Post: #1

As the question states, does a country's wealth indicate how much game the men have as well as well how positively they are perceived by women around the world? When you look at country like the US, Americans tend to get the best women around the world, and its currently the wealthiest country. On the otherhand swedes, although very rich, arent known to have men with much game. Consider countries like China or India which are developing fast, are its men perceived more positively and do they get the higher hot women of other countries, say like Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Russia, Eastern Europe, poorer countries in Africa, and South America because they have managed to gain a considerable amount of wealth, or are they looked down upon, and perceived to be lower then the domestic elite of these countries as well as Europeans, despite the economic progress of the countries?

Post: #2

There is no relation between material wealth and level of game.

Of course Americans consider themselves to have the best game in the world... But can anybody proof whether this is really the case?

Scandinavian men are considered to have very weak game... Ever heared of a Norwegian PUA called TVA Oslo who is famous in the community for super-agressive, ultra-fast bathroom pulls?

Post: #3

Here's my postulated equation: (Male Game Level) = ((X)(Gini Coefficient) x (Y)(Mean Income Level)) with X and Y being unknown, and me being a facetious dick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Gini Cofficient is a measure of income inequality.
My guess: More income inequality activates the Female "Basic Impulse To Commit Hypergamy" (B.I.T.C.H)

Hypergamy of course is female social climbing, when there is less income inequality ( e.g. Sweden) there's not as much need or reward for climbing.

Higher income in general also raises the B.I.T.C.H factor because in wealthy economies even with their inferior logical ability women can subsist fairly easily ( Cute chick as receptionist, all the way to woman in her 70's as WalMart greeter.)

Since survival is factored out as a motivator, men become more toys than desperately needed providers; so various new breeds of men emerge, from dancing monkey amusing beta, to oh-so-haughty-but-with-that-FUN-factor gamers, as well as the universally dreaded hyper-alpha, such as the multi-millionire NFL player, the bazillioniare musician/movie star/real estate mogul.

"It is the thing BEHIND the mask that I chiefly hate." - Captain Ahab in Moby Dick by Herman Melville

Post: #4

Look at it from a game-theory perspective:

Before:

Men are providers. Consequences for cheating: society shuns you, your woman may leave, taking the kids and/or money. For women, you and your offspring are provided for. If you cheat, you'll lose it all - social acceptance, your children, being provided for. FAR worse than the other way around. Result? More men cheat (men give less than a shit about what the neighbors are saying).

Today:

The State provides a little, but men and women are more or less independent. Consequences for cheating? Well, as long as you "follow your heart" anything is OK (I actually say this to girls I've cheated on - works like a charm - if she's a slut). No one gives a fuck about the kids. Now women cheat as much as men.

With more income equality, women are not as beholden to men. Therefore, more income equality leads to more cheating (for women). If her financial interests rest on the goodwill of a man, or any man, it will be in a woman's interest to package herself as a long-term romantic interest. She does this by denying sex, not being a slut - this increases her value and the likelihood the man will invest. With more income equality, a woman may still prefer a high-income man, but she is less likely to keep herself for him because if it doesn't work out, it's not as big a deal.

I wonder if girls in states with more housewives have more or less cheating that cities like SF or NY. I bet they do.