That pink arrow is waking up with the girlfriend who will do your laundry and falling asleep with the aspiring girlfriend makes you tiramisu every you visit. The blue arrow is getting friend-zoned ten times by the same girl over a period of six years.
So instead of qqing about le femme, just learn the hustle instead
E: I'm not saying there aren't good girls out there. I'm saying, spending time looking for them is how people get hurt.
But if you can find that girl who likes you when you have nothing, then that means you've found the one who you can trust when you have everything.
Just don't qq when it doesn't happen because chances are it won't
I like how many meta-responses and thoughts can go on during a single night with regard to girl blogs. It's a goddamn epidemic...but an entertaining one.
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
btw, I learned this lesson when I watched 蜗居, this Chinese TV drama, and my gf at the time hugged me tight and said "你是我的宋思明" (you are my Song Siming, a character from the show).
Internally, I was sympathizing a lot more with the happy go lucky kid Xiaobei, but when she said that, that's when the lightbulb went off and I realized the simplest way to get a girl to like you is to go to China and "serve the people"
The stories abound: from the corrupt official in Fujian who, in 2002, held the first (and only) annual competition to judge which of his 22 mistresses was most pleasing, to Liu Zhijun, the former railway minister deposed in 2011 for allegedly embezzling the equivalent of millions of dollars -- and maintaining a relatively modest 18 mistresses.
This is just the same in the States... the number of college girls I knew who went out on paid dinners with older guys for 500$ a pop... the number of guys who can fool around with anyone so long as they keep paying their wife's American Express Black Card...
There's just too many assumptions about both males and females (and their stereotypes) here that I don't even know if this was done in satire or if you're serious. I'm confused.
Wish people would stop posting nonsense like that really. Doesn't even matter if it's joking, semi-serious, or a random rant, it's still stupid but gets into so many gullible kids' sub-consciousness and they eventually start believing this kinda crap, just like so many people actually believe in 'friend-zoning' and 'alpha male' bullshit after reading all the blogs / articles about it.
Hahaha this is the most incorrect theory about girls I've ever read. Sure, if you want to have a one-night stand or get married to a shallow gold-digger this chart is just about correct. But if you want to find a true soulmate and have a truly beautiful and happy relationship that satisfies both parties in the long run, your position on this chart means next to nothing. I've got a feeling that this prevailing mentality in this day and age is contributing to the higher divorce rates, which hover around 30% currently (in the US), and which occur after 5-10 years after your fascination with the other's wealth and status has worn off. Believe it or not, your personality is probably the biggest factor in your success with women.
On October 09 2012 18:24 Ghin wrote: I agree with your sentiment but not with your facts. The reasons governing female attraction extend far beyond a mere two axis chart.
I completely agree. This should be plotted as the contour lines of a 3 dimensional curve s=f(r,m)+ Show Spoiler +
Sex is an increasing function of respectability and money
. That would make a lot more sense than those silly arrows
On October 09 2012 22:38 Alpino wrote: Sexist crap all over this blog and its answers
True crap all over this blog and its answers. I have a prime example for you, too. My uncle is a genius and a lawyer, and in college he was a cheerleader. He got to hang with the football team a good bit, was good friends with a few of them, if I recall correctly. And one thing about them really impressed him: at any time, any place, any one of them could yank their expensive smartphone out of their pockets and have a hot fuck lined right up for them in seconds. Many of them did indeed do this, it wasn't just them bragging to him. That graph speaks the unpleasant truth, friend. Women are suckers for people with certain jobs.
men's weakness = sex women's weakness = power+money
so as men we should flip the table by Faking power+money. Get their sex, then escape like a biotch.
specific plan:
1) get a bunch of guys together, pool their cash to buy a really fancy car (or a fancy suit etc) 2) get 1 guy to drive it out and pretend to be rich (don't tell people you only paid for 1% of it) 3) take people back to the hotel, promise them wealth and riches 4) bang them then escape 5) next day ==> give car to next person in the group <== repeat for 2nd guy and so on 6) after a short while ==> sell car and get new one (so people don't start recognizing it) <== repeat
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
On October 09 2012 22:38 Alpino wrote: Sexist crap all over this blog and its answers
True crap all over this blog and its answers. I have a prime example for you, too. My uncle is a genius and a lawyer, and in college he was a cheerleader. He got to hang with the football team a good bit, was good friends with a few of them, if I recall correctly. And one thing about them really impressed him: at any time, any place, any one of them could yank their expensive smartphone out of their pockets and have a hot fuck lined right up for them in seconds. Many of them did indeed do this, it wasn't just them bragging to him. That graph speaks the unpleasant truth, friend. Women are suckers for people with certain jobs.
But... smartphones are pretty new. Your uncle must be quite young.
Anyway, it's still a matter of confidence, stability and perspectives. It's simply harder to be poor and interesting, because it requires you to step out of the usual bounds; it's not suprising that most attractive poor people are artists.
Many women simply tend to have a more abstract relation to attractiveness, which is why a man can seem attractive because of his situation, acts or way of life. On the other hand, men have a very concrete point of view mostly based on looks. Is she hot? No? Then no way.
All in all I prefer the feminine version, that focuses more on what people do while men focus on what people are (big boobs, nice butt, cute face).
On October 09 2012 22:38 Alpino wrote: Sexist crap all over this blog and its answers
True crap all over this blog and its answers. I have a prime example for you, too. My uncle is a genius and a lawyer, and in college he was a cheerleader. He got to hang with the football team a good bit, was good friends with a few of them, if I recall correctly. And one thing about them really impressed him: at any time, any place, any one of them could yank their expensive smartphone out of their pockets and have a hot fuck lined right up for them in seconds. Many of them did indeed do this, it wasn't just them bragging to him. That graph speaks the unpleasant truth, friend. Women are suckers for people with certain jobs.
I counter your anecdotal evidence with my own anecdotal evidence! I know a guy who gets lots and lots of sex and does programming all day! How useful!
"Women are suckers for people with certain jobs."
I'm just going to put that sentence there, to be read again. Some men become hair stylists, some women become construction workers, and with all the different, wonderful personalities in this world that is so big neither you nor I can actually comprehend it, you believe you can create a maxim as narrowminded as that and expect it to hold true? You are ridiculous.
Also, I have never seen the famous "Girl went home with the richer guy" scenario. I have seen the "Girl went home with the more outgoing and forward guy" and of course the "Girl went home with the more attractive guy" scenario. But then again, women aren't just fish lying on the beach, helpless until a guy picks her up, they take the initiative as well. Sometimes it's "Guy went home with the girl who didn't give a shit about stereotypes and hit on him shamelessly". So, I guess the world is complicated after all. Happy days!
girls and teamliquid don't mix. if you read anything regarding women on this site you will get thoroughly more confused than you would have been before reading.
here's a tip: get outside and talk to girls. then - maybe - your theories will have a basis.
LOL if this is true, than I am in a very very good spot :D
edit: I rated 5 star because of the spot where I am on at the graph...if that is true for everyone though than a lot of people live in a very shitty spot on the graph
On October 10 2012 06:42 Spiffeh wrote: girls and teamliquid don't mix. if you read anything regarding women on this site you will get thoroughly more confused than you would have been before reading.
here's a tip: get outside and talk to girls. then - maybe - your theories will have a basis.
Well, I respectfully disagree. I have become much less confused by following girl blogs. I indeed must admit that I post in girl blogs and my record with my preferred sex is not really at the level to guide others.. but thats life.
Also your post contains the same problem the original post has. It's so generalized that it is far from true. Things are specific and unique. It is hard to even find a clear definition of a gender. Some guys want money from others, some girls want money from others, some girls like only handsome men vice versa and so on..
Personally, I'm with the people who would say take this post* as a joke. There is some truth to it. some guys are scrubs and try to get a woman in their life when they can't even manage their own life. And some people (notice not just females) are superficial to the point of idiocy.
The wrong kind of women are impressed with high-end careers/money. Financial stability is important, but not affluence.
I know the blog is trolling, but since some people actually agree with this, let's give the honest truth: if you just want "hos," all you need, as the observant man on page 1or 2 said, is confidence bordering on arrogance. How many times have I seen unemployed schmucks land "hot" (read: primarily shallow OR just looking for a good time) women simply because of their swagger and demeanor.
If you use money and titles to compensate for your lack of personality, you will get the wrong type of women coming your way.
On October 10 2012 09:50 Rubber wrote: I think some of the people posting here actually believe that plot is an accurate generalization about women, and that makes me feel bad for them.
Hygiene, fashion, body type, and humour are also major factors although the first three probably fit in with respectable money earners. Confidence is the most important but it's usually a result of some/all of the above. I also wouldn't be surprised at an inverse correlation between girl QQ and willingness to give head.
So wait, you're telling me that guy who lives in his trailer who works at the factory for $6 an hour on the graveyard shift and does nothing else but drink beer and smoke cigarettes DOESN'T get women?
There's something fundamentally wrong here. I think the sex arrow points more toward the men who give the least amount of fuck rather than the men who have the most money. Because the men with the money could care less about her crazy uncle that spends too much time at the slot machines. And then you have the Mr. Burns type who wouldn't get laid by a drunk prostitute. Well, maybe if she was a real prostitute.
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
Shady Sand's philosophy towards women is the sugar daddy philosophy, it seems.
On October 10 2012 15:31 Taku wrote: So where does the engineer datapoint go?
With academia... it actually kinda does make sense, engineers are on the high end of one side so therefore get sex, but they could get more sex if they were rockstars, for example.
On October 10 2012 15:31 Taku wrote: So where does the engineer datapoint go?
With academia... it actually kinda does make sense, engineers are on the high end of one side so therefore get sex, but they could get more sex if they were rockstars, for example.
there is a reason they aren't on the chart ;D lolol jkjk
I can't be the only one thinking it (NeverGG got there before me, certainly), but this blog says an awful lot more about you than it does about women, Shady.
On October 10 2012 21:29 SirJolt wrote: I can't be the only one thinking it (NeverGG got there before me, certainly), but this blog says an awful lot more about you than it does about women, Shady.
Have you ever considered this blog might be anything less than serious?
Lol if anyone takes a graph like that seriously it's their problem, not the author's. To me it shows a lot of insecurities about people who responded in an offended manner. However, I will agree that this thread does induce sexist jokes which are generally considered to be poor taste.
On October 10 2012 21:29 SirJolt wrote: I can't be the only one thinking it (NeverGG got there before me, certainly), but this blog says an awful lot more about you than it does about women, Shady.
Have you ever considered this blog might be anything less than serious?
On October 10 2012 21:29 SirJolt wrote: I can't be the only one thinking it (NeverGG got there before me, certainly), but this blog says an awful lot more about you than it does about women, Shady.
Have you ever considered this blog might be anything less than serious?
On October 09 2012 22:38 Alpino wrote: Sexist crap all over this blog and its answers
True crap all over this blog and its answers. I have a prime example for you, too. My uncle is a genius and a lawyer, and in college he was a cheerleader. He got to hang with the football team a good bit, was good friends with a few of them, if I recall correctly. And one thing about them really impressed him: at any time, any place, any one of them could yank their expensive smartphone out of their pockets and have a hot fuck lined right up for them in seconds. Many of them did indeed do this, it wasn't just them bragging to him. That graph speaks the unpleasant truth, friend. Women are suckers for people with certain jobs.
And the personal account of your genius uncle is what you chose to say to make me believe this sexist nonsense? I don't even like lawyers, when they lie and you prove them wrong they still don't admit they were lying(you see I work in a law firm, and you see I can say stuff out of my ass too)
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
Lol shady I loved this graph. But you're forgetting about NERD GIRLS! Academia doesn't have to miss out on the fun, and nerd girls can be pretty attractive, and who aren't so much into investment banking people (etc.)
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
They got married in Shanghai. Of course the guy was no slouch either--he was a 180+cm aspiring actor
On October 11 2012 01:47 radscorpion9 wrote: Lol shady I loved this graph. But you're forgetting about NERD GIRLS! Academia doesn't have to miss out on the fun, and nerd girls can be pretty attractive, and who aren't so much into investment banking people (etc.)
Obviously lol. This graph is more for a sort of "general theory of how to get laid" spiel. There will always be outliers. Cherish them...
wait I'm confused so girls like guys who have more money?? or less?
EDIT: because on one hand you have mo' money mo' problems but on the other its now looking like mo' money mo' babes which seems like it should be a problem reducer.
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
I don't know how things work in the UK but it is pretty much the same as what Shady Sands is talking about, here in my country as well. Most women look for financial suppliers and most men look for pussy. There might be contradictory examples like you, actually I know few myself, but what Shady Sands is talking about is the sad truth for the most chicks in Turkey.
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
They got married in Shanghai. Of course the guy was no slouch either--he was a 180+cm aspiring actor
E: @ Kalingsingsong see above
180+ cm? Really? Good thing 180cm of height is average here. Now I can go to China and find myself early 30s McKinsey partners.
Why is programming included into the more QQ category? Sure programmers may or may not have enough time for women, but they certainly earn well enough. Is it because of possible money hungry bitches? If yes, then it applies to categories you've listed as "more sex".
Living the academia life. My live in girlfriend has cooked dinner, done the laundry, and all other house duties 98% of the time since school started up again 6 weeks ago..while working fulltime herself. Ah, the things love will have a woman do.
On October 11 2012 09:24 Garnet wrote: in case of most Asian girls, just money is enough.
for ppl who come from countries that are developing = moar $ = moar sexxxx
for ppl who come from developed countries = random shit
there's actually no real distinction between nationality here
i mean, every girl whose parents aren't worth over 50 million will respond in exactly the same way if you can fly her to the bahamas on a chartered jet
(very notoriously, this is what one chinese kid did at USC when his girlfriend dumped him--he invited every single one of her girlfriends on a private vacation over thanksgiving. it was only him and all of the girls on the flight, and he made sure to send his ex all the pictures afterwards.)
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
I don't know how things work in the UK but it is pretty much the same as what Shady Sands is talking about, here in my country as well. Most women look for financial suppliers and most men look for pussy. There might be contradictory examples like you, actually I know few myself, but what Shady Sands is talking about is the sad truth for the most chicks in Turkey.
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
They got married in Shanghai. Of course the guy was no slouch either--he was a 180+cm aspiring actor
E: @ Kalingsingsong see above
180+ cm? Really? Good thing 180cm of height is average here. Now I can go to China and find myself early 30s McKinsey partners.
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
I don't know how things work in the UK but it is pretty much the same as what Shady Sands is talking about, here in my country as well. Most women look for financial suppliers and most men look for pussy. There might be contradictory examples like you, actually I know few myself, but what Shady Sands is talking about is the sad truth for the most chicks in Turkey.
Btw 2.4/5? Truth indeed hurts.
On October 11 2012 02:05 Shady Sands wrote:
On October 11 2012 01:59 Tommie wrote:
On October 11 2012 01:45 Shady Sands wrote:
On October 10 2012 05:57 jpak wrote:
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
They got married in Shanghai. Of course the guy was no slouch either--he was a 180+cm aspiring actor
E: @ Kalingsingsong see above
180+ cm? Really? Good thing 180cm of height is average here. Now I can go to China and find myself early 30s McKinsey partners.
Do you have the face of a movie actor?
Nothing plastic surgery can't fix.
Speaking of crime lords, plastic surgery, and marriage ... have you seen Black and White?
there's actually no real distinction between nationality here
i mean, every girl whose parents aren't worth over 50 million will respond in exactly the same way if you can fly her to the bahamas on a chartered jet
(very notoriously, this is what one chinese kid did at USC when his girlfriend dumped him--he invited every single one of her girlfriends on a private vacation over thanksgiving. it was only him and all of the girls on the flight, and he made sure to send his ex all the pictures afterwards.)
lawl? I think in this case his ex would probably react even if her parents were worth over 50 million.
there's actually no real distinction between nationality here
i mean, every girl whose parents aren't worth over 50 million will respond in exactly the same way if you can fly her to the bahamas on a chartered jet
(very notoriously, this is what one chinese kid did at USC when his girlfriend dumped him--he invited every single one of her girlfriends on a private vacation over thanksgiving. it was only him and all of the girls on the flight, and he made sure to send his ex all the pictures afterwards.)
lawl? I think in this case his ex would probably react even if her parents were worth over 50 million.
speaking of flying, there was once a party in Vogue (one of those uber pretentious beijing nightclubs) where two tipsy girls were talking and one of them said
"when i was little i didn't know there were other people on the airplane besides those in first class"
and the other replied
"when i was little i didn't know you had to share an airplane with strangers"
and the real stupid part was that the guyfriend girl #2 brought along was still paying for all her drinks even though we knew he was just a $300k/yr working stiff. poor bloke, she only kept him around for 2 months...
On October 09 2012 18:59 phosphorylation wrote: is the non-equivalent placement of the red and blue arrows intentional? ie. is money more important than respectability when it comes to laying women?
no, it's not intentional
ofc diff girls respond to diff incentives
the poorer the girl, the more likely she wants money
the richer the girl, the more likely she wants respectability
if she has everything she could ever want... good luck (you'll need it)
but honestly, finding women is just about filling a need, that's it.
you gotta think of yourself as a provider... but not only that, as a provider who has the choice and not the obligation to provide--someone who isn't emotionally bound to be there but can provide huge amounts of stuff when he is. that's how to snag them
Nice sweeping generalizations about my gender there. I'm not a rich woman, but I'm also not looking for a guy (or anyone else) to provide me with money. I believe in working for your own money, and not mooching off of other people/your partner. If other people want to buy you things then that's their choice, but if someone (especially a guy) buys me something then I always make sure to repay him by doing the same (for example buying meals etc.) Not sure how that fits into this little scheme of yours.
Also this whole sentence ' finding women is just about filling a need, that's it' is somehow all kinds of creepy to me.
I don't know how things work in the UK but it is pretty much the same as what Shady Sands is talking about, here in my country as well. Most women look for financial suppliers and most men look for pussy. There might be contradictory examples like you, actually I know few myself, but what Shady Sands is talking about is the sad truth for the most chicks in Turkey.
Btw 2.4/5? Truth indeed hurts.
On October 11 2012 02:05 Shady Sands wrote:
On October 11 2012 01:59 Tommie wrote:
On October 11 2012 01:45 Shady Sands wrote:
On October 10 2012 05:57 jpak wrote:
On October 10 2012 03:07 Kalingingsong wrote: question btw:
what if the "high official in China" is actually a woman? who would they sleep with? even higher male officials?
That's not out of the question.
On the other hand, sex with her butler is also not out of the question.
actually I attended a wedding in China of a early-30s McKinsey partner who married a 22 year old college grad. The bride was pretty cute for being nearly 10 years older than the groom
I'm in China now. Where do I find women like this?
They got married in Shanghai. Of course the guy was no slouch either--he was a 180+cm aspiring actor
E: @ Kalingsingsong see above
180+ cm? Really? Good thing 180cm of height is average here. Now I can go to China and find myself early 30s McKinsey partners.
Do you have the face of a movie actor?
Nothing plastic surgery can't fix.
Speaking of crime lords, plastic surgery, and marriage ... have you seen Black and White?
Actually no. Is it good?
On October 11 2012 11:28 Kalingingsong wrote: just had revelation:
now we won't qq about women, we just qq about not being rich.
That's exactly what I've been thinking about for a while. If someone can get those 20-30 million forever alone Chinese men to view their problem not as a romantic one but as a sociopolitical one, then maybe we can use them as the wedge to drive some real, ground-level change in China over the next few decades.
On October 11 2012 09:24 Garnet wrote: in case of most Asian girls, just money is enough.
naw you also have to impress her parents, that's where the other axis comes into play
Is being a crime lord not impressive ? <.<
would you want your daughter to marry a crime lord?
Depends on mine, or father's stance, if he's in the same sphere, why not, it's way more respectable choice than basic civil service ;O Actually, it probably is better no matter what.
On October 11 2012 09:24 Garnet wrote: in case of most Asian girls, just money is enough.
naw you also have to impress her parents, that's where the other axis comes into play
Is being a crime lord not impressive ? <.<
would you want your daughter to marry a crime lord?
Depends on mine, or father's stance, if he's in the same sphere, why not, it's way more respectable choice than basic civil service ;O Actually, it probably is better no matter what.
right, but for the vast majority of parents it's not something they want, unless the government is totally fucked up from where they live.
On October 10 2012 06:00 Kalingingsong wrote: my lords I have a brilliant plan:
men's weakness = sex women's weakness = power+money
so as men we should flip the table by Faking power+money. Get their sex, then escape like a biotch.
specific plan:
1) get a bunch of guys together, pool their cash to buy a really fancy car (or a fancy suit etc) 2) get 1 guy to drive it out and pretend to be rich (don't tell people you only paid for 1% of it) 3) take people back to the hotel, promise them wealth and riches 4) bang them then escape 5) next day ==> give car to next person in the group <== repeat for 2nd guy and so on 6) after a short while ==> sell car and get new one (so people don't start recognizing it) <== repeat
actually, a couple of short order cooks once did this
there were about eight of them, and every (bimonthly) payday, they'd give all their paychecks to one guy out of the eight. he'd temporarily have like 7k in his pocket. then he'd go and blow it all in one crazy night and (likely) get laid. then he'd somehow survive on like 2k for 4 months, and then they'd repeat the process with the next guy the next paycycle, etc.
On October 11 2012 11:48 targ wrote: I think what the dude means is like this:
If you get plenty of money and social respectability:
you may not necessarily get the girl you want
not EVERY girl will be attracted
but you will definitely get SOME girls.
More of a matter of probability increasing.
yep, and you will get more girls than if you tried to focus on being a caring and understanding guy. it's sad, but true
Guaranteed economically safe future sounds way better than act of kindness at this moment, no matter how you look at it.
the funny thing is for most of history marriage was an economic contract. love had very, very little to do with it. the modern notion of romantic love being the sacrosanct, driving force for marriage is predated by things like railroads and even the telephone
and the real stupid part was that the guyfriend girl #2 brought along was still paying for all her drinks even though we knew he was just a $300k/yr working stiff. poor bloke, she only kept him around for 2 months...
jesus christ lol,
question: are these girls worth the money? can't you get similar quality goods/women somewhere else in the market for cheaper?
or is it not about the women themselves? and its really just about bragging rights (in which case its really just spending money so one can brag about how much they spent).
and the real stupid part was that the guyfriend girl #2 brought along was still paying for all her drinks even though we knew he was just a $300k/yr working stiff. poor bloke, she only kept him around for 2 months...
jesus christ lol,
question: are these girls worth the money? can't you get similar quality goods/women somewhere else in the market for cheaper?
or is it not about the women themselves? and its really just about bragging rights (in which case its really just spending money so one can brag about how much they spent).
i honestly wish i knew, but i think it goes back to that "man as a provider" theory. deep down inside, hardcoded into male DNA, guys get off when they play this role
with changing views on gender, that's obsolete. what's also obsolete imo is the traditional notion of marriage--once it was a forever binding economic commitment--now it's something different. that's why i align myself with radical feminists here when i say that concomitant with gender equality, society should embrace a fairer and more flexible view on marriage (prenups and renewal clauses). unfortunately that male urge to provide is something that needs to be overcome in order to make this change happen
basically, if a girl says she wants to marry you out of love, she should have no problem completely separating your economic interests from hers with a firewall of solid pre-nup clauses including pre-nup net worth assessments, renewal clauses, pre-determined child support and alimony payments (before your career advances), and most critically, exclusion of the spouse from any estate planning. otherwise she's being a hypocrite
On October 11 2012 12:15 Shady Sands wrote: basically, if a girl says she wants to marry you out of love, she should have no problem completely separating your economic interests from hers with a firewall of solid pre-nup clauses including pre-nup net worth assessments, renewal clauses, pre-determined child support and alimony payments (before your career advances), and most critically, exclusion of the spouse from any estate planning. otherwise she's being a hypocrite
For that to happen she has to adapt to an idea of radical equality and defy general consensus which would be mentioned oh so much by her surroundings. Yup, unlikely to happen, on top of that marriage purely out of love is generally not the best idea.
and the real stupid part was that the guyfriend girl #2 brought along was still paying for all her drinks even though we knew he was just a $300k/yr working stiff. poor bloke, she only kept him around for 2 months...
jesus christ lol,
question: are these girls worth the money? can't you get similar quality goods/women somewhere else in the market for cheaper?
or is it not about the women themselves? and its really just about bragging rights (in which case its really just spending money so one can brag about how much they spent).
i honestly wish i knew, but i think it goes back to that "man as a provider" theory. deep down inside, hardcoded into male DNA, guys get off when they play this role
with changing views on gender, that's obsolete. what's also obsolete imo is the traditional notion of marriage--once it was a forever binding economic commitment--now it's something different. that's why i align myself with radical feminists here when i say that concomitant with gender equality, society should embrace a fairer and more flexible view on marriage (prenups and renewal clauses). unfortunately that male urge to provide is something that needs to be overcome in order to make this change happen
The funny part to me is that most girls have that same "need to be provided for" wired into their DNA... Sure, in their head they say that they want equality (and I'm inclined with Shady and the feminists to give it to them) but a majority of them still want a man. Someone that will provide and make them feel safe (make them feel like a sexy desired lady).
EDIT: @Shady Sands, I totally forgot I opened this thread to tell you to get back to sharing your world take-over!
On October 11 2012 14:48 RavenLoud wrote: I thought this was popular generalized knowledge, I wonder why this is a two stars.
People are hurt, I guess. "OMG This guy is so shallow!! Girls I like aren't like that, only hoes are!!"
Although it depresses me that rockstars/athletes have so much respectability. You're good at doing one only thing that only serves to entertain others? Good, you should be in par with the guy who controls the world and the guy who makes the world a better place!
That graph is on to something, and with something I mean misogyny.
To be serious (and honest) for a moment, I think you are bound to suffer if you think your happiness is connected to the need of having someone in your life.
On October 11 2012 22:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: That graph is on to something, and with something I mean misogyny.
To be serious (and honest) for a moment, I think you are bound to suffer if you think your happiness is connected to the need of having someone in your life.
some people do get lucky, I have a couple of friends who are in a situation where:
the guy is needy, but they end up getting together with a girl who is also needy. and they just happily obsess about eachother all day.
On October 11 2012 22:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: That graph is on to something, and with something I mean misogyny.
To be serious (and honest) for a moment, I think you are bound to suffer if you think your happiness is connected to the need of having someone in your life.
some people do get lucky, I have a couple of friends who are in a situation where:
the guy is needy, but they end up getting together with a girl who is also needy. and they just happily obsess about eachother all day.
ah the yoko and john couple.
don't worry you'll probably go through one or two of those relationships in your life as well
On October 11 2012 22:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: That graph is on to something, and with something I mean misogyny.
To be serious (and honest) for a moment, I think you are bound to suffer if you think your happiness is connected to the need of having someone in your life.
some people do get lucky, I have a couple of friends who are in a situation where:
the guy is needy, but they end up getting together with a girl who is also needy. and they just happily obsess about eachother all day.
ah the yoko and john couple.
don't worry you'll probably go through one or two of those relationships in your life as well
On October 11 2012 22:30 HwangjaeTerran wrote: That graph is on to something, and with something I mean misogyny.
To be serious (and honest) for a moment, I think you are bound to suffer if you think your happiness is connected to the need of having someone in your life.
some people do get lucky, I have a couple of friends who are in a situation where:
the guy is needy, but they end up getting together with a girl who is also needy. and they just happily obsess about eachother all day.
ah the yoko and john couple.
don't worry you'll probably go through one or two of those relationships in your life as well
you mean it eventually falls apart/wear out? etc or do you mean something else?
not necessarily falls apart/wears out... could do that, or it could just become a more normal relationship
and the real stupid part was that the guyfriend girl #2 brought along was still paying for all her drinks even though we knew he was just a $300k/yr working stiff. poor bloke, she only kept him around for 2 months...
jesus christ lol,
question: are these girls worth the money? can't you get similar quality goods/women somewhere else in the market for cheaper?
or is it not about the women themselves? and its really just about bragging rights (in which case its really just spending money so one can brag about how much they spent).
i honestly wish i knew, but i think it goes back to that "man as a provider" theory. deep down inside, hardcoded into male DNA, guys get off when they play this role
with changing views on gender, that's obsolete. what's also obsolete imo is the traditional notion of marriage--once it was a forever binding economic commitment--now it's something different. that's why i align myself with radical feminists here when i say that concomitant with gender equality, society should embrace a fairer and more flexible view on marriage (prenups and renewal clauses). unfortunately that male urge to provide is something that needs to be overcome in order to make this change happen
The funny part to me is that most girls have that same "need to be provided for" wired into their DNA... Sure, in their head they say that they want equality (and I'm inclined with Shady and the feminists to give it to them) but a majority of them still want a man. Someone that will provide and make them feel safe (make them feel like a sexy desired lady).
EDIT: @Shady Sands, I totally forgot I opened this thread to tell you to get back to sharing your world take-over!
mhm totally agree here. the older i get, the more women around me are more straight up with this belief.
also yes I will get back to world conquering and beijing blues as well.
Every post you make that isn't dedicated to an epic world domination diary, an intriguing story done in Dickensian segments, or a pseudo-info service, I'm creating a smurf account and 1-starring one of your blogs. At random.
On October 12 2012 00:20 TheKwas wrote: Every post you make that isn't dedicated to an epic world domination diary, an intriguing story done in Dickensian segments, or a pseudo-info service, I'm creating a smurf account and 1-starring one of your blogs. At random.
On October 12 2012 00:20 TheKwas wrote: Every post you make that isn't dedicated to an epic world domination diary, an intriguing story done in Dickensian segments, or a pseudo-info service, I'm creating a smurf account and 1-starring one of your blogs. At random.
Get to work!
是,领导!
I'll assume that is you volunteering to spend the rest of your life writing on of those 3 blogs. Get going!