for most women.

    @ Nova

    Within that paradigm, which differs from LAMPS, I do think that provisioning falls under the beta rubric, because it almost never generates arousal or sexual attraction, but can sometimes generate non-sexual, comfort/security attraction.

    I disagree, although at the same time I admit that it is sometimes difficult separating Status from Money. And my point here was sexual attraction/arousal. I wasn’t really talking about desire.

    Part of the thing is that I think that provisioning is seen as a “Beta trait”, yet inherently it is not. Culturalization and the environment plays a role. It obscures a lot. Perhaps I am entirely wrong and Money/resources/provisioning doesn’t play a role in sexual attraction. But I am more confident than not of my theory.

    @ Zippy

    Indeed.

    @ MK

    I agree with some general sentiments of yours, but the numbers are off. As Nova points out, the real competition is far tighter than even the top 20%.

    @ DS

    Tiers are a good way to look at it. Although I think that applies less to sexual attraction than to a more basic sense of hypergamy and provisioning. Perhaps even a separate analysis of whether a man’s social station is acceptable to a woman. So not so much about the man per se, but about how choosing him will reflect on the woman.

  10. MK

    Nova, read my comment again. I never referenced men in the top 20-40% of resources. I said the top 20-40% of men, period, top being defined as DNA lasting more than just a few generations.

    What do say: From a woman’s POV resources are a very good, objective gauge who those top men actually are. I never made a claim what % of a guage resources encompasses. But it’s certainly not 100%, as your comment implies. Height, or IQ, or even benchpress are also “good, objective gauges” to the top men.

    My point: resources matter a lot, but not why many people seem to think (golddiggers for the gold itself are actually pretty rare in our modern era of wealth). But resources DO strongly signify a man who can compete with other men and win. So this really matters; even a low IQ woman can grok the objective measure of a fast car other men want but her man has. But of course women must weigh this with many other factors, because the game always changes as the environment changes (a major change prob happens at least every 5-10 generations), so she has to balance. Hence, hypergamy.

  11. MK

    DG, but the numbers are off. As Nova points out, the real competition is far tighter. Read my response to Nova. The % I give is not my opinion, merely DNA evidence.

  12. Donal, nova touched on the point i was thinking of, that its not the 20 to 40 per cent. Most women arent in need, and have their make work jobs to cover the basics. Its the point five per cent.

    The example I was thinking of our own Miranda Kerr, who dumped actor hubby film star Orlando Bloom. Having already had the obligatory one child, she cast around for someone suitable and is currently engaged to snapchat billionaire Evan Spiegel. Thats the sort of resourcing that women can be ‘attracted’ to. Not a three bed double lockup in the suburbs.

    Thing is, the ability to simply pay the bills , buy a house etc is taken for granted now. Its not arousal inducing, never was. But it used to be a factor in assessing suitable husband material, his abilkty to manage money, patricularly when she was dependent on him for so long before the female ’emancipation’ to full time work.

    So yeah, i take your point that there are men with resources that are useless at relating to women. But i would argue this applies to most men under the current culture, not just men with resources. The very resourced men attract gold diggers, who arent good long term wife material.

    Again, im thinking of an acquaintance whose family came into money unexpectedly. After a few forgettable relationships, i think he’s now realised his chances of meeting a women who genuinely likes him and isnt distracted by the money is fleetingly rare.

  13. MK

    Observer, Its not arousal inducing, never was.

    Disagree here. When women are hungry or cold, resources alone give tingles. And much of human evolutionary history was this way. But I agree that after generations of peace and prosperity, it’s subdued to low levels. But nature does not fully forget. Women are genetically preprogrammed to get a bit of the tingles from resource laden men. Granted, it’s faint in today’s environ. But it certainly wasn’t “never was”. Rather, it’s “always has and always will” to some degree.

    He now realised his chances of meeting a women who genuinely likes him not distracted by money is fleetingly rare.

    Look, if he’s such a loser he can’t meet a woman who isn’t a money grubber, there is no hope for him, with or without cash. So he’s a bad test case on this. Every woman will see he’s a loser. He is indeed doomed in mate selection.

    There is strong factual correlation between men with money, IQ, health, and virtue…and the quality of their wives. Like attracts like. Quality attracts quality. And men successful enough to build a pile are more likely to make good decisions on women as well.

  14. “Look, if he’s such a loser he can’t meet a woman who isn’t a money grubber, there is no hope for him, with or without cash. So he’s a bad test case on this. Every woman will see he’s a loser. He is indeed doomed in mate selection.”

    A somewhat unflattering and inaccurate summary. He was a great guy beforehand, that hasn’t changed. He has a rare combination of creative talent and business acumen. Wealthy has become a stumbling block, not for him but for women, as they are blinded by it.

    “There is strong factual correlation between men with money, IQ, health, and virtue…and the quality of their wives.”

    The lower and middle classes were incentivised to divorce. The very wealthy know there is much more at stake, and tend to stay married, even if they aren’t close. As the culture degrades, these rarer breakups are peddled for their news value.

    “men successful enough to build a pile are more likely to make good decisions on women as well.”

    They might be rich, but they aren’t wealthy. They are leagues apart. The merely rich are still subject to the attraction of divorce much more than the extremely wealthy. The other thing is there are many more rich people than very wealthy, hence you’d expect more divorce purely on numbers grounds,

  15. “When women are hungry or cold, resources alone give tingles.”

    No. When a woman is hungry or cold, resources cause her to consider what she can trade for said resources. And we all know what she will offer in trade.

    It’s not about tingles. It’s about her making rational choices in light of circumstances.

    Tingles got nothing to do with it.

  16. As we know, you can’t publicly say that about women. Feminism promotes the popular myth that they’re self sacrificing, attracted to niceness and empathetic. It took years to break these falsehoods in my thinking and I can’t go back. Now though, I no longer want to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s