edger said:
Str8up, you really like to run these convesrations in circles, huh? Well, I've got news for ya, this is the last I'm discussing this with you, because you like to dodge certain points.
Thought I addressed pretty much everything, but I'm actually kind f glad you aren't wanting to discuss this anymore. C'ya!
You treat women as if they're incapable of pulling their own weight, as if their helpless invalids. It's guys like you who f*ck things up for the rest of male population, because you send a "message of entitlement" to women. Str8up, you are a C H U M P if I ever seen one. I ain't the first one to say it.
Resorting to name calling. Classy.
Black/White. Never grey. That's how it is with you.
Let me point out that not once did I ever say that it is ok for a woman not to pull her weight. It is YOU who insists pulling her weight means that she has to aspire to be the next CEO of Ebay or something.
I'll tell ya straight up.....you might want that kind of a woman, but I want nothing to do with her.
You say that she should "build a career" before you have kids.
You can have her dude. The woman who instead of taking care of your kids is fretting over financial reports and such. Oh, no, but when she has kids she STEPS AWAY from that, right? Yea, sounds like a balanced life to me. I'm sure her bosses or the shareholders will appreciate her trying to be superwoman.
Wife, mother, and conqueror of the free world. Where do I sign up?
You must not understand that a woman CANNOT be a good mother and a good "career woman" at the same time. No matter how much she THINKS she can be. That's the lie she's been told by our wonderful feminist society, but it's exactly that- A LIE.
Whatever dude. If you think your "wealth" is a much bigger part of you as society sees you, then you are not looking at things from a clear perspective. It goes to prove my point that you and a big portion of society is so engulfed by materialism, that it starts to distort reality for you.
Has nothing to do with materialism, but that's the only answer you have for it because once again you have been conditioned to believe this.
And for the record, you can stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes all you want, but the world is the way it is. You can choose to live IN it and make the best for yourself, or you can choose to b!tch and complain (like you do). I'll take the former and leave the complaining all to you.
Didn't you say in order for the wealthy guy to secure hot babes, all things have to be equal; he has to have the looks, confidence, game, and be wealthy? So what you really mean to say, is that Hefner has all four of those attributes and is the "all things being equal" guy.
What the hell are you talking about? Where did you get "all things HAVE to be equal"? I said, quite simply, ONCE AGAIN, with 100% confidence in the words I speak, "all things being equal a woman will choose the wealthier guy".
Str8up, that's why there's insurance out there, gov't assistance, collecting disability money from your job, etc. A man can still provide for a woman in the event he faces a health crisis.
Yea, cause we all know that women say to themselves "Well, he might not be financially secure, but worst case we can stand in line for government cheese!" Hahahahahaha......
Do you realize how everything that comes out of your mouth, every argument you try to make, is always attempted to be backed up with your ever so popular, only line that you know how to spew, which is, "Well it's how they're wired".
It's because you can't seem to get it through your head that our species has survived and thrived for thousands and thousands of years due to "the way people are wired". We as a species certainly adapt to new conditions, but if you think for a second that a woman's primary motivators have changed drastically over the past few millennia, you need to do some reading son, cause there are quite a few scientists that would disagree with you.
One day he will be surprised, if enlightenment ever reaches him.
One day I will wake up and say "Now I see exactly what that "looks and wealth don't matter to women" guy was talking about.
Hahahahahahahahahahhaha.
You're a piece of work. I love you man.
Jeffst1980 said:
All this talk about women viewing men like a stock portfolio still fails to acknowledge that RATIONAL decisions have no place in "matters of the heart."
OMG....."matters of the heart"....please don't use those words....please....
The proper word is "attraction".
A woman isn't really "rationally" attracted to any traits a man might possess....it's mainly subconscious.
She isn't rationally attracted to his facial symmetry or his muscle structure, but she IS attracted to those qualities.
I know 2 girls in particular that were heavily pursued by EXTREMELY wealthy men, and BOTH of them eventually broke it off with their respective sugar daddies after a month or so. These guys were total AFC's that believed that wealth could offset lack of a compelling personality. One of them actually bought his newly ex girlfriend an expensive watch in an attempt to "win her back."
Never have I stated or implied that wealth is a SUBSTITUTE for other qualities women are attracted to, or that it is capable of producing attraction in and of itself.
Quite the contrary. If you're a chump, you're a chump. Women will use you before you get a chance to use them.
This is just an anecdote, but I think it illustrates the point that a girl goes for guys that generate ATTRACTION in her--and wealth is but one factor. Certainly, it played a major role in initially attracting those girls, but it wasn't enough to keep 'em around. Those girls BOTH passed up a lifetime of upper class living. One of them now dates a buddy of mine, who works as a temp--go figure.
I agree with you completely, and I don't blame the chicks for passing that up. Most would, because most women, no matter how materialistic, can only stand to look at a guy they aren't attracted to for so long before they are OUT, no matter now much money he has.
When a woman falls in "love" (substitute whatever nomenclature you prefer here), that alone is enough to justify her choice of a partner. Of course, it isn't really a CHOICE--if it was a choice, clearly she WOULD take provider capabilities into account and go with the best all around decision.
In the last paragraph you say that wealth IS a factor, now you say that it isn't?
You guys....you place way to much weight on the theory that there is no rhyme or reason behind a womans attraction. It isn't RANDOM, and neither is it a "choice" per se.
It is a series of factors that is individual to each and every woman, with a few common denominators that hold true for most women, such as, all things being equal she will choose the wealthier guy, or all things being equal she will choose the better looking guy, or the taller guy, or the more social guy, or any number of other factors that women are attracted to.
Make sense?