The Profile of a Married SIMP

[Shemp]

This "That's paying for sex!" accusation usually comes from women who resent the leverage and sway you control over a bevy when you give a girlfriend allowance, but it also comes from men who are angry that you manage to have such success with hot women because of it. Just a shaming tactic to dissuade you from enjoying what they can't.

Over at Swoop the World forum, you should have seen the rage of those penniless "International Casanovas" when I discussed one of my USA sugar babies. It was a thread about finding women in developed countries, such as USA, who want children. I mentioned a sugar baby in her early 30's, very high quality postdoc, who wanted bareback sex (no condom) despite not being on birth control and not knowing about my vasectomy. I was trying to make the point that young women wanting children were widely available in the USA and even desperate for men with good genes who could pay a decent amount of child support, and then I went on to discuss how to find such women. (I declined the bareback sex offer, used a condom as usual, then we broke up due to incompatibility.)

Well, the young guys at STW became furious that an older man was poaching "their women" and, moreover, using money to make himself more attractive. "f**k off you fat disgusting old whoremonger!" was a typical reaction, plus the mods banned me. (I'm not fat. Visible six pack plus did 11 correct pullups this morning, and should be back to 15 in a few months, now that I'm recovered from my shoulder injury.) Foaming at the mouth level rage. This postdoc had waved with disgust when I asked at our first date why she didn't go with younger guys, as if to say she hasn't got time to waste on penniless vagabonds who wasted their youth traveling and chasing the sorts of sluts @hypermak mentioned meeting in Malta. She needs a man with money if she's going to raise a child, and money is precisely what these guys on STW forum lack.

(I wasn't trying to boast about my wealth (maybe top 5% in the USA for men aged 59) or stir up trouble, BTW, though I do sometimes engage in trolling on these forums.)

This incident just shows how hysterical broke guys become when they are confronted with the reality that normal women, not just hard core prostitutes, care a lot about money, and that broke guys are going to lose out on many of the best women due to lacking money. Their hysteria causes them to resort to all sorts of gaslighting tactics to hide this reality, as bad as the gaslighting from ugly middle aged feminists.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

This incident just shows how hysterical broke guys become when they are confronted with the reality that normal women, not just hard core prostitutes, care a lot about money, and that broke guys are going to lose out on many of the best women due to lacking money. Their hysteria causes them to resort to all sorts of gaslighting tactics to hide this reality, as bad as the gaslighting from ugly middle aged feminists.

All understandable given human nature.....

I was aware that some guys went conniption-crazy over the issue, but I just think they have not thought the issue through rationally. That forum seems to be oriented towards the "Alpha male it out" strategy that only a very small minority of men can ever do successfully.

The fact is that women, especially young ones are quite often broke these days. Giving them a hand is extremely appreciated and they won't want to give that financial crutch up on a whim.

This forum, on the other hand, seems to have a few guys who simply resent the perceived, unfair advantage so their strategy is to attempt to "shame it away" just as women often do. I recall the days when black American women in college would foam at the mouth with disapproval because I was openly dating interracially. Their perception was they were losing access to something to which they felt entitled so the reaction was visceral shaming.

Guys who struggle to get the women they want also feel they are losing further access to those women when other guys are deploying minor financial assistance as a maintenance strategy with women.

Such is human nature and it is to be expected. The truth of the matter is MOST men will not be able to employ a girlfriend allowance or the sugar baby strategy unfortunately. So the less guys are able to utilize it, the better it is for guys like us who CAN!

All I know is that the quality of women I have been able to pull and KEEP is the highest now (in terms of age and beauty) than it has EVER been so if I can encourage 1% to 5% of men of means to try it, great. Those who can't or won't for whatever will certainly continue to disapprove and that works very much in our favor in the end.

[Cornfed]

I mentioned a sugar baby in her early 30's, very high quality postdoc, who wanted bareback sex (no condom) despite not being on birth control and not knowing about my vasectomy. I was trying to make the point that young women wanting children were widely available in the USA and even desperate for men with good genes who could pay a decent amount of child support, and then I went on to discuss how to find such women. (I declined the bareback sex offer

But isn’t that fairly unsavoury and sexually disrespectful? That you are just using her as a masturbatory aid unworthy to bear your seed like she desperately wants to? Having said that, of course your wouldn’t want to screw yourself with child support. I don’t know what the answer is in this shitty society.

[Shemp]

I mentioned a sugar baby in her early 30's, very high quality postdoc, who wanted bareback sex (no condom) despite not being on birth control and not knowing about my vasectomy. I was trying to make the point that young women wanting children were widely available in the USA and even desperate for men with good genes who could pay a decent amount of child support, and then I went on to discuss how to find such women. (I declined the bareback sex offer

But isn’t that fairly unsavoury and sexually disrespectful? That you are just using her as a masturbatory aid unworthy to bear your seed like she desperately wants to? Having said that, of course your wouldn’t want to screw yourself with child support. I don’t know what the answer is in this shitty society.

There is no seed available in me. As I noted, I have a vasectomy. I got that vasectomy because my personality is such that I can not be happy fathering and then abandoning a child. Since I have no desire to raise children, best not to father them and then be stuck in a situation I don't want: either unhappily raising them or unhappily abandoning them.

I don't think my personality trait of being strongly attached to children is natural in men. Rather, it is learned, a part of the European cultural sickness that is causing European culture to commit suicide. In the natural order of things, the mother is strongly attached to her children, while men are strongly attached to siblings and other relatives on the mother's side, moderately attached to women with whom they have sex, and loosely attached to everyone in their tribe, including all the children, regardless of who is the father. This is the natural matrilineal order of things. (Not matriarchal, since men always rule in the natural order of things. Specifically, brothers rule sisters, uncles on the mother's side rule younger generations.)

The patrilineal system, which causes men to closely bond to their biological children, at the expense of children of other men of the tribe, was very effective for a few centuries, but now it is causing European cultural suicide, because it imposes an.excessive burden on men. Way too high a burden for men like me, who are being bred out of existence fur the time being. If the system of incentives changes, men like me can be easily bred back into existence, so not necessarily a permanent loss. (I don't really care even if it a permanent loss. Everything in this universe is temporary.)

As for that girl, plenty of other guys want biological children, or she could go to a sperm bank. I wasn't wasting her time by not revealing the vasectomy. The fact that I insisted on a condom told her all she needed to know, and perhaps was why we broke up soon.

[hypermak]

Some typical naysay:

"That is prostitution!" It is not, because prostitution is payment for sex outright with this is not. Ask any attorney.
"A real man should not have to pay a woman!" Wrong; actually real men are the ones with the means to GET the hot women that average men cannot!
"I already get girls without having to pay them, why should I pay an allowance!" If you are getting girls without paying them a girlfriend allowance, they are generally of lower sexual market value and harder to control than if you do pay the allowance. They are also apt to eventually leave you for another Chad while the paid girlfriend will fight tooth and nail to keep you in her life.

The girlfriend allowance works VERY well both in America and abroad. It is the one way men can hold the relationship power over a hot woman who has more social capital than a man.

Ironically, sometimes the hotter the girl, the better the allowance works! Why, because hot women have to spend money to stay hot. They get their nails done, they get their hair roots recolored, they get massages, and have yoga class fees, etc. They also know that their beauty is at a premium so they LOVE getting paid on account of their hotness rather than being with a Chad who might screw them well, but otherwise not add value to their lives.

This generally does not work on women in committed, serious relationships and that is fine. You might be surprised to know that women who initially balk at the idea, later warm up to it and let you know. This is how females sometimes work.

So if you want a girl above your sexual market value, give the girlfriend allowance a shot. You will be amazed at how well it gets you the girls who are usually out of your league. Yes, continue to work on yourself and your appearance, but this strategy will exponentially increase your success!

This strategy is based on the Red Pill axiom of Briffault's law which you can research for yourself. Always know that if a woman does not like you, she will never agree to be with you, regardless of allowances or not. BUT if a woman even mildly likes you, a girlfriend allowance can tip the scales in your favor. Later, your relationship can become stronger and more meaningful if that is what you want, but the girlfriend allowance gets your foot far in the door.

You can thank me later And remember to ignore the loser/haters who don't want to see you succeed!

But a girlfriend allowance is for high sexual market value girls who have already met and dated and you want to KEEP them focused on you for as long as you like. Prostitution is sex for money, a girlfriend allowance is a sweetening of the relationship pot because you simply can. The result is ASTOUNDING. So tune out such noise because you know where it comes from, envy.

I read your "gf allowance" manifesto a while ago and I am still trying to wrap my head around it. You are basically saying that, by giving her a monthly allowance, a girl whose market value is above yours will go from being undecided to enthusiastic. I can understand wher you're coming from but such statement is vague, in fact too vague. At least, with a prostitute, you meet the girl and you know the price of the deed upfront, so you can decide whether her price is worth the good, and whether to go for it or not.

What if the girl has too high a market value and used to going with men way richer than you? What if she pushes her "allowance value" to above what you can afford? What if she gets a better deal with anyone else and starts shadowing you?

Conversely, if you are every bit the confident and charming men you say you are and the girl is just a bit undecided whether to date you or not, what if you put her on the allowance only to realise later on that she would have wanted to be with you anyway, perhaps in exchange for just some sporadic gifts?

What you propose is just sugar daddying under another name.

What's the difference between this and sugar daddying proper? Sugar dads are affluent people who want to enjoy girls above their punch. Sugar dads do contribute to keeping their sugar babes hooked to a lifestyle of plush shopping, top cosmetics and sophisticated experiences. Most sugar dads are not in denial about the fact that this is not a real relationship, it is just a tis-for-tat arrangement. The moment the cash flows will stop, so will the sex, the attention and the "love", if there's any.

In your approach, you think your chosen "gf" won't feel free enough to have sex with other Chads and daddies whenever she pleases, while using your money? Once the novelty effect is gone, you think she won't be looking for younger, better looking, fitter, richer men and start making excuses on WhatsApp about not being able to see you?

After all, by giving her an allowance, she will have learned what her "base price" is. If she is not into this kind of life already, you will have introduced her to sugar dad world. As she won't be a saint, soon enough she will try to upgrade and might well trade you in for somone closer to her physical attraction or personality match standards.

Look, many Filipinas are hot but desperate and materialistic. I believe, so are many women from Ukraine or Mother Russia. Your "gf allowance" might work to some extent and bring back the goods you desire. In fact I do see quite a few Chinese or Korean businessmen who do exactly that. They are in Manila a few times a year and have these young hotties all wrapped around them like snakes. These girls live in the condos where these guys live while here, so get free accommodation. They surely get a monthly allowance to live the good life and get the "relationship" going.

I also know, for a fact, these girls bring their boyfriends, studdy young Filipinos or foreigners, up to the flats to have fun with them. Not to brag, but I had sex with 3 of them. One of them saw me and asked a friend for my phone number. We spent a few nights and mornings together and we are still seeing each other. And believe me, the few times they talked about their daddies to me, it surely wasn't to praise them. Quite the opposite, I ended up feeling sorry for the very high price these people have to pay just to be with them a few weeks a year.

Yes, in one case the Korean sponsor is a charming man, an insurance broker who manages operations here, he speaks English fluently as he was educated in the US. I am sure he will be every bit deluded that he has complete control over a girl way above his market value when, in fact, he is just sponsoring a life that is totally independent from him and doesn't have him anywhere in the picture.

Which is why I think your idea that you're acting as a mature, confident father figure who enriches their lives, as quite delusional.

I can't speak for everyone else on this forum but, as far as I am concerned, I am nowhere near as poor as you think. I might end up having to sugar daddy a girl if I am still alone in my 50s and absolutely need those fresh legs, that young smooth face, those steady breasts and I don't care much about the poker face she makes every time she meets me and we have sex.

[Cornfed]

I don't think my personality trait of being strongly attached to children is natural in men. Rather, it is learned, a part of the European cultural sickness that is causing European culture to commit suicide.

I think it is normal to European genetics and its attack is part of what is causing the European genocide.

[hypermak]

This postdoc had waved with disgust when I asked at our first date why she didn't go with younger guys, as if to say she hasn't got time to waste on penniless vagabonds who wasted their youth traveling and chasing the sorts of sluts @hypermak mentioned meeting in Malta. She needs a man with money if she's going to raise a child, and money is precisely what these guys on STW forum lack.

For the record, Malta of all places is not exactly what I would call a slut paradise. Yes there are happy go lucky seasonal workers but for the most part the local culture is almost as conservative as an Islamic country.

I hooked up with Italian college students from nearby Sicily, a young (and hot as f*ck) hotel manager from Casablanca, even a Russian girl. So on what planet are the girls I was f*cking for free sluts and those you or @Contrarian Expatriate are paying hard cash to be with you classy, "high market value" ladies? As for your "postdoc", by saying that "she hasn't got time to waste", don't you see she was implying that she had limited time for sex and wanted to have sex with someone who would pay her, rather than someone who didn't want to? I guess that, as soon as you came across as reluctant to raise her child, she vanished.

Again, you're free to spend your money wherever you want. I am not against your (very legit) choice to use money as a leverage over the younger but penniless guys, but to think that that automatically makes you a "real man" and whoever you choose to give your cash to is automatically a high quality woman, is seriously delusional on your part.

Sure, most young men in their 20s and 30s don't have a lot more to offer than their youthful bodies, their good looks and healthy lust. Yet, again, you are deluded to think that your pension money would be the ultimate aphrodisiac and tilt the scale against any young man.

(I wasn't trying to boast about my wealth (maybe top 5% in the USA for men aged 59) or stir up trouble, BTW, though I do sometimes engage in trolling on these forums.)

Well, you are now. So what if I told you I could, hypothetically, use some of my money to "pouch" your sugar babes from you, or CE? Cash handouts being equal, how would you feel if they chose me over you?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I read your "gf allowance" manifesto a while ago and I am still trying to wrap my head around it. You are basically saying that, by giving her a monthly allowance, a girl whose market value is above yours will go from being undecided to enthusiastic.

Absolutely incorrect. A girlfriend allowance is for someone you are already dating and it just sweetens the pot as an incentive for her to remain well-behaved, loyal, and WITH you. She has ALREADY decided to be with you.

What if the girl has too high a market value and used to going with men way richer than you?

Well, statistically-speaking, 99% of men in the world (90% of the men in Western countries) would not be richer than me so that is unlikely. But on the oft chance that they are, most of them are LOATHE to give a girl such an allowance because they feel just the way you do. That works very much in my favor.

What if she pushes her "allowance value" to above what you can afford? What if she gets a better deal with anyone else and starts shadowing you?

A girl you are dating accepts an allowance as a gift. A prostitute demands money or a price and that is a different concept. Sugar babies are in between because there is an understanding of some financial inducement from the beginning, but if your game is tight, the cost can be as low as dinner and outings on me once a week, or 100 to 300 dollars a month to help with school or her bills. I won't pay more than that because I don't have to, at least YET.

All girls eventually want MORE. When that happens you simply say no. Most just say, "Well I just had to ask." A few will sulk to guilt you for a few minutes, then drop it, and theoretically they could dump you but that has not happened to me. I am the dumper when an allowance is involved.

Conversely, if you are every bit the confident and charming men you say you are and the girl is just a bit undecided whether to date you or not, what if you put her on the allowance only to realise later on that she would have wanted to be with you anyway, perhaps in exchange for just some sporadic gifts?

Charming is a subjective thing. Confident I am, but I get rejected at times too, especially with the caliber and young age I go after. It is just part of the game. But where the heck are you getting that they are "undecided?" A girl who is undecided about dating me gets "nexted." Undecided means soft rejection. I am talking about girls who ALREADY like you and agree to date you.

What you propose is just sugar daddying under another name.

Not quite, I have another thread on Sugar Daddying. It is slightly different in that SB girls are looking for guys who can help them financially from the outset and you start dating with that understanding. Sugar babies often grow to like you after spending time with you and money usually becomes a non-issue because they want to be with you anyhow. I have had Sugar Babies and later made them my girlfriends and put them on a small allowance.

What's the difference between this and sugar daddying proper? Sugar dads are affluent people who want to enjoy girls above their punch. Sugar dads do contribute to keeping their sugar babes hooked to a lifestyle of plush shopping, top cosmetics and sophisticated experiences. Most sugar dads are not in denial about the fact that this is not a real relationship, it is just a tis-for-tat arrangement. The moment the cash flows will stop, so will the sex, the attention and the "love", if there's any.

Too narrow a view of Sugar Daddies. Not all are affluent, and not all are lavish and give shopping sprees and yacht trips. I only select clean-cut, university students who are just appreciate of a little extra help and masculine guidance and attention. Older, jaded, and scheming gold diggers completely repel me. I choose girls next door who must by books, pay lab fees, or save for a class trip. By the way, giving such girls ATTENTION is often more valuable than the little money I provide.

Do not forget that young girls without fathers or without masculine fathers learn from a archetypal man. I have had several such younger girls get married to the next man they date after me. They sometimes simply crave the deprogramming of feminist mindset that they deep down don't agree with.

You might want to look up Briffault's Law. I base my opinions on that and I have found it to be very accurate. But the same can be said of any relationship, if the benefit she is receiving ceases, she's out and rightfully so.

In your approach, you think your chosen "gf" won't feel free enough to have sex with other Chads and daddies whenever she pleases, while using your money? Once the novelty effect is gone, you think she won't be looking for younger, better looking, fitter, richer men and start making excuses on WhatsApp about not being able to see you?

In America and the West, for sure that is a likelihood. But not in the traditional countries I frequent, no way. Also, I date a variety of younger, better looking, fitter girls all the time too so it would be only fair if they dated others. I don't care since I do it too.

After all, by giving her an allowance, she will have learned what her "base price" is. If she is not into this kind of life already, you will have introduced her to sugar dad world. As she won't be a saint, soon enough she will try to upgrade and might well trade you in for somone closer to her physical attraction or personality match standards.

Nope. The term does not even get discussed. When I am with a girl and say, "You have not found a job yet? I know you need some help while you are taking classes, so use this ($100) for what you need. If you remain on my good side, I'll give you something each month." The girls often jump for joy, hug and kiss me like I am Santa Claus on Christmas, and behave like I am their hero for life. There is not stigma at all to a girl getting help making ends meet to ease her life. Sugar daddy term is a Western invention to stigmatize it away. But Eastern Europeans call it "sponsoring," and only especially lucky girls get those.

But more than money, take a girl to the dentist when her tooth aches, or to the clinic when she feels ill, or to the shoe shop when she needs winter boots. These are the inexpensive ways to REALLY get a girl to fall for you. Trust me on that!!!!

A girl last summer was having trouble seeing her computer screen. I asked her how old her glasses were and she said 4 years old. I was shocked and dragged her to the optician. She had a new lease on life would was extremely grateful and almost awestruck after that. It was not about the money, but about "Taking care of her" as she put it.

Look, many Filipinas are hot but desperate and materialistic. I believe, so are many women from Ukraine or Mother Russia. Your "gf allowance" might work to some extent and bring back the goods you desire. In fact I do see quite a few Chinese or Korean businessmen who do exactly that. They are in Manila a few times a year and have these young hotties all wrapped around them like snakes. These girls live in the condos where these guys live while here, so get free accommodation. They surely get a monthly allowance to live the good life and get the "relationship" going.

That is a "Kept Woman" or Mistress for married guys. I don't do that because no woman is worth my financing her entire lifestyle. 100 to 300 dollars max a month because less is sometimes more.

I also know, for a fact, these girls bring their boyfriends, studdy young Filipinos or foreigners, up to the flats to have fun with them. Not to brag, but I had sex with 3 of them. One of them saw me and asked a friend for my phone number. We spent a few nights and mornings together and we are still seeing each other. And believe me, the few times they talked about their daddies to me, it surely wasn't to praise them. Quite the opposite, I ended up feeling sorry for the very high price these people have to pay just to be with them a few weeks a year.

Those are prostitutes or "semi-pros" which explains why you have such a bias against an allowance. But what you don't see are girls at my beck and call, being apologetic, and begging me not to leave them when I want to move on. They also also love when I visit their countries and plead with me to come back. It is not about the money, because money can be wired. It is about security, a warm body, a Western man of means and several other important things for them.

Which is why I think your idea that you're acting as a mature, confident father figure who enriches their lives, as quite delusional.

I am no one's father, but sometimes fatherless girls ASSIGN me that role. If it makes them happy, so be it. I don't relate to these girls as a father, but just a strong, knowledgeable, successful, man of means so they like that. I have had girls tell me something that I told them a decade before and that it changed their lives. To me, I was just being me and imparting information, but to a young girl who is struggling to make sense of life, my life experience can illuminate a lot for them. I prefer being the swashbuckling foreigner who does what he wants whenever he wants unlike local men, not a father figure which has incestuous undertones.

I can't speak for everyone else on this forum but, as far as I am concerned, I am nowhere near as poor as you think. I might end up having to sugar daddy a girl if I am still alone in my 50s and absolutely need those fresh legs, that young smooth face, those steady breasts and I don't care much about the poker face she makes every time she meets me and we have sex.

I never care about what other men have or earn. But I will say there are only two kinds of men in this world, men who have to work for their income, and men who don't because their wealth works to generate income FOR THEM while they sleep.

But to your other point, I am UNAPOLOGETIC about what works for me in life. If that offends people who disapprove, great, because I find that humorous. Almost everything I do in life has a set of people who don't approve. Some of those people have a problem with my choice of YOUNG, ATTRACTIVE, and EUROPEAN women. But without exception, those are people whose life circumstances suck compared to mine so I see it for what it is worth and keep doing what makes ME happy.

So you do you, and I will go on happily being what you call "grandpa." At your age, you don't yet realize that life for a single man gets continues to get BETTER over time. I can't wait for 10 years to pass so my wealth doubles and I can do even more and move even more mountains. And when the time comes in about 25 years that health begins to wane, I will settle down where I so choose and reflect on the great, wild ride I had. I am not afraid of death in any way shape or form (that is a Western fear due to their religions) and I look very much look forward to what happens after earthly life. So be careful in TRYING shaming people that are older than you. It only tends to reflect how YOU are afraid or concerned about growing old. If you are trying to shame an older, single man about living unmarried and free of family obligations, it only tends to reflect that YOU are afraid of living in that manner. I am living the life I designed and planned for myself DECADES ago, and it has worked out better than I ever imagined.

[hypermak]

Absolutely incorrect. A girlfriend allowance is for someone you are already dating and it just sweetens the pot as an incentive for her to remain well-behaved, loyal, and WITH you. She has ALREADY decided to be with you.

This is precisely what I don't understand. What kind of girls are you dating, or in your dating pool, who will need an handout every month ($100-300, as you suggest below) to be "well-behaved, loyal and with you"?

The only explanation for this is that you are purposely dating girls with a bad attitude, flaky or promiscuous who are very hot looking and/or good in bed, and you believe, or hope, that this petty cash will put them on their best behaviour.

It sounds so common sense to me, and probably most people, but she is either into you and she will continue to be into you whether or not you put her on an allowance, or she is a b*tch and no reasonable amount of money will change her personality. I hope your pick of girls has been more on the former camp. If so, what is the point of giving her an allowance? Just be a good boyfriend to her. As you say below, taking her to the clinic or buying her new glasses is something every good partner could do, if they have the modest funds needed.

We both live in emerging countries where young people are lucky to make $500 a month. We should be able to agree that even a man who is not in the top 10% of wealth should be able to take good financial care of a Ukrainian or Filipina.

In America and the West, for sure that is a likelihood. But not in the traditional countries I frequent, no way. Also, I date a variety of younger, better looking, fitter girls all the time too so it would be only fair if they dated others. I don't care since I do it too.

OK, so these relationships are not exclusive. If these girls really are from "traditional", Christian Ukraine, there is no way in hell they will accept you having multiple dates and remain loyal and exclusive to you. Either you are dating bottom of the barrel girls with mental as well as financial problems, maybe a daddy fetish too, who will accept giving you their time in exchange for your allowance, or you are dating little more than prostitutes, who will be happy to pose as your devoted gf for the same limited time.

Not even here in the Philippines, where poverty is even more abject than in Ukraine, you can buy a hot girl's loyalty for $100-300 a month. The few who try end up inevitably scammed by said hotties and maybe their families, their real boyfriends or a local policeman.

Look, I am really trying hard to understand your lifestyle here but it's so full of contradictions and nonsense, I have a very hard time believing you.

I never care about what other men have or earn. But I will say there are only two kinds of men in this world, men who have to work for their income, and men who don't because their wealth works to generate income FOR THEM while they sleep.

I actually think you do, and obsessively as well. You never miss a chance to stress how wealthy and successful you are. If you really were looking for decent women, the matter of money beyond what is a middle-class threshold ($5/6,000 a month) wouldn't even be relevant.

And OK, I got it, you make your money work for you, Kiyosaki style. Not everybody in the world has the same ideas, the same opportunities and the same luck you had. That doesn't necessarily make them losers or unable to fit in your ideal of mankind.

But to your other point, I am UNAPOLOGETIC about what works for me in life. If that offends people who disapprove, great, because I find that humorous. Almost everything I do in life has a set of people who don't approve. Some of those people have a problem with my choice of YOUNG, ATTRACTIVE, and EUROPEAN women. But without exception, those are people whose life circumstances suck compared to mine so I see it for what it is worth and keep doing what makes ME happy.

So you do you, and I will go on happily being what you call "grandpa." At your age, you don't yet realize that life for a single man gets continues to get BETTER over time. I can't wait for 10 years to pass so my wealth doubles and I can do even more and move even more mountains. And when the time comes in about 25 years that health begins to wane, I will settle down where I so choose and reflect on the great, wild ride I had. I am not afraid of death in any way shape or form (that is a Western fear due to their religions) and I look very much look forward to what happens after earthly life. So be careful in TRYING shaming people that are older than you. It only tends to reflect how YOU are afraid or concerned about growing old. If you are trying to shame an older, single man about living unmarried and free of family obligations, it only tends to reflect that YOU are afraid of living in that manner. I am living the life I designed and planned for myself DECADES ago, and it has worked out better than I ever imagined.

You should be unapologetic, I would never have objected on your thread if you hadn't started to look down on me and @MrMan and basically insult anybody who dared point out the many inconsistencies of your predicament. If it works for you in Ukraine, fine, good for you. It might work in the Philippines, too, as even hot middle-class girls would do anything for 6,000 pesos ($300) a month extra.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

This is precisely what I don't understand. What kind of girls are you dating, or in your dating pool, who will need an handout every month ($100-300, as you suggest below) to be "well-behaved, loyal and with you"?

My dating pool is 19 to 25 year old who are 8s, 9, and 10s. They are usually university students, working very low-paying jobs or not working at all.
Anyone who knows anything about female nature knows that young, very attractive women are the most difficult to control because they have the most choices in men thrown at them ALL THE TIME. So this strategy works for me because it is effective given the sexual market value I insist upon.

The only explanation for this is that you are purposely dating girls with a bad attitude, flaky or promiscuous who are very hot looking and/or good in bed, and you believe, or hope, that this petty cash will put them on their best behaviour.

It was Carl Jung who was quoted as saying, "Inner and outer beauty is seldom seen in the same person." This is particularly true with YOUNG women.

As you say below, taking her to the clinic or buying her new glasses is something every good partner could do, if they have the modest funds needed.

Of course not! Most of these girls date guys their own age who have neither the money nor inclination to go to the doctor for themselves even!

We both live in emerging countries where young people are lucky to make $500 a month. We should be able to agree that even a man who is not in the top 10% of wealth should be able to take good financial care of a Ukrainian or Filipina.

But of course, but since you are so against the concept, it is a shame you will never know just how empowering it is for a man. It shifts the balance of power in the relationship from the young, gorgeous girl, to the well-heeled man.

OK, so these relationships are not exclusive. If these girls really are from "traditional", Christian Ukraine, there is no way in hell they will accept you having multiple dates and remain loyal and exclusive to you.

I never set such parameters on these relationships. They happen organically, but the girls don't want to date around because they have their traditional mindsets and reputations to consider.

These girls are territorial when they see my phone ring or text chime in, but they understand that I have choices too and that we are not married. I only date unattached girls so I have never had a problem with a girl wanting to leave me to date another guy, and only rarely do girls probe me to learn if I am dating other girls (which is a positive sign by the way.) Quite frankly, when they go back to dating some younger, poorer Chad, their lives suck by comparison so they often want to keep in contact with me.

Either you are dating bottom of the barrel girls with mental as well as financial problems, maybe a daddy fetish too, who will accept giving you their time in exchange for your allowance, or you are dating little more than prostitutes, who will be happy to pose as your devoted gf for the same limited time.

This is a veer into toxic, shaming attempts that women do. I won't address it because it is "sour grapes," pure and simple.

Not even here in the Philippines, where poverty is even more abject than in Ukraine, you can buy a hot girl's loyalty for $100-300 a month. The few who try end up inevitably scammed by said hotties and maybe their families, their real boyfriends or a local policeman.

What makes you think I live ONLY in Ukraine? There are several countries I go back to to live for protracted periods of time. Also, only unsophisticated dupes get scammed. I spend a pittance on these girls and it has a huge effect. Philippines has the reputation of attracting not so impressive men so I presume most don't know how to screen girls well, they just accept any girl who looks good and pay the consequences later.

Look, I am really trying hard to understand your lifestyle here but it's so full of contradictions and nonsense, I have a very hard time believing you.

Not everything in life is meant for you to understand. Further, those "contradictions and nonsense" is a symptom of cognitive dissonance at play in your mind. So if you don't get it, great! I am not explaining if for you. I am explaining this so that OTHER men who are reading this who DO understand it and this can help them immensely because of it. You do you, and others will do them.

[Shemp]

@hypermak: What I'm going to say will probably go right over your head, because you have been raised in a feminist environment such that you can't even notice how your thinking is feminist, same as a fish isn't aware of the water it swims in. I haven't the patience to address all your points, so I'll just hit a few:

1) You keep harping on the fact that women find you attractive, as if this were important. To you it is important, because you are desperate to be validated by women's approval: the telltale mark of a man raised under feminism and not fully in touch with his masculinity. Fully masculine men do not aspire to be sex objects: that's something women and homosexuals aspire to. Fully masculine men want power. Of course, beauty is a form of power, but I'm not going to write an extended dissertation here about the difference between male and female power. Suffice to say that a man using money to get what he wants is far more masculine than a man using his looks.

2) Of course the white girls you meet vacationing in southern Europe are sluts. Proud of being sluts, too, that's exactly what they call themselves nowadays. What these women look like is irrelevant. They are disgusting inside because they lack femininity. You're not a masculine man, thus you don't crave femininity, so you don't notice this. To men like me, these women don't even register as worthy of notice.

3) Traditional women accept that high quality men must be shared with other women. Men and women are NOT equal, contrary to what feminism teaches, because sperm is cheap but eggs are expensive. Traditional women go for the highest quality man they can get, quality measured by a combination of genes and resources. Of course these women would prefer not to share resources, but they understand that it is better to share a rich man's resources with other women than get all of a poor man's resources, since 100% of zero is still zero. There are good reasons why many societies restrict hypergamy and harem formation, despite these being natural. Because you have been raised under feminism and thus think like a knee jerk feminist, you are alarmed by CE's tendency toward creating a harem of sugar babies, and warn him that women don't like this, but think nothing of women (such as those sluts on vacation) forming harems of male admirers.

4) You say those mistresses of rich Koreans who you f***ed laughed about their sponsors with you. Has it occurred to you that they might also laugh about you to their sponsor, who is aware that they see younger men? Girls lie constantly. When it serves their purposes, they tell men what they want to hear. Quite common for sponsors not to care about fidelity when children are not at stake. Like I said before, masculine men aspire to power. A sponsor who has his girl hooked on his money has enormous power over her. Consciousness of that power may give him far more pleasure than any sex he has with the girl. Whereas you probably have no power, since young men wanting sex are a dime a dozen and so she can easily replace you. You're her playtoy, at the level of a pet dog she amuses herself with.

5) For all the talk of your conquests in London, Malta, etc, you also said that your dating life is much better in the Philippines, the mecca of vagabond PUAs. I don't know what to make of this. If so easy to meet quality women in Italy, why not get someone from your own culture? Maybe because these women in Italy, London, Malta etc are actually not high quality, but instead disgusting feminist sluts that no sane man wound want to associate with. much less marry and have children with. If so, then you shouldn't mention them in your arguments.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@hypermak: What I'm going to say will probably go right over your head, because you have been raised in a feminist environment such that you can't even notice how your thinking is feminist, same as a fish isn't aware of the water it swims in. I haven't the patience to address all your points, so I'll just hit a few:

1) You keep harping on the fact that women find you attractive, as if this were important. To you it is important, because you are desperate to be validated by women's approval: the telltale mark of a man raised under feminism and not fully in touch with his masculinity. Fully masculine men do not aspire to be sex objects: that's something women and homosexuals aspire to. Fully masculine men want power. Of course, beauty is a form of power, but I'm not going to write an extended dissertation here about the difference between male and female power. Suffice to say that a man using money to get what he wants is far more masculine than a man using his looks.

2) Of course the white girls you meet vacationing in southern Europe are sluts. Proud of being sluts, too, that's exactly what they call themselves nowadays. What these women look like is irrelevant. They are disgusting inside because they lack femininity. You're not a masculine man, thus you don't crave femininity, so you don't notice this. To men like me, these women don't even register as worthy of notice.

3) Traditional women accept that high quality men must be shared with other women. Men and women are NOT equal, contrary to what feminism teaches, because sperm is cheap but eggs are expensive. Traditional women go for the highest quality man they can get, quality measured by a combination of genes and resources. Of course these women would prefer not to share resources, but they understand that it is better to share a rich man's resources with other women than get all of a poor man's resources, since 100% of zero is still zero. There are good reasons why many societies restrict hypergamy and harem formation, despite these being natural. Because you have been raised under feminism and thus think like a knee jerk feminist, you are alarmed by CE's tendency toward creating a harem of sugar babies, and warn him that women don't like this, but think nothing of women (such as those sluts on vacation) forming harems of male admirers.

4) You say those mistresses of rich Koreans who you f***ed laughed about their sponsors with you. Has it occurred to you that they might also laugh about you to their sponsor, who is aware that they see younger men? Girls lie constantly. When it serves their purposes, they tell men what they want to hear. Quite common for sponsors not to care about fidelity when children are not at stake. Like I said before, masculine men aspire to power. A sponsor who has his girl hooked on his money has enormous power over her. Consciousness of that power may give him far more pleasure than any sex he has with the girl. Whereas you probably have no power, since young men wanting sex are a dime a dozen and so she can easily replace you. You're her playtoy, at the level of a pet dog she amuses herself with.

5) For all the talk of your conquests in London, Malta, etc, you also said that your dating life is much better in the Philippines, the mecca of vagabond PUAs. I don't know what to make of this. If so easy to meet quality women in Italy, why not get someone from your own culture? Maybe because these women in Italy, London, Malta etc are actually not high quality, but instead disgusting feminist sluts that no sane man wound want to associate with. much less marry and have children with. If so, then you shouldn't mention them in your arguments.

Lot's of great wisdom in that post, especially the bold.

It is perplexing to me that guys like this think that they have to somehow "approve" or agree with my lifestyle. I only explain it so other guys can gain insight to approaches that might work for them too. Those who don't approve can do so till the end of time and I would not care because the less guys who are aware of this aspect of female nature, the less competition for us!

[Neo]

1) You keep harping on the fact that women find you attractive, as if this were important. To you it is important, because you are desperate to be validated by women's approval: the telltale mark of a man raised under feminism and not fully in touch with his masculinity. Fully masculine men do not aspire to be sex objects: that's something women and homosexuals aspire to. Fully masculine men want power. Of course, beauty is a form of power, but I'm not going to write an extended dissertation here about the difference between male and female power. Suffice to say that a man using money to get what he wants is far more masculine than a man using his looks.

I find this post interesting. Could you actually expand upon this point (number one)? Male power. Are there forms of male power that don't have to do with money. Just curious. I have no interest in a debate or arguing. Just seeking information.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Could you actually expand upon this point (number one)? Male power. Are there forms of male power that don't have to do with money. Just curious. I have no interest in a debate or arguing. Just seeking information.

Yes. Think of active power as the ability to exert your will upon someone or something, and passive power as the ability to surreptitiously set in motion your desired course of action. Some examples that do not involve money:

-Physical power or brawn which physically forces someone or something to what you wish.
-Persuasive power such as a lawyer persuading a judge and jury to rule in his clients favor.
-Intellectual power such as figuring out how to create some important invention that functions as desired.
-Social power such as the ability to rally people or allies into action when needed.
-Legal power such as the ability to get an adversary to bend to your will or suffer dire legal consequences.
-Aesthetic power such as the ability to get people to do what you want based purely on your physical attractiveness.
-Emotional power such as to win a protracted test of wills against an adversary.
-Interpersonal power such as the ability to make friends and allies on the job, in politics, etc.
-Authoritative power such as the power of the police or prosecutor to arrest or have you arrested at his discretion.

I am sure there are many more, but they all can have interplay with each other, but financial power is one of the quickest and most effective means of power possible. Women tend to be strongest in social and aesthetic power, but they can have each of the others depending on their individual characteristics, talents or social class status.

[hypermak]

@hypermak: What I'm going to say will probably go right over your head, because you have been raised in a feminist environment such that you can't even notice how your thinking is feminist, same as a fish isn't aware of the water it swims in. I haven't the patience to address all your points, so I'll just hit a few:

I don't know if I have been raised in a "feminist environment". My Dad is a pretty strong man and he always fought hard to get what he believed was best for our family. We went through hardship several times in our life. My Mom isn't exactly the prototype of a traditional woman but has always been on his side. I don't have a lot of elements to judge the environment you were raised in but I can see that much of what you say on these threads are the result of absorbing "fringe" information about masculinity, how women are and should be treated. I haven't read much of that and perhaps lack some context, but judging from your views, they put you in a pretty weird place. You have a lot of cynicism...maybe it's your experience as well, or even the age.

Let's say I don't agree with almost anything you wrote below.

1) You keep harping on the fact that women find you attractive, as if this were important. To you it is important, because you are desperate to be validated by women's approval: the telltale mark of a man raised under feminism and not fully in touch with his masculinity. Fully masculine men do not aspire to be sex objects: that's something women and homosexuals aspire to. Fully masculine men want power. Of course, beauty is a form of power, but I'm not going to write an extended dissertation here about the difference between male and female power. Suffice to say that a man using money to get what he wants is far more masculine than a man using his looks.

I don't think I am bad looking but I also don't care if women find me attractive. I said it several times before. I don't need validation, I just need sex I just can't grasp the logic by which if a man can have sex with the girls of his choice he is a powerless sod, out of touch with his masculinity, while if he chooses (or needs) to pay those same girls, he is a powerful man and the girl a fully feminine one.

Let me tell you what I think: you're pushing 60 and you know that, like most men your age, you need to flex your financial muscles to get the kinds of girls that younger people like me can get for free. Plain and simple. That doesn't make you or me more or less masculine, and it doesn't make those ladies any better or worse. Actually I don't see anything wrong with that. If I was in the same situation and with money to spare, I would do that, too.

If you want to believe that you are the cool masculine power broker because you are in a position (or in need) to pay women to get what you want, go ahead and do it, as it clearly makes you feel better. The part I find useless and stupid is where you, or @Contrarian Expatriate, are contrasting your behaviour against that of younger people like me. We are the penniless vagabonds who behave like street dogs around girls, while you are the refined men of the world who have no problem flashing the dollar to show their leverage over us. This is perhaps an inter-generational debate I don't want to ignite but, enough said, the two worlds have always co-existed and will continue to.

2) Of course the white girls you meet vacationing in southern Europe are sluts. Proud of being sluts, too, that's exactly what they call themselves nowadays. What these women look like is irrelevant. They are disgusting inside because they lack femininity. You're not a masculine man, thus you don't crave femininity, so you don't notice this. To men like me, these women don't even register as worthy of notice.

This is another funny point. Perhaps those girls are promiscuous, perhaps not, it's their personality and life choices. Since I am not marrying them, I don't judge them. So, in order to be fully feminine, a woman should always ask for money and be available to "real men" twice their age? It doesn't make any sense, it's just another delusion for you to feel on top of the world.

3) Traditional women accept that high quality men must be shared with other women. Men and women are NOT equal, contrary to what feminism teaches, because sperm is cheap but eggs are expensive. Traditional women go for the highest quality man they can get, quality measured by a combination of genes and resources. Of course these women would prefer not to share resources, but they understand that it is better to share a rich man's resources with other women than get all of a poor man's resources, since 100% of zero is still zero. There are good reasons why many societies restrict hypergamy and harem formation, despite these being natural. Because you have been raised under feminism and thus think like a knee jerk feminist, you are alarmed by CE's tendency toward creating a harem of sugar babies, and warn him that women don't like this, but think nothing of women (such as those sluts on vacation) forming harems of male admirers.

"Traditional women" in what culture? Maybe in the middle age or in some war-ravaged community in the Middle East or Africa, where girls would rather be under the protection of powerful men to survive and have more resources for their offspring.

You still don't get it. I don't give a rodent's derrière about you or CE having a harem of sugar babies, if you have the cash, the desire and the time to do so. It starts being annoying when you silver wolves have to peddle this lifestyle as the best one, the one all men should follow to express their masculinity against the evil feminist society who wants monogamy and empowered women at all costs. Worse still, when you start to make assumptions about people's finances: yes, there is a lot of penniless bums around who try to use their chiseled jawbones or their cool dreadlocks to get sex. There is also a lot of hard-working young people who maybe do have all the cash, yet don't want (or need) to use it for this particular purpose.

Once again, more power to you if that is what you can do or want to do. There will always be people like @MrMan, who value a committed relationship with a single woman, and there will always be people like me, who like to have fun without having to think how much they need to save up.

Maybe one day I will turn into a MrMan, or a silver wolf, too. I can guarantee you that, in that case, I will have no complicated opinion about this involving biology, anthropology or sociology.

4) You say those mistresses of rich Koreans who you f***ed laughed about their sponsors with you. Has it occurred to you that they might also laugh about you to their sponsor, who is aware that they see younger men? Girls lie constantly. When it serves their purposes, they tell men what they want to hear. Quite common for sponsors not to care about fidelity when children are not at stake. Like I said before, masculine men aspire to power. A sponsor who has his girl hooked on his money has enormous power over her. Consciousness of that power may give him far more pleasure than any sex he has with the girl. Whereas you probably have no power, since young men wanting sex are a dime a dozen and so she can easily replace you. You're her playtoy, at the level of a pet dog she amuses herself with.

I understand this, I understand the sponsor's POV. I am also starting to understand that you are hooked more to the power trip that money gives you over the woman, than the woman herself. I am not at that stage yet. Considering my personality, I don't really think it will come to that. But never say never...

5) For all the talk of your conquests in London, Malta, etc, you also said that your dating life is much better in the Philippines, the mecca of vagabond PUAs. I don't know what to make of this. If so easy to meet quality women in Italy, why not get someone from your own culture? Maybe because these women in Italy, London, Malta etc are actually not high quality, but instead disgusting feminist sluts that no sane man wound want to associate with. much less marry and have children with. If so, then you shouldn't mention them in your arguments.

In terms of quantity, not quality, the Philippines are generally better. I found sous chef opportunities back in Italy and Dubai, too. I chose the Philippines because I was looking for a bit more adventurous sex life. I never made a secret about it. Yes, the Philippines are full of vagabond PUAs but I am certainly not one of them.

I have nothing against Italian women or women from any country. Italians women of my generation (and younger) are a lot more demanding and difficult to deal with than what many of us want to put up with. I am lucky because I chose to move around while building my profession. I think quality women can be found in each and every culture. What is needed is probably the desire and resolve to find them. Again, what gives you such a certainty that my girls are low quality and yours are not? Just a delusion you have to hang on to.

I am not specifically looking for a woman who can be a good long term partner and potential wife but, if and when I do spot her, I might just fall for her and choose to settle. It hasn't happened yet, although I have to say it's true what they say - that many Filipinas are excellent gf/LTF/wife material.