|
The girls I've dated have never been overly attractive except when I first started dating. I learned early on that just cause it looks good doesn't mean shes mentally sane, now not all hot chicks are crazy, but since then I've kind of stopped chasing after everything that looks perfect. I tend to base my relationships on having a common interest, exercise, gaming, and food; and so far it has proven to work better than looks.
As for the biology thing, I think someone with a better more stable personality and a higher level of intelligence will make more sense when it comes to raising a child and as far as the child's chances of survival in the world as an adult.
But when you're talking about men choosing their partner over mostly looks I am thinking you mean sexual partner and not life-long or several years long partner, if this was true then every time a woman became old and unattractive then the man would just work hard to make more money and get a hotter younger woman. That view of the world doesn't hold water at least not for a long period of time.
|
hot chicks end up with rich guys
ugly chicks end up with poor guys
|
On February 22 2013 07:46 xiaofan wrote:
hot chicks end up with rich guys
ugly chicks end up with poor guys
Def not true. I've seen plenty of poor guys get really hot chicks.
|
It's definitely part of the initial attraction. But people stay together because they can trust each-other and form a bond that transcends it all. Sounds sappy, but I mean it in a very utilitarian fashion. The biggest thing people crave is companionship. It's built into our brain since we're social animals.
Those who remain in a relationship purely for money and looks will find themselves alone very soon. Or they have some deep issues with trust and maybe borderline sociopaths. BUT. Don't judge, I agree with OP on that.
You don't know a person well enough at first glance. I once met an older rich man with a hot young chick, and I figured it was the money. But once I got to know them, they were a really good couple in other ways as well. They openly admit it was money initially, but that it's blossomed into something more. Just my anecdote. Take it as you will, but be more positive and less cynical. Er, objectively positive. I can't stand naivety as much as I can't stand cynicism.
|
From my personal observation I think girls pay more attention to looks in guys than the other way around, contrary to what the standard wisdom says. I see plain girls getting much more attention than plain guys, as long as they keep slim. Not sure how it is in other parts of the world but this is what I notice right around me.
|
It's bad because I don't have any money.  Oh, wait, I'm gay... nevermind.
|
On February 22 2013 03:58 Recognizable wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 03:56 BruceLee6783 wrote:On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote:
I actually find men in general more superficial You had me until I read this. Why do you feel this way? Males care almost exclusively about looks when searching for a partner. Some research said I read somewhere a long time ago in some book.
Excuse me? That's entirely insulting to men in general. You mean pigs? See, a man who looks only for looks is equivalently superficial to a woman who only looks for power. Is there anything to discuss here? As a man my first thoughts go like this "Is she polite, can she carry a conversation, is she smart, is she clean" and then I look upon her with regards to attractiveness. Personally I look at weight as a hygiene related topic, if she's overweight (hence why I kept this last) and could help it by being more active then I find that as a personality fault (I'm not talking about 10-30 over, I mean like 200+). That's one of the last things I consider and the only superficial part imo. If a girl can make me laugh, keep a conversation going and is polite I find her just as attractive as a super model ever could (lacking these traits).
So yeah, let's not scape goat all men into a single ridiculous assertion of looks > everything and I won't make the ridiculous assumption women only seek money/wealth/power for the same reasons.
|
Women certainly don't like wealthy men because that would give their children a better living standard.
Looks are part of who you are. Money isn't.
If you wanted, you could give that "quality" (money in this case) to anyone and it would make them as attractive as you to a a woman who likes money.
|
Looks certainly are not superficial, how someone treats themselves says a ton about their character.
Hair, Teeth, Skin, physique, and general hygiene.
|
On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote:
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
Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity.
Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
|
Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
|
Everyone's different. There are many different types of gold diggers and not all of them are the hot.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
In my opinion looks is still a lot more personal than wealth, wealth is not even a trait of the actual human being you'd be spending your time with. How are the two even comparable?
|
Only bad if they run out of money. Your free to base your relationships on just about anything (within reason). Personally though I feel its wiser to base these things on more permanent less tangible qualities. But thats just cause i dont mind eating KD like 3 times a week :D
|
On February 22 2013 09:12 grobo wrote:
In my opinion looks is still a lot more personal than wealth, wealth is not even a trait of the actual human being you'd be spending your time with. How are the two even comparable?
Wealth is typically something that requires valuable personal qualities to acquire, hold onto, and grow.
Arguably, those are more important than looks, something which automatically degrades over time.
|
On February 22 2013 08:55 ffadicted wrote:
Is this a serious thread? I'm sorry, but taking a huge shit on the idea idea of love and relationships by only liking men (or women, this goes both ways) because of money actually sickens me. It's pathetic, and tbh not that much worse than prostitution; at least in prostitution you're being honest about what's going on and you charge a fair rate, not half of your life and hard work. There is NO way I'm ever getting married without signing a prenup, and I go to the point of actually hiding what I have in terms of material value to filter out people like this.
Note that there's a difference between guys talking about girls and this. Guys ranting about hot babes is more the equivalent of girls gushing over the awesome house where a rich guy lives. It's fine. Then there's also the case where some people (both guys and girls) won't date someone because they don't earn enough, but that enough is only "they're not in the same class as me"... I think that is also ok.
The equivalent of what you're talking about is if there were guys who only dated supermodels way better looking then them despite being ugly, and somehow stole half of their good looks afterwards..... the concept is laughable even if you take the imaginary second part of that out
PS: If anyone is wondering why I have such a strong opinion, let's just say a cousin of mine wasn't smart enough to sign a prenup
The problem with signing a prenup is that any wife's divorce attorney worth their salt will work very hard (and frequently succeed) at getting the judge to throw out the prenup on the basis that the contract was "unconscionable" or otherwise invalid/unenforceable.
|
What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
|
On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 05:50 QuanticHawk wrote:
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 Indeed, this thread is just full of hilarity. Also, some of these generalizations can seem more pervasive than they actually are. A woman's/man's looks is immediately apparent when you see them (and to a lesser extent wealth can be deduced relatively quickly), thus they can be easy topics to discuss, but every other factor one might find attractive is not as readily apparent. You can rate people you see in the gym on looks, but you can't rate them on personality without taking a lot of time to get to know them, so it doesn't meant that the more discussed one is more important than the other.
This doesn't change the fact that physical attractiveness is generally a key measure of a woman's attractiveness to most men, while the ability to be a provider is generally a key measure of a man's attractiveness to most women.
|
On February 22 2013 09:39 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
What if he loses all his money... what she gona do now?
I wonder how will this work on a legal term. Wife wants to divorce husband, husband give away all his money to charities, I think that the properties are still split up though equally.
|
On February 22 2013 07:18 puppykiller wrote:
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.
Divorce statistics which indicate that women intiate the majority of divorces suggest the opposite. Most women will dislike most men the longer they get to know them (the same is true for men, to a lesser extent).
On February 22 2013 07:18 puppykiller wrote:
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.
Most women do not consciously gold dig. It just so happens that most women subconsciously find men with high status to be more attractive, and wealth can be a large contributor to that high status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4DYs1X4.jpg)
