|
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.
How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid.
|
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote: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: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. 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.
it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution.
that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution.
On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?.
|
On February 28 2013 23:36 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 20:11 gedatsu wrote:On February 28 2013 19:38 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 18:58 gedatsu 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? 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). 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.
But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played.
Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive.
And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him.
|
On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote:Show nested quote +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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid.
I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes:
unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest
hot girl + bad personality = no interest
unattractive girl + good personality = no interest
hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this.
If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote: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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part.
Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters.
|
On February 28 2013 11:53 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2013 12:06 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 25 2013 07:18 Dapper_Cad wrote: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. 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?
+1 pedant points for you. Additional +1 derision points. Score!
Perhaps you should check out some peer reviewed literature authored or co-authored by Julian Savulescu, European bio-ethicist before you poke fun and mock usage of words.
|
On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote: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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters.
'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all.
|
On March 01 2013 00:22 gedatsu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 23:36 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 20:11 gedatsu wrote:On February 28 2013 19:38 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 18:58 gedatsu 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? 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). 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. But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played. Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive. And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him.
i wouldn't call someone who "comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine" a man with money.
your second example, altow true on some extent, is outdated. the women can, in these days, provide for themselfs.
|
On March 01 2013 06:47 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:22 gedatsu wrote:On February 28 2013 23:36 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 20:11 gedatsu wrote:On February 28 2013 19:38 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 18:58 gedatsu 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? 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). 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. But that's not how it is. Women can try to keep that rich guy for themselves, by convincing him it is beneficial to him (for example with fertility or just having dinner ready after he comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine). Sometimes it works. There's no joke being played. Did you know that when it comes to cheating in a relationship, men react worse to sexual cheating and women react worse to emotional cheating? It has been studied extensively. The reason why is that, for women it doesn't matter that much if the man has more kids with another woman, as long as he is still spending his resources on her and not the second woman. Because if she's still provided for, her offspring will still survive. And for a man it matters less if some other man is spending resources on some woman. What matters more is that he isn't unknowingly raising someone else's child, because that is an evolutionary dead end for him. i wouldn't call someone who "comes home from 10 hours of hunching over in a coal mine" a man with money. your second example, altow true on some extent, is outdated. the women can, in these days, provide for themselfs.
Maybe not a coal mine per se, but it is a reality that many dangerous jobs can pay considerable more than others.
Women can provide for themselves but you're forgetting two things:
1) two wages are better than one.
2) society has changed rapidly in the last ~5000 years, but our genes and therefore our instincts have not.
|
On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote: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: On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote: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. 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. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl.
The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records.
On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: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. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution.
You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous.
On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: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. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?.
Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point.
Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place.
To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them.
|
On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote: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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all.
You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style".
Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread.
|
On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote: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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread.
eXACTLY this. sexual attraction is much much more.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
|
On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 18:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 07:40 sunprince wrote:On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote: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: On February 28 2013 07:31 xM(Z wrote: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. 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. it's not real, it's like making surveys on people imagination then assume the results apply irl. The number of messages that people recieve are not imaginary. Nor is that data self-reported; the number of messages recieved is measured by the website's records.
the age reported is a lie, the income reported is a lie, the pictures are of a younger version of themselfs = lie. i don't think i should go on since the picture is clear.
On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: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. empirical evidence?, facts?, science?, where?. you only have assumptions, other people assumptions, based on what is percieved to be the best for evolution. that says nothing really, or i don't get it. i know it changes but how is the change related to our evolution as a species?. you just praise aestetics and say they're good for evolution. You missed the point. I'm debunking your claim that today's beauty ideal is "media-tainted". The female beauty ideal is, and always has been, a combination of traits indicating youth, health, and fertility, all of which are evolutionarially advantageous.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/beauty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
there was never an agreement (and never will be) about the objectiveness of beauty, especially physical one.
On March 01 2013 12:46 sunprince wrote: Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 00:17 xM(Z wrote:On February 28 2013 21:05 sunprince wrote: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. it's not about social status then, it's about power as someone else already stated earlier in the thread so if money = power and women can get power(money) by themselfs, why whould they need the men with money for?. it doesn't make sense unless it's easier to get said men, then to get money by themselfs?. Yes, it's easier for women to get wealth men than it is to earn that wealth on their own, and that's part of what's going on. However, you're again missing the main point. Women are attracted to social status, of which wealth is a mere part, rather than wealth itself. And the reason they are attracted to that is not just because access to a man with high social status is advantageous, but because it is biogically advantageous to reproduce with the kind of man who attains high social status in the first place. To put it simply, men with high social status are, on average, contributing higher-quality reproductive material. Women are attracted to that as well as the ability of said men to provide for them.
women can attain social status by themselfs. when that hapenss, why wouldn't beauty > social status for them too.
when the power shits, your point dies.
if your point is valid only in certain scenarios it means it was flawed to beggin with.
On March 01 2013 14:51 Tien wrote:
So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
because no one thinks that's bad/inexplicable in this day n'age.
On March 01 2013 12:49 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 06:41 xM(Z wrote:On March 01 2013 03:16 Klogon wrote:On March 01 2013 03:08 sc4k wrote:On March 01 2013 00:00 yOngKIN wrote: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. How ignorant. Your bar for relationship is too low I'm afraid. I am guessing English isn't your first language, due to the clumsily phrased 'your bar for relationship', and your location being listed as South Korea. You must have misunderstood part of what I wrote. I didn't explain where my bar is set, seeing as I only described what is the bare minimum I would require in a girl before being interested in them romantically. For me it goes: unattractive girl + bad personality = no interest hot girl + bad personality = no interest unattractive girl + good personality = no interest hot girl + good personality = bingo, let's do this. If you call that ignorant then I'm pretty sure you are calling most men ignorant. And ignorant would be completely the wrong word to use, you would probably want to say superficial. I still don't think I'm superficial, just accept that physical attraction plays its part. Pretty much. If I did not care about physical/sexual attractiveness and only personality, I would be dating my best dude friends. But I don't. It matters. 'cause you are judged by other males based on the woman you are with, it's that simple. in the man vs man war, a woman beauty is just a mean to an end, it's never the end itself. if ugly women would be in style, you'd date them all. You are incredibly deluded if you think that the only reason men prefer beautiful women instead of men or ugly women is because they're "in style". Go do some research on sexual attraction and physical attractiveness before spewing any more nonsense in this thread.
i agree with: "Though attempts have been made to devise objective criteria of sexual attractiveness, and even measure it as one of several bodily forms of capital asset (see erotic capital), a person's sexual attractiveness is to a large extent a subjective measure dependent on another person's interest, perception, and sexual orientation.", from wikipedia.
everything standardized about what you should be attracted to, is nurture. there isn't a link proving that beauty/symetry is evolutionary required.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0001201#s4
"In conclusion, both objective and subjective factors intervene in determining our appreciation of an artwork. The history of art is replete with the constant tension between objective values and subjective judgments. This tension is deepened when artists discover new aesthetic parameters that may appeal for various reasons, be they related to our biological heritage, or simply to fashion or novelty. Still, the central question remains: when the fashion and novelty expire, could their work ever become a permanent patrimony of humankind without a resonance induced by some biologically inherent parameters?"
|
I don't know what you are argueing right now, but about what is seen as "bad".
1 - All the love marketing shit to sell you lifestyle and products. You "must be with somebody because you are in love", like anyone knows the fuck is that past 3-4 years with the same person.
2 - Female - Male being equal. If we are equal, why the fuck do i have to substain you. Get a job already.
|
I'm attracted to women with money 
When I was young my preferences would be:
reasonable attractiveness > personality > incredibly attractive > money not considered
Now I'm old it's:
reasonable attractiveness > personality > money/income > incredibly attractive
I'd rather have a reasonably attractive girl with money than a poor supermodel, but I'm assuming I'd change my mind if I was a millionaire
|
Everyone is shallow. The question is how shallow. For guy example, most men are attracted to both physical and personality aspect. But the real judgment is passed on how much each aspect influences your emotion.
I do not consider myself terribly shallow in evaluation of finding a significant relationship with a girl however physical appearance is important to me still. Personally, I can't find a girl with one eye, boils all over the body, 3 sticking appendages sexually/physically (using the two words interchangeably) appealing although she could have a great personality potentially.
By logistics OP has merit and I lol at people who try to argue otherwise
|
On March 01 2013 14:51 Tien wrote:
So far nobody arguing the other side of the coin has been able to put up a strong convincing argument towards why it is a bad thing for women to list "money/wealth" as one of the requirements.
So we're forced to accept that women pursuing men with money (as compared to men with other advantages) is either neither good nor bad (gray area), or good in general.
It's not like the stubborn realities about relationships have to be politically correct or flattering to one sex or the other. It's simply what emerges from a variety of factors that have been analyzed to varying degrees in the previous pages.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
Women are the ones that are forced to keep their mouths shut in public social situations when it comes describing what they're looking for in a guy with respects to money.
It's not wrong, but if they bring it up in a conversation they will be judged.
|
Russian Federation748 Posts
I don't see your point. A man expressing his desire for a woman with money won't be judged ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
