|
The difference here is that men are superficial about women looks when we want to bang them, not when we want to settle down with them. When we want to settle down with them, looks are important too, but many other factors come into play.
Women who are gold diggers have marriage in mind as the end goal. That's the difference. Not sure why there are 9 pages on this :/
|
On February 22 2013 13:19 naastyOne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:00 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 12:05 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 12:01 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 09:37 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote:
Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable. I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that? What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry... Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes. Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society. The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage. Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty.
The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either.
Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare?
Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
|
On February 22 2013 13:20 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote:
Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife. Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest.
The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility).
Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically.
|
I think on the issue of superficiality being "bad" I think its just a matter of degree. Like it obviously plays a role if on the beauty scale of 1-10 you're a one, because of some serious disease. I think all that people are referring to there, is that people underestimate the importance of personality in a relationship, and that it can play a more significant role than beauty if the latter is just average; and this is found to be a near-universal understanding.
I guess that's why for most people, they would avoid or label a person who is too superficial as a bad partner because there is no inner connection. Also it would require so much maintenance to keep that beauty going, and for most people they would feel really hollow and worthless inside.
Now of course, it may be possible that some people exist for whom superficial attraction is genuinely all that matters, or highly significant. That's fine! I'm always for supporting the minority of people who may be different; we shouldn't look down on them for that, because its bigotry. This is just a case of the majority assuming their views hold for everyone, I think, which would be unfortunate if this minority even exists!
|
I don't want to type too much, but a rough outline of what genders look for in the opposite sex:
Women & Men:
- Personality
- Appearance
- Sexual Prowess
- Intelligence
- Health
Women:
- Wealth
I also believe 'gold-diggers' are willing to skip the other traits in exchange for wealth.
On the other hand, there are 'gold-digging' men as well...
|
On February 22 2013 13:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:20 babylon wrote:On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote:
Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife. Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest. The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility). Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically.
I don't see the connection between "I MUST SHOW OFF MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND" and "I AM ATTRACTED TO MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND." It is more related to the desire to raise one's social status than to evolutionary biology, imo.
|
A person's wealth is an aspect of their character. A gold digger is a woman who seeks a man to get his money, not a woman who is attracted to successful men.
|
On February 22 2013 04:08 Shival wrote:
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.
I would argue strongly that it is. Sure you can succeed if you come from a poor/ugly family, but it sure helps being beautiful, rich and having successful parents.
|
On February 22 2013 12:54 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:22 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 11:53 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 11:29 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 10:43 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 09:39 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote:
wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity. Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other. This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women. I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich. Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached). In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich. On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:
unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words. No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well. You keep asserting that they don't like you because you're hot/rich. What I'm saying is that this is wrong. People like you because you are attractive. When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they? What? I didn't assert that at all. In fact, I asserted the opposite, that it does contribute to attractiveness, but made the point that the contribution is overestimated. I'm done with this now though, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that continually willfully misinterprets and twists points to their opposites. You said: Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:
they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Emphasis mine. You specifically stated that they don't like you because you're hot. I provided evidence that people actually do like you (your personality) because you're hot. If that is not what you intended to communicate, then my argument is withdrawn.
The second part of that quote should have made it obvious what I was trying to communicate, your evidence that I was wrong was actually in agreement with my argument. Sorry for the confusion.
|
If you think women don't also rank appearances highly, you're out of your mind.
|
On February 22 2013 13:39 babylon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:26 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 13:20 babylon wrote:On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote:
Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife. Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest. The reason we have those dick-measuring contests, however, is because natural selection dictates that we are attracted to women who display physical attractiveness (which imply youth, health, and fertility). Similarly, women love to show off their wealthy, high status husbands to other girls, because women are attracted to men who display the ability to provide good genes and parental investment, not because they love dick measuring contests intrinsically. I don't see the connection between "I MUST SHOW OFF MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND" and "I AM ATTRACTED TO MY HOT WIFE/RICH HUSBAND." It is more related to the desire to raise one's social status than to evolutionary biology, imo.
M point is that you wouldn't show off something unless other people are also attracted to it.
Saying that we're attracted to something because it allows us to show off is putting the horse before the cart; rather, we show it off because it's attractive.
|
On February 22 2013 14:13 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If you think women don't also rank appearances highly, you're out of your mind.
They do, but it's not as valuable as the man's social status (of which appearance can be, but is not necessarily, a part).
|
On February 22 2013 12:54 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote:
The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society
???? Way to be a woman hater. One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one.
One of my male friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible wife. He's losing his entire livelihood, while she's living better than ever before.
See what I did there? Individual examples do not hold sway on the larger picture. While I do not want to go into the subject of which sex is currently more antagonized against in society at large (I believe it's pretty even). One can say that alternately both females and males get the short end of the stick on various cases.
In retrospect, I get the feeling that you're not really looking at the subject objectively, but rather more emotionally, if anything else.
(The counter example I gave is true by the way.)
|
Women who try to rationalize their tendency to be attracted to wealth and influence rather than personality factors, physical factors or conditions for offspring are more often than not either looking to gain wealth and power from that man using him like a stepping stone, or they are just really lazy spoiled bitches that don't want to grow up or get any sort of skill or knowledge in their lifetimes and just want to look pretty and mooch off their rich bf while screwing whoever they want on the side because they can.
|
Once people realize gender has nothing to do with people having reason, then they will realize that men and women are actually equal.
|
On February 22 2013 13:23 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 13:19 naastyOne wrote:On February 22 2013 13:00 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 12:05 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 12:01 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 09:37 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable. I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that? What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry... Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes. Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society. The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage. Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty. The government is supported by society in this, because society doesn't want to pay more taxes to support those women either. Given the choice between personally paying more taxes to support divorced women, or simply forcing ex-husbands to do it, most people opt for the former out of self-interest. I mean, do you want to pay more taxes to support welfare? Justice, fairness, and equality usually take a back seat when it comes to people's wallets.
Really? You mean they need hundreds of thousands of dollars that people have to pay because child "benefits" are % of you income reguardless of how much the child needs?
Why is society stupid enought to insist to leave children with their generally poorer mothers, and forcing fathers to pay benefits instead of giving children to fathers?
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote:
Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction.
Nope, the survival of humanity relied on man teamwork to "provide" and "defend", and since it depends on each, each gets to breed. Other types are only possible when females can provide for their children without help of males, which, for humans arguably hardly even the case today, considering the amount of welfare single mothers tend to get from society.
|
Money and power can be a presentation of personality as well, it means that you're smart, like to take charge, and dedicated to what you do. Of course it doesn't apply to all cases but you get the point.
|
On February 22 2013 15:04 nayumi wrote:
Money and power can be a presentation of personality as well, it means that you're smart, like to take charge, and dedicated to what you do. Of course it doesn't apply to all cases but you get the point.
Money and power mean no such thing. One can very well be born into money or status among other options. At best it's slightly more likely to show intelligence and willpower, but it's very much a precarious notion.
|
everything you listed is superficial..
you don't know why being superficial is bad?
|
If you have no money, you are unfit to support a woman.
Look at the animals, in order for male to get females, he needs to secure territory, it means food, and safety for bearing child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
