|
From a woman's perspective (Me) every woman is very different but in the end they want the same thing that is built into their biology. So ill address this from a biological standpoint. Woman are attracted to men based on what she can sense will be the best outcome for her children (deep down that is 100% true). To me it comes down to three things.
1) Attraction = Good looking man shows a woman that he is healthy and will give you a good probability that your kids will be healthy in the future.
2) Wealthy = Shows that this male can, for sure provide for you and your children.
3) Connection = good connection to a partner insures that he will not leave you aka better for your children.
Personally i lean more toward the 'connection' as a woman, but that's just me. But in the end, all woman are different and being attracted to good looks or wealth or anything else isn't a bad thing at all. It just shows different ways that females approach someone who will best provide for them. Society yes 'golddiggers' are frown upon but honestly there is nothing from with it. It really just shows how different people find mates.
|
I'll take a different approach to this.
Two postulates:
1. Humans like cautionary tales(ie the boy who cried wolf)
2. Humans like to stereotype.
Consider women who get married to rich people and then divorce for half their money. Consider also the prevalence of divorce in marriage nowadays, where child support is a possibility if equal parenthood isnt possible that nearly always gives custody and thus child support to the mother.
These are clearly undesirable situations, and so the stereotype of the gold digger is used to remind of this repeating cautionay tale. Calling someone a gold digger and therefore superficial means thatthey are not a desirable mate if gold digger is an accurate description. Surely, women who are virtuous, loving, and dating a guy with lots of money(plenty of them, right?) are not gold diggers except in jest and certainly are not superficial.
Men do like attractive women. But they only put up with women who dont nag or have a terribad personality. Thus, real preference in women is superficial in attraction but wholesome in interaction.
Obviously this is a lot to go on, like your reasoning. But, i think rather than justifying superficialIty as natural so that its ok it exists, i think it should be better presented as something that normally and naturally occurs yet is not the end all be all of relationships. My critique is that you are too deterministic and darwinistic, making human beings predestined to do things and then saying "thats ok".
|
On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
|
I totally agree so I've been spending time on improving my wealth and looks.
fuck yeah
|
On February 22 2013 09:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote: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. Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
Haha, I like how a spiritual bond between a man and a women have degenerate into some sort of business exchange. Kudos, humanity, kudos.
|
Saying there's a problem with a woman liking a man for his money is like asking if it's ok for a woman to like a man because of his good looks, or because of his ability to think, or because of his desire to do this or that.
The problem isn't liking someone for this or that. The problem is when you like someone for their money and they think you like them because of something else. Or love them or whatever it is you feel about them.
The funny thing about social shit like this is that it's relative to the relationship. If you're ok with dating someone for their money, or being friends with someone for their money and they're ok with it, then I don't see the problem. Personally, I don't really agree that you could call that a friendship, but that's my opinion, and it is not my place to judge that type of thing. It's only the people who are having that relationship.
The real question this thread is begging to ask but is avoiding is.... Why do people give a fuck about other people's relationships? Unless you're involved in some way, get the fuck out. People can and will date people for whatever reason they want. It doesn't matter what it is - what matters is that they're honest about it. That's where you get "gold diggers", because they go after a guy pretending they like him for his emotion or who he is all around, but they just want this money, and will do anything to get it, moral or not.
|
On February 22 2013 09:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote: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. Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason.
I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce.
EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
|
On February 22 2013 09:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote: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.
I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed. Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, unless they are really really superficial.
|
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:39 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote: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. I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed. Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, unless they are really really superficial.
Well, it is ALWAYS better to improve on your looks and your wealth than to say, not to. But thing is to connect with the girl emotionally as well. Most people here thinks that you can just go up to a random stranger and say "Hey look all my cash, BLOW ME!"
NOT going to work.
Instead you have to display your wealth in a non-arrogant manner so that you don't appear as a try-hard. Again girls are not attracted to money per say but the way you carry yourself with whatever you possess.
|
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:39 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote: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. I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily,
You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich.
Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached).
In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich.
On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:
unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
|
On February 22 2013 10:09 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:55 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote: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. Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason. I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce. EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work.
I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets.
It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife.
|
On February 22 2013 10:44 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:09 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 09:55 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote: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. Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason. I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce. EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work. I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets. It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife.
As far as I know, most of the assets aren't even held in his name--they're held in the name of various relatives, such as his sister, his brother, etc. And couldn't he just set up false identities to dodge a paper trail?
|
On February 22 2013 10:49 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:44 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 10:09 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 09:55 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 09:44 Xiphos wrote: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. Only if the husband knows the divorce is coming. Most do not, and divorce attorneys advise wives to conceal their intent partly for this very reason. I know of at least one guy (private equity partner) who has already shifted all but 5% of his assets into offshore shell companies. The guy even sold his house to one of the shell companies, and rents it back from essentially himself. None of his shellcos hold more than 3% of his assets. This helps cut his tax bill and screw over his wife in case there is a divorce. EDIT: There's nothing preventing you from doing the same. Countries like Chile, the Cayman Islands, New Zealand, Singapore, Ireland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, etc. are great for putting stuff you don't want to lose to ex-spouses and governments. They're politically stable, they have low capital gains tax rates (or if they have high rates, they have easily found loopholes), they have easy, robust ways to mask the identity of owners, etc. Unfortunately, if you live the United States, the US government is a bit more aggressive and powerful in pursuing criminal assets than most, so the gov't half of the equation might not work out for you. But the spousal part should always work. I can't speak too well on the legal situation in other nations, but in the United States, due diligence and funding on the part of his wife's legal representation will allow them to dig up said assets. It's not that easy to hide a paper trail, especially if the expert doing the digging has information provided to them by an observant soon-to-be-ex-wife. As far as I know, most of the assets aren't even held in his name--they're held in the name of various relatives, such as his sister, his brother, etc. And couldn't he just set up false identities to dodge a paper trail?
Essentially it boils down to this: anything your financial advisor can tell you to do, an equally competent financial advisor can show a divorce attorney and private investigators how to dig up. On top of that, you're risking criminal prosecution or at least being blackmailed with the threat of criminal prosecution, if you are discovered.
Now, if you have highly skilled financial advisor and legal team and your wife does not, then that's a different story. But considering that your wife will be able to access your shared finances to fund her legal representation, or at least get equivalent representation due to the large contingency fees they stand to gain, that's not all that likely.
Honestly, a man's best shot (aside from marrying a woman who wouldn't divorce or pursue alimony, and maintaining a happy relationship with her) would be to make sure that his wife doesn't think he has enough wealth to go after in the first place, but that would unfortunately entail living substantially below his means. Or, you know, don't marry (or live in jurisdictions with common-law marriage).
|
On February 22 2013 10:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 09:39 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 08:47 Fyrewolf wrote: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. I was pointing out how this poor generalization falsely appears to have more validity than it actually does, so yes, it does change it. That's not to say they aren't factors, but the perception of their importance is easily skewed.Just being hot and rich isn't going to keep people who hate you around easily, You're missing the point. People don't stay around in spite of the fact that they hate you just because you're hot/rich, they like you because you're hot/rich. Sociologists and psychologists have demonstrated that we exhibit a strong bias towards people who are attractive to us. This beauty privilege is so strong that it even exists when it comes to the way we perceive young children (in an academic sociological experiment, kindergarten teachers were given a description of a misbehaving child; the teachers tended to explain away her behavior if a picture of a cute girl was attached and were likely to assume she was a problem child if a picture of an ugly girl was attached). In other words, you're much less likely to hate them in the first place if they're hot/rich. Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote:
unless they are really really superficial.
You'd be surprised by how superficial the average person is, once you start looking at their actions instead of their words.
No, you're missing the point. I didn't say that they weren't factors. I said they were, but that their importance is overestimated. Also, they don't like you because you're hot/rich, they like that you are hot/rich, which does makes it more likely they may like you, but I never argued that it wouldn't. Xiphos post just above yours summed it up quite well.
|
it's bad because it maintain patriach society
|
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.
Problem is that most psychological researchs are telling us that, while it's true that a lot of women are mostly attracted to power/money and while a lot of men are mostly attacted to the look/body... those peoples are more unhappy in life than the one who are actually not putting that before other criterias.
So... is it the case for a lot of people? Yes. Is it anormal? No. Is it bad? Yes it is.
|
your Country52797 Posts
What if I'm not attracted to someone based on their looks?
|
On February 22 2013 11:43 The_Templar wrote:
What if I'm not attracted to someone based on their looks?
I tip my hat to you, sir
|
On February 22 2013 09:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
|
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 09:37 sunprince wrote: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. I don't get it though, how can they just "throw out" the prenup -_- What's the point if they can do that?
What the fuck? That's just fucked up if a certain class of contracts automatically has huge risks attached to it because its enforceability is so questionable. It means that I won't want to ever sign those contracts, and, ergo, I probably would never want to marry...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
