|
On February 22 2013 16:16 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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."
jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure...
he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about.
|
I think that it's fine to make a decision to enter a relationship or not based on earning power/etc... mainly due to the fact that income limits where your relationship can go (comfortably). You can't comfortably and safely start a family if you're broke, and living with someone else who is broke can create an awkward dynamic.
|
"Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit.
|
On February 23 2013 07:11 MooMu wrote:
"Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit.
why do you think we like to fuck beautiful women
|
On February 23 2013 07:12 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 07:11 MooMu wrote:
"Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference."
I think men are attracted to beautiful women largely because they like to fuck beautiful women. Attractive offspring are a side benefit. why do you think we like to fuck beautiful women
Your name tells me you know the answer to this question 
|
On February 22 2013 23:59 Steel wrote:
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'.
Do you believe that women are smart enough to make their own choices? If so, then it's perfectably acceptable for a woman to choose a lack of independence.
Many women, in fact, do choose to be dependent, when given the choice, and many wives who do work express resentment that their husbands aren't well-off enough to allow them stay at home.
Women are equal to men, but they're not the same, and on average they don't have the same preferences in life.
|
On February 23 2013 06:32 nath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:16 sunprince wrote: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." jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure... he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about.
That's a wild inference considering I didn't post anything beyond a gender swap.
The point being made is that the gender swapped version would be considered politically incorrect, and often attracts charges of misogyny. Either both of these statements are okay, or neither of them are. My gender swap was to illustrate a sociocultural double standard.
|
On February 23 2013 06:00 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 00:17 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 14:45 naastyOne wrote:On February 22 2013 13:23 sunprince wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
|
On February 23 2013 07:52 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 06:32 nath wrote:On February 22 2013 16:16 sunprince wrote: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." jesus since when did all the xy people in TL become so insecure... he never implied that it doesn't go both ways. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THIS. no one is denying that. that is not what this discussion is about. That's a wild inference considering I didn't post anything beyond a gender swap. The point being made is that the gender swapped version would be considered politically incorrect, and often attracts charges of misogyny. Either both of these statements are okay, or neither of them are. My gender swap was to illustrate a sociocultural double standard.
They're both fairly politically incorrect statements. Both also very realistic statements. Not that I'm denying such double standards exist, but I think dating/attractiveness is one of the relatively fair aspects of life as far as gender standards. At least where I live...
|
Both money and looks are not solid building blocks to a stable relationship, so that's why I frown upon it. They're both things that can be lost 
|
On February 23 2013 08:31 GohgamX wrote:Both money and looks are not solid building blocks to a stable relationship, so that's why I frown upon it. They're both things that can be lost
I think looks are fine for an attraction, but not money. Honestly money comes and goes, but you will pass on your genes to your kids.
|
money for the sake of money is always bad. Both are tools and deserve each other
|
On February 23 2013 08:17 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 06:00 Ropid wrote:On February 23 2013 00:17 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 14:45 naastyOne wrote:On February 22 2013 13:23 sunprince wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
bro everyone knows protoss players are more likely than zerg or terran men to be deadbeat dads
|
On February 23 2013 08:17 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 06:00 Ropid wrote:On February 23 2013 00:17 ffadicted wrote:On February 22 2013 14:45 naastyOne wrote:On February 22 2013 13:23 sunprince wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I would love to see a stat on % given to each sex when both wanted it tbh. I have a feeling it would be extremely skewed for women
Not to mention that men aren't going to contest custody if it's unlikely that they will win, something known as bargaining under the shadow of the law.
It's just like how a disproportionate criminal trials result in not-guilty verdicts, which might give the false impression that the police/prosecution are doing their jobs badly... until you take into account that most of the guilty made plea bargains and never wound up at trial.
|
I think its alright. Everyone is shallow and no one can criticise each other for being so. Therefore there's no such thing as being shallow. Survival of the fittest. If that's what we like, then so be it.
As a guy, I am a gold digger. I like a smart and hardworking girl who wants to work hard to persevere through the hard times just to win my heart as any guy would do for a woman. Who doesn't like strong, feministic and individualistic women? These values are worthwhile and transcendent.
Hell I don't care if she's not attractive, and you may be wondering why. Survival of the fittest, its simply adaptation. The very one thing women value very very much is physical height. Forget money for the time being. Even though I'm a handsome good looking guy and kinda smart, I'm way toooo short for 99% of the females. I simply cannot compete with other men because I don't exist as a man because my presence is not felt.
Studies have shown that if the males are at least 6-7 inches(15 + cm)taller than the female, height can more than make up for lack of success/money. In fact there's increasing returns(not diminishing returns) for every inch/cm after 7-8 (15-20cm). height disparity. It's like as if she's found the tall guy of her dreams(fantasy). It really gives her that much value and pleasure.
Or do you prefer a backwards woman who has an inferiority complex who believe that women are inferior in such a way that they should only be relegated to gender roles > boring housewife, mother bearing and raising children she doesn't want, oppressed dishwasher etc.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
It isn't bad at all. There is nothing wrong with women valuing financial security whilst choosing a mate. What's bad is when women place too much importance in it, or engage in a relationship solely to enjoy the financial benefits. I do agree that women tend to get the sort end of the stick when it comes to being labeled superficial. Leonardo Di Caprio pretty much exclusively dates young supermodels, but he receives little to no flak for it, which is fine. It's his choice who he wants to date. However, if a popular actress or female celeb only dated rich men or models, I think most would agree that they would receive more negative attention.
|
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included.
|
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.
This isn't limited to just women. Gay men prefer rich guys also.
|
On February 23 2013 10:28 plated.rawr wrote:
That anyone would even believe this, bleakens my view of humanity even further. There's far more complex mechanics to humans than simple biological imperative and social situation.
There's three main sources of attraction. Physical, mental and social - money being a part of social.
Human beings are animals governed by instincts, sure. But we're also given the powers of rationality and logic, which in many ways defy instincts. In the end, human actions and social connections is a contradiction to ourselves - our mating habits included.
Well said. I am amazed that so many people here attempt to explain our complex nature from a purely biological standpoint, and even more amazed at how many more people agree to these obsolete explanations.
"Women are attracted to men with money because she wants a partner who can support her children."
"Men are attracted to beautiful women so his offsprings will be beautiful."
So why are many men interested in anal sex? What does that have anything to do with fertility?
Why do so many women like to go shopping? If all women were instinctively driven by their maternal behaviors, and if they were indeed looking for men to provide safety and support, why would they then use the money to go shopping on clothes? They would use the money to support their children (e.g., education), not on a Prada bag.
Here are some more questions to think before accepting the biological argument.
If men are attracted to beautiful women for the sake of his offsprings (with the priority on the physical beauty), then why shouldn't women also be attracted to handsome men for the same reason?
Why is it that nobody questions the discrepancy in these statements? If men want beautiful offsprings, and are inherently driven to reach that goal via mate selection, then why is it that women, who are ASSUMED to be at least as evenly concerned about offspring's safety and support, do not consider the appearance of the male partner to the same priority?
(Note that this ASSUMPTION is made not by me, but by the very same supporters who think men like beautiful women for the sake of beautiful offsprings.)
And if men are indeed driven to seek out beautiful partners for the sake his offsprings, then the men who like beautiful women must all be very thoughtful, caring, family-oriented, and supportive of his children. So why are there so many incidents of child abuses? Why does he cheat when he has a beautiful wife and children at home? Wouldn't it be his first priority to look after his offsprings?
|
@ Above:
Anal sex by a women is a sign of her submission to a man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
