|
This thread have some of the most educated, hilarious, and misguided posts I have ever came across on this forum. The title of the thread is even somewhat uninformed in plethora of ways.
I'd say this, women's primary attraction to a man is absolutely NOT based on his money, the house, the car, and/or the blings blings. They are HOWEVER attracted to a male who get a hold of their EMOTIONS. There are many cases where a man of great wealth loses their trophy wife to the plumber, pool boy, or some random dude at bar. Reason for cheating against a rich, successful husband is that they were bored by the husband's overall presence. The man that she have cheated with offered her that dangerous adrenaline rush that she craved.
That being said, there is a whole another reason why they ARE attracted to man with money. If you have money, that means you have the POTENTIAL to bring her into various uncharted territories from her previous state of mind. This would includes vocation trips to exotic places, eating at high end restaurants, getting her attires that impressed her peers. But if you arrive to a certain spot where you can no longer pull her emotions at the other polarity, then sooner or later, she will get bored of you and begin on seeking thrills and that's when a gold digger would ultimately cheat on their husbands.
The conclusion to this post is that YOU as a man w/o perhaps the most beautiful property or having an abundant amount of cash CAN not only score yourself a extremely gorgeous women but to keep her as well if you followed some simple rules. That rule is to always bring her into new experiences that she have not yet felt before (notice the word "felt", meaning emotions). That means to be unpredictable in your course of actions, to never settle down, always looking to go ahead and bring her into doing new things. If you manage to keep her busy along with yourself, you'll be the superhero in her heart. Nevertheless, this is where the money problem comes into the play to financially keeping the parade alive.
|
On February 22 2013 04:00 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors.
Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd.
I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates.
But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological.
Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference.
Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference.
Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on. 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. It may be that he earned his money through hard work and ingenuity. It may be that he inherited his money from his money or his occupation alone. The amount of money a man makes tells you very little concerning whether you would have a happy relationship with him. And if you make a good amount of money in your profession, attraction to money decreases dramatically. Rather money is supposed to be indicative of other attractive qualities or a placebo to generate said attractive qualities.
Men more superficial? The most guys (yes, even the majority, who are pretty simple and undeveloped beings) will look at in terms of superficiality is looks. Women look at money, looks, status, and basically anything they can get out of dating a guy. Extremely superficial and selfish.
Personally I don't put up with any girl who's dating me simply because of what she can get out of dating me. Even in college, eg. before even making loads of money, this is very common. I'm not one to be used. It's a lot better being single and doing whatever than it is being used or being made a whipped bitch (all too common at my univ.). I've been single for 14 months, which is by far the longest I've been single in college, and it's not bad at all.
The money thing is true though. This summer, I had an internship. When I'd go downtown on weekends, I'd tell women I was working with Intel. Let's just say they suddenly became 10x more interested and were very dtf... >_>
|
wanting someone who has their shit together and not working at Mcdonalds at 35 is not the same as being primarily attracted to someone's wealth/earning capacity and materialistic bullshit when they themselves have none. the latter is gold digging; the former is what youre going on about op. they're not even close to the same thing
also the op is loaded with some dumb generalizations and sexist bullshit. both sexes put a ton of importance on looks, as well as character, and lots of other things
how the hell do you go saying ;this generalization is wrong' and then use a generalization to back up your statement
|
It's just how it is. Men who don't have money get upset about it (self-defense mechanism). Same reason fat women get upset that men like non-fat women. It's a shaming technique to increase one's self-esteem ("Those who aren't attracted to me are unattracted because I don't have some external thing, not that I'm lazy, etc).
|
Superficiality is biological? I strongly disagree with that statement. I would argue its due to mental conditioning. If a women like a man because he has money, and the man like the women because she is pretty, they (probably) share no true bond and are only fulfilling crude desires and are not truly 'in love'.
|
Looking for money or look isn't superficialism but rather materialistism. And in the end you can't really blame someone who think materialist, especially after a certain point in life, because you learn that there is less and less reward for looking at intellectual things.
Money doesn't make you happy but it helps. And look isn't everything but it still matters a lot.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote:I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things: Show nested quote +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.
I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
|
On this topic, I'd be lying if I denied that I find women who can provide a stable future a lot more attractive than those who still are a huge question mark. This doesn't necessarily mean rich, but a stable job, college/university education etc.
|
Women going after men for wealth is bad IMO, because I don't have any money!!!
|
We're wired to judge based on superficial traits because that's the most time-efficient method of determining who would be a good mate.
|
Unless they marry you because you're rich and then kill you to inherit your money. That's bad.
|
On February 22 2013 05:23 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 05:13 Talin wrote: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. 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.
So by your reasoning veganism for example is our nature instead of transcendent of our nature?
There's countless ideals that transcend our very nature. To think otherwise is belittling our existence and intelligence.
|
This just feels all hyperbole. Both stereotypes exist and are looked down upon when in excess.
|
On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote:I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things: 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. I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
Yes I know it can be frowned upon, I just disagree that a woman is called a gold digger when it is one of the traits. Nearly every woman wants the man to have wealth to at least a small degree and I don't think you would classify nearly every woman as a gold digger.
I agree with your point, I just don't think that's a very accurate description of a gold digger. I would only really classify them as a gold digger if it is the primary trait.
edit: I mean maybe that's just how I identify one personally, I dunno.
|
On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote:I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things: 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. I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
if you describe someone's postive traits as 'he/she has money' instead of 'they are ambitious, independent and successful; not a deadbeat' then yeah, you're gonna rightfully get judged, guy or girl. there's a big difference between those words
i dont think ive ever heard someone described as a gold digger for wanting someone who has their shit together. wanting someone who can take care of themselves is a lot different from wanting someone to make enough to pay for you
|
Disagreed, women also look for primitive features in men, such as looks. So they take it a step further in wanting to be financially secure for their future and their children, which is understandable. Men on the other hand do not seek the same thing in women, except for the few men who have sugar mamas; which are rare.
|
On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 04:53 Grobyc wrote:I agree to an extent but I can't help but comment on a few things: 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. I'm not arguing "primary" Anna Nicole Smith type scenarios. I'm just merely pointing out how societal perception will frown upon an average girl that has "money / wealth" as one of the traits that she is looking for in a guy. It's to the point its not even something a girl would ever bring up in a public conversation less she wants to be instantly judged for having such a viewpoint.
I think the responses in this thread should indicate to you that what you're describing isn't looked down on as much as you think. Maybe its just in the particular circles you run in?
I spent many years in a lower middle class area and most of the young adultish females I knew were very open about wanting to find a partner with a decent job or education. Particularly those whose parents immigrated to the us. They weren't judged for having standards, only the ones who took it to extremes and would serial date and try to extract huge shopping trips and presents out of their boyfriends and would dress sleazy, go clubbing, obsess over their appearance and clothes and talk about finding a rich guy, these were the ones looked down on. Much as I imagine idiotic, vaguely misogynist, womanizing "bros" are looked down on by most women.
|
I think most women would like most men if they got to know them. I think women who only chase men with money realize this in themselves and decide that they might as well pursue the richer guys since they are probably gonna like the guy in the long run either way.
Though that's probably just one type of gold digger. Others might think themselves incapable of getting emotionally attached to a man while others still might feel pressured by society. IDK its an interesting topic.
|
The problem is that superficiality for girls to guys means looks, for guys its losing half your life in a divorce settlement. That is no joke.
|
On February 22 2013 05:32 Ettick wrote:
It's bad because money is not a trait of the actual person, it's one of their possessions; liking someone for their money is like liking someone for their house, car, record collection, steam library, or something else along those lines, which is pretty pathetic in my opinion.
It may be pathetic if all of those things were given to you from either parents or relatives, but if you earned all of those things does that not say alot about you? It is perfectly reasonable to like/respect/adore someone for their money, because it can represent a large portion of who they are as a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
