why men don't chase rich women

Post Reply New Topic

Bolded are key phrases there. You have said you would not go out with a guy that is less capable financially (or resource wise) than you are.

That is the key point of the Buss study findings. Your primary filter is based on resources not personality or looks.

A male on the other hand has no problems going out/marrying an illiterate, extremely poor girl as long as she's good looking. A male has no problem going out/marrying a girl 'at his level' as long as she's good looking. Nor a problem with the one 'above his level' as long as she's good looking.

Neither male nor female factor in who the other person is before they factor is what that person is. Male = is she hot? Female= does he have resources for me? (read the Buss study.. this means resources towards offspring sustenance.. its not 'does he have bling to buy me endless purses and shoes).

Cheers for the links Hurtloam.

There are a few risks involved.

http://www.marieclaire.com/_mobile/care ... -and-money

Author: "Oh I am a feminist, I go dutch, I am not shallow... but oops, I ended dating a rich guy with boring personality twice, and all my feminist friends end up wanting rich husbands"

the power of instinct.

lol, that's so cynical.

I used to like a gorgeous barista but once I knew she's totally illiterate, I totally forgot about her.


But yea, I wouldn't mind in the past (and probably still but in denial) to date an educated yet an unemployed girl - Buss study proving itself again.

There IS a difference between "someone who earns less money than me" and "slacker," my definition of "slacker" being "someone who doesn't work because they've found they can always find somone else to mooch off of." I wouldn't date a slacker (at least not on purpose), but I can't remember the last time I went out with or got involved with someone who had the same earnings level (or greater) than me (and it's not like I earn oodles - but I do earn enough to support myself). I don't care if someone earns less than I do, so long as they contribute in some way to the relationship.

And there's also a difference between unemployed and unemployable.

Someone who is legitimately unemployable is probably so because they have other issues. The reason I wouldn't want to go out with them would most likely be because of those other issues, not because they didn't have a job.

Eureka13, we know the difference, we're not that ret*ds.


But you can't deny the tendency of hypergamy in women, and it's not only wealth wise.

For example, (for the majority of women at least), women no matter how tall they are, still prefer men taller than them.
No matter how high their IQs are, they still prefer men smarter than them.
No matter how educated they are, they still prefer men more educated than them.
etc...

Hypergamy is so real.

How much is a majority? More than half. It could be 51% of women who feel this way. Which means you're pissing off the other 49%.

Why wouldn't a woman want a man taller than herself, when the average man is taller than the average woman?
Since men are always claiming they are smarter than women, why wouldn't a woman want a man smarter than herself?
I don't actually believe there are statistics that "prove" that women want men more educated than themselves. Equally educated, perhaps.

To the extent that hypergamy exists on the female side, it exists to a much greater extent on the male side. Even the men on this forum with above-average intelligence often seem to view women as commodities, not as individuals.

I don't disagree that the "average" woman may have a slight preference the paradigm you keep touting as "what women want." What you keep failing to take into account (from my perspective, anyway) is there is not one single "average" woman on this forum. If we are autist and Aspie women, we already have a tendency to think more like a man (according to research that I believe you yourself have linked to).

So why the overweening female objectification from the guys around here?

I wouldn't date a man shorter than me, because when I have, he has been so insecure about his height that he wouldn't take off his boots except to go to bed. And was preemptively belligerent towards other men.

I would want to date a man within five or 10 IQ points of me, in either direction; given a choice between a smarter man and a stupider man, *of course* I'm going to choose the smart one, all other things being equal. All other things being equal, I'd hope that a man would do the same.

I would want to date a man with a similar level of education to me, all other things being equal. Likewise, I would hope that a man would choose a woman with a similar or higher level of education as him, all other things being equal.

People of both genders pick the best partners that they can, and in *any* pairing there will be elements where the woman is 'higher status' than the man and elements where the man is 'higher status' than the woman; people who go on and on about the supposed greater "hypergamy" of women than men only look at the latter component.

A maj

A majority about more than 70% of women I know in real life (yes, I took time to use memory and count) and like 90% of women I knew online from other Arab, Middle East and Latina countries, and like about half of those from West (not WP).

As for sex objectification, you can also see it common among married NT men, it's not just a bitter single aspie thing, a rape culture thing and not related to pairing or hypergamy.

Yes, they pic the best partner they can... but not using the same parameters than you hope they would.

From a man's perspective: (Personality aside...lets say both girls are equally agreeable in that regard)

1- Choose the smarter or dumber girl?

The male will almost always choose whichever is more appealing to him physically. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of brainpower.

2- Level of education? As in the previous choice, it matters not. This one we can even go into polar opposites. The gorgeously attractive one that is illiterate or the decent looking one that holds three PhD's?

The male will gain almost always choose the one that is more physically attractive to him. The 'hotter' she is the higher the tolerance for her lack of education.

When it comes to making the choice of a mating partner each sex has its priorities. The male goes for the physically attractive because they are the best gene-choice he can make.

For a female the choice is a lot more complex... its partly his looks (genes) but his resources weigh in significantly because from her perspective, for her genes only get passed on if the children survive. She can only bear children once a year and its her one, very energy and time consuming (18yrs if preggo!) and clock-is-ticking choice (fertile years are numbered).

For this you can say the wealthier he is the higher her tolerance for his lower rating in the physical attraction indicator.

But you will not find the same tolerance scales on the opposite sex unless it was overwhelming. A man would hardly choose an ugly yet wealthier woman as his mate unless his financial situation wasn't good and she was a millionaire in comparison...nor would a woman choose an extraordinarily handsome and manly man that comes from extreme poverty unless her financial situation was very independent and secure enough to support her kids and that man.

You really can't approach this from a politically correct or 'modern morality' perspective. This is hard wired primate behavior.

If it's about genes then your current situation wouldn't change a thing. A rich woman would still want a richer man. If a woman changes her priorities based on her financial situation then those priorities aren't hard wired. Are they?

I don't relate but I don't disagree either, I did see much emphasis on the physical part from males but I don't think it is that simple.
I knew a great number of very handsome and very smart/successful guys (Senior Engineers / Project Managers) who ended marrying very very average-looking women, ALL of them. And it's not just me, their female friends said they went for significantly less goodlooking partners with surprising tone - they are often called ugly by them, btw, not only men put much value on women's value but women too put even more value on it. These engineers aren't the most socially skilled tho, they didn't have a high record of gfs.

However, I knew quite few socially skilled guys back in college who were very successful in dating, one them was a close friends of mine and despite him being fat he was a successful player, and always had serial short-term relationships and sex with the very "hot" gorgeous-looking girls, he had a very cute long-term interest (college colleague) apart who also wanted to be his gf - he actually admitted his love to her (and despite me advising him to stop fooling around and stick to that one girl, he didn't listen and he screwed it eventually after she found out).

It's not just one case or two, most men I knew who had very good-looking gfs, ended up with wives very average looks-wise, some of them are houswives but others are career women too, it is obvious that they emphasis on things other than looks: mostly on loyalty and being as issues-free as possible.



Based on my observation, the male basically chooses whichever who accepts him, he wouldn't be able to pick the hotter who rejects him after all even if he wanted her more than the other. Of course, he would have asked women out based on some criteria so they are already being filtered, but they are usually wide.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 17 Jan 2014, 10:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

So you people are saying that there is no single rich and great-looking woman in this world whatsoever who would date a guy who is less rich and worse looking than her?

I have been told by many men that bimbos are for chasing when you're young and to have brief flings with and to treat as sexual objects, but the woman they want to marry is the sweet "girl next door" who may not necessarily be beautiful.

Conversely, I think it's primarily the bimbos (not the "girl next door") who are after men for their money, because they know how easily they can manipulate a man into parting with some of it.

For women, the superficially attractive type may be the "playah." Again, someone to go out with and let him lavish her with expensive dates for awhile, but no one that any woman in her right mind would want to settle down with for a lifetime.

I don't see many people on this forum who fall into either of those extremes.

When very little to none of it applies to the people here, what's the point of continuing to harp on the far ends of the gender spectrum, the extreme, shallow, stereotyped behavior of men and women, not what is really the norm. I'm not sure why you want to foster gender wars on here, but it seems to me it's doing more harm than good - serving only the purpose to make each gender more and more bitter about the shortcomings of the other. I hear a lot of people say on here after one of these discussions "I might as well resign myself to being alone forever." What is the purpose of fueling that sort of feeling here?