Do women year for status and wealth in a man?

wan said:

Lol I can't believe how simplistic your thinking is. Men get laid more often because that's what they prioritise, and their looks and game mean nothing? LOL WUT?

Click to expand...

No wan, but its clear that if you invest more time in meeting women at a certain age you will find more women, than at an age when you don't. That is just basic math. Game is just a variable. Time invested is another.

If you have game and you don't use it as much as you could, you won't get laid.

wan said:

Well, I can see why you would consider that to be success or status of some sort. I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, however, I must say that in the context of this thread, and how I have defined those terms (wealth and status), this guy that I uprooted my life for had neither status nor wealth. In fact I can tell you he was literally unemployed and sitting at home all day when I was chatting with him.

Click to expand...

And what happened with him?

Dirius said:

No wan, but its clear that if you invest more time in meeting women at a certain age you will find more women, than at an age when you don't. That is just basic math. Game is just a variable. Time invested is another.

If you have game and you don't use it as much as you could, you won't get laid.

Click to expand...

Now you have changed your argument slightly. Previously, you literally said looks and game didn't matter. But anyway.

It's hard to argue that men have different priorities at different stages of life, and yes you have a point that men who put more effort into scoring will score more. However, what if it were possible to control for this? Maybe there is some way to take age and life priorities out of the equation, and just look at how a man would fare in terms of attracting females, when all he had was looks and game, and no wealth or status?

I won't have to wait long, because I already know the answer in my gut. Destitute yet charming men get laid all the time. This isn't just my theory. This is observable in real life.

Dirius said:

And what happened with him?

Click to expand...

Well it's a really long and complicated story. But I will give you a hint. I am back home and still date-less and desperate. Lets just say this is how the story ended.

wan said:

Now you have changed your argument slightly. Previously, you literally said looks and game didn't matter. But anyway.

It's hard to argue that men have different priorities at different stages of life, and yes you have a point that men who put more effort into scoring will score more. However, what if it were possible to control for this? Maybe there is some way to take age and life priorities out of the equation, and just look at how a man would fare in terms of attracting females, when all he had was looks and game, and no wealth or status?

I won't have to wait long, because I already know the answer in my gut. Destitute yet charming men get laid all the time. This isn't just my theory. This is observable in real life.

Click to expand...

I didn't. They are variables, but one is dependant on the other.

If you have game you need to use it, thus it is a variable which is dependant on how much time you invest in using it. If you don't use it, then the variable does not matter at all.

If you have wealth (just as if you have looks), you may attract women even if you are not actively seeking them, even if they are just gold diggers. Its a variable which works, even when you don't use it (as do good looks). But if you don't seek out women, it doesn't do much either.

Its kind of a bad comparison, because the same comparison could be made about men who only have different amounts of wealth. If two ugly men with no game walk into a bar, one has money and the other one is poor, the wealthier guy is more likely to get laid.

The question would be what quality of women can they attract if they had no game, or no wealth, or etc. - which is directly proportionate to how much of the same quality they posses.

wan said:

Well it's a really long and complicated story. But I will give you a hint. I am back home and still date-less and desperate. Lets just say this is how the story ended.

Click to expand...

Just asking why did it end.

Dirius said:

I didn't. They are variables, but one is dependant on the other.

If you have game you need to use it, thus it is a variable which is dependant on how much time you invest in using it. If you don't use it, then the variable does not matter at all.

If you have wealth (just as if you have looks), you may attract women even if you are not actively seeking them, even if they are just gold diggers. Its a variable which works, even when you don't use it (as do good looks). But if you don't seek out women, it doesn't do much either.

Its kind of a bad comparison, because the same comparison could be made about men who only have different amounts of wealth, as the media might wish to have you believe. If two ugly men with no game walk into a bar, one has money and the other one is poor, the wealthier guy is more likely to get laid.

The question would be what quality of women can they attract if they had no game, or no wealth, or etc. - which is directly proportionate to how much of the same quality they posses.

Click to expand...

But that is another topic entirely.

Anyway, I am not saying wealth means nothing. I am just saying that wealth and status are not the sole factors in determining female attraction. Women are attracted to good looks, youth and if you will, game, more than we realize. That is my main point.

Dirius said:

Just asking why did it end.

Click to expand...

He turned out to be a g*dd*mn fed.

Yes I got catfished.

wan said:

Anyway, I am not saying wealth means nothing. I am just saying that wealth and status are not the sole factors in determining female attraction. Women are attracted to good looks, youth and if you will, game, more than we realize. That is my main point.

Click to expand...

Neither do I. All of them play a role.

But I'm saying that whether you realise it or not, wealth and status are a huge factor in regards to attraction, not something which is brainwashed into women by disney or any media.

Most women have different approaches and perceptions regarding this - but it is still a vital factor.

Women don't usually want to date guys who are going nowhere, or have no plans for the future. Even if at the time, the guy has no actual money, as long as he has potential it is a valuable trait (which is part of an individual's wealth). And the more potential, or when older, the more wealth they have does play a role.

Most of the times women want both. They want security and attraction. And this is why wealthy good looking couples of similar education are usually the ones that stay together the longest.

Can't argue with you there.

here's a way to take each factor in isolation.

two guys go into a bar, one is ugly but has money, one is great looking but poor. the poor guy is gonna score more.
two guys go into a bar one has no game but has money, the other has game but no money. the guy with game is gonna win.

money by itself is not a strong enough factor, and like wan says any media pushing the idea that this alone is going to get a guy his partner, is false. that is the premise of this discussion. and it's correct. money is trumped each time by other factors. if a guy wants to make loads of money, great that's his choice but he should be doing it for himself, not with the expectation that it will automatically give him entitlement to women.

multiple said:

here's a way to take each factor in isolation.

two guys go into a bar, one is ugly but has money, one is great looking but poor. the poor guy is gonna score more.
two guys go into a bar one has no game but has money, the other has game but no money. the guy with game is gonna win.

money by itself is not a strong enough factor, and like wan says any media pushing the idea that this alone is going to get a guy his partner, is false. that is the premise of this discussion. and it's correct. money is trumped each time by other factors. if a guy wants to make loads of money, great that's his choice but he should be doing it for himself, not with the expectation that it will automatically give him entitlement to women.

Click to expand...

Best head of hair wins.

Depends on the individual woman and what her chart is like.

Some people are gold diggers, some people are not gold diggers.

Some people look for pure love, some people look for pure security

Some people look for a bit of love and a bit of security

There is no set rule here. I’m a woman and most women I know go for love.

Most women I know have met men who have not got the security but they have loved them non the less.

It’s hard to meet someone who is not working if you are working yourself so most people who work tend to meet people who work.

Working shows character. If someone is actively seeking or has a job it means they are taking care of themselves as in this world you can not get by without money. Having a job is not wealth it’s just common sense.

Most women will go looking for a partner who’s work status matches their work status due to common goals. Some cultures don’t look at this and just go for a man who has a job.

This doesn’t mean they are after wealth. It means that in order to live a good life you need to be equals. Share things otherwise you would have to look after your man after working ur butt off at work.

If a man came into a bar and approached a woman and he was good looking the woman may or may not get with him. It depends what she finds attractive. Some women like pretty boys some women like rough round the edges.

It also depends on how he comes across. If he comes across as a slime ball then probably not but then that means he needs to have what we are calling on here ‘game’ lol

It all depends on the individual and circumstances.

Everyone has an opinion based on many factors so we can all be right in our own way 😇

multiple said:

here's a way to take each factor in isolation.

two guys go into a bar, one is ugly but has money, one is great looking but poor. the poor guy is gonna score more.
two guys go into a bar one has no game but has money, the other has game but no money. the guy with game is gonna win.

money by itself is not a strong enough factor, and like wan says any media pushing the idea that this alone is going to get a guy his partner, is false. that is the premise of this discussion. and it's correct. money is trumped each time by other factors. if a guy wants to make loads of money, great that's his choice but he should be doing it for himself, not with the expectation that it will automatically give him entitlement to women.

Click to expand...

Everyone is in agreement that when it comes to casual sex physical looks are the most important factor, along with charm (or "game"). In any case lots of girls get picked up at bars not by looks, but by the car. Depends on the woman and what she is looking for.

Truth is the poor guy can't even get past the entrance to a nice club or pub - in a way denying his opportunity altogether.

However the premise of the topic isn't about casual sex, and therefore the argument is just a strawman.

multiple said:

...It doesn’t matter if he does not have a lot of money. Together we can make money and build a life and future for ourselves....

Click to expand...

The original post clearly refers towards finding a life partner - and critices the "hollywood idea" that women should go for partners which can provide security.

In reality most women do look for some sense of security and wealth when it comes to a finding a partner. They don't care about security or wealth when it comes to one night stands.

In fact the opening post is contradictory, because she wants at least a partner who has potential to build a life with, ergo some guy who will be able to provide security in the future. Which makes the whole argument ridiculous to begin with

Hkk said:

It’s hard to meet someone who is not working if you are working yourself so most people who work tend to meet people who work.

Click to expand...

You clearly not into tinder

Dirius said:

You clearly not into tinder

Click to expand...

No I’m not into casual flings which is what most of tinder is about. So no, never tried it.

loads of people get together from meeting in bars actually, I know a guy 15 years strong with his wife he met at a nightclub. so not really strawman at all. in fact you could say it's better for people getting together than using for instance tinder which is just hook up culture. and guys who are poor can get into bars and pubs. there is always a bar that has relaxed entrance criteria. but remove the bar from the equation and on neutral ground, on the high street,anywhere really and those priorities still stack up.

also not sure why you are quoting me in the second part of that reply. I didn't even write that.

Dirius said:

Everyone is in agreement that when it comes to casual sex physical looks are the most important factor, along with charm (or "game"). In any case lots of girls get picked up at bars not by looks, but by the car. Depends on the woman and what she is looking for.

Truth is the poor guy can't even get past the entrance to a nice club or pub - in a way denying his opportunity altogether.

Click to expand...

When I said wealth does not matter as much as we think, I did not mean that the good-looking guy literally has zero money. It's pretty hard to imagine someone so dirt-poor that he is unable to afford going into a club. You are giving us a really exaggerated, unrealistic scenario.

However the premise of the topic isn't about casual sex, and therefore the argument is just a strawman.

Click to expand...

Indeed it's not about casual sex, however it's not about finding life-partners, either. I am talking about what women are genuinely attracted to.

In fact the opening post is contradictory, because she wants at least a partner who has potential to build a life with, ergo some guy who will be able to provide security in the future. Which makes the whole argument ridiculous to begin with

Click to expand...

Nothing is contradictory in my OP. The reason I want my future partner to have a job is not because I seek security. I have a job, and I have money. I would not rely on him financially for anything. He need not "provide" for me in any way. But I want a guy with a job for the reason Hkk stated: it shows that this man has character, and that he can stand on his own two feet.

multiple said:

loads of people get together from meeting in bars actually, I know a guy 15 years strong with his wife he met at a nightclub. so not really strawman at all. in fact you could say it's better for people getting together than using for instance tinder which is just hook up culture. and guys who are poor can get into bars and pubs. there is always a bar that has relaxed entrance criteria. but remove the bar from the equation and on neutral ground, on the high street,anywhere really and those priorities still stack up.

also not sure why you are quoting me in the second part of that reply. I didn't even write that.

Click to expand...

The particular case you are using as example now is probably not equal at all with the examples you provided in the other post, therefore irrelevant. Sure lot of people meet in bars. They probably had more going for them than just "looks" if they made it work.

Its a strawman because the original post is about developing a relationship with someone, not just hooking up for sex -

wan said:

When I said wealth does not matter as much as we think, I did not mean that the good-looking guy literally has zero money. It's pretty hard to imagine someone so dirt-poor that he is unable to afford going into a club. You are giving us a really exaggerated, unrealistic scenario.

Indeed it's not about casual sex, however it's not about finding life-partners, either. I am talking about what women are genuinely attracted to.

Nothing is contradictory in my OP. The reason I want my future partner to have a job is not because I seek security. I have a job, and I have money. I would not rely on him financially for anything. He need not "provide" for me in any way. But I want a guy with a job for the reason Hkk stated: it shows that this man has character, and that he can stand on his own two feet.

Click to expand...

The "original" post is what the person posted on the other forum wen.

- The person cleary talks about finding a relationship and what women want
- You are, apparently, talking about just general attraction.

You are the one who suggested the "exaggerated" example of the ugly/rich person vs the hot/poor person walking into a bar to begin with. Truth is lot of rich guys are also hot and have game (money and status does boost confidence), just like a lot of poor guys are ugly.

Either way what you are describing is a guy with a minimal level of status or wealth. If it didn't matter at all to, you wouldn't care if he was unemployed. This is why your whole premise is contradictory (also for most girls that have posted).

This is why I compared your responses to that of men:

A man does not care what a woman does for a living, for men the main issue is physical attraction - personality compatibility. If we find you attractive and have a personality we like, we will date you. We don't associate your career with your identity. That is why a lot of men don't care if the woman they are with have a job or not. If we like a woman that much, and we have the means to, we'll be happy to be the sole provider.

A woman does have a problem dating a man who is unemployed. As you describe you associate a man having a job is a part of his identity. You expect him at least to be able to provide for himself. You wouldn't date a man and be happy supporting him would you?

That is the diference.

For men it can be 100% about physical/personality attraction. For women status and wealth is a part of that physical/personality attraction.

Again would any of you ladies date an unempoyed man? Answer has been NO so far.

Would any guy date an unemployed woman? Answer is YES (if hot enough).