|
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security.
|
On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security.
Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
|
On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
You have a narrow and naive view of this.
My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure.
Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
|
I don't know about evolution, but I want to bang beautiful girls. And if it requires a bit of money for that to happen, I won't mind.
|
it's not bad.
women like men with power
money = power
women like men with money.
as easy as that.
/end of conversation XD
|
On February 27 2013 22:32 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you. You have a narrow and naive view of this. My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure. Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
You are missing the mindset that several people in this thread have voiced and elaborated on.
Your fiance agreed to marry you because you are who you are; being able to provide financial security simply shows that you have better opportunities in the future for a family (note: children are very, very expensive). And though this might sound chauvinistic, a family is what most women want in life. Being married ain't cheap (note: money is not a requirement for a happy marriage, but it sure as hell helps with quality of life).
|
On February 27 2013 22:32 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you. You have a narrow and naive view of this. My fiance would probably not be dating me if it wasn't for the fact that I'm able to provide financial security. That doesn't mean I, in your words, "blow money on her", quite the contrary, I do spend money on her and our relationship, but only to the extent that I remain financially secure. Again, I don't understand your assumption that if women value the income/wealth of their partners that the relationship is doomed to be a short one, if anything I've seen more people break up because of financial troubles than the other way around. This is by no means scientific, but your claims are just ridiculous.
You are talking about something completely different, I was referring to women who are primarily attracted to your finances and any other things they like about you are just an added bonus.
edit: If you think your fiance would leave you because you lost your job then you are probably more insecure than you think. I'm not saying that is the case, but if it were it would be telling of your insecurities. Money isn't everything and believe it or not you can be happy and poor.
|
On February 26 2013 22:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 16:59 ZackAttack wrote:On February 26 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 08:55 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote: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. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. You have to ask yourself where those cultural norms originated from. Or where "culture" in general originated from. And I'm not talking about "recent" culture of 2000 years ago, I'm talking about the time when "instinct (or whatever it is you want to call it)" and "culture" first started to blur. It isn't an accident that most (not all) of the major cultures of the world have males as the dominant sex. It should be obvious that there is a mutual factor (shared among all humans) that caused that (i.e. nature). Culture is a reflection of human "nature" from before there was an idea of culture. And that is shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can't separate the two. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but you seem to be suggesting culture developed completely arbitrarily, and not as a product of human nature to begin with. Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun. Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like. Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures. Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow? Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes. Do you even know what domestication means? Cows have been taught how to eat, when to sleep, and what to eat, how to sleep, how to run, how to live, etc... There is nothing a cow does that is not regulated and guided by man's cultural pressures on the lives of cows. Domesticated animals barely breed without human supervision. No, cows are not these animals that walk around in cow preservations being hunted from their natural habitats. They are man taught animals living in man made environments, living by man made rules--they live within the pressures of human culture and in less than 2000 years they (as well as all other domesticated animals) have radically changed in both size, shape, and demeanor. No amount of their primitive natural instincts could overcome human influences on their lives. The same is true for humans.
There is a huge difference between cultural pressure and being tamed. Society putting pressure on a person to act a certain way is not the same as being dominated by a more powerful and intelligent species via a fence and food supply. Cows could never overcome our influence, but a person can definitely overcome cultural pressures. You're equating not walking out the door because no one else is, and not leaving a cage because it's locked.
|
On February 28 2013 02:24 ZackAttack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2013 22:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 16:59 ZackAttack wrote:On February 26 2013 09:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 08:55 HardlyNever wrote:On February 26 2013 08:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 26 2013 05:39 Vivax wrote:On February 26 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 23 2013 11:06 NeMaTo wrote: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. It's not just a cultural thing. There are societies in which women play a dominant role, a tribe in Mexico of which I don't remember the name for example. But in most parts of the world men had physical strength on their side and could do with women much of what they wanted to, and that is the evolutionary basis for the picture we see today, on which the cultural one is built on. Woman rights are something that has evolved in the last century, and despite being able to vote during WW 2 already, women's roles were still clearly imposed. They were required to work in kitchens, factories etc. You are fighting the nature vs nurture debate from the nurturist's standpoint, but the truth is in between and both sides have already taken a moderate point of view. Genetics to neuroscience to behavioural biology to rest of psychology are the fields that study different parts of the same subject with different methods. And yes, women like men with higher status than their own, they also pay less attention to physical appearance and more to status symbols and dominance, confidence. But whether they like dominant men or nice guys is also dependent on the timing of their period. Around ovulation period they prefer the dominant type and otherwise they tend to appreciate the nice one. Then, nice type and dominant type are associated with facial and bodily traits. Men's face shape and muscular tone is influenced by testosterone levels in the teens, testosterone levels are influenced by genetics and behaviour etc. So you see, there's a lot more to the subject than one can bring up in this thread. Um... We also have about 2000 years of evolution guided heavily by cultural norms more so than nature's stresses. And much like the cow, the dog, the pig, and the chicken don't look or act at all like their ancestors, neither do we as humans act very similar to our ancestors except in one regard--cultural consistencies. However, these cultural consistencies have been found to be, for the most part, societally defined moreso than naturally occurring. Because of this, attempting to say that we treat men and women like we do is not because of cultural norms but because of some evolutionary tick that we had thousands of years ago is folly. Yes, they are coming closer and closer to a middle ground, but as far as I can tell, "nurturists" as you call it have not budged from their stance while evolutionists slowly find more and more evidence that they're less right than they initially thought they were. I'm biased of course, living in as misogynistic a country as the US; it's hard not to see it everywhere. You have to ask yourself where those cultural norms originated from. Or where "culture" in general originated from. And I'm not talking about "recent" culture of 2000 years ago, I'm talking about the time when "instinct (or whatever it is you want to call it)" and "culture" first started to blur. It isn't an accident that most (not all) of the major cultures of the world have males as the dominant sex. It should be obvious that there is a mutual factor (shared among all humans) that caused that (i.e. nature). Culture is a reflection of human "nature" from before there was an idea of culture. And that is shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. You can't separate the two. I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong, but you seem to be suggesting culture developed completely arbitrarily, and not as a product of human nature to begin with. Nature is when all civilizations decided to put a roof over their head to not get wet or burn in the sun. Nurture is the fact that each region had a different idea what a domicile looks like. Nature is the larger creature protecting smaller creatures. Nurture is the larger creature thinking this makes him better than the smaller creature when it simply is a variance in roles. A power dynamic is created whereby the smaller creature is forced into submission at the threat of losing the larger creature's protection. As we evolve and sized stopped being the defining construct of safety, we still retained those power dynamics formed. That retention is a societal choice--ie nurture. We now shoot each other with bullets that travel faster than the speed of sound with enough force to pierce a tank--and only just recently did the US think it was okay to have women fight in war. That is not a nature issue, that is a nurture issue. Men being seen as the more powerful creature is a nurture issue, not a nature one. It took less than 2000 years for the cow to become a docile immobile lump of meat that would never survive in the wild. Are you really suggesting that humans are more resistant to cultural forces than a cow? Cows don't have cultural pressures. Cows don't have culture. What does a cow being domesticated have to do with men being seen as more powerful in society. Are you trying to say that women have been domesticated like a cow, and men the opposite? This is shedding light on the psychology of some weird fetishes. Do you even know what domestication means? Cows have been taught how to eat, when to sleep, and what to eat, how to sleep, how to run, how to live, etc... There is nothing a cow does that is not regulated and guided by man's cultural pressures on the lives of cows. Domesticated animals barely breed without human supervision. No, cows are not these animals that walk around in cow preservations being hunted from their natural habitats. They are man taught animals living in man made environments, living by man made rules--they live within the pressures of human culture and in less than 2000 years they (as well as all other domesticated animals) have radically changed in both size, shape, and demeanor. No amount of their primitive natural instincts could overcome human influences on their lives. The same is true for humans. There is a huge difference between cultural pressure and being tamed. Society putting pressure on a person to act a certain way is not the same as being dominated by a more powerful and intelligent species via a fence and food supply. Cows could never overcome our influence, but a person can definitely overcome cultural pressures. You're equating not walking out the door because no one else is, and not leaving a cage because it's locked.
Not to mention the tendency for people to resist cultural pressures simply for the sake of being different. Some people want to fit in, others don't. Societal influence plays a minimal role, if any, in determining a persons attraction. We see hourglass figure women in bikinis on tv because we like hourglass figure women in bikinis, them being on tv isn't what makes people like them.
|
On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you.
Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty.
Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you.
This thread turned out so much better then expected btw 
|
On February 28 2013 02:41 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you. Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty. Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you. This thread turned out so much better then expected btw
Your a ecomparing instinct to greed, finding someone physically attractive doesn't make you more likely to use them for sex. Finding someones money attractive does make you more likely to use them for their money though.
|
On February 28 2013 02:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 02:41 Rassy wrote:On February 27 2013 21:21 kmillz wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. Dating a woman who is attracted to you for your "financial security" leaves you much more susceptible to being used for your money. If you have no problem with a short-term relationship and blowing lots of money on her before she moves on to the next sucker, then this doesn't apply to you. Then the same can be said for man who are atracted to women for their physical beauty. Dating a man who is atracted to you for your physical apearence leaves you much more suspectible to beeing used for sex. If you have no problem with a short term relationghip and blowing lots.. before he moves on to the next 20 year old model, then this does not aply to you. This thread turned out so much better then expected btw Your a ecomparing instinct to greed, finding someone physically attractive doesn't make you more likely to use them for sex. Finding someones money attractive does make you more likely to use them for their money though.
Are you sure?
|
On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security.
do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?.
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women?
|
On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?.
Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes.
On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women?
That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men?
Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men.
|
On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes.
"Yes, I really like you, but I'm going with this other guy instead because he has better financial security" Said no one ever 
|
I think I'm going to have to spend some more time trying to understand this thread. I seriously thought it was an elaborate troll until I read like 5 pages in... I really am amazed at how many people just assume that wealth/looks = happiness. I honestly have never found either of these qualities to be attractive (people who concern themselves primarily with their money or their looks). I enjoy being around people that I have something in common with, and unless they're literally begging on the street or a freaking burn victim or something I haven't been repulsed by these people that I otherwise like...
|
On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes.
hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills?
On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women? That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men? Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men.
for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat.
|
On February 28 2013 07:09 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. "Yes, I really like you, but I'm going with this other guy instead because he has better financial security" Said no one ever
Of course few people would admit to it. That doesn't change the fact that hypergamy is a real thing, even if it's a taboo subject among women.
|
On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:On February 27 2013 21:17 Palmar wrote:
I don't understand this thread.
Can someone argue with me to get me up to speed? I have literally no problem and find it pretty reasonable that women are attracted to financial security. do you consider everyone that is above you as far as financial security goes, a possible(worthy) rival?. Financial security is one of the components that makes another man a possible rival, yes. hmm, that's not a good answer. take#2 : how high would you rate money as far as your desirability to women goes?. above your genes?, physique?, education?. would you see money as a compensation for the lack of your other skills?
Women are primarily attracted to social status. Wealth, physical prowess, education, and skills are simply components of that social status. Measuring their relative values is not that easy, but there's significant statistical evidence from dating sites that money absolutely plays a major role:
![[image loading]](http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/lies/MaleMessageDistributionByIncomeBright.png)
On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 07:04 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 05:45 xM(Z wrote:
is one of your life goals to pursue higher and higher financial gains just to seem more attractive to women? That's poor logical reasoning. Would you ask women whether their life goals are to pursue higher and higher physical beauty just to seem more attractive to men? Women are attracted to financial security. This does not imply that someone who accepts this fact of reality must necessarily react by pursuing wealth for the sole purpose of attracting women, any more than women must react to men's desires by pursuing beauty for the sole purpose of attracting men. for me attraction to financial security (women) and attraction to physical beauty (men) are not the same thing or i wouldn't put them in the same boat.
Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
