| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Tor
Canada231 Posts
This isn't to say it's wrong to want someone with money, only that judging someone based on a single trait is risky. Additionally, there is probably a cultural reason society doesn't favour extreme superficiality. I doubt being excessively superficial actually benefits most people. Yes, everyone is a superficial, but there is a difference between a gold digger (taboo for a reason) and your average person who finds blondes more attractive than brunettes. | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
| ||
|
supervizor
Netherlands42 Posts
Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries? | ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
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. Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically. | ||
|
Kazeyonoma
United States2912 Posts
| ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:11 Tor wrote: Superficiality is short sighted, you have no idea if a wealthy parent is better than a poor parent. This isn't to say it's wrong to want someone with money, only that judging someone based on a single trait is risky. Obviously. My point is with attraction it is rarely just 1 trait that makes the person attractive, there are many different traits that we see consciously as well as subconsciously. But some traits play a larger roll in attraction than others. For men, that trait could be looks, then personality, etc etc. For a certain female it could be the man's wealth / then his personality second, etc etc. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
The fact is, women and men both prefer certain traits and while individual valuations may vary, all variance tends to fall within a normative range. That's why pick up artists are a thing, why emotionally abusive relationships chug along, and why the sad boys sitting at home writing poetry pining for their love who is oblivious of their existence need to change it up. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:14 CosmicSpiral wrote: Looks do not change much over the years unless you overeat, smoke heavily, drink heavily, or do something extreme that affects you physically. Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50? | ||
|
WikidSik
Canada382 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:12 aTnClouD wrote: If you are wealthy and your wife stays with you just because of your money you will most likely end up raising somebody's else son without knowing. Women can't choose who they are attracted to as men do because they are more emotional and impulsive and the chance of being cheated on if she is not attracted to you is close to 100%. Also what kind of shitty relationship would it be anyway? If you want to fuck a hot woman you can just go prostitutes, they are cheaper anyway. woah woah woah women are impulsive? I swear to god its the other way around. And biologically speaking, women have to be more careful about emotional things such as sex cuz it affects them waaaay more than it does for men. | ||
|
Holy_AT
Austria978 Posts
I would not call this a relation ship, its more like a contract or business. You act as couple aslong as there is money. By my standards, this is not what I would call a healthy relationship. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
Where exactly that line lies, I leave to individual judgement. Dating and relationships are complex. | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:13 supervizor wrote: If the woman is very interested in your money and you lose it through misfortune there is an increased risk of her leaving you. Most guys rather have somebody to rely on (somebody who cares about you instead of your money) OR cut out the gf concept all together (hookers and short term relationships). Though alternatively, your argumentation seems fair. Question is though: is she interested in the money to have financial security for her and her kids... or to buy expensive luxuries? If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way. | ||
|
aTnClouD
Italy2428 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:17 WikidSik wrote: woah woah woah women are impulsive? I swear to god its the other way around. And biologically speaking, women have to be more careful about emotional things such as sex cuz it affects them waaaay more than it does for men. You don't seem to know much about the other sex. When a woman is married it's much easier to get her rather than if she was single. If you are an attractive and socially capable alpha male you will get laid very easily with any woman while some other nice guy will raise your kids. Women are extremely weak and vulnerable to seduction and that's why they have so many defenses, but if somebody knows how to get past them it doesn't matter how much a woman is involved with somebody else, she won't be able to resist. It's just how it works, blame nature for this. | ||
|
BruceLee6783
United States196 Posts
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. | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:18 Tien wrote: If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way. This, but doesn't acknowledging this makes your entire OP irrelevant? It's superficial, it's just not as bad as society makes it out to be. Edit: Feeling the need to add a bit, as it can be misconstrued. I didn't mean to say superficiality is not bad, it's just less bad than it's meant to be. In your OP it comes across as not being bad at all. Is that actually your position or do I get the wrong impression? | ||
|
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:17 Shival wrote: Rubbish, are you honestly going to argue you look relatively the same when you're 25 compared to 50? No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable unless they undergo the same things I described above (alternatively dieting, exercise, and plastic surgery can shift things to the opposite end). On February 22 2013 04:18 Tien wrote: If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way. Not superficial. Anyone who lets themselves go that quickly lacks self-discipline and personal hygiene. Sorry, we're talking about the real world and not situations that only occur in magical parodies. | ||
|
MasterOfPuppets
Romania6942 Posts
Now as far as "gold diggers", I'd say there's mostly two large categories. First there's women from poorer / shaky backgrounds that will naturally look for establishing a stable, comfortable family. You could argue that this also has *some* basis in evolution, although in a far more indirect way than it does in males. I would not necessarily disagree. I can see where these women are coming from and the fact that they want to distance themselves from the hardships of their lower-class past and ensure better conditions for their children. What I cannot understand however, is the 2nd category. The actual gold diggers. Women who are middle or upper-middle class to begin with, naturally good looking, and instead of doing anything productive for society they choose to sleep around with various wealthy middle aged men. This isn't a woman who wants to establish a healthy family, it's a low-intelligence specimen with the attention span of a brick who wants to get showered with shiny gadgets and jewelry and thinks her relationship with aforementioned men grants her some sort of high societal status. The first category is only natural; the second is a worthless parasite. Sorry for rather aggressive tone but you can't possibly not see this. | ||
|
supervizor
Netherlands42 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:18 Tien wrote: If your beautiful girlfriend suddenly became fat and stayed fat but still had the same personalities and qualities, but you are no longer sexually attracted to her, does this mean you are superficial? Yes, but its not wrong to be this way. not 100% how your response relates to mine, so i could be wrong in my response but: Not saying its fair, just giving an explanation. If you're a guy you could reason along my lines to avoid "golddiggers". | ||
|
MrRicewife
Canada515 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. Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world. A woman is not a gold digger if one of the reasons she likes a guy is because of his fat bank account. She is one if she ONLY likes him for that. Superficial women are women who weigh material over non-material items (such as love, family, friends etc). A woman who is attracted to someone not for their character but their external factors can be labeled many things, depending on what those external factors are. Men are all different from one another. So don't use a term like, men as a whole. Some men only go for money and wealth. Some men only go for women who are beautiful. There is no "whole". I'm going to skip the "if you listen to any type of man conversation", because that's just silly. Men and women can be equally "superficial"... To think different is ignorant. Your whole argument is based on stereotypes. That shows inexperience, because I've met every color of woman and man on this planet, well, not every, but a hell of a lot, and they are all different. Even "gold diggers" are different from other "gold diggers". People are individuals. Don't generalize. What an asshole thing to say, Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Have you ever dated ANYONE?! Women go through catalogs at sperm banks, and pick donors based on their looks! And just as many men do too! Man! Come back in 5 years and you will laugh at what you said today. One thing you are right on, everything is personal preference. And if you want to date someone for their car, or their heart, or their huge fucking rock hard penis, that's your prerogative. And It's nobody's business but your own. Nothing wrong with it, nothing right with it. Freedom of choice allows you to be whomever you want to, and to pick whatever mate you want. Have a good day!  | ||
|
Shival
Netherlands643 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:24 CosmicSpiral wrote: No one looks the same due to aging alone. However, they will usually look very similar. Rarely does someone look unrecognizable. Exactly my point. Looks will change, given sufficient years alot. To base a relationship on looks only, or mostly will make it unstable over the years, unless you change the basis of the relationship. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
Bonyth vs TBD
WardiTV European League
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
HeRoMaRinE vs MaxPax
Wardi Open
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
