|
Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make.
|
I don't know what makes you think people are busy judging people based on anything at all, weather superficial or otherwise.
|
On February 22 2013 11:29 Fyrewolf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 10:43 sunprince wrote: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. 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.
You keep asserting that they don't like you because you're hot/rich. What I'm saying is that this is wrong. People like you because you are attractive.
When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
|
I have the dual perspective of someone who has gone between being dirt poor, and fairly wealthy during my adult life, and I find it annoying when anybody calls a girl I'm dating a "gold digger". To be honest, the types of girls I have dated in both phases are not very different, but there are certainly some girls who would date rich me but not poor me. That doesn't make them gold diggers. It just means they are attracted to success in the same way that most guys are attracted to nice tits. Sure, there are some girls out there looking for a free ride, but they are far from the norm, and it's usually a combination of factors that will land you any particular girl.
|
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 -_-
Society wants to make sure women are taken care of, and government wants to make sure women aren't being supported by government when they could be supported by their ex-husbands instead. On top of that, courts receive a cut of alimony and child support payments in the form of processing fees and government incentives. For even more fun, family court judges in some jurisdictions are appointed magistrates without formal legal training. Put it all together, and there's essentially an enormous bias towards invalidating any prenup that doesn't serve the woman's best interest.
On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote:
What's the point if they can do that?
The point is to give a false sense of security to men so that they'll get married for the benefit of society regardless of the cost to themselves.
|
On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: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...
Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 07:00 QuanticHawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote: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 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
I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$.
I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias?
Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
|
On February 22 2013 11:51 BurningSera wrote:
Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make.
You'd be surprised by how many rich guys are just as shallow and interested in beautiful women. But then, it kinda works out for the rest of us, if women who see men as merely credit cards get together with men who see women as merely tits and a vagina.
|
On February 22 2013 12:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: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... Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes.
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
|
On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:01 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 11:50 Shady Sands wrote:On February 22 2013 11:47 ffadicted wrote: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... Just don't forget that you're equally or more screwed if a woman gives birth to a child that is yours, or at least is claimed to be yours and you fail to dispute paternity before the time window to do so closes. Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Short answer: no, you would be laughed out of court. Should you insist on not paying, the government will take the money forcibly, and if you are unable to pay (because you gave your money away and refuse to work), you will be put into the only remaining form of debtor's prisons in first-world society.
|
It is not "bad" but usually frowned upon, same way prostitution is.
The "gold digger" is a bad deal. If the relation is sololey about money, anything she/he can provide, you can buy for much less, wealth. Sex, Children, clean house, ex, you name it.
It is as simple as that, and neither rich are fans of gold diggers.
|
Korea (South)11579 Posts
I don't think it has to do with the sole factor that someone is rich. If someone has a good paying job, they are considered successful, and they work hard at what they do. Whereas if someone doesn't work hard, and had a dead-end job, they not only are less successful, but it can be considered that they don't work hard enough, didn't try at school, or have little motivations to succeed.
I personally am attracted to smart girls, girls who want to do something in their life. Being motivated is an attractive attribute. For instance, I would much more likely be friends with someone who works hard in their career / academics than someone working as a delivery drive full-time.
People of the opposite sex are the same. I'm not attracted to people without motivation to follow their dreams and continue to try and better themselves. Meaning, I would rather date a girl who is preforming well at school, or working in a field that has possibilities that further her career. I'm not saying money is a factor, but instead it's a side benefit of being motivated and working hard, which are attractive attributes.
The OP is generalizing, and the majority of people within this thread that are saying "+1, agreed" are missing the picture.
|
On February 22 2013 12:02 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 07:00 QuanticHawk wrote:On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote: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 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 I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$. I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias? Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence.
Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness?
Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:09 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:02 Tien wrote:On February 22 2013 07:00 QuanticHawk wrote:On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote: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 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 I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$. I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias? Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence. Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness? Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior.
I'm just exposing double standards and seeing where people stand on the issue.
|
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote:
I don't think it has to do with the sole factor that someone is rich. If someone has a good paying job, they are considered successful, and they work hard at what they do. Whereas if someone doesn't work hard, and had a dead-end job, they not only are less successful, but it can be considered that they don't work hard enough, didn't try at school, or have little motivations to succeed.
And yet, men who are born into wealth, status, and privilege are still highly attractive to most women.
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote:
I personally am attracted to smart girls, girls who want to do something in their life. Being motivated is an attractive attribute. For instance, I would much more likely be friends with someone who works hard in their career / academics than someone working as a delivery drive full-time.
People of the opposite sex are the same. I'm not attracted to people without motivation to follow their dreams and continue to try and better themselves. Meaning, I would rather date a girl who is preforming well at school, or working in a field that has possibilities that further her career. I'm not saying money is a factor, but instead it's a side benefit of being motivated and working hard, which are attractive attributes.
Assuming you actually live by your words (and many people claim they want certain things in significant others and end up with the complete opposite), you are in the minority. The majority of men do not care much what a girl's career prospects are, and are willing to date beautiful unemployed girls, while the majority of women would not date unemployed, poor men.
On February 22 2013 12:08 CaucasianAsian wrote:
The OP is generalizing, and the majority of people within this thread that are saying "+1, agreed" are missing the picture.
"Anyone who believes there are no exceptions is a bigot. Anyone who believes everyone is an exception is a moron."
Generalizations don't imply everyone is like that, but that doesn't mean they don't hold truth.
|
On February 22 2013 12:12 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 12:09 sunprince wrote:On February 22 2013 12:02 Tien wrote:On February 22 2013 07:00 QuanticHawk wrote:On February 22 2013 06:01 Tien wrote: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 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 I'm not talking about someone that has their shit together. Majority of men have their shit together by 30 even if they're making 25 000$. I'm talking about guys that have wealth / money / earning potential that goes a bit beyond "having their shit together". Is it wrong for a girl that brings a lot to the dating table to want a guy that earns on average about 100-150 000$+ (in a non NYC expensive city). Is it wrong to even look for that criteria as ONE OF THE criterias? Obviously there is more to it than just "he makes 150 000$". A guy that earns that much may have certain qualities that a girl subconsciously finds attractive. I.e. perceived intelligence. Is it wrong for a man who brings a lot to the dating table to want an 18-24 year old girl that is in the 90th percentile of physical attractiveness? Just make sure you use the same standard for male and female dating behavior. I'm just exposing double standards and seeing where people stand on the issue.
Yeah, I'm with you there.
|
What's this backyard psychology thread =P.
Almost everything we do has its roots in our evolution. Maybe everything, even though some of the stuff doesn't seem to make sense. It doesn't mean that we can't dislike it. That said I think it's fine. There's nothing wrong in being attracted to, well, attractive traits, may they be physical or otherwise. If a woman like successful or even "powerful" men, it just means she has taste IMO.
My ex was an architect who was working her way up the corporate ladder much faster than most people would, and I thought it was hot as hell.
|
On February 22 2013 12:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 11:51 BurningSera wrote:
Ya it is pretty much biological. Like women look for people with better genes (handsome, tall, intelligent etc) to mate with, simple as that.
However, if one woman was solely after for money, it is most certainly that she lacks of some qualities that a smart (rich) guy would be looking for. In the end of day we men still have the choices to make. You'd be surprised by how many rich guys are just as shallow and interested in beautiful women. But then, it kinda works out for the rest of us, if women who see men as merely credit cards get together with men who see women as merely tits and a vagina.
Agreed. I did say smart (as in educated one) but meh, if i were rich i'd get any woman that i like, the one who after money is ironically the easiest one to get.
|
On February 22 2013 12:03 Shady Sands wrote:
Question: is it possible to assign paternity to a limited liability corporation? Then I could just have the LLC be the 'father' while I fund the LLC with callable bonds, and at any time, I can call the bonds and send the LLC into bankruptcy, which means any obligations it has to the child become null and void
Theres your next story. Shady Sands LLC: My father.
|
On February 22 2013 11:53 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 11:29 Fyrewolf wrote:On February 22 2013 10:43 sunprince wrote: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. 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. You keep asserting that they don't like you because you're hot/rich. What I'm saying is that this is wrong. People like you because you are attractive. When you are attractive, it makes people biased towards you. If people like your personality more because you are physically attractive, then they don't actually like your personality so much as they like your looks, do they?
What? I didn't assert that at all. In fact, I asserted the opposite, that it does contribute to attractiveness, but made the point that the contribution is overestimated. I'm done with this now though, I'm not going to continue arguing with someone that continually willfully misinterprets and twists points to their opposites.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
