Blackpill Luxury Car Spending As A Costly Signal in Male Intrasexual Competition

[DarkStar]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704916678217

As we all know, consumerism & hypergamy seem to correlate quite well with one another -and as I always like to say foids are the harbingers of consumerism- so let's take a look at this unique find.

Previous studies have shown that luxury spending may function as a costly signal for both men and women. Given that not all individuals can equally afford to purchase high-priced luxury goods, the conspicuous consumption of luxuries can be considered a hard to fake behavior that may signal underlying desirable traits (Miller, 2009).

I love how right away we get hit with a blackpill, since this outright states that consumption of luxury goods contributes to unequal dating.

Once again, it's refreshing to see academic articles support us.

. Women appear to specifically benefit from displaying conspicuous luxury brands in within-sex competitions

Ah, always nice to see foids in-group take a hit.

On the other hand, men benefit from displaying conspicuous luxury brands in intersexual competitions because it signals social status to women. Studies indicate that women perceive a man who displays conspicuous consumption of a luxury sports car as a more desirable short-term mate

So in other words, the whole ": Only golddiggers care about money & status bro!" statement is true, just not in the way they want it to be

fertile women are more likely to notice conspicuous status products

In other words, we see that foids biological nature hasn't shifted much- thanks for confirming us yet again.

Moreover, men actually show a higher preference for luxury items when exposed to a romantic context. In particular, men report a higher desire for money (Roney, 2003), tend to discount the future (e.g., Wilson & Daly, 2004), and have a better recall memory for conspicuous status products in the presence of mating cues (Janssens et al., 2011).

So in other words, foids more or less manipulate the spending power which men have, which makes me wonder what the true reflection of these numbers would be if we accounted for factors such as this

I mean, foids already control most spending-power in the US:

Women make up more than half of the U.S. population, and control or influence 85% of consumer spending

The purchasing power of women in the U.S. ranges from $5 trillion to $15 trillion annually

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

A recent study suggests that men are even willing to engage in financial risk-taking to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness in order to increase their desirability as a mate (Chan, 2015).

Brutal, I think we see this reflected a lot in society- All of those constant "hustle n grind" courses must stem from something right?

When they compared this to other males, here's what they found:

In line with our predictions, male participants perceived the male target model who had just purchased the conspicuous luxury car more as a rival (Hypothesis 3), more as a mate poacher (Hypothesis 4), and less as a friend (Hypothesis 5) compared to when he had just purchased the inconspicuous nonluxury car

Dependent Variables	Conspicuous Luxury Car (N = 201)	Inconspicuous Nonluxury Car (N = 204)	t	p	d
Perception as a rival	3.55 (1.95)	2.63 (1.54)	5.23	<.001	0.52
Introduce girlfriend to depicted man	3.24 (1.78)	4.57 (1.84)	−7.37	<.001	−0.73
Let girlfriend spend time alone with depicted man	3.32 (1.96)	4.49 (1.72)	−6.38	<.001	−0.64
Perception as a friend	3.74 (1.75)	4.73 (1.62)	−5.89	<.001	−0.59
Short-term mating strategy	3.89 (0.69)	2.85 (1.02)	11.88	<.001	1.18

So in other words, the struggle which foids illicit due to mens mature causes our own low-group preferences & struggles. Within this, we see how foids nature inherently correlates with that of consumerism, and thus drives male in-group mistrust over who has the ": Cooler car brooooo!"

Truly, foids are amongst the most shallow & materialistic creatures on the planet.

Personally, I've never cared much for cars: Perhaps, because I knew subconsciously it was mainly to satiate foids sociopathic tendencies to encourage male-on-male conflict.

 

[DarkStar]

Spoiler

@based_meme @Kamanbert @reveries @Biowaste Removal @Grodd @wereq @Koomersarj @NIGGER BOJANGLES @Castaway @weaselbomber @WorthlessSlavicShit @PersonalityChad @GeckoBus @Skelly @SupremeAutist @Lv99_BixNood @NeverGetUp @Stupid Clown @LeFrenchCel @proudweeb @AtrociousCitizen @Lazyandtalentless @Diddy @BlackCel_from_ZA @Flagellum_Dei @Sergeant Kelly @veryrare

 

[NIGGER BOJANGLES]

I was never into luxury cars because I always knew it was a pointless scam to flaunt status and wealth just for the social validation. Like really, a basic car has more than enough comfort so you don’t need anything fancier.

The only kind of higher end vehicles I’m into are functional ones that I use or enjoy like trucks that can haul stuff and be useful or performance cars that have impressive power.

Pointless to spend a ton of money on a luxury car that isn’t even fast like many richfags do.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

A recent study suggests that men are even willing to engage in financial risk-taking to compensate for a lack of physical attractiveness in order to increase their desirability as a mate (Chan, 2015).

They’ll call it "ambition" or "drive" but it’s literally cope for being subhuman. Men ruin their health, go into debt, and work themselves to death just to maybe be noticed by a foid who still wants to get blown out by chad

 

[Skelly]

@GeckoBus Didn't you say that men would just be chilling happily if women weren't a factor and that 'men are just more competitive broo' is BS? I think that applies here

 

[Sans]

I agree with @NIGGER BOJANGLES (JFL at having to type out that username). I've always been of the opinion that function outweighs fashion - in other words, a car that looks fancy and expensive isn't any better than an average looking car that can drive just the same.

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

High iq

 

[Antorian]

If women weren't a factor the VAST MAJORITY of men would get a simple but reliable car.

As long as its comfortable, reliable and gets the job done, I don't care how a car looks.

 

[underballer]

Public transport mogs

 

[Emba]

Those are rookie numbers bro

 

[Todd Thundercock]

I've always tried finding the cheapest shittiest cars I could

What's the difference

 

[wereq]

So in other words, the struggle which foids illicit due to mens mature causes our own low-group preferences & struggles. Within this, we see how foids nature inherently correlates with that of consumerism, and thus drives male in-group mistrust over who has the ": Cooler car brooooo!"

Female nature is centered around attracting mates and then pitting them in darwinian culling to determine the fittest and strongest.

 

[PersonalityChad]

I mean, foids already control most spending-power in the US:

Yeah, this is why corporations pander to women and feminism so much, they know foids are by far the most likely to spend money on useless overpriced shit and to manipulate men to do the same

High IQ thread

 

[TooSomething]

So, if you drive a Dacia, you set youself up for failure.

Ok

 

[Ellsworth]

If buying a luxury car would actually get me a partner then I would do it. I’m just so ugly I know it won’t help that much. I’ve seen multiple men ugly like me with real nice cars and zero women.

You probably have to be at least mtn for the nice car thing to work.

 

[GeckoBus]

@GeckoBus Didn't you say that men would just be chilling happily if women weren't a factor and that 'men are just more competitive broo' is BS? I think that applies here

a lot of male competitiveness goes away when women are not in the picture. We also have data that shows that a lot of men are not "naturall competitive" and shit. For instance, many working fathers desire to be with their kids more and would work only part time if they could. I mean it makes sense, what kind of person wants to be constantly stressed and fighting with other people? Especially once you are a bit older. Nobody 30+ wants to constantly compete and rush to shit. People will point to CEOs as counter example but these guy are either psychopaths or abusive drugs like cocaine.​

Myth 1: Men don’t want to stay at home​

A 2007 survey by the employment web site monster.com found that 68% percent of fathers would be a stay at home parent if money were no object. [1]

Warren Farrell reported in “The Myth of Male Power” that 80% of men he surveyed said that if they could stay at home with no loss of income and their wives approval, they would. Only 3% said they would prefer to work full-time. [2]

87% of men who did quit their job after having a child to stay at home say they are glad they did. [3]
63% fathers say they don’t spend as much time as they want with the kids, compared to 35% of mums. [5]

Marriage as economic slavery – GreenPill.net

greenpill.net

 

[GeckoBus]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704916678217

As we all know, consumerism & hypergamy seem to correlate quite well with one another -and as I always like to say foids are the harbingers of consumerism- so let's take a look at this unique find.


I love how right away we get hit with a blackpill, since this outright states that consumption of luxury goods contributes to unequal dating.

Once again, it's refreshing to see academic articles support us.

Ah, always nice to see foids in-group take a hit.

So in other words, the whole ": Only golddiggers care about money & status bro!" statement is true, just not in the way they want it to be

In other words, we see that foids biological nature hasn't shifted much- thanks for confirming us yet again.

So in other words, foids more or less manipulate the spending power which men have, which makes me wonder what the true reflection of these numbers would be if we accounted for factors such as this

I mean, foids already control most spending-power in the US:

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

Brutal, I think we see this reflected a lot in society- All of those constant "hustle n grind" courses must stem from something right?

When they compared this to other males, here's what they found:

Dependent Variables	Conspicuous Luxury Car (N = 201)	Inconspicuous Nonluxury Car (N = 204)	t	p	d
Perception as a rival	3.55 (1.95)	2.63 (1.54)	5.23	<.001	0.52
Introduce girlfriend to depicted man	3.24 (1.78)	4.57 (1.84)	−7.37	<.001	−0.73
Let girlfriend spend time alone with depicted man	3.32 (1.96)	4.49 (1.72)	−6.38	<.001	−0.64
Perception as a friend	3.74 (1.75)	4.73 (1.62)	−5.89	<.001	−0.59
Short-term mating strategy	3.89 (0.69)	2.85 (1.02)	11.88	<.001	1.18

So in other words, the struggle which foids illicit due to mens mature causes our own low-group preferences & struggles. Within this, we see how foids nature inherently correlates with that of consumerism, and thus drives male in-group mistrust over who has the ": Cooler car brooooo!"

Truly, foids are amongst the most shallow & materialistic creatures on the planet.

Personally, I've never cared much for cars: Perhaps, because I knew subconsciously it was mainly to satiate foids sociopathic tendencies to encourage male-on-male conflict.

Reminds me of this video. Like we discussed before, women are the main catalyst for male behavior, not vice versa. Men basically only want female validation and women just worship themselves. Memes like the one below reflect this attitude.

In my old "masculinity is a social construct" thread, I showed a video game study where they made men and women play an RPG together. The men murderfucked each other for resources and then gave all of their shit to the women. By the end of the game women held the majority of the resources while engaging in less risk taking behavior. Just like in real life, men throw themselves into dangerous situations to please women, with the result that they live shorter, less pleasurable lives, while women collect the spoils of mans suffering without lifting a finger. This also overlaps with the lopsided group dynamics between the genders. Both genders worship women, nobody likes men.

In order to get respect from men and women, you have to serve women. Almost all of "masculinity" is just a debate about who has the best method to please women. Gym, looksmaxxing, game, money and status - all just hypotheses about what women like and how to get IT in order to get THEM. This also has nothing to do with capitalism. Ideologies invented in the last 300 years obviously don't change human nature lmfao. Women are society since they are the largest international unconditional in-group. If you are female, you are in.

Having female approval makes your life much easier as a man. You get viewed as less hostile, you get job opportunities, more women hit on you when you wear a wedding ring etc. Contrary to popular belief, the incel problem is not about sex, or we would just see prostitutes. It is about being rejected from society as a whole (society is women remember). Take this quote from a reddit thread by an autistic guy who managed to get a girlfriend for a while:
​

Whenever I see people on Reddit saying that having a partner doesn't matter I can't help but shake my head. I can't tell if they're coping or just flat out lying. Having a loving relationship will boost the fuck out of your life in every single area. Even making friends is easier.

This 2 year period of my life was the only time I ever felt close to neurotypical. I would get text messages all the time, get as much sex as I desired, and on top of this I was treated better by people overall. There were points where it literally felt like the world was catering to me. I was even offered jobs!

Also consider that women controlling 80% of spending implies that 40-50% of their money comes from men, yet women somehow still complain about wage gaps and the like. Just imagine 40% of the games in your steam library were paid for by a woman. Or half your rent. Absurd privilege. Finally I want to adjust this quote:
​

Previous studies have shown that luxury spending may function as a costly signal for both men and women

This makes it seem like women engage in luxury spending to signal value to men. This is wrong. Men do not give a fuck about a womans wealth, as demonstrated by how much money they spend ON women, as opposed to expecting women to be wealthy themselves. Women do invest in luxury goods, to impress other women. This is the primary thing. You can easily find tons of tiktoks and threads online where women admit that getting a compliment from another woman is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more valuable to them than getting a compliment from a man.

Esther Vilar wrote about all of this in the 70s in "the manipulated man." That was 55 years ago. You know, sometimes I go back to that book and I am astonished how she basically put it all out there, but nobody had concrete evidence at the time. She talks about female in-group preference among other things, how commercials aimed at women use women as emotional triggers because women collectively fucking despise men etc. Women collectively rewarded her by publicly assaulting her in a bathroom, which made her move from germany to argentina lmao. It's like mafia shit, snitches get stitches.​

Vilar on female in-group bias:

A WOMAN'S HORIZON
Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world. Of course, a woman will always be pleased if a man turns to look at her - and if he is well dressed or drives an expensive sports car, so much the better. Her pleasure may be compared to that of a shareholder who finds that his stocks have risen. It will be a matter of complete indifference to a woman if he is attractive or looks intelligent.

A shareholder is hardly likely to notice the color of his dividend checks. But if another woman should turn to look - a rare occurrence, for her own judgment is infinitely more remorseless than that of a man - her day is made. She has achieved the impossible - the recognition, admiration, and `love' of other women.

Yes, only women exist in a woman's world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice - these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women's standards correspond to those in other women's heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men.

A simple word of praise from another woman - and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points.​

This below passage has stuck with me for years now. Especially the part where she talks about men stopping to look at some machinery on a construction site. Ever since I read that, I have noticed men all around me stopping and looking at shit like cranes and trucks, whereas women just walk past all that, oblivious and stuck inside their own head.
​

THE UNIVERSE IS MALE

Man, unlike woman, is beautiful, because man, unlike woman, is a thinking creature. This means: Man has a thirst for knowledge (he wants to know what the world around him looks like and how it functions). Man thinks (he draws conclusions from the data he encounters). Man is creative (he makes something new out of the information achieved by the above processes). Man is sensitive (as a result of his exceptionally wide, multidimensional emotional scale, he not only registers the commonplace in fine gradations but he creates and discovers new emotional values and makes them accessible to others through sensible descriptions, or recreates them as an artist).

Of all the qualities of man, his curiosity is certainly the most impressive. This curiosity differs basically from that of woman. A woman takes interest only in subjects that have an immediate personal usefulness to her. For example, if she reads a political article in the newspaper, it is highly likely that she wants to cast a spell on some political-science student, not that she cares about the fate of the Chinese, Israelis, or South Africans.

If she looks up the names of some Greek philosophers in the dictionary, it does not mean she has suddenly taken an interest in Greek philosophy. It means she is trying to solve a crossword puzzle. If she is studying the advertisements for a new car, she is not doing it with a
platonic interest in its technical features, but because she wants to own it...

Man's curiosity is something quite different. His desire for knowledge has no personal implications, is purely objective and, in the long run, is much more practical than a woman's attitude. One has only to watch a man go past a building site where a newly developed machine is being used, for example a new kind of dredger. There is hardly a man - regardless of social status - who will pass by without a glance. Many will stop to have a good look and to discuss the characteristics of the new machine, its advantages and disadvantages, and its differences from previous models.​

There are many more good quotes in the book. Just wile skimming rn, I found a whole passage on how consumerism is just another attempt at pleasing women:
​

It is interesting that nearly the only products sold are those of benefit to women: sports cars (with which to entice her), luxury goods (for women), or household appliances (also for women, since the house actually belongs to her - man is, in fact, a homeless creature, moving constantly between office and house). Women would be delighted to buy things for their husbands for whatever occasion, using the latter's money of course (they give ties, sport shirts, ashtrays, wallets, as often as possible).The problem is that a man needs so very little: his clothing is standardized, hence inexpensive; his consumption of food and drink is restricted in case it affects his work capacity; and he has no time to consume other goods - except cigarettes, which he smokes at work.

The manipulated man is a really easy read and I honestly dont see any copes in it. Not once does she do a "muh nuance" take on shit afaik. There is no compromise as in "teehee both genders have good and bad sides." She had zero access to our data, which confirms everything she says now. So she must have been speaking from her experience as a woman. It is also worth nothing that she debated some giga bitch german feminist of the 70s, Alice Schwarzer. Schwarzer later turned out to be a tax fraudster + she was married despite claiming to be a man hater. Typical foid larper. She also interrupts constantly during the interview.
​

Spoiler: video of the debate with subtitles

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6OWA80zUkk

bruh i just skipped through this shit and at 30:00 she calls Vilar a nazi lmao, nothing changes kek

​

 

[Grodd]

No car for your face

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

Saved. Very interesting.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

Reminds me of this video. Like we discussed before, women are the main catalyst for male behavior, not vice versa. Men basically only want female validation and women just worship themselves. Memes like the one below reflect this attitude.

View attachment 1416922

In my old "masculinity is a social construct" thread, I showed a video game study where they made men and women play an RPG together. The men murderfucked each other for resources and then gave all of their shit to the women. By the end of the game women held the majority of the resources while engaging in less risk taking behavior. Just like in real life, men throw themselves into dangerous situations to please women, with the result that they live shorter, less pleasurable lives, while women collect the spoils of mans suffering without lifting a finger. This also overlaps with the lopsided group dynamics between the genders. Both genders worship women, nobody likes men.

In order to get respect from men and women, you have to serve women. Almost all of "masculinity" is just a debate about who has the best method to please women. Gym, looksmaxxing, game, money and status - all just hypotheses about what women like and how to get IT in order to get THEM. This also has nothing to do with capitalism. Ideologies invented in the last 300 years obviously don't change human nature lmfao. Women are society since they are the largest international unconditional in-group. If you are female, you are in.

Having female approval makes your life much easier as a man. You get viewed as less hostile, you get job opportunities, more women hit on you when you wear a wedding ring etc. Contrary to popular belief, the incel problem is not about sex, or we would just see prostitutes. It is about being rejected from society as a whole (society is women remember). Take this quote from a reddit thread by an autistic guy who managed to get a girlfriend for a while:




Also consider that women controlling 80% of spending implies that 40-50% of their money comes from men, yet women somehow still complain about wage gaps and the like. Just imagine 40% of the games in your steam library were paid for by a woman. Or half your rent. Absurd privilege. Finally I want to adjust this quote:




This makes it seem like women engage in luxury spending to signal value to men. This is wrong. Men do not give a fuck about a womans wealth, as demonstrated by how much money they spend ON women, as opposed to expecting women to be wealthy themselves. Women do invest in luxury goods, to impress other women. This is the primary thing. You can easily find tons of tiktoks and threads online where women admit that getting a compliment from another woman is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more valuable to them than getting a compliment from a man.

Esther Vilar wrote about all of this in the 70s in "the manipulated man." That was 55 years ago. You know, sometimes I go back to that book and I am astonished how she basically put it all out there, but nobody had concrete evidence at the time. She talks about female in-group preference among other things, how commercials aimed at women use women as emotional triggers because women collectively fucking despise men etc. Women collectively rewarded her by publicly assaulting her in a bathroom, which made her move from germany to argentina lmao. It's like mafia shit, snitches get stitches.​

Vilar on female in-group bias:

This below passage has stuck with me for years now. Especially the part where she talks about men stopping to look at some machinery on a construction site. Ever since I read that, I have noticed men all around me stopping and looking at shit like cranes and trucks, whereas women just walk past all that, oblivious and stuck inside their own head.




There are many more good quotes in the book. Just wile skimming rn, I found a whole passage on how consumerism is just another attempt at pleasing women:




The manipulated man is a really easy read and I honestly dont see any copes in it. Not once does she do a "muh nuance" take on shit afaik. There is no compromise as in "teehee both genders have good and bad sides." She had zero access to our data, which confirms everything she says now. So she must have been speaking from her experience as a woman. It is also worth nothing that she debated some giga bitch german feminist of the 70s, Alice Schwarzer. Schwarzer later turned out to be a tax fraudster + she was married despite claiming to be a man hater. Typical foid larper. She also interrupts constantly during the interview.
​

Spoiler: video of the debate with subtitles

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6OWA80zUkk

bruh i just skipped through this shit and at 30:00 she calls Vilar a nazi lmao, nothing changes kek

​

that's crazy, even though I've heard of it before, you inspired me to read this book

 

[Namtriz912]

They do this to appear rich on social media and look cool which leads to some broke bitches wanting him as a betabux

 

[Adûnâi]

So in other words, the struggle which foids illicit due to mens mature causes our own low-group preferences & struggles. Within this, we see how foids nature inherently correlates with that of consumerism, and thus drives male in-group mistrust over who has the ": Cooler car brooooo!"

Indeed, we need Sharia law unironically.

Esther Vilar wrote about all of this in the 70s in "the manipulated man." That was 55 years ago. You know, sometimes I go back to that book and I am astonished how she basically put it all out there, but nobody had concrete evidence at the time. She talks about female in-group preference among other things, how commercials aimed at women use women as emotional triggers because women collectively fucking despise men etc. Women collectively rewarded her by publicly assaulting her in a bathroom, which made her move from germany to argentina lmao. It's like mafia shit, snitches get stitches.

Wait this is such a great book! Explains why female infighting is even considered - because there is no fight between men and women. Pure pleasure to read.

 

[NeverEvenBegan]

If women weren't a factor the VAST MAJORITY of men would get a simple but reliable car.

 

[LOLI BREEDING]

this Esther really must've hated w*men rare based w*man award. she must be autistic as fuck

You can easily find tons of tiktoks and threads online where women admit that getting a compliment from another woman is wayyyyyyyyyyyy more valuable to them than getting a compliment from a man.

that's crazy since w*men are retarded and extremely easily brainwashed. of course a simpcuck's opinion is worthless but you'd think w*men would seek out high IQ men and actually listen to them

 

[GeckoBus]

that's crazy since w*men are retarded and extremely easily brainwashed. of course a simpcuck's opinion is worthless but you'd think w*men would seek out high IQ men and actually listen to them

no, they only listen to authority figures, cuz they are hypergamous and worship status, and other women, since they see themselves and other woman as this giga ostracized victim group, contra every statistic ever in human history of violent conflict. They do not value the average man, his opinion, his sacrifice or labor. You are a joke to them. Case in point:

 

[DarkStar]

I was never into luxury cars because I always knew it was a pointless scam to flaunt status and wealth just for the social validation. Like really, a basic car has more than enough comfort so you don’t need anything fancier.

Exactly, as well as efficiency also

Pointless to spend a ton of money on a luxury car that isn’t even fast like many richfags do.

Reminds me how the CEO of Porsche or Royals Royce literally said they don't advertise on TV because their target audience isn't watching TV

They’ll call it "ambition" or "drive" but it’s literally cope for being subhuman. Men ruin their health, go into debt, and work themselves to death just to maybe be noticed by a foid who still wants to get blown out by chad

Yup, and they guise it under vague terms such as "ambition" or "drive" due to the fact that doing such is seen as "productive" which society loves

Female nature is centered around attracting mates and then pitting them in darwinian culling to determine the fittest and strongest.

Foids quite literally destroy civilizations in this manner, since they encourage r-selective traits

Yeah, this is why corporations pander to women and feminism so much, they know foids are by far the most likely to spend money on useless overpriced shit and to manipulate men to do the same

Kek exactly

High IQ thread

High iq

Thank you

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

Thank you

No problem

 

[bimmercel]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1474704916678217

As we all know, consumerism & hypergamy seem to correlate quite well with one another -and as I always like to say foids are the harbingers of consumerism- so let's take a look at this unique find.


I love how right away we get hit with a blackpill, since this outright states that consumption of luxury goods contributes to unequal dating.

Once again, it's refreshing to see academic articles support us.

Ah, always nice to see foids in-group take a hit.

So in other words, the whole ": Only golddiggers care about money & status bro!" statement is true, just not in the way they want it to be

In other words, we see that foids biological nature hasn't shifted much- thanks for confirming us yet again.

So in other words, foids more or less manipulate the spending power which men have, which makes me wonder what the true reflection of these numbers would be if we accounted for factors such as this

I mean, foids already control most spending-power in the US:

The Purchasing Power of Women: Statistics | Girlpower Marketing

Women control over $20 trillion in world-wide spending. Learn more about the purchasing power of women, from Millennials to Baby Boomers, in various markets

girlpowermarketing.com

Brutal, I think we see this reflected a lot in society- All of those constant "hustle n grind" courses must stem from something right?

When they compared this to other males, here's what they found:

Dependent Variables	Conspicuous Luxury Car (N = 201)	Inconspicuous Nonluxury Car (N = 204)	t	p	d
Perception as a rival	3.55 (1.95)	2.63 (1.54)	5.23	<.001	0.52
Introduce girlfriend to depicted man	3.24 (1.78)	4.57 (1.84)	−7.37	<.001	−0.73
Let girlfriend spend time alone with depicted man	3.32 (1.96)	4.49 (1.72)	−6.38	<.001	−0.64
Perception as a friend	3.74 (1.75)	4.73 (1.62)	−5.89	<.001	−0.59
Short-term mating strategy	3.89 (0.69)	2.85 (1.02)	11.88	<.001	1.18

So in other words, the struggle which foids illicit due to mens mature causes our own low-group preferences & struggles. Within this, we see how foids nature inherently correlates with that of consumerism, and thus drives male in-group mistrust over who has the ": Cooler car brooooo!"

Truly, foids are amongst the most shallow & materialistic creatures on the planet.

Personally, I've never cared much for cars: Perhaps, because I knew subconsciously it was mainly to satiate foids sociopathic tendencies to encourage male-on-male conflict.

i was really a car guy and had a lot of high motorised very expesnive cars. Guess how many I chicks I got? The most thing as incel ypu will het a thumbs up from a npc.

 

[DarkStar]

i was really a car guy and had a lot of high motorised very expesnive cars. Guess how many I chicks I got? The most thing as incel ypu will het a thumbs up from a npc.

Brutal

Still, findings like this further highlight how foids in reality contribute to the overall increase in consumerism, and also further male competitive behavior

 

[bimmercel]

Brutal

Still, findings like this further highlight how foids in reality contribute to the overall increase in consumerism, and also further male competitive behavior

tbh i didnt care at this time about foids. but however thise entitled bitches will never give you a second loock. while a chadlite friend of mine drives an old toyota prius and fucks jailbait pussy has a cozy movie evening with this cild slut while I have to rot in front of pubg.

 

[littlemanhikicel]

They’ll call it "ambition" or "drive" but it’s literally cope for being subhuman. Men ruin their health, go into debt, and work themselves to death just to maybe be noticed by a foid who still wants to get blown out by chad

Chads compete too in those areas. People on this forum think that chads are like gods.

 

[DarkStar]

Chads compete too in those areas. People on this forum think that chads are like gods.

Yeah exactly, people here think that all because they're "chad" means they don't have to try

Like nigga, haven't you noticed how those redpill gurus who had it so shit in life are always "chad" in a hyperbolic sense?

 

[littlemanhikicel]

Yeah exactly, people here think that all because they're "chad" means they don't have to try

Like nigga, haven't you noticed how those redpill gurus who had it so shit in life are always "chad" in a hyperbolic sense?

For real. Those guys compete constantly. They have to compete with younger chads too.