|
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.
some thoughts:
1. Women care about how a man looks. If the man is wealthy but ugly you can be sure women who still have options will not fall for him much.
2. Women care about how a man looks, but not to such an extent as men do. This is biological. The process requires much more initiative from a male to produce an offspring. Unless the male is sufficiently "attracted" the process will not have much of a success rate.
3. Women have their looks age much faster. So an age difference of 6-10 years is actually a good idea for lasting relationships. It may look at the start that the girl is in for his money but unless the gap is huge, it will even out quite a bit with time.
4. Children being taken care of is an issue when there are children already. When there are none yet I dont believe that people can have some kind of strong feelings for future children that can influence the decision-making process. So when you say "lifestyle / children will be taken cared of" its 95% their lifestyle/5% future children. Is it bad? Yes. People don't like other people to have a parasitic lifestyle, naturally, and despite popular misconception not all people want it for themselves.
5. The feelings part. This is where it gets complicated: how do you separate the clear attraction and feelings for successful men that women clearly tend to have? I don't have an answer for that. The nature uses it as a mechanism for better genes selection but the process is bugged as hell. The same applies to the going for the looks approach, as the nature hopes there is a strong correlation between looks and being healthy.
The conclusion: if we were mere animals I would say evolution has created a mechanism that time has proved to be working
so it's fine. But we are not. We are capable of much more better than that.
|
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.
(I haven't read the thread)
The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true).
|
On February 25 2013 06:34 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 04:16 Demonhunter04 wrote:On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote:On February 25 2013 03:01 Recognizable wrote:On February 25 2013 02:33 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 01:10 JieXian wrote:On February 24 2013 23:24 Feartheguru wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects. What? That's really all I can say to that. On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote:
Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before. Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans. Just wow. In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists? Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ? l o l . Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand. l o l. Oh wow. You truly are an idiot. He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with. Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive. Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges. Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals. Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear. I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less.
I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased.
|
On February 22 2013 03:55 WikidSik wrote:
its only a problem when superficial factors are THE ONLY factors considered in starting/continuing relationships.
First page gold. It's not wrong for a woman to want a man who won't let her and her children starve (assuming stay-at-home mom is her goal), just as it's not wrong for a man to want a woman who (based on her appearance) could have some severe physical defects. But it is awfully shallow to pick a man purely for his money or a woman purely for her looks, because then they're really no different from an inheritance or a sex doll.
|
On February 25 2013 07:18 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 05:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 25 2013 04:12 Tien wrote:On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote:
He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with.
Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive.
Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges.
Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals. Sick but true.... Exceptional children can still be born from 2 below average intellect parents, but its not the norm. What about genetic intervention-mediated evolution? It is becoming a near-future possibility. I think you mean Eugenics.
Hardly. That's one small sub-topic of the discussion. What about genetic intervention in the form of therapy? Enhancement?
Ignorant of you to automatically assume I was referring to Germany-style eugenics.
|
On February 25 2013 11:13 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 06:34 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 04:16 Demonhunter04 wrote:On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote:On February 25 2013 03:01 Recognizable wrote:On February 25 2013 02:33 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 01:10 JieXian wrote:On February 24 2013 23:24 Feartheguru wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:
[quote]
No, just too many wrongs on this BS.
Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back.
We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her.
And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair.
Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects. What? That's really all I can say to that. On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote:
Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before. Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans. Just wow. In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists? Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ? l o l . Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand. l o l. Oh wow. You truly are an idiot. He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with. Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive. Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges. Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals. Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear. I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less. I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased.
The fact that people with lower IQ in general have more children does not mean that aspect is changing (evolving) unless you show that IQ is almost completely hereditary, which it's not. Also I'm not sure if you live in Somalia or something but from where most of TL comes from children in wealthier families do not have have higher odds of survival.
How are we changing if retards have a lower chance of reproducing than wealthy people if that has always been the case.
/facepalm
If anything you should be arguing they're reproducing more than before.
|
On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
[...]
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.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here. Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
you are absolutely incorrect.
|
On February 25 2013 13:19 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 11:13 Demonhunter04 wrote:On February 25 2013 06:34 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 04:16 Demonhunter04 wrote:On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote:On February 25 2013 03:01 Recognizable wrote:On February 25 2013 02:33 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 01:10 JieXian wrote:On February 24 2013 23:24 Feartheguru wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:
[quote]
What?
That's really all I can say to that.
[quote]
Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans. Just wow. In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists? Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ? l o l . Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand. l o l. Oh wow. You truly are an idiot. He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with. Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive. Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges. Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals. Let me explain this in detail. Modern society keeps alive those who would've died quickly in the past, such as the retarded or severely disfigured. But those people reproduce less often on average than those who bear desirable traits such as attractiveness, personality, social status, and wealth. In the ancient past, wealth and status revolved mostly around hunting, but now acquiring wealth and status requires a different skill set, which drives evolution towards increasing those traits in the population. Modern society is our new environment, and the rules of the game have changed. Far fewer people die, but evolution is still definitely happening in terms of sexual selection. Now, the environment favors hard-working but uncreative, cooperative, and socially adept people (coincidentally, women average higher scores than men on all of these traits). This is obviously a simplification, but the point should be clear. I'm actually not sure if serious. Did you just try to say wealth and social status leads to more reproduction on average? Your point is plenty clear, it's just hilariously bad lol... In case you don't get this, it doesn't take wealth or status or anything for anyone to have a boatload of children, that usually leads to less. I was comparing those people to retards, actually. I realize that birth control leads to the most informed and wealthy to reproduce less than those of other groups, but their odds of survival are still higher due to their wealth. Having said that, yes, the population is gradually reducing in average IQ because people below average have a lot more children. So I suppose traits the new environment selects for are actually promiscuity and lack of self-control lol. Doesn't change the fact that evolution has not ceased. The fact that people with lower IQ in general have more children does not mean that aspect is changing (evolving) unless you show that IQ is almost completely hereditary, which it's not. Also I'm not sure if you live in Somalia or something but from where most of TL comes from children in wealthier families do not have have higher odds of survival. How are we changing if retards have a lower chance of reproducing than wealthy people if that has always been the case. /facepalm If anything you should be arguing they're reproducing more than before.
Lol Somalia. Being able to afford the exorbitant medical expenses that some countries like the US have gives you an edge in survival, which doesn't apply in countries like Canada with universal healthcare. Another thing is that wealthier people are less likely to be overweight or obese, which are obvious contributors to preponed death.
IQ is estimated to be 50-80% hereditary. Even at 50%, if people below average IQ have more children that survive to reproduce than those above average IQ do, the net effect is a drop in IQ each generation. The effect will almost certainly taper off, assuming environmental pressures don't change to favor increased intelligence before that happens.
Once again on the topic of retards: the guy I first responded to said that since retards are kept alive by society, evolution has stopped. But if retards maintain a lower fertility rate than the general population, deleterious genes that contribute to such defects are kept from increasing in a population through reproduction, if not actually dropping. It's a different story that the fertility rate of retards is higher now than before.
Ultimately, what I'm arguing is that evolution never stops unless every single person has the exact same fertility rate, nobody dies before reaching that fertility rate, and mutations cease to occur.
|
United States42692 Posts
On February 25 2013 11:10 Abraxas514 wrote:Show nested quote +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. (I haven't read the thread) The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true).
On the contrary, a woman's looks deteriorate over time, time spent with perfect pert boobs before they sag is a limited resource. If a woman dates a man from when she's 28 to 32 then she has dedicated a considerable portion of her remaining pert years to him. If it doesn't work out then she won't be able to offer the same to the next man, there is a considerable investment.
|
On February 25 2013 02:33 Feartheguru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 01:10 JieXian wrote:On February 24 2013 23:24 Feartheguru wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
[...]
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.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here. Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects. What? That's really all I can say to that. On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote:
Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before. Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans. Just wow. In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists? Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ? l o l . Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand. l o l. User was warned for this post
lolumad
So because the rules of natural selection have changed from the "caveman times" it's dead?
Tell me, does a famous actor or you have a higher chance on passing on their genes to anyone they wish?
If you're referring to how many poor people get more children than rich ones, well then the rich people lose out because of their own damn (stupid when it comes to passing on their genes) choice.
They were the alphas but they didn't reproduce so they lose out. Natural selection.
Btw in caveman times ugly stupid people just rape lots of women if they're strong enough
User was warned for this post
|
Because the man doesn't get 50% of the good looks in the divorce.
|
On February 26 2013 01:49 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Because the man does get 50% of the good looks in the divorce.
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaha nice one
|
On February 25 2013 23:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 11:10 Abraxas514 wrote: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. (I haven't read the thread) The difference is a man doesn't take away a girl's looks when he dates her, whereas a man will offer a woman his money if they date (and of course, the other way around is just as true). On the contrary, a woman's looks deteriorate over time, time spent with perfect pert boobs before they sag is a limited resource. If a woman dates a man from when she's 28 to 32 then she has dedicated a considerable portion of her remaining pert years to him. If it doesn't work out then she won't be able to offer the same to the next man, there is a considerable investment.
Hmm this is an interesting observation and definatly a reason why there are such huge differences between the sexes when it comes to picking partners.
It makes room for manny interesting theorys.
If we take that the most important evoluntionary trait in a man is his wealth (wealth is no trait off course but lets say that wealth is an indication for having thoose traits that can lead to beeing wealthy) and the most important trait in a women is her beauty, then we can see that males get more atractive to women the older they are (since in general people get richer when they become older), and women get less atractive to males the older they are.
Males should not be in a rush to find a life time partner, as their odds increase the older they become.
For women on the other hand its a race against time to find a rich partner, and since its a race against time and rich partners are limited, it would be unwise for a women to be picky about her partner. Her safest best would be to settle at the first rich opportunity.
All this off course in a hypothetical world where man only select women on beauty, and women only select man on their wealth wich off course is not reality.
For man i am not to sure lol, but women definatly choose their partners not only for beeing rich, but also for beeing beautifull or their personality.
|
If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
However, in reality, the gold digging type of women are not satisfied with a man who only makes $30k a year. Why? Because they want more than extravagant necessity. Their focus is not on whether a man can provide for a family and be secure in their finances, but whether a man can provide her and her children with almost bottomless spending allowances. They want to be able to afford new expensive clothes and wear them once. They want to be able to wear that $10k necklace so that they can make the other women in the room jealous. They want to appear to be the most beautiful thing in every room they ever walk into, and that includes the Queen's dining room in Buckingham Palace and the lobby of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
And they want to do this by wearing designer red-carpet dresses, expensive shoes and expensive golds, silvers, and diamonds. But they want it all bought for them, because if a man buys her all these things then she will feel that she deserves them, that maybe it is actually her who is the most beautiful thing in the room and not the things she is wearing.
Of course, the guy who makes $30k a year can't give her that level of status. He can only give her food, a nice car, a big house on a quiet street, average clothes, and a new iPad every few months. But the girl will tell you she just wants a wealthy husband so that he can provide for her. What a crock of nonsense.
|
On February 26 2013 02:42 hp.Shell wrote:
If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
Yeah sure, and any woman who showed no outward signs of disease would be very attractive to men.
Oh wait, there's such a thing as better than enough.
Not to mention that a millionaire wouldn't be able to provide only for her kids, but also for her grandkids and maybe further generations past that.
|
On February 25 2013 04:02 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 03:01 Recognizable wrote:On February 25 2013 02:33 Feartheguru wrote:On February 25 2013 01:10 JieXian wrote:On February 24 2013 23:24 Feartheguru wrote:On February 24 2013 23:16 gedatsu wrote:On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
[...]
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.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here. Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects. What? That's really all I can say to that. On February 24 2013 22:35 llIH wrote:
Remember that evolution has more or less stopped by now. The conditions are not as they where before. Uh, no. Evolution carries on in full force. Conditions have never stayed the same. No. It doesn't.... evolution happens by natural selection which to a large extent no longer exists among humans. Just wow. In a thread talking about beautiful women and rich men being more popular and more attractive to the opposite sex you say that natural selection no longer exists? Weaker, sick and handicapped people don't die out as fast but how could you possible be this blind ? l o l . Because unlike in caveman times, ugly and stupid people such as yourself are also able to pass on their genes (unfortunately), not sure why that's hard to understand. l o l. Oh wow. You truly are an idiot. He isn't an idiot. Pretty much any retarded person (literally, not even figuratively) can procreate now when previously they would die much younger or never get the chance to begin with. Natural selection has disappeared off the face of the planet in first world countries due to modern medicine and the lack of a need to actually develop special skills (especially physically) to survive. Evolution is Humans is absolutely gone until the next major apocolypse or subspecies we let live ( like that would ever happen) emerges. Or until someone gets the ability to start procreating with animals.
Apart from the fact that Natural Selection is still taking place in Western Civilizations: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2868295/. I didn't call him an idiot because of
that.
|
On February 24 2013 23:09 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 19:01 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 17:46 Navane wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
[...]
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.
this makes sense.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
that is a circular argument. Men likes x in women so x will be given to the next generation and future men will like the next generation because it has x. X can be anything genetic here. Correct. The real reason that men are attracted to beautiful women is because beauty implies youh, health, and fertility, all of which increase the likelihood of passing on their genes. No, just too many wrongs on this BS. Let me be a bit more honest and adult here with my reply, so if there are any kids/minors reading this, stay back. We ask why are men or why am I attracted to pretty women? Lets be honest, attracted here means FUCKING her. And if I may be even more honest, it means fucking her in the most animal and primal of ways, doggy, chained, titfuck, facial, cream pie, biting her lips, sucking her strawberry tongue, pink nipples, beating her pussy up til she cant walk for a week, etc etc.. You get what I mean, unless you are in grade school and think of attraction as holding hands and smelling her hair. Genes, fertility, and all those evolutionary bullcrap are secondary and almost unintended side-effects.
I explained this already, but here's some more detail since you have a poor understanding of evolution.
Your explanation is essentially "men like pretty women because they want to fuck pretty women, therefore evolution is BS". That completely fails to explain why men consider certain things "pretty" in the first place.
Men are attracted to beautiful women because they want to fuck them, sure. But the question is, why do we consider traits associated with youth/health/fertility attractive in the first place? The reason why is because those men who were attracted to those things in the past were more likely to successfully pass on their genes, than men who were attracted to traits associated with age/infirmity/infertility.
|
On February 25 2013 05:25 red_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2013 19:04 sunprince wrote:On February 24 2013 15:26 red_ wrote:On February 24 2013 15:00 billy5000 wrote:On February 24 2013 14:46 forsooth wrote:On February 24 2013 14:35 billy5000 wrote:On February 24 2013 14:14 forsooth wrote:On February 24 2013 13:40 IPA wrote:On February 22 2013 03:54 1Dhalism wrote:
Also money and success are a pretty good measure of character. This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read on TL. I would say rather that it's one of the dumbest things I've read anywhere in my entire life. While I agree that's a naive thing to say, money and success can definitely boost your character if used the right way. Your character is what it is regardless of whether or not you have money. What you choose to do with wealth is nothing but a manifestation of what's already inside you. My point was that wealth creates more opportunities for a person to build his character. In other words, it can amplify a person's character more than someone without it. Compare a person who's living paycheck to paycheck and doesn't have the time to really "give back to the community" (or something else along the lines) other than what he can manage at the time, and someone who has enough time to commit his time to wholeheartedly help. The latter is more likely to be noticed as someone of character than the former. You sir, have just made an argument against yourself; that is a good reason why money and success might actually be terrible measures of character. Your definitions are confused. Whether or not money and success imply "good" or "bad" things about a person's character, does not imply they are not useful at measuring character. If they were useful for measuring character, then you would be able to make a definitive, objective statement about the difference in character of a poor man who gives everything he is capable of in community service and volunteer work vs the rich man who does the same(but in more abundant amount as pointed out in the previous post). There is no difference in their character, they both display great quality as we define it in our society, one simply has more resources(he could have inherited his wealth for the sake of this argument even, so you can't even say his character gave him resources). Thus, using wealth especially, and to a lesser extent success(because success can be use in an abstract sense and subjectively means something different to different people), is a bad measure of character. The post I quoted basically says the exact opposite of what you are intimating from it.
Your entire post rests upon the assumption that character is limited to "good character" and "bad character". This is a blatant oversimplification.
Wealth (or lack thereof) can indicate character traits such as ambition, or greed, or intelligence, or patience, etc. In other words, wealth is correlated with a number of character traits (as is lack of wealth), which does give you insight into a person's character.
|
On February 26 2013 02:42 hp.Shell wrote:
If the argument that some women like wealthy men for their money because they can provide for a family were true, then the simple $30k a year guy would be very attractive to this kind of woman. A man who makes $30k can provide a comfortable life for himself, his wife, and their children. All the basic necessities are covered rather extravagantly.
However, in reality, the gold digging type of women are not satisfied with a man who only makes $30k a year. Why? Because they want more than extravagant necessity. Their focus is not on whether a man can provide for a family and be secure in their finances, but whether a man can provide her and her children with almost bottomless spending allowances. They want to be able to afford new expensive clothes and wear them once. They want to be able to wear that $10k necklace so that they can make the other women in the room jealous. They want to appear to be the most beautiful thing in every room they ever walk into, and that includes the Queen's dining room in Buckingham Palace and the lobby of Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas.
And they want to do this by wearing designer red-carpet dresses, expensive shoes and expensive golds, silvers, and diamonds. But they want it all bought for them, because if a man buys her all these things then she will feel that she deserves them, that maybe it is actually her who is the most beautiful thing in the room and not the things she is wearing.
Of course, the guy who makes $30k a year can't give her that level of status. He can only give her food, a nice car, a big house on a quiet street, average clothes, and a new iPad every few months. But the girl will tell you she just wants a wealthy husband so that he can provide for her. What a crock of nonsense.
Dunno where in the States you live, but $30k a year isn't getting half that shit where I am. You might want to double that if you want any of that to be remotely true.
|
On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote:Show nested quote +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?
It's purely a power dynamic.
The male is perceived to be more powerful in misogynistic countries while the female is perceived to be submissive.
This is why women want rich men *power* but men don't go after Buff/Rich/Dominant women. Because we play the roles we have been taught to play by society. It has nothing to do with wanting better looking offspring or shopping. A woman who loves to shop can just as easily get a well paying job or simply shop at smaller stores. A man could doesn't want a pretty girl for her "genes" or else he'd just spend his time with new/young hookers every week to make sure he has sex with the maximum number of pretty girls per month to maximize gene dispersion.
Here's the truth.
Men want pretty women because they want to outdo other men in social power. The guy who has the prettiest/most girl/s is perceived to be more powerful much like a Pride of lions only has 1 male. Women go after men for money/protection because they are playing the role of submission and have been taught to enjoy that role.
In the end it's about power dynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
