“Women love opportunistically” – Xsplat
The implications of this are usually ignored.
Women give value to men based on a variety of signals, as we all know. Muscular fitness is an independent signal from financial status which is independent from diamond core confidence. What messes with MOST peoples heads is the word AND. MOST people do not have the mental wiring to be able to string together independent variables with the word AND.
AND brings us a very complicated weave of overlapping and mixing and dynamically changing variables. Attraction does not reduce down from money to a core of confidence, and two equally confident men in SOME situations will not have the same attraction results, if other variables differ, such as facial attractiveness, social power, height, etc.
If you truly understand that women love opportunistically, you can’t have a black and white idea of alpha fucks and beta bucks.
Because some of what women LOVE will make them orgasm more.
There was a large study done in China that concluded that women orgasm MUCH more for wealthy men.
It did not conclude that women don’t orgasm for poor men, or that no poor men cause as many orgasms as the richest men. It concluded that wealth, on average, was correlated with an increase in women’s SEXUAL response.
So the LOVE that women have, which is towards a weighted average, is both PRAGMATIC, AND SEXUAL.
Would western college aged girls on average orgasm more for wealthy men? Maybe. Maybe not.
The context will make a difference on what is pragmatic to the girl. The girl might not be in a position where wealth from a man is much of a pragmatic advantage.
But if it were a PRAGMATIC advantage, she would not love the man FOR his money, she would love the man WITH money.
Her subconscious would perform a calculation of value, and AFTER that calculation inform her what to FEEL.
And then she’d be more likely to orgasm, because that’s the pragmatic thing to do, with more valuable men.
If you are inclined to disagree with the above, please read this to see if we are actually in more agreement than we thought: