Lololol… I earn that myself in my day job, but if a guy wants to pay a female’s way, then that’s his choice, no? Then they can make babies, and his earnings will go to bringing up their family.
And they lived happily ever after. 
Ho-lee-shit, is that wynona’s big brown beaver? that looks like something from a boris karloff film.
Look man, if you insist on posting pics of the beaver, make sure it’s one from the 90s, at the earliest.
It simple, sex is worth money and now that God is out of the picture this power takes a more prominent place in womens lives. God was designed to keep this power in check
Maybe you should not force the mods to go edit your posts, thats a bad precedent to start.
[dan says no!]
Males want sex.
Females want relationships.
The “love and romance” is the concession, on both sides, to trade to get what both want. In other words, males will invest in relationships, not because they want to, and females will release sexual temptation, not because they want to, to get what they want from each-other. “Romance” is the concession. A male starts acting like a “beta, cuck, whipped” cowtowing to a woman. A female starts acting like a slut and harlot, appealing to a man. Love and Romance are terms for the human mating-process, which is biological and occurs throughout mammals and nature.
What? Who says he cuck-harlot thing is necessary? Thats a sad form of idealism and certainly not true to experience for me.
Romance in the sense Prom described it with NBK is hyperbolic but true. The will to go to the limits of egoic will shared in lust is true love and worth a few sacrifices. If babies come out of it all the more the better but life has to at some point mean something even beyond procreation. Otherwise why procreate in general?
[edit, no more pornz]
Females want financial transactional relationships as they’re creatures guided by monetary incentives which they in turn call ‘love’ or 'romance ', fixed that for you. 
The female mental sense of love is not the same as a man’s, don’t fall for that camouflaged trap for even a single moment. You’ll regret it the moment you do.
Only noble-minded people can see beyond themselves. And it’s rare for a noble male and female to mate. Usually it’s noble with ignoble, since ignoble is common and plentiful. A nobleman or nobleman leads his/her ignoble partner and mate. I also agree that ‘proper’ forms of love and romance, come from the noble-minded, not from the commonplace. As Zero points-out, “love and romance”, to the common, is something disgraceful, uninspiring, base, like prostitution, reducing mating to a financial transaction. The difference, though, is that Zero will claim that any “noble” approach is mere romantic idealism, significant of nothing else than vanity. He has a point. There’s no denying biology. And, depending on how cynical/skeptical/nihilistic you want to be, you can always see fault in the mating-process, or the truth through the lies of seduction.
To me, personally, that doesn’t make anything meaningless or purposeless. It’s still necessary. And the artistic expressions, the unique forms of seduction, are important, purposeful, and inspirational.
A female’s concept of love is prostitution, that’s the entire point of this thread. She doesn’t love the man for his individual character or what he values, she only loves or values a man in what he can give to her.
A female’s love or value for a man is pure economic utility and nothing else. A woman is mentally incapable in valuing a man any other way for the most part. There are minor exceptions of course but they’re miniscule compared to the social norm.
Most men want to believe a woman will love them for who they are but that is fantasy and fiction to the actual sexual selection process on the part of women. In reality you’re just a material provider and nothing else dumped within a second’s thought for another if they feel you can no longer provide. Women are purely dumb fucking primitive creatures beyond all that lipstick, designer clothes, perfume, and mascara.
It’s more than economic; it’s about security too. A woman needs to ‘trust’ the man, which secures the relationship. Just because a man is rich, doesn’t mean women trust them. Prostitution is not relationship. Most women want relationships, which is security and trust, “a man women can depend on”. A woman wants to retain her social class, caste, and standing. If a woman is middle or upper class, she will not date downward. You can call her shallow and ‘financial’, but the security factor, is more significant. It’s about protection, order, dependency, and maintaining hedonistic comforts.
Women are pragmatic, and want to climb upward the social ladders. Men are also shallow, or more-so, wanting sex and only sex, willing to dump, demean, and insult women, after getting it. So it goes both ways.
Economic utility and security are one in the same.
A woman only trusts material objectification, that’s the only thing they trust or put their relationship faith in. It’s the only thing they’re loyal to as well. In exchange for material objectification and economic utility they exchange sex in a prostitute like manner. Doesn’t matter if it is a street hooker, girlfriend, or wife, it is all the same with some minor key differentiations.
I don’t idolize women whatsoever where instead I see them purely for what they are, women are like dumb primitive monkies for me with tits. Monkey see, monkey do.
There’s more to men than just sex, that sounds like a radical feminist rant to me, but as usual women scapegoat most of their childish primitive problems onto men because they hate responsibilities which is why they emancipated themselves in not having any to maximize female hypergamy along with promiscuity.
Zero, you usually ignore a more obvious sexual dynamic.
A female will choose a tall, strong, intimidating male, even if he is poor. Women will often choose this type of (strong) man, over a rich weak man. Because you routinely ignore this sexual attraction, it’s hard to take your premises seriously. It’s not only economic. It’s about strength and power. It’s about women aligning themselves to Alpha males, who can protect them and their children, if a threat from outsiders occur.
They’re not, a weak rich man is not attractive to women compared to a strong poor man.
She will go with the rich weak man, bank on it. 
You seem to be talking from experience… are you?
What has pertained to you, does not pertain to… anyone I god damn know! Why are you tainting us with your experiences…? Da fuck man! Stop spoiling peoples’ sexy vibes and feels… let others experience there’s first hand, fresh and new… let love shine… like a beacon… a beacon of sexy feels and loves.
I don’t think you’ve met many rich weak men. They are repulsive, especially to women. What you are suggesting is the equivalent to “would you stick your dick into a blender for ten million dollars”. The answer is, No. No matter how much money you offer, an average man, will not stick his dick into a blender. You might convince a few, who will then do it. Just like there are a few women, desperate enough to tolerate a rich weak man. Those few examples, are not a reflection of the norm or average. Furthermore, a mountain of wealth, are usually acquired, to compensate for weak and repulsive traits, in the first place.
…and this anecdote is reflective of your experiences… prove me wrong? 