[johnbozzz]

A somewhat controversial question, I get it, so please read the following below. It's not long:
I'm wondering if any of you guys have had any luck dating outside of your socioeconomic group. I'm not trying to be a jerk by asking, but, at least for me, I've found that girls from middle to upper middle class households are the one girls who I've been able to be truly intimate with in my LTR. I come from a normal upper middle class home (father worked full time, mother was a stay at home mom and hobbyist potter), and we obviously had some privileges, but we were also pretty frugal. I think, if anything, the way I was raised instilled a certain value system in me, especially before puberty, and I've always held thrift, education and responsibility as a few of my priorities.
I've been with a girl who came from considerable wealth, and somehow, her nonchalance about the future put me at ill ease during this relationship. I felt like she was one upping me by virtue of her birth. Similarly, girls from rougher backgrounds have always wanted me to buy them things.
Girls who were comfortable enough to be fun but also somewhat conservative in their lifestyle choices (lower, middle and upper middle class girls), seem to be my best match.
Does anyone else feel the same? Sometimes I feel like an asshole for thinking this, though.

[Kamikaze]

Part of being successful with women is always putting yourself first. Girls are experts about guilting you into shit, it's usually their only hand to play if their pussy doesn't entice you enough. So don't feel guilty about how you feel, own up to anything and everything.

To answer your question, for LTRs socioeconomic class doesn't matter to me much, but I think what you're looking for is a certain value system you think is represented in one class more than others. That is probably accurate, but not precise. What I mean is, to you it doesn't really matter much what class she's in, but how she acts. And that's all that matters. Other than her 1-10 score, of course.

[Onto]

I've dated girls all over the socio-economic spectrum and they never asked or expected me to buy anything for them.

Lower class people tend to be less-educated. However, I know blue-collar families that just don't put value on higher education. These are good people, but think a trade is more valuable than a college degree, and in some cases they are right!

There are upper-class girls that will expect you to give them your credit card to go shopping.

It really depends on the people.

[Pride male]

Depends how hot she is.

[John Quincy]

I don't think about it in the way you asked the question. I do what I do, try to get better at it every day, and work towards my goals, both short-term and long-term. I think this is what Kamikaze means when he says that you need to put yourself first.

Always remember this: A woman can move on from you in a second; you are stuck with you forever. So focus on you.

If a girl is cool with my world, there is potential. But she's got to show me that she brings something to the table. This is where it gets tough because most women today don't offer very much (I think Roosh wrote a great article on this a few months ago). The "extraction to value-add ratio" is highly imbalanced.

As a general rule, women don't go for guys who are poorer than them. They want to move up on the socio-economic ladder. Standard hypergamy.

[Elster]

(02-29-2016 09:53 AM)John Quincy Wrote:  

As a general rule, women don't go for guys who are poorer than them. They want to move up on the socio-economic ladder. Standard hypergamy.

What would you say when the opposite happens?
Would it be plausible to say you are then being harvested for your genetic material?

[johnbozzz]

(02-29-2016 10:23 AM)El_Gostro Wrote:  

(02-29-2016 09:53 AM)John Quincy Wrote:  

As a general rule, women don't go for guys who are poorer than them. They want to move up on the socio-economic ladder. Standard hypergamy.

What would you say when the opposite happens?
Would it be plausible to say you are then being harvested for your genetic material?

Yeah, women with means will often go for a man whom they feel is hot or would provide them with talented, attractive children. My dad's old friend was once a drummer for a fairly well known band, and he married and average looking woman who came from old money. He wasn't a kept man, as he earned a decent living from his music, but she was definitely the higher born of the two of them. I'm talking fuck you money. They had five children together.
I think women may go for a man who is lower on the ladder if he show promise, if he is in graduate school or if he's studied something that the woman hasn't heard of (I knew another man who studied endocrinology and wound up with a wealthy woman). Also, cougars love younger men. But I don't think women who are looking to get married, those aged 21-38, are looking for a man who isn't of a higher rank.
As for me, I guess some wealthier women would want me for my genetic material. I'm 23 and attractive and, although I didn't inherit my Ukrainian/Russian father's height (I'm 5'10"), I've played rugby and swam competitively since I was a freshman in high school. In comparison to so many of the couch-bound guys these days, I'm sure I'm a catch.

[John Quincy]

When I said "go for guys", I was referring to LTR/marriage. Banging has a different set of variables.

I would say that the opposite happens rarely so you'll need to look at it on a case by case basis.

The superior genetics explanation is one possibility. Here's my anecdotal evidence. A friend of mine from high-school married a girl who is very rich. So rich that neither of them work at all. They just do gardening, traveling, painting, sculpting etc. But here's the catch: he's a decent looking guy, about a 6 (no homo), and she's a 3.

If you can get a girl who's way richer and she's hot and has a pleasant personality, more power to you, brother. I'll be high-fiving you, Stallone style, all the way.

[johnbozzz]

(02-28-2016 02:50 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

Part of being successful with women is always putting yourself first. Girls are experts about guilting you into shit, it's usually their only hand to play if their pussy doesn't entice you enough. So don't feel guilty about how you feel, own up to anything and everything.

To answer your question, for LTRs socioeconomic class doesn't matter to me much, but I think what you're looking for is a certain value system you think is represented in one class more than others. That is probably accurate, but not precise. What I mean is, to you it doesn't really matter much what class she's in, but how she acts. And that's all that matters. Other than her 1-10 score, of course.

Good point! It's tough figuring out the values of most girls these days, save for the select few who perhaps attended an institute like Brigham Young or a Yeshiva school.

[Kamikaze]

(02-29-2016 09:53 AM)John Quincy Wrote:  

I don't think about it in the way you asked the question. I do what I do, try to get better at it every day, and work towards my goals, both short-term and long-term. I think this is what Kamikaze means when he says that you need to put yourself first.

That's true, but that's not completely what I meant either. It's important to 'work on yourself,' no doubt. But what I meant more by putting yourself first is not caving into to bitches' demands.

You have to learn to say no. Artfully, preferably entertainingly.

Most women don't have FU money. A girls' SMV relies more heavily on how she looks. We can call that her 'pussy.' Her power is her pussy, and how she extracts resources. If her pussy can't extract resources, she ain't shit. If she can't extract shit from you, she has no power over you. And resources doesn't ultimately mean money, it means TIME. That's why uglier girls throw their pussy around for free, because she can't extract anything from you but your D at half mast.

Say a fucking dime asks you to 'help' her move to a new apartment. Then imagine some sad, homely, ugly girl asking for the same favor. I can guess who most guys would break their backs over.

The point is when you're good, when you've built yourself up, you can't give your TIME away for free like that. It has to be a fair trade. And what the girl trades is her pussy and the other feminine incidentals, such as baking you surprise brownies or something. When a girl acts right, regardless of socioeconomic class, she potentially earns more time from you.

The problem with that is girls can use that to guilt trip you. 'I'm so nice to you, and you don't want to help me move?' A guy who has options won't give in to guilt-tripping. 'I thought you were doing all that out of the kindness of your heart.' That's ultimately what I was getting at. When you put yourself first, you're putting your time and resources above what she has to offer. When girls don't get what they want, all they know how to do is just say 'omg you're so mean.' Just give em a heartfelt shrug.

[johnbozzz]

(02-29-2016 12:12 PM)Kamikaze Wrote:  

[quote='John Quincy' pid='1234423' dateline='1456757583']
That's why uglier girls throw their pussy around for free, because she can't extract anything from you but your D at half mast.

This is true. I remember being turned down by some very attractive women in college, wondering what I was doing incorrectly. Turns out most of them actually held of on dating until hitting 22-23, then went for a guy in their 30's. One of them have settled down already. I would, however, have a lot of uglier girls coming onto me, trying to initiate things.

[kaotic]

Hypergamy has always been around.

Let's be real, a woman wants a man's resources, rather nice income, house, cars, lifestyle, etc.

If a woman already has all that from birth, yes, it can be intimidating for a man, feeling like you've always gotta impress her.

THAT being said, some guys can handle it, and maintain the frame in their relationship very well, some will get crushed under the pressure.

I've dated poor, rich, and median.

Each was a different experience, but girls for the most part act the same.

It's just your turn with them, they can flip the switch at any time for any reason and be gone.

I like some of what was mentioned above:

-Worry about yourself and get ahead as much as you can.
-Take note about how a bitch acts towards you and others.
-She must pass your litmus test for being LTR material.
-She must have good values and morals.

We talk about women who are educated....aren't these the ones we bitch about becoming career whores and not being the best of mothers (granted there are exceptions).

We obviously don't want women who are as dumb as a rock as well.

Short term, it's more about frame/game, long term, is where socioeconomics comes into play.

My personal experience has been, girls marry off in the same class, or marry up.

I don't see any broke dudes locking down girls who are rich. I HAVE seen rich girls fuck dudes who are broke or of a lower socioeconomic background. As always those flings/LTR's never last.

[SlickyBoy]

(02-28-2016 03:00 PM)Onto Wrote:  

Lower class people tend to be less-educated. However, I know blue-collar families that just don't put value on higher education. These are good people, but think a trade is more valuable than a college degree, and in some cases they are right!

There are far too many middle class (and other) women who've been to college, got the degree and the debt to go with it, but I hesitate to call any of them educated.

[rudebwoy]

Class has nothing to do with how much money you have.

A rich gal will not be able to handle the downside if you lose your wealth, she will run for the border.

I find dating girls from poorer countries a more refreshing experience.

[RatInTheWoods]

Its such a different dynamic with each class of woman:

If shes rich - You bring looks/game/ something other than resources to the table
If shes poor - You know she coverts your resources

If shes your social level - then its game/resources or something else.

[LeeEnfield303]

Date a rich woman? Surely.

My father always told me, "Son, its just as easy to fall in love with a rich woman as a poor one."

[NASA Test Pilot]

Your learned value system is one of the critical factors as to how you perceive women. I would recommend that you look at yourself and ask the following question with regard to a girl in a relatively higher socio-economic class, and a girl in a relatively lower socio-economic class. How does she handle doing without? Look for action based examples (deeds, not words). Based on your upbringing with frugality (or with any trait, especially the four Cardinal values (virtues) of Prudence, Justice, Temperance (related to frugality) and Fortitude), you will see how she relates to you on a more internal (value) level.

Normally a poorer girl has direct experience in doing without, but she may have an impoverished (non-abundance) mentality that will affect how she relates to the world (and you) even if she moves into a higher socio-economic category. If she is rich, but she can do without (not too many of these), she may have an abundance mentality, but has a modicum of discipline. You can examine this on the physical, mental and emotional levels if you want to go deeper.

Based on how she answers your question (with her actions) will give you an indication of whether she is worthy to be with you and/or ready to be with you.

[Rush87]

Socio economic class doesn't even factor in my decision. Irrespective of her social class, you're still losing half if things go south so… C'est La Vie.

[johnbozzz]

(02-29-2016 07:21 PM)NASA Test Pilot Wrote:  

Normally a poorer girl has direct experience in doing without, but she may have an impoverished (non-abundance) mentality that will affect how she relates to the world (and you) even if she moves into a higher socio-economic category. If she is rich, but she can do without (not too many of these), she may have an abundance mentality, but has a modicum of discipline.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly, I agree with your comments. I haven't met any wealthy women who would have been likely to live without. Also, those women who are newly "wealthy" (I use my female cousin, as an example, who is a consultant at Bain and caught up in a certain lifestyle), can be especially problematic.

[Comte De St. Germain]

I'd say its dependent on her attitude. On rich girls where the socioeconomic difference really makes its stand(Girls from lower class families are always very sweet and easy to deal with. Though I'm speaking of the few rural country girls I've been with. They are thankful even for the smallest of things that you do including a "maybe we'll hang soon" or telling me to be safe when I leave their place), it's all about how she acts as other posters have said.

I've been with reserved girls from the upper class and I've been with the know it all daddy's girls with a blank check. They vary as much as other women do and again it's all dependent on how she acts.

Though in terms of value difference they always respond well to genuine actions than to gift giving. Which isn't a problem for RVF guys, but for the common man. Just a bit of game and she'll bite that's all it is.

The guys who fuck up are the ones buying them shit, and as far as I'm concerned RVF guys tend not to buy girls many things with certain exceptions(Appetizers lol).

[BortimusPrime]

Lower class women punching above their weight in dating (social climbers) tend to be the most materialistic of all. Worst part is that they don't see wealth the same way as middle class and higher people do, it has to be visible wealth to impress people. So if you get married, you're stuck buying useless crap like jewelry and fancy cars.

There was a British sitcom in the 90s called "Keeping up Appearances" that demonstrated this tendency perfectly. The main character, Hyacinth, came from a white trash family but managed to push up into the middle class through marriage. But she's a relentless social climber and puts on an aristocratic affectation, constantly trying to worm her way into upper class circles, dressing like the queen, and draining her husband's wallet.

[The Black Knight]

I don't really care about socioeconomic class.

Cunts exist in all socioeconomic groups. And I don't date cunts.

[Comte De St. Germain]

(03-02-2016 02:14 PM)BortimusPrime Wrote:  

Lower class women punching above their weight in dating (social climbers) tend to be the most materialistic of all. Worst part is that they don't see wealth the same way as middle class and higher people do, it has to be visible wealth to impress people. So if you get married, you're stuck buying useless crap like jewelry and fancy cars.

There was a British sitcom in the 90s called "Keeping up Appearances" that demonstrated this tendency perfectly. The main character, Hyacinth, came from a white trash family but managed to push up into the middle class through marriage. But she's a relentless social climber and puts on an aristocratic affectation, constantly trying to worm her way into upper class circles, dressing like the queen, and draining her husband's wallet.

Kind of why you don't shower them with gifts. Granted I was talking girls raised out in the country and not by white trash.

[Pride male]

Keeping up appearances was a cool show. 'Its not bucket, its bouquet.'

[Lance Blastoff]

I came from a wealthy family.

Most of my family doesn't work (or have lame jobs that pay nothing) and the same was true for most of the girls that I went to prep [high] school with. Not necessarily huge wealth, but enough that they didn't need to work and could live wherever they wanted, fly first class (or NetJets) and generally live a 1%-er lifestyle.

While I dated girls in college and immediately after that were from a similar background, I quickly found that they were absolutely terrible as long term companions. Their sense of entitlement, lack of a sense of consequences, and belief that they could always fall back on their family made them extremely unpleasant to live with (they also tended to be pretty chubby, on average, early on.)

Most of the guys I grew up with arrived at the same conclusion, and generally married girls who came from more upper-middle, or middle class backgrounds (no trust funds, but were educated, had good manners, etc.) In general, these guys ended up quickly having children, their wives became SAHMs, who rapidly developed a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle that regardless of how wealthy their husbands families were, made them always financially strapped and they never became truly independent from their families. Divorces followed, as did brutal child support and alimony (private schools, summer camps, piano lessons, shrinks for the kids and "maintaining the marital standard of living.")

Most of the girls I grew up with essentially ended up being perpetually single or marrying amiable layabout-type guys that were from lower to lower-middle class backgrounds because they were the only ones who would put up with them. In many cases, these guys didn't get what they bargained for because some combination of overspending, lousy financial management, or the inevitable decline of the girl's family's circumstances led to less money than the guys would have expected. Families rarely stay wealthy for more than a couple of generations unless there's a family business and a real culture of work in the family.

Where I have seen it work was where the girl married a guy who really didn't give a fuck about money and had a decent and secure career (fireman, medicine, military) or where the guy married some girl who came from a truly poor background (like from a developing country poor) and where the guy never really exposed her to to the limits of what they were able to provide.