Are Asian men only valued for their money? If so that sucks!

[E Irizarry R&B Singer]

CE,

How did that girl meet that Chinese guy? Whose to say he might be a player too and maybe has another woman on the side and maybe thats' why he is busy.

He was in her country on business for several months. He is not a player. He put a ring on the finger of a girl who does not love him but sees him as an ATM.

Let say he is not a player but a hard working man who is just plain dumb around woman and is making a big mistake marrying this girl. Would you help him out? I know your sleeping with this girl but for what's it worth she is skank. Like notify him that his girl is sleeping around. I imagine with your pua skills or game you can get another fairly easy.

It is not my job to help out some blue pill dope. I would side with her before I side with him.
About her being a skank, show me a girl who is not a skank. Women are hypergamous so that is what you don't seem to understand.
She is with me because she does not see a future with him and she wants to "monkey branch." This happens in life with very attractive women who have choices.

ContrarianExpatriate knows she's a piece-of-s.hit of succubent nature but she has a s.natch and she looks appealing enough to have coitus with in lieu of getting into a heartstrings relationship with her. Now if CE were to get into such a thing, then he too deserves to be a blue-pilled dope like the attractive central-Asian guy. As the old adage goes, "Get what you can get until you cannot get anymore [especially if they aren't your close friend but don't do this to a close friend or a good-hearted, trustworthy of kin]". To paraphrase the adage, "Keep your enemies close[r than your good friends because CE, again, knows she's a p-o-s of succubent nature in what she's doing with CE and behind the dope's back which makes her an enemy]".

[Contrarian Expatriate]

CE,

How did that girl meet that Chinese guy? Whose to say he might be a player too and maybe has another woman on the side and maybe thats' why he is busy.

He was in her country on business for several months. He is not a player. He put a ring on the finger of a girl who does not love him but sees him as an ATM.

Let say he is not a player but a hard working man who is just plain dumb around woman and is making a big mistake marrying this girl. Would you help him out? I know your sleeping with this girl but for what's it worth she is skank. Like notify him that his girl is sleeping around. I imagine with your pua skills or game you can get another fairly easy.

It is not my job to help out some blue pill dope. I would side with her before I side with him.
About her being a skank, show me a girl who is not a skank. Women are hypergamous so that is what you don't seem to understand.
She is with me because she does not see a future with him and she wants to "monkey branch." This happens in life with very attractive women who have choices.

ContrarianExpatriate knows she's a piece-of-s.hit of succubent nature but she has a s.natch and she looks appealing enough to have coitus with in lieu of getting into a heartstrings relationship with her. Now if CE were to get into such a thing, then he too deserves to be a blue-pilled dope like the attractive central-Asian guy. As the old adage goes, "Get what you can get until you cannot get anymore [especially if they aren't your close friend but don't do this to a close friend or a good-hearted, trustworthy of kin]". To paraphrase the adage, "Keep your enemies close[r than your good friends because CE, again, knows she's a p-o-s of succubent nature in what she's doing with CE and behind the dope's back which makes her an enemy]".

I can't believe he asked me that E! Men like that are so clueless, they would attack me as the messenger instead of realizing the truth about his lady.

I live to help only men who are open to or taking the RED PILL, not idiots who exemplify everything I am against. Married men and tradcucks not only deserve to get what they get from women, they NEED to get it to learn about female nature. So in that way, I guess I was helping him

[Neo]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being the man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

[josephty2]

If Winston moved back to Bellingham, WA (or Seattle) he would shut down this website. I know thats not gonna happen.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

[WanderingProtagonist]

CE,

How did that girl meet that Chinese guy? Whose to say he might be a player too and maybe has another woman on the side and maybe thats' why he is busy.

He was in her country on business for several months. He is not a player. He put a ring on the finger of a girl who does not love him but sees him as an ATM.

Let say he is not a player but a hard working man who is just plain dumb around woman and is making a big mistake marrying this girl. Would you help him out? I know your sleeping with this girl but for what's it worth she is skank. Like notify him that his girl is sleeping around. I imagine with your pua skills or game you can get another fairly easy.

It is not my job to help out some blue pill dope. I would side with her before I side with him.
About her being a skank, show me a girl who is not a skank. Women are hypergamous so that is what you don't seem to understand.
She is with me because she does not see a future with him and she wants to "monkey branch." This happens in life with very attractive women who have choices.

ContrarianExpatriate knows she's a piece-of-s.hit of succubent nature but she has a s.natch and she looks appealing enough to have coitus with in lieu of getting into a heartstrings relationship with her. Now if CE were to get into such a thing, then he too deserves to be a blue-pilled dope like the attractive central-Asian guy. As the old adage goes, "Get what you can get until you cannot get anymore [especially if they aren't your close friend but don't do this to a close friend or a good-hearted, trustworthy of kin]". To paraphrase the adage, "Keep your enemies close[r than your good friends because CE, again, knows she's a p-o-s of succubent nature in what she's doing with CE and behind the dope's back which makes her an enemy]".

To be fair, he's still a POS himself for sleeping with her. I honestly don't go around taking advantage of people who have shit self esteem. Just because a guy is blue pilled that doesn't mean I should be a POS and try to take his garbage female from him. I don't want trashy women in my life and I don't mess around with taken girls period. Having sex with them makes you equally trashy. Just find your own goddamn woman and leave taken females the F alone. I know a few guys who are sort of blue pilled acting, and even so I would never try to mess with their women just to "teach them a lesson." That would just make me a no good asshole with no dignity or any kind of self respect. I can try to talk them out of the situation if the woman is using and exploiting them but if that fails, well I at least tried to warned them but that's as far as I go. Sleeping with their women to punish them for their ignorance is just wrong on so many levels. Some men are just flat out of callous and will do anything to get laid and then try to make it sound like it was a self righteous act on their part when they decided to be a dick and do it. The fact is, some men just have very low self esteem levels. That doesn't mean you should exploit them because of it. You talk some sense into them, and if that don't work then walk away. You can't force someone to listen.

[Outcast9428]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

[WilliamSmith]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

@WanderingProtagonist
I agree with you 100% on pretty much all that: Whether a woman wants to value a man's earning ability is her business, and I can see it makes sense if a woman is poor or not very financially secure if she wants her man for a serious relationship to earn adequately well, but for those of us who aren't scared of professional women who ALREADY have enough money or sometimes more then enough, where's the problem? I come from a poor background (way under poverty line) so I'd be open to a woman from a poor background for sure so we'd have some things in common (also good because women born into way higher living standards theoretically might be taking it too hard if times got tough), but in some ways a fully independent career woman is a better prospect since you know she's interested in you for other reasons than money, since she already has plenty of her own.
Obviously it's better for the sake of our own personal goals as men to have $$$ and be successful on our own terms for our own reasons (not just to flash $$ around at women to try to act "high status"), but I don't see it as relevant where romance with women is concerned: If a woman earns and is fully financially self-sufficient and even more successful than me, great, it shows she actually values something else about me and is not gold-digging. (And it's not just "lust", like the other guy said, a lot of women are still interested in romance and love too even if making it last is often easier said than done for most people.)

Also, in some countries (China for example) there's some highly successful professional women who are frustrated because the men want them to quit their own successful jobs because the men are also obsessed with "status" they don't want their woman earning more than they do because they think it'd be a loss of face. So the women they'd otherwise want are trying to get with them, yet the men want to make her quit her job so she isn't earning more than him. *face-palms*

There's also the issue of some tradpill and redpill types making a mistake (IMO) when they're obsessed with wanting women to be in a position of economic dependency. Not necessarily the CE guy you were responding to (I don't know what his opinion would be on that), but a lot of the guys who think they're supposed "traditionalists" pretty much flat-out state they want women to be in a position of economic dependency on them like used to be the case in some time periods they think were more ideal. At those times jobs weren't as open to many types of women, but also something they overlook when I see guys saying women supposedly had it easy was that taking care of the home and just preparing food and everything was WAY harder and more time-consuming in those times, so a stay-at-home wife actually had a challenging fulltime job doing that in days where there were just local food markets, no refrigerators or other conveniences like that, etc.

But also proving that the "SMV" game some redpill types play with money is off the mark: Tons of the PUAs are !@#$in' terrible with money and include both young ones who are barely employed, or older ones who have already failed in business and sometimes are up to ears in debt as a result of previous business failures, yet both groups still clean up with the women.
And last but not least: Some of us who gave ground our way up to having some successful business ventures of various sorts (even if modest ones) and also guys who are flat-out earning six figures mostly passive and have got rich but know what they're doing with women, will all actually playfully dissemble a bit and claim to have less $$$ than they actually do have, not to be dishonest, but to deliberately scare off gold-diggers because romantic guys don't want to try to be attracting women who are just after our $$$.

[Cornfed]

What exactly would men expect to be valued for by females if not resources and/or protection? That is what females value in real relationships with men. That's the deal. The fact that the communist regime usurps the provider position in the West is why proper relationships are not generally possible.

[WanderingProtagonist]

Simple answer: if you need to shower your 'girl' around then she isn't worth your time and money!

I will marry a great woman from China, who is not materialistic and self-centered like most woman on the Earth. They are a rare breed but they do exist.

You are a wise man.

I couldn't see having a relationship with a woman who didn't want me more than she wants money. The love of money is the root of all evil, after all. And what kind of person would she be then?

There are lots of poor men in the world. Many of them are able to find wives and have children. Otherwise only rich men would be having children, and we know that's not true.

I'd also say avoid women who are angry, who are disobedient, who have bad attitude problems, who have been promiscuous. And ideally she should greatly respect you simply for being a man (as the head of the household).

Up until probably around age 25, I was deceived and thought women mostly wanted men with money. I listened to those pop psychology surveys that "proved it." As far as I am concerned though, if a woman is like that, I do not want her. There are lots of women for poor men. It's just many men don't believe they exist.

Then I remembered when I was ~19 I had a beater car and I was dating a girl who never even thought of money and spoke up when we were going out to eat more than once a week.

Any woman the does not consider a man’s ability to provide resources is an idiot and only with him for reasons of lust.

Only smart or very high value women understand that a man’s resources is an important factor in his suitability.

Stupid women choose men for “love” only then to suffer the tragic consequences when hard times, emergencies, and unexpected expenses arise. “Love” does not pay for life-saving medical treatment, livelihood saving legal representation, or prosperous future-saving education for your children.

Given that a lot of these post are a few years old, I still don't agree with any of this bullshit. In this day and age, women don't f***ing need to rely on a man for his resources like this is the 1920s back when people had their kids working in factories. The majority of women in the world today are highly capable of surviving without men providing shit at all for them. My female cousins are all living proof of this. The kind of stuff men like yourself bring up is just a clear cut indication that you're trying to say a man deserves to die alone if he can't afford to take care of a woman, that he does not deserve to have someone to be part of his life. Outdated redpill BS like this always irritated me it just leads me to ask how do you feel toward Lesbians? They don't get with each other for resource reasons and do just fine together.

In this day and age women are just as much capable of providing for themselves as anyone else. If homosexuals don't exploit and use each other for resources and can still have a stable relationship, why is it that heterosexual couples have to do all this old fashion bullshit just to be happy and stay together? I don't agree with any of this outdated crap you are spewing especially since I've known plenty of men who had very little and their women still cared for them. Using a man for his resources sounds selfish to me, and I don't give two shits about any of that "it's nature" nonsense either. Everyone don't want to raise kids so don't sit there and say "oh she should be at home raising the children." F that.

I remember a woman once saying "I would never let my man struggle financially, if he was I would do everything I can to help and support him anyway I could because I don't want him to struggle alone. We're in this together." That's the type of woman I'd want, A REAL WOMAN not someone who expects me to provide and then runs off when times get too tough if I can't, that sounds extremely weak and cowardly to me. I also don't believe women should be excluded from the work force either. Their are jobs and careers that women are just more suited for than men like nursing for instance. Male nurses are strange to me which is why I always got a female nurse when I got sick especially physical wise, I'm not comfortable with a man touching my dick, every time I got a physical from a male doctor it felt awkward. But I don't agree with having women in the armed forces either.

A woman should be able and willing to help her man during times of struggle, not expect him to do everything just because some red pill Ahole has an outdated view of the world. The "high value" women you speak of tend to be women with their own money in other words they don't need a man for his resources. Only poor women would rely on a man for his resources. Just like poor people rely on the government for support. What makes a woman relying on a man for support any different than relying on hand outs from the government?

Even in the animal Kingdom female animals have been known to do more than just look out for the cubs. Everything you said is just garbage "redpill" nonsense that does not apply to every woman on earth, let alone every man. Basically you're calling every woman "stupid" just because she chose a man for love not for what he has, and isn't a female coward who fears struggling side by side with her man like the type of women you desire. Someone who wants everything to be easy in her life and can't face challenges together with her man like a real woman would do.

Question, would you be eager to marry a woman who was obese or ugly? What about a woman who wanted sex only like once a month and that’s it?

A loving, married relationship requires a strong connection, yes. But a lot of what creates that connection is what people generally think are superficial. A man feels more connected to a beautiful woman then an obese one because he is sexually attracted to her whereas he is forcing his attraction to the obese girl at least to some extent. The same thing applies to women dating a man who cannot be a breadwinner. Some may be attracted to him because they admire his personality so much but to some extent she is probably forcing it.

A man being valued for his ability to provide doesn’t mean she doesn’t love him. Does a man who values a woman’s beauty not love her? Often what makes you love someone is them providing you something you really need or want. How many men are going to love a woman who refuses to be attractive and have sex with him? Maybe a very small number but not many. I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage. The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

I disagree he is not correct, because its like I said. Women today aren't being held back, if they want to make a living they can. You got women on Onlyfans pulling more money than every man on this bitch and that's not even a real damn job. And of course I don't want an obese woman, she would be unhealthy and I don't want a gross looking woman. But I'm also not the type of guy who wants a super model girl either. I can do just fine with an average girl because those are the type of girls I've gone for most of my life. Women that looked like Wynona Wyder, aren't the type of women a lot of guys would want. And I use to be crazy for the Joyce Dewitt looking types with the short hair tom boyish look. So if I can settle and accept an average woman, then women shouldn't have any issues with a man that struggles on a financial level. What is the woman going to do? Spend her entire life chasing men with resources?

A woman should have her own damn resources in case there is no one around for her to depend upon at all. That would be a bad and terrible idea for her to get with a man for his resources. In this day and age it makes no sense for them to even do that unless they wanted to be a stay at home mother and raise the children. But not too many women are even willing to do this, and not just in the U.S. but practically in any country where a high percentage of women go to school. People don't just go to school to be "educated" they go so they can build up a career later in life, and plenty of Asian women go to college in Asia, same thing with all those women you guys desire from foreign nations. People make it sound like Career driven women only exist in America, they don't they exist in any country that allows them the right to go to school. That doesn't mean they develop the same mentality as western women do. Just saying women don't go to college just for nothing.

[WilliamSmith]

I don’t think the woman should value the man’s money more than his personality, but trying to detach female attraction to men’s providing ability is what the culture as a whole has done in the last 50 years and it has ended in disaster. Men have had their greatest bargaining chip sabotaged because society was uncomfortable with the idea that a man’s resources are important to a marriage.

This is the crux of the problem, you defined a man's earning ability as his "greatest bargaining chip" but it isn't and never has been, a man's greatest bargaining chip is his masculinity and charm and basic appeal to a woman, that is always going to be his greatest bargaining chip, not his $$$.
Being a successful capable provider is a positive masculine trait because it probably indicates he's been charting a course for himself and has his own goals and is driving forward toward those (which is usually attractive to women), but the verdict is already in bigtime that a bunch of beta males prioritizing a good job and then expecting the women to show up is not a good strategy.

The guy you replied to is correct, women who don’t take into account a man’s earning ability are being foolish. It will have permanent impact on what kind of life she’ll be able to live.

It depends: It is only foolish if the woman is not already financially self-sufficient on her own and consequently they're going to have their life in arrears if she can't depend on her man providing (possibly in addition to her), but that's what @WanderingProtagonist was saying: Tons of women literally don't need a man to be providing because they already have enough $$$ themselves and have no need of having to fall back on his earnings or savings.

[Cornfed]

This is the crux of the problem, you defined a man's earning ability as his "greatest bargaining chip" but it isn't and never has been, a man's greatest bargaining chip is his masculinity and charm and basic appeal to a woman, that is always going to be his greatest bargaining chip, not his $$$.

It sounds like modern degeneracy is completely ingrained in you.

[WilliamSmith]

Oh, on the original topic about Asian men: No, they're not valued only for their money, and I noticed there's more and more white women after Asian guys (especially Japanese for whatever reason, seemed like), and don't ask me but apparently they said they also like Asian men if they put on some muscle because they like getting nailed by a guy with muscles but no body hair, LOL.

I'm not the hairiest guy but was going to make a crack about men shaving their hair off being kinda girly, but actually I guess not since the badass 80s and earlier bodybuilders when they still looked good usually shaved their body hair too and they weren't girly... but if you already don't have body hair and you're an Asian guy then it's a moot point since you don't have to shave it off to begin with, so congrats I guess.

But also back in the early 90s and earlier before half the white and Asian men both become a bunch of loopy effeminate manginas putting on women's clothing and then whining about how "society" isn't acknowledging their "non binary" masculinity in the 2020s, women used to have the hots for various Asian alpha males like Toshiro Mifune and Chow Yun Fat among others, which had nothing to do with their $$$, and neither had much muscle, and Chow Yun Fat was very alpha and attractive even though he was kind of babyfaced, but still had charisma and old-fashioned masculinity.

[WanderingProtagonist]

This is the crux of the problem, you defined a man's earning ability as his "greatest bargaining chip" but it isn't and never has been, a man's greatest bargaining chip is his masculinity and charm and basic appeal to a woman, that is always going to be his greatest bargaining chip, not his $$$.

It sounds like modern degeneracy is completely ingrained in you.

How is that degenerate? I don't see anything he said as degenerate.