EPTI wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me.
Women That Like Men with Money, Why is it Bad? - Page 24
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
SayGen
United States1209 Posts
I wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 28 2013 08:50 SayGen wrote: @OP It's not bad. I personally don't like it and find woman who are intrested in money to be boring and bland. I wouldn't want one, since that trait is unappealing to me. A woman who is intrested in positive character traits, is appealing to me. Women who aren't interested in money are about as common as men who aren't interested in beauty. | ||
|
zerglingrodeo
United States910 Posts
The first is "liking money or physical attractiveness is biological, therefore it is ok." The second is "liking money or physical attractiveness is personal preference, therefore it is ok." I find both of these inferences unconvincing as they stand. | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 25 2013 12:06 FallDownMarigold wrote: 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. Actually Eugenics as a word was coined by an Englishman and a lot of it's early champions were English or American. There's a fair bit of debate over what actually qualifies as Eugenics. I think it's safe to say though that gene therapy in order to engineer human "enhancement" falls pretty much bang in the middle as a definition. Giving it the insipid corporate title "Genetic intervention-mediated evolution" is really cool though so props for that. It's acronym would be GIME. Could we fit an R in there I wonder? Genetic Re-engineering and Intervention Mediated Evolution perhaps? | ||
|
Dapper_Cad
United Kingdom964 Posts
On February 28 2013 10:55 sunprince wrote: Women who aren't interested in money are about as common as men who aren't interested in beauty. And about as common as men who aren't interested in money and women who aren't interested in beauty. | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:00 CosmicSpiral wrote: A man will be immediately be attracted to a woman based on her looks, that is natural. However, any man who puts up with his woman's bitchiness because of her looks is looked down upon by his contemporaries. Compare that to attraction to money, which has little to no correlation with a man's personality, looks, or personal view of women. I don't know if that's necessarily true. Perhaps there is a correlation. Harder working men make more money than non-hard working. And hard-working can be an honourable trait for a women to look for in a man | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On February 28 2013 12:14 mprs wrote: Eh, you've criticized a broad generalization and substituted another of your own.... Surely you would agree that millions of men working average 9-5 desk jobs make much more than unskilled labor who work much harder. There's tons of brutal jobs out there like farming and construction that pay very poorly. Or how about the janitor working an extra night job. Initial opportunity/education/well-being end up mattering a whole lot. I'll agree with you that hard-working is a valuable trait, but it doesn't correlate very well with money. I think wealth is a more complicated puzzle and working hard is just one piece.I don't know if that's necessarily true. Perhaps there is a correlation. Harder working men make more money than non-hard working. And hard-working can be an honourable trait for a women to look for in a man | ||
|
StayPhrosty
Canada406 Posts
On February 28 2013 12:27 calgar wrote: Eh, you've criticized a broad generalization and substituted another of your own.... Surely you would agree that millions of men working average 9-5 desk jobs make much more than unskilled labor who work much harder. There's tons of brutal jobs out there like farming and construction that pay very poorly. Or how about the janitor working an extra night job. Initial opportunity/education/well-being end up mattering a whole lot. I'll agree with you that hard-working is a valuable trait, but it doesn't correlate very well with money. I think wealth is a more complicated puzzle and working hard is just one piece. Exactly, and what about all the guys who just inherit their wealth, they don`t have to work a day of their life and yet somehow that money is supposed to indicate to women how hard they work and therefore how suitable they are? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote: 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) Your personal preferences does not change the reality of the preferences had by the majority of humans. ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable. also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
People have very different tastes, and that is a good thing. | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
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? Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women. | ||
|
hfglgg
Germany5372 Posts
from an evolutionary point of view it is a very new thing that the social status has a minor effect on the reproduction rate. until mid of the 1800 local food shortages, diseases or beeing the victim of crimes was something that could partially be prevented by having money. combine this with the fact that birth control was only reliable and common since the 20th century, women who chose men with a high social security had a better chance that she and her children will survive. 200 years is nothing for human evolution. it is like 30 seconds of a day. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On February 28 2013 18:58 gedatsu wrote: Yes, I plan to make a lot of money and a big part of the reason why is that it will make me more attractive to women. k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money). | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time. And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. | ||
|
gedatsu
1286 Posts
On February 28 2013 19:38 xM(Z wrote: k, but wouldn't that mean you'd also have to get the women, sex them, get them pregnant then have them raise your kids for it to have any evolutionary goal?. else it's pointless, 'cause you'll at best just gather money to have sex which has nothing to do with evolution. so how does: men getting money only to trick women into having sex with them compare with women thinking money in a man means financial stability for her?. (even as a potential financial stability, from this perspective, it doesn't seem a good idea for a woman to like men only for their money). I'm not sure I understand what your question is. | ||
|
nihlon
Sweden5581 Posts
On February 28 2013 20:00 sc4k wrote: I guess on the optimistic side, at least getting money is something all of us can technically be doing. If all women wanted was a huge endowment, dimples or a certain height, we would be much more in uproar! In many ways guys can be thankful that the things girls are attracted to are often things we can change and get better at. Ie confidence, skills, financial security, humour. I always thought that the people who lose out the most in life are unattractive girls. What can they fall back on? Humour, increased knowledge, confidence? Meh, I when I was single I met plenty of fat and unattractive girls who knew their ways around all my favourite shows, knew plenty of stuff and were funny. While they were good company there would be no way in hell I would ever be attracted to them physically. And I don't consider myself a particularly superficial guy. I use personality to distinguish between similarly attractive girls, but not to elevate an ugly or fat girl into being 'attractive'...which is what women do with guys all the time. And by the way I know very few women who are just 'in it for the money', ie true gold diggers. The majority of sensible ones, quite understandably, view it as an important element of an eligible partner but definitely not the be all and end all. Suffice to say, if you accumulate plenty of cash but never actually get the rest of your personality up to scratch, you will most likely only attract the worst sort of women whom none of us should really want. A wealthy woman can get men easier as well, attractive or not. Also people seem to ignore the fact that generally (which the whole thread seem to be about) people end up with a partner with a reasonably similar look. Sure there men that get models just by their wealth and such but that's not the case for the large majority of us (and there's many unattractive guys to go around). A woman doesn't have to suffer just because unattractive men dream about getting married to Angelina Jolie and vice versa. And I'd question the ability to get better at humor. Most people have a sense of humor that they keep for most of their life. | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On February 28 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote: Also people seem to ignore the fact that generally (which the whole thread seem to be about) people end up with a partner with a reasonably similar look. Fair point, I do believe this happens 70% of the time if not more. But you do see less attractive men with more attractive women much more than unattractive women with attractive men. I actually lived with a guy who is thin, small, a doctor (also with a degree in physics) and kinda lame looking. He was going out with a pretty fat and horribly irritating girl for like 3 years. I actually spent quite a lot of time telling him she was a shit partner and he deserved better lol. Anyway he broke up with her and got together with this total babe who had actually, in my opinion, been pining for him for like 1 year! They're both doctors so I doubt it's about earning power. She's just infatuated with his intellect, and when he told sci fi stories or like physics things she would always be in rapt attention. I pretty much saw something right there that I think would be pretty much impossible in reverse. Also in my band from which unfortunately I have been ejected recently, the lead singer/guitarist is someone I would not consider attractive. He's thin as a rake and has kind of a whispy, whiskery proto-beard going on, with pretty weird spindly features. But he totally owns the stage and actually gets loads of female attention, and has a pretty good looking girlfriend, definitely better looking than he. And I can think of another guy I regularly used to meet in Games Workshop where I used to work. He was an 40 year old with the intellect and sense of humour of a teenager, but he had a different, gorgeous 20 year old (or thereabouts) on his arm every time he'd come into the shop. I have no fucking idea what he was up to because let me tell you he wasn't that attractive. He kind of looked like a satanic goat. He always scowled and had a certain angry presence about him but man he definitely fought against the genetic current when it comes to the girls he got. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: ye sure, feed me VR statistics from people proven to lie in them. (read dAPhREAk) Except it doesn't matter whether or not they lie, because it's not a survey, it's the statistics of which men get the most messages. On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: besides, i'm asking here for your personal opinion on this matter. what do you think about money?, how do(if?) they compensate for the lack of (other) desirable evolutionary traits in you. I've already told you what I think the facts, empirical evidence, and science shows. If what you're asking for is normative opinions, then I'm not interested in those. On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: i do not consider the media tainted beauty ideal of today to be evolutionary viable. The ideal female has changed astonishingly little throughout human history. This is from a female fashion guide from the late 19th century. On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote: also, i do not consider the fear of scarcity driven by a percieved competition in women to be a good enough excuse for them to prioritize money over everything else. It has nothing to do with a fear of scarcity, and everything to do with biological instincts to pursue the potential mate with the highest possible social status. Whether you think that's "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant to reality, but if you have a problem with that, then I suggest you take it up with women. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 28 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote: A wealthy woman can get men easier as well, attractive or not. And yet, men do not ignore poor/unemployed women, while poor/unemployed men are avoided by most women. On February 28 2013 20:16 nihlon wrote: A woman doesn't have to suffer just because unattractive men dream about getting married to Angelina Jolie and vice versa. That's because those unattractive men have no chance of marrying an Angelina Jolie, and must therefore settle for a less attractive woman instead. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On February 28 2013 20:11 gedatsu wrote: I'm not sure I understand what your question is. i was implying an end to your means so to speak. if men pursue financial gains for sex only while women think men pursue financial gains to give them a future/stability/hapiness/family/whatever, it just seems like the women that go for the men with the money, are not in on the joke played on them. | ||
| ||
