|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
|
|
|
i think you should keep men out of this discussion. There is enough to discuss here without bringing up sexism.
There is always some superficial quality that woman will be attracted to - if not money then it will be looks.
Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character.
|
good point. agreed as well
|
its only a problem when superficial factors are THE ONLY factors considered in starting/continuing relationships.
|
If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology.
|
I'm attracted to women with money.
|
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I actually find men in general more superficial
You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
|
On February 22 2013 03:56 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I actually find men in general more superficial You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
Males care almost exclusively about looks when searching for a partner. Some research said I read somewhere a long time ago in some book.
|
On February 22 2013 03:56 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I actually find men in general more superficial You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
Read the rest of that sentence. You should be able to extrapolate his reasoning once you do.
|
You could also say the same about people (women and men) who like to have sex a lot. They probably personally like having sex more than other people, so they have more sex (with different people usually). Why is that bad?
|
I read an article that argued that women are more likely to be attracted to men with money when they are younger, as this is a time in life when they want security and to be provided for. More mature women, more likely to have careers/financial security are then more interested in a man's looks than his money. See: cougars.
|
Money makes it easy getting girls.
People like easy.
They also hate it when other people got it easy but not them.
So it's all just a jealousy thing.
|
United States15275 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on.
A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries.
Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women. It may be that he earned his money through hard work and ingenuity. It may be that he inherited his money from his money or his occupation alone. The amount of money a man makes tells you very little concerning whether you would have a happy relationship with him. And if you make a good amount of money in your profession, attraction to money decreases dramatically. Rather money is supposed to be indicative of other attractive qualities or a placebo to generate said attractive qualities.
|
it depends... it's like I want a woman who is going to do a good job raising my children and has qualities that are beneficial in that regard. Naturally, a woman will want a man who can provide, that's kind of the flip side of that coin.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:
If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology.
My logic does not say being able to pro-create is the only measure of attraction. There are other factors as well.
What I'm saying is that there are many qualities about a person that makes them "attractive" and fall under the "superficial" category that society has placed a label on.
What I'm saying is the concept of superficial shouldn't even be a word used in the world of attraction.
|
United States15275 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:02 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:55 Mothra wrote:
If a man or woman knows they are unable to have children, by your logic they would stop being attracted to wealth and beauty, which I think is untrue. Please explain also how the concept of superficiality belongs to the science of biology. My logic does not say being able to pro-create is the only measure of attraction. There are other factors as well. What I'm saying is that there are many qualities about a person that makes them "attractive" and fall under the "superficial" category that society has placed a label on. What I'm saying is the concept of superficial shouldn't even be a word used in the world of attraction.
Imagine "superficial" being synonymous with "ephemeral".
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:56 BruceLee6783 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I actually find men in general more superficial You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way?
I go the the gym regularly with my friends. We're not even typical "superficial" men, we like to date women with personalities.
Yet at the gym we rate women on a 1-10 scale, and say absolutely nothing about what kind of person that female is. I don't need to do a survey amongst other guys out there to see if there is any difference when talking about women. It's a 1-10, hot or not, "I'd do her" or "I wouldn't" scale.
One of my best friends talks to me about her dating partners. For her, her measure of attraction is looking at a guy and thinking if she can "reproduce" with him, if their lives would match.
That is different than her going around giving 1-10 number scales on men.
Some women just can't imagine themselves "reproducing" with a man that earns 15 000$ a year. The life she wants isn't compatible with it. Why is this superficial?
|
It's superficial because looks change over the years, as can wealth. Both can change alot (most often more than other factors), suddenly in the case of wealth, gradually but assuredly in the case of looks. Basing a relationship and children solely, or mostly on one or both of these factors is a recipe for disaster. I won't deny that alot of us step into a relationship for a great deal because of these factors, it's like you say biologically a valid reasoning for better offspring. However, does something being biological make it not superficial? If anything I would say it makes it exactly that, superficial.
Not to mention that it's based on an evolutionary concept. Children are more likely to have good genes because of the looks of their parents, and their 'wealth', or rather 'strength/postion' in this case is more likely to provide good upbringing for the children.
However, is that still the case? I would argue it's not.
|
There are so many double standards between genders right now. Hey if you don't mind being used like that, then go find yourself a gold digger. Don't get tricked though, sign that prenup, cuz she probably won't mind living with half your money and a hotter guy instead.
That's my US advice. I don't know about marriage laws in other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
