http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/12/scirmarr112.xml

Well this comes as a surprise. And here I thought it was all about sharing your emotions and giving her backrubs when she is feeling down

Good read. It doesn't seem to be that earth-shattering really. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense. I'm sure there is some study about the attractiveness of a woman vs. her wife skills when women are in abundance as well. You probably could manipulate the data any way you want to fit your timeframe. Also, the whole 56% of poor men getting married vs. 60% of wealthy men really isn't a strong parallel IMO. (No, I didn't read it word-for-word, but skimmed it, so I might have missed something.)

JeeperCane said:

Also, the whole 56% of poor men getting married vs. 60% of wealthy men really isn't a strong parallel IMO. (No, I didn't read it word-for-word, but skimmed it, so I might have missed something.)

Click to expand...

I haven't read the study yet either, but I would say if slightly higher percentage of wealthy men are getting married it's still significant because I believe a wealthy guy has less to gain by marriage than a poor guy. The wealthier guys are probably getting more attraction wives and with less effort, that's the main thing.

Basic economics of supply and demand by analyzing marriage trends relative to the wealth of the husband over the past century.

Gist of the article is that when men are plentiful, women can bid up their price (secure a weathier husband), and when men are scarce, women will drop their price (settle for a less wealthy husband).

OMG what a revelation!

No inference as to the quality or marriage, it also says that when men are plentiful they are more likely to stay faithful and invest resources in their children. Shocking!

bigjohnson said:

Anecdotally I know that as my earning power has grown it has gone from chasing girls to choosing girls. Women will make themselves a lot more available to a guy who is or has potential to be a good earner.

Not a newsflash, I know.

Click to expand...

True. In my early twenties I was doing the chasing... Now it's like, ok babe... you work at a restaurant/bar. I make about 10x's more money than you and have a condo worth half a million bucks. Why should I consider you girlfriend material?

AgonyUncle said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/12/scirmarr112.xml

Well this comes as a surprise. And here I thought it was all about sharing your emotions and giving her backrubs when she is feeling down

Click to expand...

devils advocate for a moment. let's say that it was men who had kids. so you'd have to take 2 or more breaks from your career. if you wanted to be at home when they were young you'd potentially take 5-10 years off and then go back to work.

now imagine that there was this world of women out there. some women were hb10s but worked at subway and could barely afford to pay rent. and then there were some hb7s who were lawyers and could afford a big house, cars, etc.

which woman would you want to settle down with and have kids with?

the fact that women are drawn to money is no surprise. men would be also if we were in their choose.

now that said, how important money is in comparison to other traits is the question. for many women, all they really want is a man with a stable job that earns 'enough' to get by in life. as long as he has that, then all the other stuff comes into play (looks, personality, love, etc.).

but the women who ONLY care about money and marrying the richest guy they can, are cut throat gold diggers.

but im not surprised that earning potential is part of a womans assessment of a man - it makes sense.

Women (and men to a lesser degree) con themselves all the time. If two essentially equal guys are available and one has an adequate career while the other has an extraordinary career, she will convince herself that the better earning is better looking, or smarter, or better in a conversation, that he makes her laugh, or whatever it takes to validate her choice to go with the financially better off guy.

Then she will forever deny that money had anything to do with it. But science like this doesn't lie.


PS -

I'm pretty sure it's "in their shoes" dude.

bigjohnson said:

Women (and men to a lesser degree) con themselves all the time. If two essentially equal guys are available and one has an adequate career while the other has an extraordinary career, she will convince herself that the better earning is better looking, or smarter, or better in a conversation, that he makes her laugh, or whatever it takes to validate her choice to go with the financially better off guy.

Click to expand...

This is the 2007 quote of the year!

you know, another point worth considering.

men with money seem to have no problem that their money attracts women. its the men without money who have a problem with it.

just like attractive women have no problem that men want them for their bodies. while women who aren't attractive do.

ultimately what this tells us is that most people don't care 'why' they get what they want, simply that they get it (which is an argument against the points i've recently made in my post that most people are inherently good - but that post is about people in general, whereas this one is about mating. i believe general life versus mating dynamics bring out very different sides in people).

I firmly believe that if we humans beings are able to come to terms with the fact that we are selfish and shallow for various reasons, the faster and easier it will be for us to genuinely discover, show and practice 'true love', 'romance' and all the other illusions that were invented by man.

Click to expand...

and what happens to the "genuinely discovered, true love" if a wealthy man loses his job and can only find work that pays him as much as the average joe or less ???

Drum&Bass said:

and what happens to true love if a wealthy man loses his job and can only find work that pays him as much as the average joe or less ???

Click to expand...

Women see the potential to be a good earner, for lack of a better term. It's not what he has at the second, but what she believes he can and will do overall. That is of course strongly informed by personality traits and track record. Track record shows as present situation.

Also she's going to be trapped a little in her own imaginary world. So basically more often than not they will "stand by their man" long enough to make themselves feel good about leaving and also long enough to be pretty sure he's not gonna rise from his ashes.

In short they ride that horse into the ground and then switch.

bigjohnson said:

Women (and men to a lesser degree) con themselves all the time. If two essentially equal guys are available and one has an adequate career while the other has an extraordinary career, she will convince herself that the better earning is better looking, or smarter, or better in a conversation, that he makes her laugh, or whatever it takes to validate her choice to go with the financially better off guy.

Then she will forever deny that money had anything to do with it. But science like this doesn't lie.


PS -

I'm pretty sure it's "in their shoes" dude.

Click to expand...

I second that as the 2007 quote of the year!

I would also add if two men with all else being the more attractive one would get all the other positive attributes ascribed to him.