Quote: (01-29-2013 04:08 AM)Nomad77 Wrote:I know that's the theory, but does it always have to be a matter of black and white polarity? Are there guys who pull off a rich-lover-of-women vibe? Who use both the black and white keys on the piano as if they were not two distinct playing areas? An artist who uses incorporates all the colors of the palate into one seamless whole? Is it really about being a provider OR a lover? Is it binary?
The more he focuses on his money the more he will project a "provider" mentally and the women will withhold sex in return for a "relationship".
Quote:Quote:
Sure, money will always attract women because it represents security but then you will never know if the woman is with you because of your money or because she really likes you.
That is how men think, yes. But for women, money is a personality trait. Have you ever been more attracted to a woman because of her tits? Were you loving her just for her tits? For men, tits are part of the woman. How about if a woman gets fat? Are we not loving her for her real self if we lose attraction when she gets fat?
I know men have an impossible time trying to empathize with how women view money and men, because for us the notions are distinct. It's the same man whethere he's broke or rich.
But let's look at women's actions. How many lose attraction to her man after he loses his job?
For women, money and the man are indistinct, in the same way that for men an attractive figure and the woman are indistinct.
I'm aware of the dogma surrounding the notion of avoiding showing provider traits. I just think it's overly polarised and throws the baby out with the bathwater. Provider traits can be leveraged into lays and stronger LTRs. Yes, even same night lays. I've done it several times - especially with what I call the "beta bait and switch".