why men don't chase rich women

Page 6 of 9 [ 121 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,897
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

03 Jan 2014, 12:59 pm

It's also not so much about actual wealth as it is about perceived wealth or benefits. I've known girls who were dated for their car, or their pool or their stereo or their guitar. Really. I was dated for my car a couple times but that did not last once I found out why. I did not get that car to attract guys, I got that car cause I liked racing. Some guys would get cars because they knew the car would attract girls, but that's a cop out to me.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,811
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

03 Jan 2014, 1:14 pm

Cynic wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
I think you've misunderstood my point a bit. It's not the person being abnormal that is the problem. An abnormal person who has intelligence and emotional maturity would make a fitting partner. However dating someone with below average emotional maturity would be akin to dating a teenager for me.

How do you define emotional maturity? Plenty of narcissistic bullying control-freak types are emotionally immature, yet they get plenty of relationships. Furthermore, if you have little or no relationship experience by the time you reach your mid 20's or even 30's, surely that means you're emotionally behind and therefore unlovable, no? :?


I think they get relationships because they come over as charming and they date vulnerable women who get wrapped up in the image they portray only to find out slowly as he actually reveals his true nature and isolates her from her supportive friends and family until she is trapped, then she realizes that this man isn't so charming as he first appeared. Just because someone gets dates doesn't mean they are emotionally mature. We can't take positive and negative traits in isolation and say "a ha, this is they key!"

Emotionally maturity is something I personaly value. Not all people do. It is more about how one responds to other people. Do they respond like an adult or like a child? If they recieve criticism can a person take it on the chin or do they go and sulk or have a tantrum about it? Or can they have a relatively reasonable conversation about it. How do they handle conflict? When a disagreement arises do they insist on having their own way or can they work towards a compromise with the other person. Are they willing to be yeilding if the disagreement isn't really that important? Can they understand that other people may not see things the way that they do or do they shout at their partner for being stupid because they can't see the world exactly the way they can? If they see their spouse crying do they offer comfort or do they walk away and hope they will stop crying soon so that things can get back to normal?

A shy person who is a little unsure of approaching someone they have a crush on to ask them out isn't neccessarily emotionally immature in all aspects of life. Maybe they have good conflict manangement skills. Maybe they are responsible and don't blame others for their actions or throw tantrums when things don't go their way. Maybe they aren't shy and just haven't met someone they like enough to actually want to date because a person they connect with hasn't come along yet. That doesn't make them emotionally immature.

Google emotional maturity for more answers.


_________________
I love your Vivienne Westwood shirt
Why won't you let me wear it?


hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,811
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

03 Jan 2014, 1:19 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
So that guy was right to say "what does she need me for, she's got everything", him living with parents means he's below average (in the west at least), and hugs won't fix that.


He was working though and had a nice car. He was just too cheap to spend money on rent when he could live rent free with his folks. That wasn't a problem for me. Why throw your money away on rent when you can put it into savings instead? (or buy a nice car) Perfectly logical reasoning to me. He lived with his folks up until he got married too, so that didn't put off his wife either.

Back in the day I asked him out a few times... he said no.

A lot of young people are living with their parents here so that they can save up a deposit for a mortgage rather than throwing money away on rent. However, I decided to leave home and throw my money away. I will never own a house.

And he was wrong. I liked him. Hugs are awesome! What rhymes with hug me...


_________________
I love your Vivienne Westwood shirt
Why won't you let me wear it?


Cynic
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 104

03 Jan 2014, 7:41 pm

hurtloam wrote:
I think they get relationships because they come over as charming and they date vulnerable women who get wrapped up in the image they portray

Exactly. Relationships are overall about image.

hurtloam wrote:
If they recieve criticism can a person take it on the chin or do they go and sulk or have a tantrum about it? Or can they have a relatively reasonable conversation about it.

Depends how warrented, constructive, how it is delivered and the motive for it.



hurtloam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,811
Location: Eyjafjallajökull

04 Jan 2014, 7:00 am

Cynic wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
I think they get relationships because they come over as charming and they date vulnerable women who get wrapped up in the image they portray

Exactly. Relationships are overall about image.


We were talking in the context of an abusive relationship and how someone ends up getting themselves into one. When I said "image" I meant the persona he portrays. He would at first seem like a nice man, charming, interested in her. She liked the image he presented to her of his personality, which turns out to be a sham.

Ok some people are car, money big house type of image obsessed, but there are lots of people out there who are interested in more than just image, they are the people I'm defending. They do exist.

I am advocating focussing less on the people who are shallow and image obsessed
(what's the point, they exisit and we can never change them. There is no point focussing our thoughts and energy on people who don't deserve it.) rather focus on finding people with deeper interests. It may be more difficult to find them, but it's worth the effort in the long run.
Cynic wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
If they recieve criticism can a person take it on the chin or do they go and sulk or have a tantrum about it? Or can they have a relatively reasonable conversation about it.

Depends how warrented, constructive, how it is delivered and the motive for it.


Well yes, if you are with someone who is insistent on tearing you down at every opportunity then they are not a very nice person and you should probably get yourself as far away from them as possible.

I meant constructive criticism or valid points the other person raises that can be fixed. Like one says, why can't you do the dishes before bed? I feel like you expect me to do all the housework. The other might say "I don't see why I should have to do them when you say so" and then storms off in a huff shouting, "don't tell me what to do!" or they could say. "I feel too tired at night, why don't I do them in the morning. Please don't feel like I'm leaving them for you to do, I will do them in the morning." Then that is a comopromize and everyone is happy. It only works though if I actually do the dishes in the morning.

Although, even if your other half is really stressed and commincates their feelings bluntly and unfairly from time to time it is best to respond in a mature manner, rather than going into a rage and telling them where to go. No one is perfect. No one will ever communicate perfectly with another person, so that's why patience is a big part of being in a relationship. When one is stressed it is good if the other can hold it together.

See this
How to Communicate Without Anger

I really like this guy's blog about communication in relationships:
She feels blamed, I feel angry


_________________
I love your Vivienne Westwood shirt
Why won't you let me wear it?


Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,874
Location: Florida

05 Jan 2014, 3:17 pm

hurtloam wrote:
No the average person is more likely to go out with an average joe on an average income. Not everything can be quantified in extremes. Few people go out with the Mercedes dude. Where do you people live? I see my friends and neighbors with other regular people. Yes there are shallow people out there, I don't deny that. but not everyone is like that. It's not just me that isn't like that. The men who are not high earners driving Mercedes need to focus on the other regular women. Yes, I wouldn't go out with a man who didn't have the capability to earn a living. I can do it, I can get up everyday and go to work and I don't see why my partner wouldn't be able to do that too. I can support myself and I want a partner on an equal level as me intellectually. That's not the same as chasing an executive in a flash car. I don't care what car a guy drives. Mine is a bit rusty, but it gets me from A to B.

Guys stop focussing on shallow women and what they want. It bears no relevance to your life. Look for someone on your level.


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).



Cynic
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 104

08 Jan 2014, 11:45 pm

hurtloam wrote:
See this
How to Communicate Without Anger

I really like this guy's blog about communication in relationships:
She feels blamed, I feel angry

Cheers for the links Hurtloam.



Aspie_Chav
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,060
Location: Croydon

11 Jan 2014, 1:45 am

billiscool wrote:
ok,we know,that rich men are popular with the ladies.
but why isn't the same with rich women.I never hear
guys go ''I want a rich women''so,why don't
guys chase or desire rich women,the same
way women chase or desire rich men.


There are a few risks involved.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,778
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

11 Jan 2014, 3:48 am

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"

:lol: the power of instinct.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,778
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

14 Jan 2014, 6:08 pm

Dantac wrote:
hurtloam wrote:
No the average person is more likely to go out with an average joe on an average income. Not everything can be quantified in extremes. Few people go out with the Mercedes dude. Where do you people live? I see my friends and neighbors with other regular people. Yes there are shallow people out there, I don't deny that. but not everyone is like that. It's not just me that isn't like that. The men who are not high earners driving Mercedes need to focus on the other regular women. Yes, I wouldn't go out with a man who didn't have the capability to earn a living. I can do it, I can get up everyday and go to work and I don't see why my partner wouldn't be able to do that too. I can support myself and I want a partner on an equal level as me intellectually. That's not the same as chasing an executive in a flash car. I don't care what car a guy drives. Mine is a bit rusty, but it gets me from A to B.

Guys stop focussing on shallow women and what they want. It bears no relevance to your life. Look for someone on your level.


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).


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.



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

14 Jan 2014, 6:29 pm

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.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,778
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

15 Jan 2014, 5:26 am

Eureka13 wrote:
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 retards.


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.



Eureka13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Nov 2013
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,058
Location: The wilds of Colorado

15 Jan 2014, 8:51 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
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 retards.


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%. :lol:

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?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,938

16 Jan 2014, 1:33 am

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
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.

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.



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,778
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

16 Jan 2014, 8:38 am

Eureka13 wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
Eureka13 wrote:
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 retards.


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%. :lol:

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?


A maj