Women and fancy cars....

Post Reply New Topic

Money can be inherited or stolen, is it still attractive if it is blood money? Money isn't an indicator of good character. If a person has obtained that money through being deceitful or dishonest, it isn't impressive or attractive to me. If someone passionately pursues an interest or talent and they become wealthy through it, that is impressive so I suppose different factors appeal to different people.

I'm specifically referring to people who go out of their way to find people that are vulnerable and use means of manipulation to gain something through selfishness and greed.

In what way is it representative of selfless love? or do you not believe love can be selfless? why must love serve a purpose of self gain? I can understand a relationship working mutually as a means to a greater good but ultimately a relationship should be selfless and mutually trusting or respectful.

no to both. i wont answer no more

Someone find the picture of a huge swinging cock? Anyone? As far as I recall Boo had it once.
It was of a suspended skinned chicken.
It's either that or you love yourself. Personally I'd take the least embarrassing to you MXH.

I never claimed you were, I'm saying that birds behave that way because they are programmed logically to do so, they don't see an alternative or a moral reasoning like humans do.

I wasn't saying you have ever done that, I'm simply saying there are more alternatives in life, not everything is in black and white and there are other factors besides money. Money can be a contributor to attraction but what's important is how that individual obtained the money? Did he obtain it through being a good leader and treating his business clients with respect? Did he obtain it through dealing drugs on the streets to children? You can look at it from many perspectives, there are many factors.

If you have spent the last 8 years towards a doctorate, you don't have to date average Joe from Burger King if you don't want to, nobody is making you do that to avoid the label gold digger. I'm just saying not everyone is out to reach the pinnacle of capitalism in life, people want different things and to some, money is a dead weight, to others, money is simply a stepping stone or resource to allow them to do something they want to do.

Just a quick pointer as well, housewives have come to a mutual decision with their husband to maintain a family unit and aim for security and stability in that family unit, that makes it a mutual choice and respected choice. Housewives and women that choose that lifestyle still have to work hard to maintain a family so no they aren't gold diggers. A gold digger is someone that exclusively uses someone for their own gain out of greed without concern or respect for the other party, there is nothing mutual about what they are doing.

I agree with you then. I apologize for the misunderstanding. When you said "how you choose a mate" earlier I thought you were speaking to me but I guess that was a general "you." I agree that money is one of many factors in mate selection. I also think that human behavior is more instinct motivated than most people would like to admit. They call it intution or attraction or whatever else, but it can often be traced to traits that have been hard-wired in by evolution for the purpose of procreation or the continuation of the species. Humans can indeed reason, but the number of people who actually do so are lower than the amount of people who act on instinct, I belive.

Here on this site we like to reason on things and many of us have different "hard-wired" instincts than the masses anyway so I don't think we are really a average sampling of the general populace.

For example, my natural instinct tells me that human reproduction is bad and definately not something I want to be a part of. I have logical reasons for it as well but the bottom line is that deep down, I feel repulsed by it the same way a normal woman feels drawn to it. Now, clearly my instinct is anti-evolutionary and my genes are inferior since they do not impose the will to propogate themselves. Some traits lead to increased propogation and prosperity, and some do not. The ones that DO are much more prominent due to their very nature.

You make it sound like woman want everything, although they usually only get something.

If they are not pleased with everything but don't want something then they get nothing.

But woman don't want nothing so they go for something but they still want everything.

Is this analogy confusing you? This is how we are confused by what woman want.

not really. it's more complicated than that. for most of human history women did not need men to provide for them. it is only post-agricultural society with the power and wealth differential. men and women worked together, but that's different from having men provide for women.

the idea that it is instinct to look for a provider is frankly hogwash.

Until the next scientific study proves you wrong.

She did come off as joking to me. I was one of the other females to comment on Alex and his car and as a female, I would like to say that no, I would not date someone with the intention of being able to ride in their car or whatever pish-posh motives you believe us females seem to have had. It was merely a joke and I can see that OliveOilMom and I were simply cracking a joke at pin-brained girls who have no intention of maintaining a relationship with a member of the opposite sex, if only for the possibilities of gaining a "sugar daddy" as some may say.

Basically, it was a joke. Take it how you see it, but that is how the original statements were intended.

Last edited by DogGirlSaydee on 03 Apr 2012, 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

it's not one study... it's a massive body of research. what we think of as "human nature" is just based on the uneven gender roles of agricultural society. humans were around a lot longer than farming cultures have been.

I agree with Lex.

Woman in history never really cared about guys with flashy "toys", Cave Woman didn't care if a Cave Man had a bigger "club", so to speak.

If anything, it's just a phenomenon that some type of woman go after guys with a flashy car because of other things (though I can't exactly explain what it is, but it isn't due to the car).

And about rich guys, just because they have money doesn't mean a woman is any happier due to them gaining access to it.

Woman in general would rather work for their money and are pretty prideful when it comes to this as they did it themselves...the gold diggers you see are the ones who want to make money with minimal effort and are shameless of not taking personal pride.

Guys like woman who are dependant on themselves and don't rely on hand outs. I am sure the woman in this thread themselves would rather earn their weight in gold then take it from some rich dude.

Why do you assume they're stupid? People who don't have morals aren't more prone to stupidity.

It's a status symbol plain and simple. Inaccessible to people of lesser means.
It's like a peacock's feathers, like it or not these are the roots of primal attraction. You can live in romanticism or reality, personally I think a certain level of romanticism is healthy but too much leads to a dead end.
Like I said the reason women are more attracted to a man who is capable of providing is due not only to their period of vulnerability during pregnancy but the fact that a man is physically built to hunt and fight, providing protection. Is it a coincidence that men are so overwhelmingly the breadwinners in traditional societies? Or a reflection of human nature?
Once again these are the roots, acknowledge them... or disregard them.

That's not to say human nature isn't in flux, just how it is currently is based on generations of reinforcement.

I couldn't care less about what his car looks like.

It is nice if he has one, though, so I don't have to drive us everywhere.
It could be a real rust bucket and I wouldn't care.

Why did you make the assumption that I was assuming gold diggers are stupid? Does it really matter so much as to start a whole other irrelevant discussion?