Do women year for status and wealth in a man?

Dirius said:

That by definition means he needs to have a certain level of wealth to date you. Whether you consider that to be "wealth" or not ... it still is. Because not every guy has a job, or a bank account for the matter.

Click to expand...

I feel that we are not talking about the same thing. You keep saying "wealth", and to me, and for the purpose of this thread, that means (to me) a man who 1. has a lot of money and 2. has nothing else going on for him except his money. A guy who is just starting out in his career, and yes you could argue that technically he does have some degree of "wealth", to me he has no wealth in the ways I explained above.

If he was a good looking street peformer hipster with no bank account and no stable job, but has a lot of game, would you still date him?

Click to expand...

Actually, I probably would. Depends on how hot he is and the level of his "game".

Why do you think starving artists still manage to find wives?

And what I mean by marriage, is in regards to attraction.

A smart college educated woman, might feel some physical attraction for an uneducated hot guy who earns much less money than her ... for a while, probably one or two nights of hot sex.

But that won't last - once the guy can't afford to take her out to dinner, or can't have a conversation about any adult topic aside sports, or realises he has a simple boring dead-end job, she'll leave.

She won't feel attraction for a man she considers a "loser" (even if he is not).

That is why women want both, an attractive and succesful man.

Sure there are exceptions to the rule. But the rule is still the rule.

Dirius said:

But it really isn't. Most women don't marry down in regards to wealth.

Click to expand...

But we are not talking about what women marry. We are talking about what they are truly attracted to. And trust me, it aint money.

A woman who is a doctor will not marry a plumber. I know it seems cold, but it is the truth. College educated females usually marry college educated males on the same income level.

Click to expand...

Again, marriage is not the same as (true) attraction. People marry for all kinds of reasons.

People cheat for various reasons. Sometimes out of lust, sometimes out of unfilfillment in the marriage. There are also a huge number of couples who stay together happily, which incidently, is more common on the higher income brackets of society.

Click to expand...

My aim is not to "prove" for what reasons women cheat on their rich husbands. I was just giving the pool-boy thing as an example that women do not have genuine attraction for their rich husbands.

Have you heard of the phrase "money can't buy love"? If you were correct, we would not have this phrase around yet we do.

Whether they have a certain issue, doesn't change the fact that they do seek older men.

Click to expand...

Some girls do. Plenty of mature women want hot young meat. This is a fact.

wan said:

I feel that we are not talking about the same thing. You keep saying "wealth", and to me, and for the purpose of this thread, that means (to me) a man who 1. has a lot of money and 2. has nothing else going on for him except his money. A guy who is just starting out in his career, and yes you could argue that technically he does have some degree of "wealth", to me he has no wealth in the ways I explained above.

Actually, I probably would. Depends on how hot he is and the level of his "game".

Why do you think starving artists still manage to find wives?

Click to expand...

A guy who is starting a career is an investment on your part. He doesn't have much wealth now, but theoritcally this will increase as he gets older. What you see in him is a future.

Starving artists usually marry other starving artists, who don't usually have much choices available.

Starving artists don't usually marry doctors, or lawyers, or businesswomen.

"Lyin' Eyes"-{Don Henley, sung by the band, Eagles}

Dirius said:

And what I mean by marriage, is in regards to attraction.

A smart college educated woman, might feel some physical attraction for an uneducated hot guy who earns much less money than her ... for a while, probably one or two nights of hot sex.

But that won't last - once the guy can't afford to take her out to dinner, or can't have a conversation about any adult topic aside sports, or realises he has a simple boring dead-end job, she'll leave.

Click to expand...

But the reason she leaves him is probably due something other than his good looks or lack of money. Maybe they do not share commonalities etc. Which I agree is important too, but this is not the topic of this thread.

She won't feel attraction for a man she considers a "loser" (even if he is not).

Click to expand...

Like I said, this is out of the scope of this thread. I am not saying that women only consider four things: wealth, status, looks, and youth. There are many other factors involved in attraction.

That is why women want both, an attractive and succesful man.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree. However, the main thrust of my original post is that the media and Hollywood are putting ideas in women's heads that they "should" be attracted to wealth and status, to the exclusion of everything else.

Dirius said:

A guy who is starting a career is an investment on your part. He doesn't have much wealth now, but theoritcally this will increase as he gets older. What you see in him is a future.

Click to expand...

Yes he has the potential to be wealthy. However, the fact stands that he currently has none. Or very little.

Starving artists usually marry other starving artists, who don't usually have much choices available.

Click to expand...

You are pulling this out of thin air. At least where I am from, starving artists marry women from rich families all the time. It has even become a phenomenon of sorts.

Starving artists don't usually marry doctors, or lawyers, or businesswomen.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether starving artists can marry "successful" women or not. The fact they get married at all, despite having almost no money, means that women can overlook the fact a man has little wealth.

I think wan has got it, it's not about money, it's about game, confidence, i've heard accounts from rich guys who said they scored the most when they were poor and struggling. there's guys who are on deathrow who came from the lower class, that don't have a penny to their name who are p***ymagnets.

wan said:

But the reason she leaves him is probably due something other than his good looks or lack of money. Maybe they do not share commonalities etc. Which I agree is important too, but this is not the topic of this thread.

Like I said, this is out of the scope of this thread. I am not saying that women only consider four things: wealth, status, looks, and youth. There are many other factors involved in attraction.

I don't disagree. However, the main thrust of my original post is that the media and Hollywood are putting ideas in women's heads that they "should" be attracted to wealth and status, to the exclusion of everything else.

Click to expand...

They are not. And I'll give you a simple reason:

To men it is solely based on attraction and personal compatibility. Men are more likely to marry down in terms of wealth than women are. Men mostly care if you are hot and have a nice personality. Wealth does not matter to us. If a wealthy man meets an attractive woman with good values, he will date her.

If what the post said was true, most women would look for partners the same way men do in regards to women.

They don't. They simply don't.

Women that cheat with younger guys, do so because they already get the "status and wealth" component from their husbands, and thus look for "attractiveness" someplace else.

But if these women were single, they would need to look for "status and wealth" too because that is one of women's main motivator.

multiple said:

I think wan has got it, it's not about money, it's about game, confidence, i've heard accounts from rich guys who said they scored the most when they were poor and struggling. there's guys who are on deathrow who came from the lower class, that don't have a penny to their name who are p***ymagnets.

Click to expand...

Yeah probably because they were at an age when casual sex was the norm for most women, and the men spend every day of the week partying.

Hard to get laid when you have a career and can't spend every night out looking to score.

Obviously if you are at a time in your life where you have more time to go on the lookout for women, and women in your age group are generally "easier" (cause they are young and just want sex) - you will get laid more.

wan said:

Yes he has the potential to be wealthy. However, the fact stands that he currently has none. Or very little.

You are pulling this out of thin air. At least where I am from, starving artists marry women from rich families all the time. It has even become a phenomenon of sorts.

It doesn't matter whether starving artists can marry "successful" women or not. The fact they get married at all, despite having almost no money, means that women can overlook the fact a man has little wealth.

Click to expand...

Its still an investment wan. And this is true for most rich guys. Most of them don't have money when young, but become wealthier as they age. Its called speculation.

As I said, women aim as high as they can. Not every women will get a hot guy with money. Most women are average looking and expect to marry average men. Some settle for what they can.

The "rich artist" example, seems more like a hollywood story. I haven't met any woman from a wealthy background who married someone much poorer. That one is actually a hollywood fantasy.

Dirius said:

They are not. And I'll give you a simple reason:

To men it is solely based on attraction and personal compatibility. Men are more likely to marry down in terms of wealth than women are. Men mostly care if you are hot and have a nice personality. Wealth does not matter to us. If a wealthy man meets an attractive woman with good values, he will date her.

If what the post said was true, most women would look for partners the same way men do in regards to women.

Click to expand...

You are quite incorrect in your conclusion that women would look for the same things as men. I never said this, and I certainly hope I did not imply it. I realize that men and women are different, and they look for slightly different things when dating. However, I never said women will never consider a man's wealth or status. I merely said that the media are putting ideas that women should only consider a man's wealth/status etc as the sole factors. This is brainwashing and some form of manipulation. And not only this, reality does not bear it out. Some women overlook rich, successful men. If you were correct then this would not happen. But it does.

Women that cheat with younger guys, do so because they already get the "status and wealth" component from their husbands, and thus look for "attractiveness" someplace else.

Click to expand...

Why do they feel the need to look for attractiveness from elsewhere? If they were solely attracted to a man's wealth, shouldn't their rich husbands be all that they would ever want?

But if these women were single, they would need to look for "status and wealth" too because that is one of women's main motivator.

Click to expand...

I never said wealth and status had zero play in a female's attraction.

Dirius said:

Yeah probably because they were at an age when casual sex was the norm for most women, and the men spend every day of the week partying.

Hard to get laid when you have career and can't spend every night out looking to score.

Click to expand...

You are assuming these women who flock to the men described by multiple are only looking for casual sex. This is not true. A lot of females (be they young or not) will only have sex with someone they love and feel attracted to. I am one of them.

Dirius said:

Its still an investment wan. And this is true for most rich guys. Most of them don't have money when young, but become wealthier as they age. Its called speculation.

Click to expand...

I really think we are getting off-topic. All this talk about "investment" and "speculation" etc.

It does not matter whether a man has the potential to be rich or not. We are talking about men who already do have wealth, and we are arguing about whether women feel attraction for them. I say most of time, they (the women) don't have genuine attraction for these men. They might marry them, but its only because they regard them as a reliable meal ticket.

As I said, women aim as high as they can. Not every women will get a hot guy with money. Most women are average looking and expect to marry average men. Some settle for what they can.

Click to expand...

I agree that women tend to "marry up". However, a desirable man does not always have to be rich and successful. A good-looking, suave man who otherwise has little money can still be regarded as superior by women.

Heck, take me for one example. I fall in love with guys from the internet all the time (laugh at me if you want). I know nothing about their financial circumstances, yet I am ready to get to know them better. In fact, I have even moved across the country for one.

The "rich artist" example, seems more like a hollywood story. I haven't met any woman from a wealthy background who married someone much poorer. That one is actually a hollywood fantasy.

Click to expand...

I am not from the States, and no, it's not a fantasy. Anyway it doesn't matter. My point is that starving artists who have little money still manage to find wives. This proves that women can overlook a man's lack of money. Do you dispute this?

wan said:

You are quite incorrect in your conclusion that women would look for the same things as men. I never said this, and I certainly hope I did not imply it. I realize that men and women are different, and they look for slightly different things when dating. However, I never said women will never consider a man's wealth or status. I merely said that the media are putting ideas that women should only consider a man's wealth/status etc as the sole factors. This is brainwashing and some form of manipulation. And not only this, reality does not bear it out. Some women overlook rich, successful men. If you were correct then this would not happen. But it does.

Why do they feel the need to look for attractiveness from elsewhere? If they were solely attracted to a man's wealth, shouldn't their rich husbands be all that they would ever want?

I never said wealth and status had zero play in a female's attraction.

Click to expand...

Marriages break down.

Sometimes people marry for love and wealth.

Sometimes attraction between two people fades away. But most of the time economic status remains, and in fact, increases.

Some women go out looking outside the marriage for that part which was lost. They don't need succes because that is still intact in their marriage (the husband is still wealthy) but he might not longer be attractive (he is now fat and bald).

However if these women were to opt for divorcing the husband, then they would find themselves without that wealth. And this is when they would start looking for someone attractive and also wealthy.

Sorry but that is the truth.

wan said:

You are assuming these women who flock to the men described by multiple are only looking for casual sex. This is not true. A lot of females (be they young or not) will only have sex with someone they love and feel attracted to. I am one of them.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying wan is that a man in his 20's gets laid more often, because he is at a time in his life when he is looking to get laid.

For example, I used to get laid more often in my 20's than now in my 30's.

- In my 20's I went to college, went out partying most nights.
- In my 30's I have a career and have to go to sleep early.

- In my 20's I dated multiple girls at the same time, cheated on most.
- In my 30's I date one woman at the time, and have more honest relationships.

- In my 20's I was more focused on my social life than my career.
- In my 30's I'm focused on my career more than my social life.

This is solely based on the situation of life. Men tend to get laid more often when they are younger, because its the time of their life when they want to get laid more often. Has nothing to do with wealth, or looks, or game, or whatever.

Its a matter of priorities.

wan said:

I agree that women tend to "marry up". However, a desirable man does not always have to be rich and successful. A good-looking, suave man who otherwise has little money can still be regarded as superior by women.

Heck, take me for one example. I fall in love with guys from the internet all the time (laugh at me if you want). I know nothing about their financial circumstances, yet I am ready to get to know them better. In fact, I have even moved across the country for one.

Click to expand...

The problem is that, you think that the man not being rich and just having a job is not to be considered as "wealth". It is.

The fact that you expect him to have other qualities aside his good looks or personality - is what makes your point contradictory.

You expect him to at least have a job, which means at least some succes or status. As minimal as it might be. He has to be above unemployment level, for you to consider him dating material.

Dirius said:

Marriages break down.

Sometimes people marry for love and wealth.

Sometimes attraction between two people fades away. But most of the time economic status remains, and in fact, increases.

Some women go out looking outside the marriage for that part which was lost. They don't need succes because that is still intact in their marriage (the husband is still wealthy) but he might not longer be attractive (he is now fat and bald).

However if these women were to opt for divorcing the husband, then they would find themselves without that wealth. And this is when they would start looking for someone attractive and also wealthy.

Sorry but that is the truth.

Click to expand...

Aarrgh! I am not trying to find out the reason why some women cheat with the pool-boy. Can you please let that go?

Anyway, I will simply repeat this: women do sometimes marry rich men, however it's most likely because the latter prove to be reliable meal tickets. Whether the wives genuinely feel attracted to these men is up for debate.

If your theory was correct, then all rich successful guys would all be married, or have zero trouble in their love lives. However, this is simply not true.

Dirius said:

What I'm saying wan is that a man in his 20's gets laid more often, because he is at a time in his life when he is looking to get laid.

For example, I used to get laid more often in my 20's than now in my 30's.

- In my 20's I went to college, went out partying most nights.
- In my 30's I have a career and have to go to sleep early.

- In my 20's I dated multiple girls at the same time, cheated on most.
- In my 30's I date one woman at the time, and have more honest relationships.

- In my 20's I was focused on my social life than my career.
- In my 30's I'm focused on my career more than my social life.

This is solely based on the situation of life. Men tend to get laid more often when they are younger, because its the time of their life when they want to get laid more often. Has nothing to do with wealth, or looks, or game, or whatever.

Its a matter of priorities.

Click to expand...

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?

Dirius said:

The problem is that, you think that the man not being rich and just having a job is not to be considered as "wealth". It is.

The fact that you expect him to have other qualities aside his good looks or personality - is what makes your point contradictory.

You expect him to at least have a job, which means at least some succes or status. As minimal as it might be. He has to be above unemployment level, for you to consider him dating material.

Click to expand...

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.