EPTWomen That Like Men with Money, Why is it Bad? - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
As for what is superficial: A person is a whole, if you cut people in little pieces and sort them out using restrictive and narrow criteria, that is superficial. You may miss a lot. I don't notice much difference between men and women in the superficiality department. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
Women who value material wealth of men have been more likely to leave offspring than those who didn't or valued it less. It doesn't matter much today at least in developed countries where most of us live because even poor guys are often rich enough to provide, but ,say, 10000 years ago, it was always life and death situation. Women who married to poor men were far more likely die without a child. Natural selection is at work. Behavior of women today are partially the result of it. Similarly, men are often attracted to women with a slim waist because slim waist = not pregnant = can have my own child. Those who didn't like a slim waist were more likely to have sex with pregnant women who couldn't conceive and therefore less likely to leave their trait to the next generation. Obviously, not everyone is like that because wealth/slim waist is not the only factor to successfully pass on your DNA, but such preference greatly helped to achieve the goal. | ||
|
Chilling5pr33
Germany518 Posts
it might be a problem in traditional marriage since the partner might loose the wealth somehow again, If its just something she additionally likes about him i dont see any problem then. Same goes the other way in my opinion. I guess if a guy only likes her becouse she looks good and young and she likes only his waelth it might work out best in the end. IF you are young and attraktive as well as wealthy dont settle for less i guess. | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:05 sunprince wrote: 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. The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society | ||
|
Tien
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society ???? Way to be a woman hater. One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:22 Fyrewolf wrote: 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. You said: On February 22 2013 10:20 Fyrewolf wrote: 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. Emphasis mine. You specifically stated that they don't like you because you're hot. I provided evidence that people actually do like you (your personality) because you're hot. If that is not what you intended to communicate, then my argument is withdrawn. | ||
|
BlackPride
United States186 Posts
| ||
|
Zahir
United States947 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:35 harlock78 wrote: Evolutionary psychology is such a hand wavy crap. You can make up any scenario you want and you would still have explained nothing. I d be curious to see if the percentage of people using comfortable wealth as a dating criterion changes between societies and cultures. A society more materialistic, with less social mobility, that put more importance on external signs of status will likely have more people seeking wealth in a mate. As for what is superficial: A person is a whole, if you cut people in little pieces and sort them out using restrictive and narrow criteria, that is superficial. You may miss a lot. I don't notice much difference between men and women in the superficiality department. Societies and their systems of valuation are effected by evolution just as much as the species itself is. A society that values individuals for the wrong reasons will fail to encourage successful traits in its members and will eventually be outcompeted, destroyed or conquered by more successful ones. Just saying. It's evolution at play whether you look at it at an individual, societal or species wide scale. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:50 ffadicted wrote: The concept that they can do that just so a woman can live off a man without doing any effort herself is absolutely ridiculous lmao. This is why "female rights movements" for "equality" are so laughable. In reality, men are far more discriminated against in today's society The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage. That said, the reason such discrimination persists is because society/culture/biology consider men to be more disposable, so we don't rush to correct the injustice the way we would if women were on the short end of the stick. | ||
|
DDie
Brazil2369 Posts
On February 22 2013 04:00 CosmicSpiral wrote: 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. Man is attracted to a woman based on her looks because they are more likely to generate a healthy offspring = natural. Woman is attracted to money/status (the 21st century equivalent of top hunter/warrior of the tribe) aka: provider = unnatural. Sense... | ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
It's simple, we want tits, they want money. Beauty/handsomeness most likely comes into play when ensuring your child is physically attractive enough so that when the time comes he/she can find a mate. Because even though tits/money is important, some females will select their mates with this in mind, and you should at least fit a certain standard of good looks unless you're pissing dollars and shitting Euros, I guess. Men will always look for sexy/beautiful women because again, their daughters have to be attractive enough to attract potential mates' attention, which is pretty important since men are primarily searching to mate with good looking females. Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
Stating that men are more discriminated against than women does not imply a hatred of woman, no more than stating that blacks are discriminated against implies a hatred of whites. Every single metric that we use to demonstrate that blacks are more discriminated against more than whites, is not only true of men compared to women, but actually amplified: 1. Women receive lighter sentences and a higher chance of acquittal, simply for being women. 2. Men are significantly more likely to be the victims of violent crime (of which rape is included) than women. 3. Men are doing worse in all aspects of the educational system, from kindergarten to university. 4. Men comprise 95% of workplace deaths. 5. Men commit suicide at over triple the rate that women do. 6. The vast majority of prisoners are men. 7. The majority of homeless are men. That's not even getting into forms of sexual discrimination that simply don't exist in comparable ways for racial statistics, such as reproductive and parental rights. On February 22 2013 12:54 Tien wrote: One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one. An anecdotal exception doesn't change the reality for the vast majority of people. | ||
|
harlock78
United States94 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:58 Zahir wrote: Societies and their systems of valuation are effected by evolution just as much as the species itself is. A society that values individuals for the wrong reasons will fail to encourage successful traits in its members and will eventually be outcompeted, destroyed or conquered by more successful ones. Just saying. It's evolution at play whether you look at it at an individual, societal or species wide scale. Hand wavy, bring in the math. First off I d like to see the set of genes hard coding for these traits. Then a model of of propagation of these in a population of given size etc..., and no historical contradiction. For basic stuff controlled by reptilian brain good evo psy can do it. Most of the other thing is marketing type research. It explains as much as saying "it's physics at play because we are made of atoms and molecules". | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:54 Tien wrote: ???? Way to be a woman hater. One of my female friends is going through an ugly divorce with a horrible husband. She's barely coming out on top of this one. Please, stop. The fact that the there is no requirements for the money that you allegedly give woman to take care of a child to actually be spent on a child is ridiculous and wide open to abuse. Not to mention the interests of the Child well being. It has nothing to do with a single case of horrible husband. But if single cases are all you`re interested, how about we speak about women that think men should be just 10% of population?  The mentality of men being expendable, being "justfully" abused for being weak, and being the "primal agressor" does exists in society. THat is a legitimate problem, the same way the brest cealing is. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On February 22 2013 03:50 Tien wrote: I've always thought about this for quite a while. A woman is called a gold digger if one of the reasons why she likes a man is because he has money / wealth / earning power. These kinds of women are called "superficial", they are attracted to someone not for their character but for other external factors. Now flip this situation around for men. Men as a whole don't list "money / wealth" as a strong attractive factor in women. But, if you listen in on any kind of male conversation about women, they predominantly rate women on their looks. Then personality / ability to stand the person bla bla bla comes 2nd. I actually find men in general more superficial when talking about a female than compared to when I talk to women comparing male mates. But is superficiality a bad thing? I don't think so, it's simply biological. Women attracted to men with money because their lifestyle / children will be taken cared of. Is this a bad thing? No. It's just personal preference. Men attracted to beautiful women because they will have attractive offspring. Is this a bad thing? Nope, personal preference. Once we realize every single one of us is guilty of superficiality, it no longer becomes a measure to judge people on. It's about masculine power. Women like powerful men--which some women associate with money. Men don't like powerful women--which some men associate with money. Hence some women like rich men, while men normally don't seek out rich women. | ||
|
Corrosive
Canada3741 Posts
has nothing to do with being attracted to wealth. a gold digger is not what 99% of the people in this thread are even talking about. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Dating, sex, man, women...It's all about reproduction. This is evolution. Rich male means better chance for offspring to survive, and in better conditions. It means female won't be alone or have a very hard time looking after the children. Therefore, females go for wealthy males. I am pretty sure that most females don't really care that much for looks unless you're somehow horribly disfigured or just plain considered ugly by most of the people. All thing that matters is how big your wallet is. It's simple, we want tits, they want money. Beauty/handsomeness most likely comes into play when ensuring your child is physically attractive enough so that when the time comes he/she can find a mate. Because even though tits/money is important, some females will select their mates with this in mind, and you should at least fit a certain standard of good looks unless you're pissing dollars and shitting Euros, I guess. Men will always look for sexy/beautiful women because again, their daughters have to be attractive enough to attract potential mates' attention, which is pretty important since men are primarily searching to mate with good looking females. You've got the general idea right, but some details wrong. The reason men look for beautiful women, is that traits related to physically attractive females indicate fertility, youth, and health. These are all factors which increase the likelihood that (a) your children will be healthy, and (b) the mother will survive childbirth (which was frequently fatal prior to modern obstetrics) to raise the children. On February 22 2013 13:08 Bleak wrote: Evolution explains lots of things really nicely. For example, I haven't read anything about it but I am pretty sure that the reason why monogamy is so prevelant all across human species, must have something to do with STDs. The more partners you have, the more risk there is for you to die. And on evolutionary terms, survival lists above reproduction. Monogamy is actually not prevalent across the human species. What is prevalent is humans pretending to be monogamous, while frequently engaging in extra-pair copulations (i.e. cheating) or serial monogamy. | ||
|
naastyOne
491 Posts
On February 22 2013 13:00 sunprince wrote: The government doesn't actually care about allowing women to live off of men, the government just doesn't want to be the one paying the bills. That men end up being discriminated against is simply unintentional collateral damage. Than fuch that goverment. If they can not contain "collateral damage", they should be cassualty. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On February 22 2013 12:56 BlackPride wrote: Just want to point out that men aren't attracted to attractive women for their attractive offspring... They couldn't care less about their offspring. They just want a hot wife. Yup. Guys love to show off their hot wives/girlfriends/harem to other guys. It's at least partially a dick-measuring contest. | ||
| ||
