EPT
Women That Like Men with Money, Why is it Bad? - Page 4
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Intox
Norway62 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I would said she's a gold digger if the primary reason why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. I think everybody, both male and female likes a person at least a little bit because of money / wealth / earning power, but I see what you're trying to say. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd. I think these scenarios are mostly "would you bang?" scenarios. Lack of attractiveness isn't any less important for me than personality if I'm looking for an actual relationship and not just a person to sleep with. And if you are just looking for someone to sleep with than who cares if she's a gold digger and you're just in it for the looks, but I get the feel in the OP that you are also indicating this is the case in long-term relationships, which again, I would agree to to and extent, but I still don't think it's as clear cut as the way you worded it. | ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:16 Tien wrote: Obviously. My point is with attraction it is rarely just 1 trait that makes the person attractive, there are many different traits that we see consciously as well as subconsciously. But some traits play a larger roll in attraction than others. For men, that trait could be looks, then personality, etc etc. For a certain female it could be the man's wealth / then his personality second, etc etc. I don't see how you're addressing his point. "Gold diggers" value money exclusively whereas wealthy men, heck anyone, wants to be valued for other aspects as well like their character and accomplishments. Same for men who're overly concerned with looks. You're kind of ignoring the fact that most people are ok with superficiality save in the extreme cases - at which point id say both men and women become subject to harsh judgement. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
| ||
|
the_business_og
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
Sejanus
Lithuania550 Posts
| ||
CosmicSpiral
United States15275 Posts
On February 22 2013 05:00 biology]major wrote: It's not a personal preference for me to want to be with a attractive female, it is a biological imperative. The same way it is not a personal preference for a female to be with a financially stable or wealthy male. Biologically speaking, a woman is not attracted to a wealthy man since biologically the concept of "wealth" has no meaning. Rather you are attracted to the implied traits behind the wealth. On February 22 2013 05:05 Sejanus wrote: Good point. I too have nothing against prostitution Said the man who never had to service dirty, smelly strangers in the name of making a living. | ||
|
OkStyX
Canada1199 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:26 MrRicewife wrote: Ohhh boy.. You are young.. I'm guessing 15-21? Let me just give you a little taste of the real world. A woman is not a gold digger if one of the reasons she likes a guy is because of his fat bank account. She is one if she ONLY likes him for that. Superficial women are women who weigh material over non-material items (such as love, family, friends etc). A woman who is attracted to someone not for their character but their external factors can be labeled many things, depending on what those external factors are. Men are all different from one another. So don't use a term like, men as a whole. Some men only go for money and wealth. Some men only go for women who are beautiful. There is no "whole". I'm going to skip the "if you listen to any type of man conversation", because that's just silly. Men and women can be equally "superficial"... To think different is ignorant. Your whole argument is based on stereotypes. That shows inexperience, because I've met every color of woman and man on this planet, well, not every, but a hell of a lot, and they are all different. Even "gold diggers" are different from other "gold diggers". People are individuals. Don't generalize. What an asshole thing to say, Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Have you ever dated ANYONE?! Women go through catalogs at sperm banks, and pick donors based on their looks! And just as many men do too! Man! Come back in 5 years and you will laugh at what you said today. One thing you are right on, everything is personal preference. And if you want to date someone for their car, or their heart, or their huge fucking rock hard penis, that's your prerogative. And It's nobody's business but your own. Nothing wrong with it, nothing right with it. Freedom of choice allows you to be whomever you want to, and to pick whatever mate you want. Have a good day! Wrecked , well said sir . | ||
|
I_Love_Katheryn
United States41 Posts
Women are not as different from men as society wants you to believe. Generally women are also attracted to good looking men, just as men are attracted to good looking women. Money is not a very important criterion in dating/marriage, at least not in comparison to looks/personality/social status. Social status is not synonymous with wealth. A woman would rather be with a guy who looks like a model and has a great personality but doesn't make that much money, than with a fat balding middle aged guy whose money falls out of his pockets but has no personality or motivation or goals in life. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological. One of the most advantageous features of our species IS that we've been able to overcome the biological and primal nature to build the kind of societies we have today, which are if not built, then certainly sustained, on various ideals that transcend our biological nature. Suggesting that something that is "simply biological" or "human nature" is by default acceptable is a line of thought that seems to be quite popular these days, but if you think about it, most of the things that are in our "nature" are destructive, chaotic and not exactly beneficial to a civilized society. It's not something that should be accepted, but something that we should strive to overcome instead. | ||
|
YiSunsin
Slovakia60 Posts
It is natural this strategy has become prevalent, darwinian selection chose it since it dominates others. Thats because there is a CORRELATION between being wealthy and ability to provide, but not CAUSALITY. On the other hand, if you: - are intelligent - have personality - have feelings, affections, want to share - wanna live happy life in harmony ... you might want to ditch this stupid ad-hoc darwinian strategy that`s been hardcoded into your genes. Bummer is you can`t (that easily). Think about it - lying, plotting and higly attractive woman + coldhearted, wealthy dominant man are (more) likely to have their son become a head of mafia and own up others - that`s THE WIN for a selection strategy in darwinian evolution. I think you all can finish my argument from here. | ||
|
Salazarz
Korea (South)2591 Posts
If you see a guy earning 200k per annum at the age of 28 with his law degree and a partnership at Munich, you can be fairly certain that they are reasonably determined, able to set and achieve goals, and know how to work hard. On the other hand the guy that works at mcdonalds 10 years after finishing high school probably has all sorts of issues and most people don't want to deal with that. There are people who don't have savings or a stable income by conscious choice, as in because they pursue a different lifestyle or whatever - but if you think about it, those people rarely have trouble attracting women either, for all kinds of reasons. As for people saying that selecting prospective partners based on their looks is shallow and won't make you happy, regardless whether you're male or female... that's just dumb. You're never going to be happy in a relationship with someone if you do not find them physically attractive; different people have different tastes / standards, but literally every single human being on Earth 'discriminates' based on looks at least to some extent, be it consciously or unconsciously - we all do it. There's nothing wrong with that, either. To have a happy relationship you should feel good both about yourself and your partner, including the physical aspects. | ||
|
Alryk
United States2718 Posts
| ||
|
Sejanus
Lithuania550 Posts
Said the man who never had to service dirty, smelly strangers in the name of making a living. Not sure what are you trying to say. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On February 22 2013 05:13 Talin wrote: One of the most advantageous features of our species IS that we've been able to overcome the biological and primal nature to build the kind of societies we have today, which are if not built, then certainly sustained, on various ideals that transcend our biological nature. Suggesting that something that is "simply biological" or "human nature" is by default acceptable is a line of thought that seems to be quite popular these days, but if you think about it, most of the things that are in our "nature" are destructive, chaotic and not exactly beneficial to a civilized society. It's not something that should be accepted, but something that we should strive to overcome instead. I think it is something that should be accepted. There, now we're at an impasse. What's more, the way you're using "nature" seems very narrow. Empathy, community, and a desire to see things ordered are also in our nature. You seem to be creating tiers of human "nature" when in fact all these characteristics are there all the time in varying hierarchies by person. Society is not a rebelling against nature, it is an extension of it. Ideals are not transcendent of our natures, they are our natures. | ||
|
quebecman77
Canada133 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors. Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd. I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates. But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological. Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference. Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference. Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on. im guessing you are quite young from your post . a woman who is called a gold digger = the MAIN reason if she with the man that because he got money , ( aka not one of many reason , she can hate him , but he got money so she with him )not like a add-on in sc , in sc2 term that like the COMMAND CENTER. and honestly the other point you bring about ""men as a whole are superficial'' realy not true , that true only when you are realy young from my experience , pass 25++ year old if she good looking that a + , nothing else . for talking with friend ( who got kid and family ) and living my life most people around me find the personality of the woman realy more important that how she look . usualy past this age you are done with the one night stand and so on and are more looking for a girl to stay with you for your life ( or try ) superficialty not a bad thing = biological ? what kind of nonsence im reading here.....?? you bring many stuft at the same time here and try to link them for make them work , you need to pick each one because all of them are not the same thing and not linked . ''Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of.'' most guy who work and got standar job got enough money for raise children , and the girl work too , that how this work usualy . now if you say this for a 3rd world country about a poor girl who pick a man because he give food for her baby that totaly something else . for man who pick girl for how they look exist , just like real gold digger but are a minority . you started this topic about real girl gold digger and for reply to only that , they are superficial and are just like parasite in my eye ( again a girl like that pick the guy ONLY because he got money , or that realy the main reason ) hope i have help you in some way . | ||
|
Ettick
United States2434 Posts
| ||
|
quirinus
Croatia2489 Posts
MoltkeWarding wrote: The point is none of these women are marriable. Pictures don't tell much about how attractive someone really is. How can you know whether you're attracted to a person or not until you know -Their religion, and respective piety -Their family and family history -Their socio-economic class -Their artistic and literary talents -Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism -Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture -Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities -Their mental and emotional stability -Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life -Their racial origins (if not already clear) -Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc) The above listed constitute 95% of the qualifications for any marriable and therefore attractive girl A lot of that goes for men as well. It's not just about money, it's about the "socio-economic class". If she's only interested in money, she's a gold digger, but she's bound to like something else as well, not only that. And everyone is different. edit: yeah, I just wanted to find a place to post that gem again, and educate the newer posters. :D | ||
|
tertos
Romania394 Posts
The choices made in regards to the ability to produce money or the the looks have nothing to do with gender. It's all about social pressure. You were educated to voice your opinion regarding this matter and not by direct teaching but with a ripple effect. If your male best buddy would chose a woman for here money than his parents, friends and acquaintances would back talk about how he is a lazy bum, he is unable to sustain himself and so on. Repeat something enough times and it becomes a fact. Coupled with the innate competitively of male gender and you have a ego that strives to upkeep himself. Once he does that he does not need to look for equity in opposing sex, and the logical step is "hell I got all this money, I worked hard for them, at least I'll chose someone that makes me feel good at night" On the other side there is no social pressure on women and the nature of woman competitivity manifests mostly by proxy and perception. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
| ||
