When girls shift from pure party mode to preferring guys with resources

This is an excerpt from a longer post about the Red Pill and kids, but I observe that a lot of chicks shift from being all about the party and the hottttttest guys to having a more balanced perspective on raw animal attraction versus resources when the chick herself shifts to being financially self-sufficient, paying her own rent and taxes, etc.

Many younger chicks are being subsidized by the state or their parents, so money is just one of these things that someone else is taking care of (usually their dads or some unrelated male being forced at gunpoint to cough up tax dollars for her benefit). Chicks who have funny-money student loans paying their way, or who have parents supporting them one way or another, are just way more into partying, hotttt guys, etc., than chicks who don’t have that safety net. Chicks who really, deeply know how hard it is to pay your own rent, keep yourself afloat, etc. have a different perspective than those who don’t. Especially chicks are have to pay back those student loans that paid for the party.

Some chicks reach the self-sufficient stage at 18 (too early IMO), a few never hit it (trust funds, etc., or just stupid temperament), most hit it from age 21 – 24… when they learn what it’s like to work full time, to be responsible for your own rent, etc. Being self-sufficient can lead a chick’s views on men to  shift. Suddenly, a guy who can pay the rent becomes more attractive than a hottt party guy. A guy who can pay the rent AND who “just gets it”… very valuable and rare. Pure party guys become somewhat less appealing. A guy who is trying to use his material resources and wealth to woo and impress women should know that her age likely affects whether she’ll be somewhat receptive/responsive to that courtship display. A chick for whom money is already being taken care of, likely won’t care. A chick who is very much into having a family will like financial responsibility displays more.

I observe that a lot of chicks want to imagine a path towards a real relationship with the guy they’re f**king casually, and a guy who has some financial stability/job stability is going to make that fantasy easier for her. A guy with no financial resources but who is attractive in some other way (musician, physically hot, student athlete, etc.) will make that a bit harder for her. And this is true on average, not all the time… some young chicks get online to look for providers, and some older women don’t give a f**k and want hott guys. Some older women also get out of a long, intense, sexually boring relationship and want to f**k around for a while. In the current environment guys should shade towards being hot, dangerous, exciting, etc., rather than towards being a material provider, because most women have “enough” money, even if they’d like more. Most women don’t have enough excitement and leadership in their lives, however. I come off as a boring corporate drone in some ways but in others I have cultivated some mystery, surprise, etc., and that serves me well.

The switch many chicks undergo when the subsidies dry up is sort of like how a lot of people in school or enmeshed in academia are “socialists” because they are paying no taxes and are being subsidized by taxpayers, so having someone else pay more into the system seems intensely desirable. When you start paying real money into the system, lower taxes become intensely desirable. The view shifts based on the life circumstances. Most people are terrible at abstract reasoning, so they feel how their current situation is, then devise political or social views based on that situation. When their situation changes, their views change. This is also why so much social/political commentary is uninteresting… it springs from a person’s immediate experience far more than a person’s research and deep understanding.

Lots of young chicks are into sexual freedom but some older women retract their interest in sexual freedom, particularly among the young, because older women cannot compete effectively with young hot chicks. So older women try to shame guys into not f**king young hot chicks, and try to shame young hot chicks into restricting their sexuality. I don’t think this works very well but that doesn’t stop older women from trying it. I am also now old enough to have seen young party girls f**king vigorously and regularly turn into conservative matrons who caution their own daughters about being too free with their favors.

Some number of chicks are also just dysfunctional, moving from eviction to eviction, unable to get along with roommates, precariously housed, never really financially stability, etc. Most normal chicks (and normal people in general) learn that eviction sucks, that it’s important to have enough money to pay the rent, that you will be screwed if you screw over other people, etc. Some chicks, however, never learn this, and in my view they are best avoided. Such chicks also usually have abysmal diet and exercise habits, so they are not hot for very long. They are out there and I have run into some of them. I bring this up because there are exceptions to every principle of human behavior. There are also some relatively conservative chicks who find stability/wealth sexy from a very early age, and who mostly opt out of the hottttt guy mating game.

I have seen many older guys erroneously attempt to impress young hot subsidized chicks with income/jobs/etc. It doesn’t work because those subsidized chicks don’t give a f**k, any more than I give a f**k about status among primitive tribesmen. Everyone knows guys who are doing financially well yet do poorly with women, and everyone knows poor guys who do well with women… that’s a key point in “Radicalizing the Romanceless.” The media obsession with “income inequality” is so poorly received by most people because most guys care much less about income per se than about how income affects their ability to get laid. Women care much less about income per se and much more about competing with other women for status, and about what income says about a man. Men mistakenly think getting rich will wildly improve their sex lives and their romantic lives, and most men who get rich find the money to be a marginal improvement, but for some reason it’s socially acceptable to tell everyone you want to get rich, but it’s not socially acceptable to tell everyone you’re working on your social skills to improve your sex life.

If you as a guy are seeking the youngest and hottest chicks, edge towards being a hott party guy. If you as a guy are seeking to have kids, edge a little bit more towards career/stability. I’m also unusual in that I believe there are only two kinds of relationships with women: a relationship that leads to children and all other kinds of relationships. That belief is part of what led me to group sex, a practice that I’m surprised more players don’t adopt, as it can leverage one chick into multiple hot chicks.

Author: The Red Quest

How can we live and be in society?

6 thoughts on “When girls shift from pure party mode to preferring guys with resources”

  1. Hm… not sure your advice makes a lot of sense… PUAs say that it’s easy to transition from sex / FWB to relationship – i.e. that once you have sex with a girl, you (the guy) hold all the cards. So *even if* you’re looking to get married and have kids, it’s still better to play on the lover side of the spectrum, and only once you fuck a girl (and you can be fairly sure she fucked you because she thinks you’re hot, not just because she wants a relationship) you transition more towards the probider side of the spectrum.

    Sure, as you say, guys like that are rare, but still, if we’re giving advice, it should be *lover first, then provider* regardless of where the chick is at.


    1. PUA’s are wrong wrong wrong.

      Many women will have sex with a man and then drop him. You definitely do not ‘hold all the cards’ with all women.

      With more conservative women, if you have sex, it will ‘mean something,’ but PUAs are screening them out hard.

      With other women, you better be bringing more to the table in their opinion or they’ll just move on to the next.

      And it’s much much easier for a woman to move on to a guy who is better than you (at least to have sex with for sure, I’d also wager relationship too — there are a lot of great looking rich simps out there*) than it is for you to do otherwise. Anyone who disagrees is living in a fantasyland. That’s not to say men can’t options, mind you.

      To put it in perspective. Charlie Sheen, notorious womanizer, has slept with 2,000 women. He is a celebrity. He is wealthy. He was good looking. And even he paid for a lot of it.

      I have personally met several women who have bedded > 100 men in very very short amounts of time (maybe a little over a year). One had racked up 500. These women were 7’s who were not famous or anything of the sort (yes female status does count for men, just not as much as it does for women). One was a 7 after having lost weight and gotten fit and calmed down — she was 60 pounds heavier when she racked up her notches.

      That’s quite the disparity. Normal-ish to below average (she was likely a 4 when fat) racking up numbers on par with a male celebrity — if they get a mind to do so.

      Sperm is cheap. This is an iron law. There’s nothing you can do about it. No matter how hot or great you are. You can do well for yourself, but women will always have more raw sexual power, primarily BECAUSE sperm is cheap and thirsty.

      *simps/betas get laid all the time — they’ll wait longer and fuck up more — but if they’re physically attractive they will get laid. Getting short term mating opportunities is so much less about ‘behavior’ than PUA/manosphere would have you believe. now, they usually can’t keep a woman around or interested or they will let women walk all over them once they do get laid, but that’s a different topic.


  2. Good analysis. The “stages of mating idea” is more wrong than right, and is cartoonish and oversimplified to the black and white no-contrast extreme, as are most of the ideas espoused by Rollo.

    You correctly point out that motivation is not tied to age. I’d suggest that while finances are a main motivation, they operate in a Venn diagram with other motivations. You’ve pointed out a 2nd motivation, which is the desire to have children.

    I’ve met and dated women who want to have kids at a very early age. Lots of 16 year olds are actively trying to get knocked up, and want to do so with a guy that they are into.

    Baby making and nest building are related, in an overlapping yet distinct way.

    Likely if we dug around we’d find more minor motivations.


  3. I think that your comments are a good start, but there is more to it. Women also want a guy that they can look-up to. They have a hard time respecting a guy who is less educated, less intelligent, or less successful with his career. So as a woman develops her career, she wants to be with a guy who also has a developed career. A woman needs to be with a guy that she respects, so that she can respect herself (and have approval from other women). Hence, the transition from dating party boys to dating career guys corresponds to a woman’s own career success.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: