A man who likes a woman just for her look, is either not foresighted (every beauty will become "ugly") or he don´t want to live with her up to the end of his life. Just my opinion :/
On February 22 2013 15:39 evanthebouncy! wrote: 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.
"If a woman is fat, ugly, or old, she is unfit to get a man. Look at the animals, in order for a female to get a male, she needs to be young, healthy, and fertile to bear children."
I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
On February 22 2013 23:00 llIH wrote: I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
It's easier to teach a hot girl to be good in bed than an ugly girl to be hot.
On February 22 2013 23:00 llIH wrote: I believe males think mostly about looks early in their life. But perhaps after their 20-25 years they start thinking more about sex rather than looks. (e.g., a woman that is good in bed vs looking sexy)
It's easier to teach a hot girl to be good in bed than an ugly girl to be hot.
I sincerely hope the people claiming "look" is the sole factor are under 20... Not saying look shouldn't play a huge role, it does, but intelligence and personnality are a huge factor as well. There's no way to engage in a sane relationship, in other words spending time talking together/going out and maybe even living together, with a girl whom you're entirely seceded of mentally.
I think this complaint mostly is about women who "like" a guy ONLY for his money. The kind of girl that will wrap you around your finger, suck your wallet dry, and leave your ass when you dont have a dime left to spend. But in this situation you aren't really talking about love or anything, just someone pulling a scam on someone else.
Yeah I agree to some extent but personality is different than social standing. If you base your judgment of someone based on social standing (wealth/power) on the basis that this individual will better provide for you than a lower class man, the your essentially asserting your dependence on that individual. I've grown up bombarded with feminist ideology; the idea that woman operate on the same level intellectually and thus should operate on the same level in society has been forced down my throat more than one can shake a stick at. So I'm biased but whether or not it is acceptable for a woman to admit their lack of independence and chose a mate based on social standings is a question on the same level as 'are women equal to men'.
Pre-school philosophy threads on TL never cease to amaze me. Be careful about what you say because any time there is topic like this and it goes awry Kwark comes in for ban-cred. And it's generally not pretty.
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: [quote]
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.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Nothing wrong with wealth being an attribute you like in a mate. It shows success and stability.
However, if the wealth is the primary thing you're looking for, and not a mate, then it's an issue. That's what people are offended by, people being used for their money.
On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote: [quote] 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.
This is another great point. Divorce and Child-Care cases are the easiest ones to find perfect examples of discrimination against men. How a woman by default gets all these rights for child-care makes no sense at all. Ideally, the courts should never make a man pay for a woman to take care of his child because she can't do it herself. Whoever is more stable and capable of doing so should be the one that gets custody.
Isn't it actually already working like you want it to work? In the statistics about the situation in the US, isn't it usually the men getting custody if they actually try to get it? The way I remember it, it's only overall more women having custody, simply because their husband doesn't try getting it.
Its only wrong when the woman cares more about the money and her ability to take care of herself with it, than about the guy himself. Having a bunch of money should just make it better not the reason for the relationship. If your with somebody for a main reason that isn't their personality, something is probably wrong whether its money or something else.
Women are NOT attracted to money. They may like money, they sure like spending it, but they are not ATTRACTED to it. What they are attracted to is the behavior of men with money. Men with resources believe themselves to be valuable and important, so they act that way, and it is that behavior women are attracted to, not the money.
Further more, it is natural for men to be attracted to a females appearance. That's how nature intended it. And no amount of social nonsense can over rule mother nature. Men are attracted to physically attractive females and women, especially the attractive ones, are attracted to men who behave and act valuable and important. Thats how mother nature intended it and it has served our species well.
If a woman's feelings would change about a man based on whether or not he has money then he should be prepared for disappointment. I'm lucky, my wife is the bread winner When we first started dating however I was the one working and she was looking to get back on her feet, since then the roles have reversed and nothin about our feelings for each other have changed in the slightest.
On February 22 2013 04:07 Tien wrote: 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?
Because a woman lower on that 1-10 scale isn't compatible with the lives that men want. Why is that superficial? You can point that finger in both directions. I'm just trying to refute any possible men bashing that may or may not be taking place.
can you read? he already pointed the finger in both directions clearly stating it goes both ways, looks vs money.
your pre-emptive refutation of 'possible men bashing' that certainly isn't taking place in the vast majority of posts in this thread, just shows your insecurity. man up and discuss or get out.
EPT
When we first started dating however I was the one working and she was looking to get back on her feet, since then the roles have reversed and nothin about our feelings for each other have changed in the slightest. 
