Post: #1

"It is probably safe to assume that the vast majority of these affairs between married women and unmarried men were more or less short-lived; eventually the risk would outweigh the reward for one or the other and the affair would be broken off. No matter how brief or varied extramarital contact was, however, marriages tended to endure because the commitment to maintaining security for herself and her children was always paramount. In other words, though a woman’s source of security must be stable and enduring, her source of sexual and emotional intimacy could and often did change over time. Then, as now, more women wanted to marry those with power (either political or economic) for the reasons already stated above, and those with power of course wanted to marry as many women as possible for both sexual and social reasons. More wives meant more power on every level, and this has not changed and probably never will. What has changed, however, is the nature of those in power.

For those with power are now inhuman entities, namely corporations and collectivist governments, and it is they whom many women now seek to marry. Because these entities are inhuman, their needs and desires are different from those of human men, but no less focused on women. The “wife” of a corporation provides some form of work rather than sex, and in return receives the sort of security once provided by husbands, namely income (even during pregnancy and old age), medical care, etc; a faithful “wife” is rewarded with higher pay and benefits. Similarly, a collectivist government has many “wives” which it attempt to support through social programs and attempts to protect through legislation. The fact that it does such a poor job of both only means that most women will seek to marry a better provider first; only those women with low standards and poor prospects “marry” governments. And although sex is not part of the reward for these institutions, they demand fidelity in their own fashions: The United States government stops supporting mothers who marry mere humans, and companies give their best positions and income to “career women” who give their all to the company rather than “cheating” with a family."

https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/176/

Seems pretty accurate.

Post: #2

Haha. I bet this bitch considers herself smart for writing that.

The entire time I was TRYING to read it, I was like:

Post: #3

I was seriously trying to figure out WTF she was saying between the 10 dollar words and run-on sentences... If the core message here is that women are now more dependent upon faceless corporations and government programs than they are on husbands (or even live-in boyfriends) then she is right.

Good luck getting a corporation or welfare check to provide your children with life experience and a solid upbringing, lovingly appreciate your cooking, keep you warm in bed at night, or fuck you.

Hope it was worth the tradeoff to shuffle papers around an office?

Post: #4

I think her point was that women used to be dependent on men for financial support and security. Now they're financially dependent on corporations, the government, and other large institutions.

Her point also was that women used to be attracted to men of wealth, stability, and power. Now that's been diminished somewhat, as women have less of a need for a protector or provider.

I think her above points fit in with what we talk about on these forums. Women are no longer drawn towards beta provider types and are now gravitating to sexy alphas with game.

Roosh and Roissy/Heartiste have both pointed out that doctors tend not to do very well even with a traditional high-status, high-paying job.

Post: #5

She is of course right to a degree that women do not desire the provider aspect that much. However they still run after the extremes of power and wealth. And in addition to that they still pick a boring provider after pinning down a more exciting Alpha did not work out. She is right on quite a few points there of course, but he infos are rather slanted:


written by

The Honest Courtesan
Frank commentary from a retired call girl

Quote:“Maggie has a very interesting job,” she said sweetly, “don’t you, Maggie?” Since everyone else there already knew what I did, her intent was obviously to embarrass me in front of the lady I had just met, who was middle-aged and fairly proper.

“Oh, really, what do you do?” she asked me, expecting nothing shocking, I’m sure.

“I’m a whore,” I replied matter-of-factly.

“Excuse me?” the lady asked, clearly believing she had misunderstood.

“A whore,” I repeated. “A prostitute. A call girl. A harlot, a lady of the evening, a hooker, a strumpet, a doxy, a fille de joie. A demimondaine, a woman of questionable virtue.” This was delivered with a straight face and no hint that I had said anything more unusual than “bank teller.”

Don't know if a prostitute, even an intelligent one is the right person to write on matters of stable happy marriages. Most escorts I met in person and talked to (high level ones who sucked Saudi princes dicks) were pretty much fucked up. For 99,9% of women the best way is to earn as much as possible and leave as soon as possible, or the emotional toll would leave her distraught. On the other hand may be an interesting Dark Triad Experience for them, so who cares - let them do their stuff.

Nonetheless relationship or marriage advice coming from a whore.

The author and ex-whore:





Proves that you don't have to be terribly good-looking in order to become a millionaire prostitute. Pretty manly voice there too.

Post: #6

Do women really chase the extremes of power and wealth? It's rare to see girls lusting over politicians, businessmen, or executives. It seems like those high-powered guys, who traditionally would've been seen as alpha types, have really slipped a lot in their attractiveness.

Sure a woman might want to settle down with one of these high powered guys for financial reasons, but women don't seem to care much when they're in their young and wild stage of life. Even when women do pursue one of these guys for marriage, it's done in more of a calculated manner. You don't see girls actually swooning over the execs.

I feel like that's a change from many decades ago, when being a wealthy and powerful man was seen as pretty attractive to lots of girls.

Post: #7

Maggie is one of the rare female voices of reason on almost all sexual issues. She shares our disgust for the cash-and-prizes marriage model.

Post: #8

(08-05-2014 04:55 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  Do women really chase the extremes of power and wealth? It's rare to see girls lusting over politicians, businessmen, or executives. It seems like those high-powered guys, who traditionally would've been seen as alpha types, have really slipped a lot in their attractiveness.

Sure a woman might want to settle down with one of these high powered guys for financial reasons, but women don't seem to care much when they're in their young and wild stage of life. Even when women do pursue one of these guys for marriage, it's done in more of a calculated manner. You don't see girls actually swooning over the execs.

I feel like that's a change from many decades ago, when being a wealthy and powerful man was seen as pretty attractive to lots of girls.

Fame has become the highest aphrodisiac since the advent of Hollywood and the Music & Sport Industry.

That said - there are plenty of young chicks actively chasing the very rich. You have to visit Monaco to find them. Many of them are in the prime.

But you are right - more extreme examples of power or wealth are needed. Coupled with Game such men do extremely well indeed, since it compensates for example age to a high degree. Also within an organization - political party, corporation, NGO - the men in power are quasi-famous and can easily bed many women. That is how the female mind works.

And women do behave longer like teenagers chasing the most good-looking men they could find thanks to Tinder etc. As soon as they meet the guy though all the fake conditioning to see men as mere visual sex-objects does not work so well and they react to Game / Dominance just like any other woman in the world.

____________

Heartiste also has a good take on it recently:

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/0...ew-master/

Quote:This is why I argue that feminist-inspired, female-aggrandizing public policies should be repealed. “Pro-woman” (aka pro-r-selection) policies like Title IX and mandated maternity leave create perverse incentives for a sub-Saharan female-forager style social system that channels natural female hypergamy toward company men and away from family men. Men — particularly men with little experience bedding women — have a hard time understanding this primal craving of women for higher status mates, because men don’t give a fig about female status. To help focus minds, recall what you as a man feel when a beautiful young woman poured into a slinky cocktail dress sits close to you and smiles. That’s what women feel in the presence of powerful male bosses commanding them to do their bidding.

Starting to feel a little nervous kissing your wife goodbye as she heads to work in the morning? You should. She’s doing something that most of her female ancestors never did.

Post: #9

Quote:Fame has become the highest aphrodisiac since the advent of Hollywood and the Music & Sport Industry.

Right. Fame has very much taken precedence over wealth and power. A rapper or pro athlete has much, much higher SMV than a corporate CEO, Senator, or even entertainment industry exec.

Quote:That said - there are plenty of young chicks actively chasing the very rich. You have to visit Monaco to find them. Many of them are in the prime.

I've never really been to Monaco. My comments are more in reference to life in a 2nd tier American city (ie the average American girl). I'd bet even with those Monaco chicks, they're not lusting over these wealthy men. They're there for purely financial reasons and expect to be paid in some form.

Women have actually been marrying for money forever. The difference is that these days, they're less satisfied with a rich long term provider. They're more likely to divorce and cheat on the side, which wasn't true in the past.

The heir to the Rothschild fortune committed adultery with some rapper. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...onica.html

Quote:But you are right - more extreme examples of power or wealth are needed.

You'd think Donald Sterling would represent an extreme example of wealth and power, but he still ended up getting played by Stiviano. I think in the past decades, a man like Sterling could at least expect his whore not to cheat on him and be satisfied with being married to a billionaire team owner - not anymore. For all his wealth and power, he's just a chump waiting to be parted with his money by some unscrupulous woman.

It must be especially maddening that Stiviano would picture herself with all these celebs and athletes on her instagram, but feel so revulsed by Sterling that she wouldn't post any pics of herself with him.

Quote:Coupled with Game such men do extremely well indeed, since it compensates for example age to a high degree.

Right, with game and a certain level of attractiveness, such men can do well. Without either, then such men often aren't going to get more than a LTR.

Quote:Also within an organization - political party, corporation, NGO - the men in power are quasi-famous and can easily bed many women. That is how the female mind works.

From what I've seen, such men often get set up in honey traps. The woman has an affair with the exec and then sues for "sexual harassment." Another common trick is to sleep with a higher up and expect some type of favor down the line. A lot of execs are much more careful these days because of all the law suits out there, which really wasn't as true a few decades ago when men could get away with a lot. Even women who don't have affairs will flirt with their superiors for hope of a promotion. Women are crafty.

Post: #10

Interesting piece. After struggling through her writing, I thought she drew an interesting picture of women and government.

"The United States government stops supporting mothers who marry mere humans"...nice

"companies give their best positions and income to “career women” who give their all to the company rather than “cheating” with a family." - Not sure on this one. I've seen career women canned in the mid-sized HQ where I worked.

Post: #11

Women are attracted to masculinity at the core of itself, fame, wealth money, are exterior manifestations of it, not necessarily the actual substance in itself. Pick up artistry in the beginning was a illusion of it, a lot like women who wear make up, high heels and the full works; faking attractiveness. Pick up artists on the other hand imitate irrational confidence, high value; which in turn is what women find attractive.

Post: #12

(08-05-2014 08:16 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  Women have actually been marrying for money forever. The difference is that these days, they're less satisfied with a rich long term provider. They're more likely to divorce and cheat on the side, which wasn't true in the past.

The heir to the Rothschild fortune committed adultery with some rapper. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...onica.html

Heh. Nice - the upper classes getting nipped in the butt with ideologies which were meant to destroy the fabric (stable marriages) of the so-called peasants. A Rothschild is a woman like any other, so she reacts to Game and Dominance and also acts on it in our times. Feminism is so destructive also, because it pussifies men (most guys likely would not be leaders or Alphas, but at least stubborn Sigmas like in the Wild West).

Even extreme Fame or Wealth cannot get you a faithful wife in a LTR - sure fame, wealth or extreme good looks can get you plenty of short-term notches, but as soon as you enter a relationship you end up like Sterling or Paul McCartney.

Unfortunately we are nearing times where this is becoming reality:

   

Post: #13

Heartiste did a write up.

http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/08/0...ew-master/

Post: #14

(08-05-2014 04:55 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  Do women really chase the extremes of power and wealth? It's rare to see girls lusting over politicians, businessmen, or executives. It seems like those high-powered guys, who traditionally would've been seen as alpha types, have really slipped a lot in their attractiveness.

Sure a woman might want to settle down with one of these high powered guys for financial reasons, but women don't seem to care much when they're in their young and wild stage of life. Even when women do pursue one of these guys for marriage, it's done in more of a calculated manner. You don't see girls actually swooning over the execs.

I feel like that's a change from many decades ago, when being a wealthy and powerful man was seen as pretty attractive to lots of girls.

Hypergamy squared - being rich isn't enough, you have to be a rich ballplayer, rapper etc.

And economic security is most attractive in an unstable world. If they're going to be able to extract his wealth in so many ways anyway, he becomes less attractive as a partner. "Why buy the cow when the milk is free"

Post: #15

(08-04-2014 11:03 PM)Goldmund Wrote:  Haha. I bet this bitch considers herself smart for writing that.

The entire time I was TRYING to read it, I was like:

I advise giving Maggie Mcneil a second chance, she's got some interesting things to say.

Post: #16

Quote:Hypergamy squared - being rich isn't enough, you have to be a rich ballplayer, rapper etc.

I think in the past, women really didn't want hypergamy with rich men. They wanted to marry and have children with those men.

Now they're content to be fuck buddies with ball players, rappers, entertainers, etc.

Post: #17

Quote:Heh. Nice - the upper classes getting nipped in the butt with ideologies which were meant to destroy the fabric (stable marriages) of the so-called peasants. A Rothschild is a woman like any other, so she reacts to Game and Dominance and also acts on it in our times.

The culture makes a huge difference, as people want whatever they are told to want. In the past, movies, tv, and music glorified good husbands and told women to find beta providers. So women were attracted to guys who could bring home the bacon, especially doctors. For these women, marrying the son of a wealthy family was a dream come true.

In the present, movies, tv, and music glorify men like entertainers and sports stars. Women are taught to want sexy fun bad boys like this rapper. So women may still marry beta providers, but they don't lust after them. They want men like Jay Electronica.

The female adultery rate is now about equal to that of men. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wome...ating-more

Quote:Unfortunately we are nearing times where this is becoming reality:

Yep

In the past, a girl like Stiviano would've wanted to marry Sterling. Now she's content to just take his money while banging the ballers she desires on the side.

Post: #18

(08-05-2014 02:24 AM)Fighting888 Wrote:  I think her above points fit in with what we talk about on these forums. Women are no longer drawn towards beta provider types and are now gravitating to sexy alphas with game.

Roosh and Roissy/Heartiste have both pointed out that doctors tend not to do very well even with a traditional high-status, high-paying job.

Women are always looking for providers. The "welfare-state" thing is overstated. You think $200 a month in food stamps and $700 in rent assistance affords them a lifestyle of louboutin boots, gucci purses and lavish trips? That called bare minimum subsistence.

Seekingarrangement.com has over 3 million members with an 8 to 1 ratio of chicks to dudes. Most of them American chicks. Most of the dudes on there are older business men, not hollywood movie stars. Not rappers or NBA players. Plenty of girls will fuck an older dude if he has money, no matter what country, in all cultures. It's basic evolutionary biology.

I've found that when it all comes down to it, women want two basic things from men: dick and money. They get dick from stereotypical "alphas" and money from betas/providers. Best of both worlds. It's smart really. If you can give them BOTH good dick AND money, you're winning the chick game.

Post: #19

I'm not disagreeing that women want to settle with betas and gold dig them. but they find beta providers completely unattractive and are willing to cheat on them with more attractive men. As you said, they want alphas for dick and betas for money/security. In the past, that wasn't as true.

Post: #20

Quote:Right. Fame has very much taken precedence over wealth and power. A rapper or pro athlete has much, much higher SMV than a corporate CEO, Senator, or even entertainment industry exec.

We in the manosphere need to get to the point where we are properly defining our terms. "Fame", "power" and "wealth" are overlapping, interrelated concepts.

"Power" is the ability to do what others can't. "Wealth" is stored up value that one can use for trading with others. "Fame" is admiration and reknown from a group of others.

Oftentimes "famous" people are wealthy, and vice versa. There are also situations where "Powerful" people would not be "powerful" in that given context. Place a broke, but over-confident bad boy and a shy, billionaire in the same room with hot chicks, who is "powerful" in that situation? This is basically how all of social life plays out. Power differentials.

The real thing to ask yourself: "Who has the most *naked* power in this situation?" That's what chicks want at the deepest level. If the bad boy can talk to girls with impunity and the billionaire can't, no matter how much money he has, the bad boy has more power. It's that simple.

Post: #21

(08-05-2014 08:02 PM)Fighting888 Wrote:  I'm not disagreeing that women want to settle with betas and gold dig them. but they find beta providers completely unattractive and are willing to cheat on them with more attractive men. As you said, they want alphas for dick and betas for money/security. In the past, that wasn't as true.

As long as the beta dude with money is getting sex, he's really not losing. He could probably get a whole harem of chicks like that. And from another perspective, the "alpha" dude is also getting cheated on for dudes with money lol. It goes in both directions. Like one of the guys here said, you're not going to AMOG a guy with $100 million (aka Dan Bilzerian types).

And yes, women are attracted to wealth itself. Especially if it is self-made. It is a sign of strength. You just need to back it up with good dick.

Post: #22

(08-05-2014 10:51 AM)DarkTriad Wrote:  I advise giving Maggie Mcneil a second chance, she's got some interesting things to say.

She is alright and has some nice insights on several topics. She is firmly Red Pill and does some good work promoting the legalization of prostitution. Fact is that the profession will be around as long as we don't reach a near perfect utopia, so we might as well give it some legal framework.

And she is certainly one of the few ones who are emotionally strong enough to survive long years in the business without much of a mental package - also one of the very few who enjoyed many aspects of her job.

Post: #23

Its hilarious taking the train this morning. Look at all these women dressed so nicely! Who is it for? Their corporate husbands. How do you think they dress insidethe home, for their human husbands?

Post: #24

Quote:As long as the beta dude with money is getting sex, he's really not losing. He could probably get a whole harem of chicks like that. And from another perspective, the "alpha" dude is also getting cheated on for dudes with money lol.

Well if you look at it from that perspective, I guess.

Though I'm not sure how happy betas are with their harems, if they have to pay for it. Donald Sterling apparently suffered a lot of psychological grief because one of whores was banging with pro athletes.

I think betas feel like they "own" their women because they're paying for it. Alphas get it for free and don't seem that invested in their girls.

Quote:It goes in both directions. Like one of the guys here said, you're not going to AMOG a guy with $100 million (aka Dan Bilzerian types).

That's exactly what happened to the Rothschild heir, who was married into a super prominent banking family. This Rothschild woman had a husband worth $500 and had an affair with a little known rapper. It's amazing a woman would do that and makes you wonder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...iends.html

Dan Bilzerian is a poker player. That's a naturally alpha profession. In comparison, most heirs to fortunes and MBA/finance types are effete. I wouldn't lump him in with other rich men.

Quote:And yes, women are attracted to wealth itself. Especially if it is self-made. It is a sign of strength.

If you're saying women are attracted to money, I agree. If you're saying women are turned on by men with money, I don't think that's really the case. Sterling is a good example of how being rich, without being attractive, works in real life. To these girls, a rich man is just a walking ATM.

You'd think being a team owner and really powerful man in LA would be attractive to Stiviano. Nope. She'd rather chase celebs, who have the real status.

Quote:You just need to back it up with good dick.

Yep. Good dick + money.

Post: #25

(08-05-2014 08:07 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

Quote:Right. Fame has very much taken precedence over wealth and power. A rapper or pro athlete has much, much higher SMV than a corporate CEO, Senator, or even entertainment industry exec.

We in the manosphere need to get to the point where we are properly defining our terms. "Fame", "power" and "wealth" are overlapping, interrelated concepts.

"Power" is the ability to do what others can't. "Wealth" is stored up value that one can use for trading with others. "Fame" is admiration and reknown from a group of others.

Oftentimes "famous" people are wealthy, and vice versa. There are also situations where "Powerful" people would not be "powerful" in that given context. Place a broke, but over-confident bad boy and a shy, billionaire in the same room with hot chicks, who is "powerful" in that situation? This is basically how all of social life plays out. Power differentials.

The real thing to ask yourself: "Who has the most *naked* power in this situation?" That's what chicks want at the deepest level. If the bad boy can talk to girls with impunity and the billionaire can't, no matter how much money he has, the bad boy has more power. It's that simple.

In the past, society gave a lot of deference to successful men, like intellectuals, doctors, and execs. So I think in the past, the deference was seen as a form of power.

Now society generally ignores these men to focus on who really matters - entertainers, musicians, celebs, athletes.