article: Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife

[TheHumanist]

HOW?

It is a separate debate if one take the stance that wives left because they were spoiled brats with an entitlement mentality who took the man to be used till he can no more. Therefore the thread topic is about how spoiled, disloyal, users these women are and perhaps a discussion on how to avoid those women.


It is not separate debate if one takes the stance they left because their hardwired programing of attraction and desire (love) for the man died because he can no longer "provide." Therefore the thread topic is about discussing a case study example of women's attraction to wealth and power and perhaps a discussion on avoiding by staying rich.

----

So scientific research is bunk?

If you have a better model to explain mating behavior than the studies that have been done (formal and informal) i would like to see it.

Well to be fair Str8up, I recall the nature-nurture debate is still very heated. I recalled the last book I read said it is in the middle, but popular society/media/people tend to strawman anything outside tabula rasa to be saying everything is nature. There's no debate whether attractive/power is attractive or not in the study of mating behavior, but whether the she was acting on pure biological perogative or a spoiled and entitled user. I doubt it is binary, but to understand it easiest: Did she really loved him but died because it was conditional and broke it when he went under a mil (which is nature-based argument) or because she saw him as a great ATM and when the ATM started to spit less money out, she looked for another ATM (a nurtured-based argument)?

As I said before. How much is nature and how much is nurture. Nature obviously program women to be attracted to wealth, but the women in the article could be an example of women completely seeing the husband as a cash machine from her selfish character, which is nurture. How much is it? That brings alot of other implications on how much genes controls our destiny (including males, arguably, the discussion of the wussyfication of today's generation is genetic).

 

[jophil28]

These women leave their men because they can no longer provide the lifestyle they used to. Its no different to a man who starts ****ing around on his wife because she put on 20lbs.

Indeed, it is no different in principle. Both are worthy of condemnation in the strongest way.
The point is that both types of abandonment of a committed relationship are examples of how superficial and ethically empty some men, and some women are in their relationships.
I am fiercely opposed to any attempt by any twisted popular theory to portray this kind of 'lower self ' behavior as 'normal' or 'natural' of acceptable.

We cannot hope to raise our standards or maintain those whch we already hold until we get away from this tolerance of living for personal immediate convenience . Destructive behavior needs condemnation, not faddish understanding.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Indeed, it is no different in principle. Both are worthy of condemnation in the strongest way.
The point is that both types of abandonment of a committed relationship are examples of how superficial and ethically empty some men, and some women are in their relationships.
I am fiercely opposed to any attempt by any twisted popular theory to portray this kind of 'lower self ' behavior as 'normal' or 'natural' of acceptable.

We cannot hope to raise our standards or maintain those whch we already hold until we get away from this tolerance of living for personal immediate convenience . Destructive behavior needs condemnation, not faddish understanding.

There are two ways to look at this

One, is that a marriage is a partnership that transcends basic attraction. Not in some hippy, new age way, but in the traditional sense. Two people combining efforts to raise family and keep a home. Both make sacrifices.

The other way is that people only get married to those that they "love" and are attracted to for their "character and personalities" alone. This love is so great that simple things like material goods and job prospects dont matter at all. Or they should not, not with people of good character at least. Through thick and thin. What you bring to the table is "you" and what I bring to the table is "me".

The latter is what happens in the west. This has come with a divorce rate through the roof and levels of infidelity that are sky high because people believe in partnership based on mutual attraction and love only. Its the entire basis of their relationship. So when attraction begins to wane, they act out on basic impulses and justify the behaviour afterwards. They begin to transgress. They begin to fight with their partners and drive a wedge between them.

"He was not giving me what I needed at home"
"We grew apart"
"He/She was not the person I married"
"He lost his drive"

Women can be attracted to money like they can be to looks. Which means that relationships are formed off the back of this initial attraction. When the factors of attraction change or fade, people stray or call it quits. The problem is not that women who leave men because they lost their jobs lack character. The problem is that marriage based on attraction alone (and wealth is attractive!) is going to fail at least half the time. When wealth subsides, so does the attraction that she felt. As a result, she strays or vents.

The other way to look at a marriage is that its not based on attraction alone. Its is a business agreement. You put food on the table and pay the kids school fees. She cooks for everyone and keeps a tidy home. This is the traditional marriage. This is the kind of marriage you see in Asia, Europe and South America. Its the kind of marriage everyone wants, there at least. Its the kind of marriage that worked in the US and UK, at least until the girls decided that it exploited them.

Come back to the UK, Australia or the USA, and the very notion of a traditional relationship is shunned and deplored now. Men not only expect women to work and pay their way, women themselves demand it be the case. Men have become so brainwashed that they view the very concept of paying for everything as weak! To support a family is to support a lazy ***** wife.

A traditional relationship is based on what people bring to the table. A mans ability to provide for his family is foremost. Her ability to raise children and tend the home is foremost.

Now one approach is practical. The other approach is emotional and romantic. One approach is masculine. The other approach is feminine. One approach works, the other is completely ****ing out. One approach instills a sense of duty above all else. One approach requires no duty at all because it was only based on attraction. One approach requires a rational commitment upfront. One approach requires an emotional commitment upfront.

Think very nicely about which approach is proving most problematic. Then think very nicely about which approach is typified in a western relationship. Then think very nicely about which approach we applaud people for and which we condemn people for.

The point? You marry someone based on nothing but attraction and you cant expect it to last when that attraction fades. Just like when she puts on 20lbs. Just like when he loses his job. The conditions changed. The goal posts were shifted. That is why mail orders brides have more successful marriages. Its why arranged marriages work for so many. Its why young women marry older men all over the world and are quite happy to do so. Everyone knows what they are bringing to the table upfront.

Blame feminism and the sense of entitlement it has instilled all you want. As true as it may be, the fact that marriage has allowed to move from the practical to the emotional is 90% of the problem. The day it stopped being an arrangement and it started being a romantic gesture that men themselves started to embrace was the day we handed our balls over.

 

[Victory Unlimited]

The voice of reason speaks once again.

Where you been lately ,soldier ?
AWOL ?

Salute to you General JOPHIL,


I've been on "maneuvers", of course...where ELSE would I have been???

Glad to come back to this outpost and see that you and a handful of others have not turned tail, given up, or BOWED THE KNEE to the tyranny of thought that implies that people CAN'T control their actions.

As always, presuppositions abound----as well as the reflex-responses that take what some of us say to a ridiculous extreme. Again, accusations of naivete, conceited cutting remarks meant to brand opposing viewpoints as unenlightened, and overblown statements designed to eschew the validity of alternative viewpoints on purpose STILL echo through the halls of this Mature Man Forum.

Nothing has changed I see.


It never ceases to amaze me the amount of men who "seem" satisfied with expecting nothing more from a woman other than rough and ready access to her sexuality. Her loyalty, her character, her moral compatibility, and her strength of commitment to the marriage relationship are not simply secondary to many men-------but INCONSEQUENTIAL.

Are THESE the prerequisties for a man whose picking a wife, or does this sound more like a half-assed, unfocused short list for a man whose out just looking for a woman with whom he can have a casual affair?

Should a man of profound worth, self-awareness, and self-respect NOT be put off by a WIFE who is MORE loyal to his bank account than she is to HIM. Traditionally, one of the oft-quoted euphemisms of a wife's role in a marriage is the term "Help-Meet". So, "if" this is indeed what a man should be looking for in a woman, if the woman he calls his wife is unable and unwilling to MEET him at a point in their relationship where he needs HELP------then is she NOT worthless to him?

Is there NOT a cause for him to feel some sense of outrage in such cases?

Many of the newer recruits here may have seen this statement of mine paraphrased or quoted in the signature lines of several of the vets here:

"Whatever you can't say no to is your MASTER----and you are it's SLAVE."


Well...years later. I still stand by those words with all the fukking vigor I had when I first wrote them. What many don't realize here is that, for a WISE man, choosing a woman to be your wife is not a trivial undertaking. It's far different from choosing some woman to just "have sex" with. Or choosing some woman to be your "live in, on-call" concubine.

No, promoting a woman to the status of a wife (a woman with whom you voluntarily choose to bond with in a mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, FINANCIAL, and LEGAL sense) "should" require a more stringent-----a more detailed-------and a more HOLISTIC viewpoint.

Foolish is the man who "wifes up" some skank-assed woman who he knows DOES NOT love him at least as much as she loves what he can DO for her financially.

Foolish is the man who doesn't take the time to even attempt to qualify a woman in this way before he places his mental, physical, emotional, spiritual, and FINANCIAL well-being in her hands.

I'm convinced that there are a vast majority of men on here, and in REAL LIFE that have such a low self-esteem and such a latent sense of self hate that they can't even fathom or conceive of a woman loving them for ANY reason other than their material status ONLY. It's a sad state of affairs troops, when men will gladly give SO MUCH of themselves and give SO MUCH of their "wealth" to women just for access to a pink, wet hole (hell, they're lucky if it's even "tight").

I think that says a hell of a lot about what they think of the overall value and/or potential value of women-----not to mention themselves.

Perhaps we've reached the point in this war where men are no longer willing to be soldiers, but instead, opt to just be suckers.

Perhaps we've reached the point where men HATE THEMSELVES so much that it doesn't matter to them that the women they marry have no true, natural, love, care, or affection for them.

Perhaps we've reached the point where they feel that willingly paying the price for access to a perpetual piece of Pusssy IS their idea of a fulfilling, successful marriage.

If so, I say, let them continue on this path that they have chosen until they reach what I fear may very well be an unfortunate, heart-rending and wallet-wrenching deadend.

But for those that still have ears to hear, I will say this to YOU soldiers:

Think twice before you wife-up a woman who you already suspect that may love your wealth more than she loves you.

Why?

Because you will only be renting a pusssy that you THINK that you are buying.

Consider that it may be better to date, fukk, or even outright BUY (if you feel you must) access to a woman's vagina than to live the facade of thinking that just because you've married her, that this somehow NOW makes your relationship any different than that of a HOE and her TRICK.

Know that the only REAL distinction would be that NOW your Prostitution-Partnership Scenario is LEGALLY sanctioned.

Fukk Hoes if you absolutely must, but don't WIFE'em.

Save your money, your time, and your sanity by simply staying single until, and unless you find a woman who actually ISN'T a Hoe----------and you don't have to become a fukking Trick to get her and keep her.

I'm only gonna say this once, soldiers:

VETT these Biiitches.


Soldier On.

 

[Ballie]

VU has hit the nail on the head again! I was married to a b*tch who left me and took half my hard earned money and my kids. My job was on the edge when I became depressed and she was smug about that because it "justified" her decision.

Sorted myself out now and will remain single from now on. Absolutely no point in getting married again at my age - even though I have an amazing GF now, as I value my independance too much.

My ex is very jealous now and wants me back. Ha HAH (lol), think I'm Nuts?

You have to qualify a women BEFORE you marry her OR move in with her, else you will suffer financially.

 

[STR8UP]

So let me understand this correctly, if a woman is attracted to a man because of his wealth, she is NOT a quality woman?

What about women who are attracted to men that have a sculptured, muscular physique? How come those women are not derided and called "muscle diggers" or low quality women?

Because society tells us that men are shallow for placing high value on looks, and women are shallow for placing high value on wealth and power.

Just more of the same P.C. matrix bullsh!t that most men and almost all women will never see for what it really is- LIES.

Some woman will stick with you through thick and thin. Some women. And most of those are not doing it because its the right thing to do. They are doing it because they have limited options. Men expect women to display the same character traits we do. Things like blind loyalty and commitment when times are tough are not two qualities that come naturally to most women I am afraid.

Well said.

A HUGE part of the problem with a lot of men is that they refuse to believe that women hold themselves to the same standards of morality that men do.

The point is that both types of abandonment of a committed relationship are examples of how superficial and ethically empty some men, and some women are in their relationships.
I am fiercely opposed to any attempt by any twisted popular theory to portray this kind of 'lower self ' behavior as 'normal' or 'natural' of acceptable.

We cannot hope to raise our standards or maintain those whch we already hold until we get away from this tolerance of living for personal immediate convenience . Destructive behavior needs condemnation, not faddish understanding.

Hmmm.....so what you are saying is that a woman OR a man who looks out for their own best interests at the expense of the other person or the relationship itself is "wrong" for doing so? The man who leaves the woman who gets fat or can't have kids is a jerkoff and the woman who leaves her man because one or more the the things that made him attractive in the beginning are gone (as in the losign his job example) should be chastised for not "doing the right thing"?

You go ahead and believe that man. While you're at it, you should jump in front of a few bullets for your country so you can become a "hero" because it's the right thing to do.

Just ask your "higher self". I'm sure it will guide you to martyrdom, one way or another.

The point? You marry someone based on nothing but attraction and you cant expect it to last when that attraction fades. Just like when she puts on 20lbs. Just like when he loses his job. The conditions changed. The goal posts were shifted. That is why mail orders brides have more successful marriages. Its why arranged marriages work for so many. Its why young women marry older men all over the world and are quite happy to do so. Everyone knows what they are bringing to the table upfront.

Blame feminism and the sense of entitlement it has instilled all you want. As true as it may be, the fact that marriage has allowed to move from the practical to the emotional is 90% of the problem. The day it stopped being an arrangement and it started being a romantic gesture that men themselves started to embrace was the day we handed our balls over.

You know, you are 100% correct. The whole idea of romantic love which lasts forever is laughable to anyone with testosterone to see it for what it is.

Why do so many marriages fail or end up miserable?

EXPECTATIONS.

People go out and try to build a foundation out of a deck of cards and then they wonder why everything goes to sh!t.

That's why I'm pretty much against marriage these days. Nobody has a realistic concept of what is likely to go down. Roll the dice and hope for the best! Get it wrong and you'll be starting over again in a few years, with less than you came in with.

@VU-

You have valid points on some issues, but you are just as guilty of "not getting it" as some of the others here when it comes to women's behavior.

For the record, once again, calling it as we see it does not equate to "giving up" or acknowledging defeat. WISHING things could be different will not make it so.

I'm convinced that there are a vast majority of men on here, and in REAL LIFE that have such a low self-esteem and such a latent sense of self hate that they can't even fathom or conceive of a woman loving them for ANY reason other than their material status ONLY. It's a sad state of affairs troops, when men will gladly give SO MUCH of themselves and give SO MUCH of their "wealth" to women just for access to a pink, wet hole (hell, they're lucky if it's even "tight").

I think that says a hell of a lot about what they think of the overall value and/or potential value of women-----not to mention themselves.

Perhaps we've reached the point in this war where men are no longer willing to be soldiers, but instead, opt to just be suckers.

Now you sound like edger. (sorry buddy, but your ideas on wealth and women are wack)

A woman "loves" you for who you are, and your wealth/status/power are part of the equation, even for a "quality" woman.

There is a WHOLE LOT of grey area between the guy who throws cold hard cash at women to get them to spend time with him, and the mythical "good" girl for whom money is not a factor.

 

[Tazman]

I don't understand why pointing out bad behavior and certain trends in order to protect yourself makes you a hateful person with low self esteem.

Believing in things like "quality women" is what brings guys here in the first place. It's only after seeing the true nature (reality) behind why people do the things they do, can you start to open your eyes and observe what's really going on.

You're going to come across people that will benefit you're well-being and others who won't, and it isn't always readily apparent. If you go out there "hoping" to find that quality person you're going to set yourself up for a hard crash if and when it back-fires.

No one is static, people change based on their individual circumstances.

If you're looking for "unconditional love" from another person, you're wasting your time.

 

[STR8UP]

I don't understand why pointing out bad behavior and certain trends in order to protect yourself makes you a hateful person with low self esteem.

Believing in things like "quality women" is what brings guys here in the first place. It's only after seeing the true nature (reality) behind why people do the things they do, can you start to open your eyes and observe what's really going on.

By their late 20's or so most men finally manage to bend their head around the concept that The Soulmate Myth is exactly that- a MYTH.

Sadly, the next layer of the matrix is a lot more painful to break through. Thus, we have so many men who are willing to cling to the idea that there are LOTS of "special snowflakes" out there. Reality be damned.

 

[Luthor Rex]

Sometimes I think STR8UP isn't a business owner, sometimes I think he is secretly an academic researcher.

In a study of female law students, not one would consider an attractive man with low socio-economic status for marriage, although some would agree to have sex with him. They always preferred marriage to sex with a high socio-economic status man, whether he was attractive or not

http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP06289302.pdf

Page 3

 

[jophil28]

This thread needs to be hijacked back to the OP's intent and away from the evangelical zeal of the self-anointed "realists" here who seem addicted to sermonizing us to an early death ( or crashing boredom at the least).

The point of the OP was to illustrate the warp speed willingness of SOME women to abandon their wealthy marriages when their magic carpet ride skidded on solid earth.

I have a question.
IF any of you guys were one of those rich guys, and your wife bolted because you were experiening financial difficulties, would you -

a) Divorce her quicker than her glitter nail polish took to dry?
b) Try "talking " to her in an attempt to entice her back with your "new business plan".
c) Take her back when your finances turned around and she THEN asked you to reconcile.
d) Toss her stuff out on the front lawn and call the Goodwill.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Jophil, as one of the older members on this forum I respect your views. You cant buy your experience at a local convenience store. For the life of me though, I just cannot fathom why this is such a tough pill for you to swallow. Perhaps you dont have a lot of money? Perhaps the fact that you have had relative success without it means you refuse to acknowledge its influence on attraction?

The point of the OP was to illustrate the warp speed willingness of SOME women to abandon their wealthy marriages when their magic carpet ride skidded on solid earth.

The reason why they leave those men is because the initial attraction they felt for them (and they were attracted to them because they were wealthy, its not an act!) is simply no longer there. The difference here is that you see female attraction to wealth as something disgusting and immoral. I see it as a basic biological driver. Wealth is attractive to them. END OF STORY.

It is on topic. It IS the entire fvcking point. It IS the reason why it happens. If you think that the concepts of character and morality are factors in attraction then maybe I give you more credit than you deserve. If you have built an entire relationship on nothing but attraction then its got a high chance of failure. When one of those factors could be your personal wealth, and that goes down the sh1tter, then it explains why so many women are so quick to throw the towel in. Its not an intentional, calculated act of selfishness. Its base emotion.

Now explain to me exactly how this is irrelevant to the topic being discussed. The OP is fvcking shocked that this happens. Given reasons why it should not come as a surprise you utterly reject it because it does not appeal to your own sense of what a relationship should be based on.

Its an illogical, emotional view.

As for your question? I think she would leave you before you have the chance to leave her. And if she made the decision to leave there is no coming back. If you are trying to salvage any relationship, you are finished already. Just because you accept the fact that women find wealth attractive does not automatically mean that wealthy men lack the character to handle rejection when it comes. Nor does it mean that they would bend over backwards to try and appease her.

This is going no where though. Im not going to convince a 52 year old man otherwise. At 52, your views are pretty set I think.

I dont despise women for the fact that they find wealth attractive. Just like I dont hate myself for being attracted to everything that looks good in a skirt even though I may be in a relationship. I know what women are attracted to and I cant change that. Im not going to condemn them for it either. I realised a long time ago that a relationship with a woman is a fickle thing and even a quality woman is not going to commit me unconditionally. I also know that I cannot rely on women either, even those that have tried to create the perception that they may be reliable.

But by all means. Keep calling them gold digging *****s. Divorce rates will continue to climb and people will continue to be miserable because they think relationships are meant to play out like its a ****ing Disney movie from the 60's.

 

[jophil28]

Jophil, as one of the older members on this forum I respect your views. You cant buy your experience at a local convenience store. For the life of me though, I just cannot fathom why this is such a tough pill for you to swallow.
.

You would have to gain and accumulate a lot more life experence before you can presume to lecture or correct me.
You are entitled to you simplistic evolutionary psych beliefs if they are comforting , but leave me to mine , please.
I do not take advice from someone who is barely out of their 20's.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

And at 30 probably worth twice as much and more well travelled. Dont ask me to respect your views (which I already said I did) when you dont even have the common decency to try and respect mine. I have done nothing but be civil.

If the best you can do is try to patronise me then it speaks volumes of your character. Ironic when character is the one thing you have tried to emphasis through this entire post. Perhaps you need to consider if its your views you are trying to express or if its your own ego you are trying to protect. I have a feeling it may be the latter.

Clearly debate is something not worthwhile though when people are younger than you. Perhaps we should start a "Very Mature Man" forum where all posters would need to be older than 45 to contribute. That way, you would not have to be bothered by the incorrigible ramblings of the "man boys" who have not yet cracked 40.

 

[ketostix]

Hooligan Harry, I probably mentioned it before but in this day in age in the US there is a difference between a woman who is attracted to and interested in a guy's qualities that make him wealthy and successful and an outright gold digger who is only interested and "attracted" to a guy's wealth and what it brings her. The former will marry a guy before he's wealthy and is more likely to ride out hard times, the latter is gone when the wealth is gone. The women in this story is about the latter. They were probably bad wives in many ways but the guys were either to blind to see it or didn't care.

Sure a wealthy guy will generally have a much easier time attracting women who are not gold diggers, and some of the reason are incidental to the wealth. But he'll also attractive a lot gold diggers as well. It seems you are saying there's no such thing as a gold digger, "because all women are by nature attracted to wealth." I don't believe that's entirely true and there definitely are gold diggers. It's common knowledge that wealthy people attract good and bad people to them.

 

[Hooligan Harry]

Keto, all women are attracted to wealth just like all men are attracted to tits and arse. Its not a light switch they can turn off or on. Its not something we can beat or scold out of them.

Just like there is a social stigma with 52 year old men wanting to date 25 year old women, there is a social stigma attached to women who date men because they are wealthy. Women shame men for dating younger, men shame women for dating richer. While this entire forum would suggest that its natural and ok for older men to date younger despite what society says about the difference in age, we will condemn women for dating men with money.

Its absurd.

We accept that attraction is natural and nothing to be ashamed of when we are 50 year old men chasing young tail yet we attack the character of women when they act based on what they find attractive.

Attraction is superficial. For men and women. Women are attracted to men with money. Its one of the traits they are attracted to. Sometimes the only reason that they are attracted to those men is because they are wealthy. Just like the only reason the 52 year old man is old man is attracted to the 25 year old is because she has a nicer pair of tits on her. That does not mean that her attraction for him is not real!

My argument is that a marriage, when based on nothing but attraction, is hardly the practical kind of agreement that will lead to any real commitment. When the level of attraction diminishes so to does the desire of the person to stay in that relationship unless there was more to it. If she was only attracted to him because he is wealthy then it should come as no surprise to anyone that she packs up and leaves when he loses it all.

The whole point here is that people are getting hitched for superficial reasons (attraction alone) and then expecting people to show character and a sense of right and wrong when things change for the worse. Its a ridiculous expectation and its one that more than 50% of married people fail to live up to.

There are women who marry for money alone. They can be almost mercenary about the whole thing. Its a huge grey area though and we lump every woman who leaves a man because he lost his job into the gold digger category. The majority of the mail order brides going to the USA, UK and Germany? They are doing it because of the money. The chance of a better life. They are the classic definition of a gold digger. Yet ironically, as it was even mentioned in this thread, those arranged marriages tend to be more successful than the version we all wish were true. They are almost considered women of virtue.

Not all woman are going to abandon their husbands when they lose their jobs. Even some of those with a lot of options. Rest assured though that unless he brings something else to the table over and above his money, she is out the door. If the only attraction she felt was because he was wealthy then his value plummets and she will leave.

The whole problem here though is that it has fvck all to do with a womans character. The problem is that men refuse to accept that woman care about his ability to provide. Just like the 40 year old cougars hate to think that their wonderful personality might not level the playing field when up against the 25 year old hotties, the average Joe hates to think that the wealthy guy is hitting model quality women even though he is a chud.

I will say it one last time. Divorce rates in western countries are through the roof. In those countries, men are shamed for dating younger and women are shamed for dating richer. In countries where it is a non issue and considered normal, they dont seem to have the same high levels of divorce.

Clearly, when it comes to commitment, the gold diggers and perverts seem to be doing a better job of it.

 

[trent81]

Hooligan,

I completely agree with everything you say. I think you write well and are very intelligent at your age. I'm not much older than you but I think that people on these boards miss what's really important here. The fact that a woman wants a good life, expensive things, and is materialistic comes from her genetic makings. She is "supposed" to be taken care of, she is "supposed" to stay home and take care of the kids and cook and clean. Most of those divorces you talk about happen from women and men in the workplace by commiting infidelity. I'm sure if the economy was better, no man would want his wife to work. It's just not her place to do so genetically. She works at home, you work outside, that's what I was taught in my culture. In America, it's reverse, woman works with man, demands equality of pay, while marriage and kids suffer. This day and age you need two incomes but if the man was making alot of money, this wouldn't be an issue. She is not supposed to work for money, you are!!! The man is suppose to hunt. Or, in our society, work. The more he makes and brings home, the more she is attracted to him. This is just basic common sense. A woman is supposed to feel this way. Why should she not want a man with money? If I was a woman, I would want a man with money. It makes life easier. Women hate working. It baffles me that men in America don't understand that they will get better women if they make more money. It has been that way since the beginning of fvcking time....Women who are attracted to money are not gold diggers, they are just feeling that way because they are women for christ's sake!!!

 

[STR8UP]

Jophil, as one of the older members on this forum I respect your views. You cant buy your experience at a local convenience store. For the life of me though, I just cannot fathom why this is such a tough pill for you to swallow. Perhaps you dont have a lot of money? Perhaps the fact that you have had relative success without it means you refuse to acknowledge its influence on attraction?

I think this is why a lot of guys refuse to accept the fact that wealth and power can be such a huge part of attraction. If you don't think you will ever have it, you have to build your world around that fact because if not, you are basically telling yourself that you are a failure at life.

I've been on both sides of the fence. I've been of modest means and I have walked with the swagger of a man who was set to conquer the world. Guess what? When I was of modest means tending bar, yea, I got the hot chick (who happened to be the best I've ever been with), but as soon as I saw the way she looked at the top sales guy at her christmas party (the one with e brand new vette AND a brand new viper) I knew that there was something more to this attraction stuff than blind "love".

I've also been on the other side of the fence, with chicks butt ass naked in my rooftop jacuzzi, meantime her bf/husband/wannabe AFC puppy dog was at home wondering why she wasn't home/hadn't called yet.

Until you have that kind of perspective to see the power that things OTHER than your physique or your wonderful personality have in the game of attraction, it's hard to grasp the truth.

The reason why they leave those men is because the initial attraction they felt for them (and they were attracted to them because they were wealthy, its not an act!) is simply no longer there. The difference here is that you see female attraction to wealth as something disgusting and immoral. I see it as a basic biological driver. Wealth is attractive to them. END OF STORY.

Granted, we are talking about a story that at least on the surface looks like a classic golddigger losing her allowance, but the point I was trying to make is that although these situations are rare, it is actually pretty common for a "normal" woman to lose attraction for a man who loses his job and/or becomes depressed. And it's NATURAL. Like it or not, a chick isn't "wrong" for losing attraction. Some might shame her, but she's only looking out for her own best interest.

I realised a long time ago that a relationship with a woman is a fickle thing and even a quality woman is not going to commit me unconditionally. I also know that I cannot rely on women either, even those that have tried to create the perception that they may be reliable.

This is the absolute truth.

People like to believe in unconditional love because it creates hope. But hope creates expectations, and when these unrealistic expectations are not met, that's when relationships fall apart.

But by all means. Keep calling them gold digging *****s. Divorce rates will continue to climb and people will continue to be miserable because they think relationships are meant to play out like its a ****ing Disney movie from the 60's.

We think of women being the romantic ones, but it is actually MEN who are the hopeless romantics. On the surface women talk about all of this foofy assed romance crap, but they are usually the first to bail, often leaving the guy devastated while she swings off to the next branch.

So do we need less awareness of women's motivations, or more? Do we need to condemn them for being "shallow" or acknowledge their true nature and try to make ourselves better men to allow us to attract better women?

You would have to gain and accumulate a lot more life experence before you can presume to lecture or correct me.
You are entitled to you simplistic evolutionary psych beliefs if they are comforting , but leave me to mine , please.
I do not take advice from someone who is barely out of their 20's.

Age does not always equate to wisdom, just as youth does not always equate to ignorance. Some people have lived more before 25 than others live in a lifetime. If you have lived your life viewing things from one perspective you aren't going to have the insight of a man who has seen it from other angles.

And I'm not exactly sure how you presume evolutionary psychology to be the "simplistic view". As I stated before, it would seem to me that the opposite is true, given that your side offers little to nothing to help explain behavior. Oh yea, it's all poor upbringing, that's it.

Sure a wealthy guy will generally have a much easier time attracting women who are not gold diggers, and some of the reason are incidental to the wealth. But he'll also attractive a lot gold diggers as well. It seems you are saying there's no such thing as a gold digger, "because all women are by nature attracted to wealth." I don't believe that's entirely true and there definitely are gold diggers. It's common knowledge that wealthy people attract good and bad people to them.

"Gold digger" is yet another convenient label to place on a woman who you don't believe you have enough money to land. The problem with this label is that it is not only used entirely too loosely, but it is also used as a shaming word. I don't like shaming words that condemn natural behavior for men or women. And just like the term "quality woman", it isn't something that is easily determined to be fact. Lots of shades of grey, and the fact that wealth is a natural attractant for women make it a term that is used way too loosely.

Just like there is a social stigma with 52 year old men wanting to date 25 year old women, there is a social stigma attached to women who date men because they are wealthy. Women shame men for dating younger, men shame women for dating richer. While this entire forum would suggest that its natural and ok for older men to date younger despite what society says about the difference in age, we will condemn women for dating men with money.

Its absurd.

We accept that attraction is natural and nothing to be ashamed of when we are 50 year old men chasing young tail yet we attack the character of women when they act based on what they find attractive.

If this doesn't make them see the error in their way of thinking, I don't know what would.

It's useless to point out hypocrisy to a person who refuses to acknowledge the validity of even scientific studies.

Clearly, when it comes to commitment, the gold diggers and perverts seem to be doing a better job of it.

I have to say, although a lot of this discussion has been of the usual garden variety "I'm right" "NO, I'm right!" type, you have opened my eyes to something that I hadn't really thought about- the fact that those who we shame tend to have better long term results in relationships.

I think you should start another thread cause this is a very thought provoking subject.

While all women are attracted to "money", it doesn't mean that all women will leave you the moment you lose it. That's a very important distinction.

Very true. Unfortunately, as I have been saying all along, it is nearly impossible to "test" a woman for something like this unless it actually happens. That's why I say that a woman can only earn the title of "quality" after many years. And it isn't so much about her ignoring her instincts as it is being smart enough to see through what is right in front of her face. If she is smart enough to see that her man still has potential and sticks around, you have a winner.

 

[Luthor Rex]

You would have to gain and accumulate a lot more life experence before you can presume to lecture or correct me.
You are entitled to you simplistic evolutionary psych beliefs if they are comforting , but leave me to mine , please.
I do not take advice from someone who is barely out of their 20's.

Actually, altruists do attract one another. In human beings, like attracts like, so if you are altruistic then you will attract an altruistic woman. This doesn't a man should be a sucker, but it does mean that an altruistic man with a strong backbone to not be manipulated can end up with a woman like himself.

people preferentially direct cooperative behavior towards more attractive members of the opposite sex... (because) cooperative behavior increases the perceived attractiveness of the cooperator. Economically costly behaviors can therefore bring benefits through mate choice and sexual selection should be regarded as an evolutionary mechanism capable of promoting cooperation.

Thus honest signaling of generosity during human courtship, and in circumstances where it can reach potential mates by reputation, should be favored by selection. Our results suggest that mate attraction should be considered as one contributory factor. As we show, altruism can bring advantages because altruists are attractive.

Of course even altruistic women will prefer a rich altruistic man vs. a poor altruistic man, all other things being equal.

 

[forward]

I find these arguments fun and on the whole enlightening, if a little long-winded and redundant at times.

I think a lot of the reason there's an "argument" here stems from trying to place a strict, rigid framework of how the world/women/relationships work on top something that is actually quite deep and complex, and incapable of being bound by a single human's conception of it.

In other words, no matter how hard you work at it, your worldview will be an incorrect approximation of what's going on. So the quest in debating/thinking about such topics is not to arrive at a perfectly accurate worldview, but rather to arrive at one that perfectly works for you. Which beliefs get you better results?

If you don't believe you can become filthy rich, your mind simply won't notice/create opportunities to do so.
And so it is with the belief that a woman could actually care for you beyond her gain.

*******
I've noticed a tendency on this forum to view women as these simplistic, one-dimensional creatures who are all the same. A view such as this can be useful at times -- generalizations are necessary to make sense of large subjects. But keep in mind a generalization is not the whole story.
*******

Bottom line for me (a.k.a. my current view): There are "quality" women out there who will stick with a "quality" man. The key is for both parties to remain "quality". This does not mean the man can't lose money or the woman can't gain 20 pounds. The key is that each person remains "quality" to the core.

For example, the man loses his job. The job is not the essence of his "quality", for it was his "quality" that got him the job in the first place. How he responds to the loss is infinitely more important than the loss. If his woman is "quality", she will recognize this with her higher brain functions and not revert to primitive cavewoman mode: "You no provide well today, me find new man."

Likewise if a woman gains 20 pounds. This can happen for a variety of reasons, not all of which signal "low-quality". People age. The looks of both men and women will shift over time. Of course, I've been known to find nothing wrong with a little extra on a woman. I find soft, curvy women extremely feminine and arousing, but to each their own. If my woman gained 20 pounds, there'd be no problem. If she stopped taking care of herself (eating healthy, exercising), I would have a problem. As long as she takes care of herself I know her weight won't get out of hand.

 

[ketostix]

Keto, all women are attracted to wealth just like all men are attracted to tits and arse. Its not a light switch they can turn off or on. Its not something we can beat or scold out of them.

Just like there is a social stigma with 52 year old men wanting to date 25 year old women, there is a social stigma attached to women who date men because they are wealthy. Women shame men for dating younger, men shame women for dating richer. While this entire forum would suggest that its natural and ok for older men to date younger despite what society says about the difference in age, we will condemn women for dating men with money.

Its absurd.

We accept that attraction is natural and nothing to be ashamed of when we are 50 year old men chasing young tail yet we attack the character of women when they act based on what they find attractive.

You are missing the point. Make generilizations and assumptions along with false analogies. Let's say that men are "naturally" attracted to youth and variety, and women are attracted to wealth (among other things). It doesn't make it right for a man to just conduct himself in any way. He wouldn't be a quality man from a woman's perspective if he divorced her just because she turned 30 and he wanted a younger model, or he regularly cheated on her because he "naturally" wanted variety. And the same thing for women. A woman that is only with a guy because he is wealthy is most likely not going to be a quality woman from a man's perspective. What you are saying is because people have a natural tendencies to be attracted to something or a natural drive then however they expresses it is equally valid. Some people are just rotten, and natural drivers aren't a justification.

Attraction is superficial. For men and women. Women are attracted to men with money. Its one of the traits they are attracted to. Sometimes the only reason that they are attracted to those men is because they are wealthy. Just like the only reason the 52 year old man is old man is attracted to the 25 year old is because she has a nicer pair of tits on her. That does not mean that her attraction for him is not real!

This is silly. If a man is attracted to a 25 year old woman just because her tits are nicer than he is abnormal, just as a gold digger is. Most men are attracted to youth for a whole string of reasons, ranging from fertility and higher quality eggs to the younger girls 'innocence" and persona in general. Similar with women, a typical woman is attracted to not just wealth of a man but for a string of reasons. And then there are gold diggers. I guess maybe they would be analagous to a man with a tit fetish. But I wouldn't consider either one quality individuals.

My argument is that a marriage, when based on nothing but attraction, is hardly the practical kind of agreement that will lead to any real commitment. When the level of attraction diminishes so to does the desire of the person to stay in that relationship unless there was more to it. If she was only attracted to him because he is wealthy then it should come as no surprise to anyone that she packs up and leaves when he loses it all.

The whole point here is that people are getting hitched for superficial reasons (attraction alone) and then expecting people to show character and a sense of right and wrong when things change for the worse. Its a ridiculous expectation and its one that more than 50% of married people fail to live up to.

Now we're getting into a different topic. Let's just put it this way, there was a percentage that stayed together. Within that percentage wouldn't you say that some of those women had different qualities from the others? And wouldn't it stand to reason that in the divorced group there contained more women who were in it more for finacial reasons?

There are women who marry for money alone. They can be almost mercenary about the whole thing. Its a huge grey area though and we lump every woman who leaves a man because he lost his job into the gold digger category. The majority of the mail order brides going to the USA, UK and Germany? They are doing it because of the money. The chance of a better life. They are the classic definition of a gold digger. Yet ironically, as it was even mentioned in this thread, those arranged marriages tend to be more successful than the version we all wish were true. They are almost considered women of virtue.

There you go again making strawman arguments. No one here has said that a woman coming from an impoverished country with no rights is a gold digger for marrying middle-class western men. What I said was that American women who turn down every middle-class man to hitch up with a man just because he has a net worth over a certain amount is a gold digger.

Not all woman are going to abandon their husbands when they lose their jobs. Even some of those with a lot of options. Rest assured though that unless he brings something else to the table over and above his money, she is out the door. If the only attraction she felt was because he was wealthy then his value plummets and she will leave.

OK

The whole problem here though is that it has fvck all to do with a womans character. The problem is that men refuse to accept that woman care about his ability to provide. Just like the 40 year old cougars hate to think that their wonderful personality might not level the playing field when up against the 25 year old hotties, the average Joe hates to think that the wealthy guy is hitting model quality women even though he is a chud.

Well say what you want, but women vary in how much they make money the msot important matter. You can say women don't vary in character. What you aren't taking into account a lot of these "golddiggers" tend to have personality defects. They don't all just marry a rich guy and all things are equal. A lot of them are strippers, prostitutes, club hors and in porn.

I will say it one last time. Divorce rates in western countries are through the roof. In those countries, men are shamed for dating younger and women are shamed for dating richer. In countries where it is a non issue and considered normal, they dont seem to have the same high levels of divorce.

Clearly, when it comes to commitment, the gold diggers and perverts seem to be doing a better job of it.

Here you are making a faulty attribution. Women are not particularly shamed for dating richer, at least not anything like men are shamed for dating younger. There is a lot of reasons for the divorce rate and there are lot of changes in the US and maybe you don't understand it. There is a big diffeernce between a place and time where women have nothing without a man and one where they have equal if not greater opportunitity. You can't directly compare the two situations.

"Gold digger" is yet another convenient label to place on a woman who you don't believe you have enough money to land. The problem with this label is that it is not only used entirely too loosely, but it is also used as a shaming word. I don't like shaming words that condemn natural behavior for men or women. And just like the term "quality woman", it isn't something that is easily determined to be fact. Lots of shades of grey, and the fact that wealth is a natural attractant for women make it a term that is used way too loosely.

Well STR8UP is there or not a such thing as a gold digger? And if there is, is it always really that hard to tell? I don't think so. I think it's pretty clear that a woman that won't have anything to do with any guy that's not exceedingly wealthy and then leaves the man the instance the wealth is gone to hitch on to the next wealthy guy is a gold digger. Now isn't your first sentence an example of shaming? if someone labeled a woman a gold digger he could do that even if he had enough money to land 10 women like her. I don't really see where anyone here shamed anyone or applied the term loosely. I don't disagree that the public at large does what you're saying, but I thought we were having an internal discussion about the concept of the gold digger. It just seems to me that if you acknowledge that women vary and some fall on the mercanary side of the continuum, wealthy or not you'd want to associate yourself when the ones that fall as far away from that side as you can. I would error on the side of caution. Maybe I do make value judgements and am judgemental. It has nothing to do with throwing lables around loosely or shaming.

From what I've seen a lot of extremely wealthy guys believe in the concept of the gold digger and label them so and are on guard for them. They use them and discard them. Then you have guys like Paul McCartney who probably assumed all women are like his first wife.