Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
An alternative view is also possible: the fellow who's amassed a large fortune is displaying the evolutionary advantages of intelligence (to get the money), tenacity (to not fritter it away) and self-defense (to preclude others from taking it). The guy who inherited his money may not have evinced any of these qualities himself, but presumably his parents did - so again, it's a kind of genetic marker. So, rich --> has the genetic advantages bespeaking proclivity to become rich. What is therefore attractive isn't the money itself, but the implication that the guy is money-capable.
Yes, that's a good point. He is showing intelligence but it's of a very specific kind, dependent upon the continuation of a very specific type of society. That's what may or may not exist forever (which we instinctively know).
But I also know that that knee-jerk, jello-kneed, very physical/biological reaction doesn't necessarily happen when the rich guy, no matter how intelligent, enters the room v. when the super-hot guy of lesser means enters the room. A reaction occurs, certainly, but it's based more on a single lifetime of observation ("rich people can get awesome things") than many thousands of years of biology.
The intelligence it takes to make it in a currency society is no small thing and nothing to be discounted but it is, at least on an instinctive level, very very dependent upon a very very specific societal and physical (as well as technological) setup continuing, and the odds of that are lower than the odds of a physically fit person surviving the collapse of same. IMO.
Amazing how men that really, really dislike women are able to rationalize via pseudo-science (the above is not fully accurate, I say this having studied human behavior on an academic level for many years) in order to continue to want what they want...but demand that women want them although they have little to offer, or else the woman in question is just a b*tch.
You can always tell the men who deep down seriously dislike women when you read what they write on this forum.
For the record, biologically speaking, women don't just need to worry about the man being "a good provider," they need to worry about that child's future when that child is an adult and self-supporting too. *Biologically* we want the physically fittest, tallest, most symmetric (read: handsomest), smartest male in order that our offspring have those same traits and have their own best chance at survival once sperm-daddy is dead/has wandered off somewhere/has kicked them out or whatever. Hence, yes, we do drool over the hot-looking guys. Biologically speaking, a woman does not find much merit in her children growing up to be chunky, slow-moving, prematurely balding (overt, if not accurate, sign of a shorter life span/shorter vitality span just as, say, slenderness is an overt, if not accurate, sign of youth in a woman) putzes who whine to get what they want and somehow have come into some (possibly very temporary...it does disappear, after all) money.
Now on the other hand, if they can have a bit of confidence that their children will grow up to be strong, fit and attractive enough to pass on their genes eventually, then the mom will have done her biological job.
It is societal that women think of all the short, fat, bald, fugly rich men as "good providers," not biology. In the wild, pulling out your Capital One card isn't going to do a great job of fending off an angry boar.
So the whole "women have a choice, for men it's biological" stuff is just that, unscientific, erroneous B.S. that makes some men feel better about demanding gorgeous young hotties when they themselves are non-go-getting, non-handsome, non-tall, non-fit, non-winning-type men.
Good lord, educate yourselves, people...well, unless you don't want to because it's so much easier to rationalize why you should be able to pound your fists on your thighs like a pizzed three-year-old while demanding that the thing (or person) you want be fabulously evolved and non-shallow. (rolling eyes)
Which is hilarious because I see a whole lot of the opposite sex (at least in my area) that has zip to offer in the way of genetics. Demanding Apollo when you're a Venus of Willendorf is laughable.
Last edited by flathead4; 06-10-2013 at 10:46 PM..
I'm saying that shallowness is shallowness. I never said nobody should ever have physical requirements. What I challenge is your assertion that men's physical requirements -- shallowness, in other words -- somehow has a very good reason in your mind, whereas women's shallowness is some terrible, cruel thing: hence, your (erroneous) conclusion that women are "more shallow" than men...because you personally make up the rules on what forms of shallowness are okay/have qualifiers and which aren't/don't..
Which do you think is more shallow. A preference regarding height or weight?
Which do you think is more shallow. A preference regarding height or weight?
Neither. They are both, technically, shallow as they are looks-based. Both have merits in biology so that's pretty much equal.
With short height having been a disadvantage in the past all the way up until, say, the last 75 years or so as far as work/survival.
Both are shallow in the technical sense. I realize what you're getting at: height isn't something a guy can do about. Neither is a significant deformity or a genetically inherited disease in a woman, is it shallow that a man might not date her?
The question isn't what you or I personally consider "shallowness". "Shallowness" will always mean different things to different people. I will only go out with intelligent man (and am now married to one); that's shallow too. There may be a perfectly stupid man right behind him who has a wonderful heart.
What's at the heart of my argument is that saying women "have a choice" in what we want and are therefore "shallow" for the same things (looks -- whether it's height for a man or physical symmetry/beauty in a woman) that men are shallow about, then excusing the men for it because "for them it's biological," isn't just frustrating and ignorant, it's 100% contrary to scientific fact.
p.s. I do know what you're getting at. "It must be more shallow for a woman to not want a short man than for a man to not want a fat woman, since fat is something one can control." You may be right, though, with more men in the U.S. being overweight than women (I can give you a link with stats), we women don't really have as much of a choice as you men have in choosing a fat partner anyway, so the point is moot.
The bottom line is that both are physical characteristics that override any love, compassion, etc. a person may have, so both are shallow. Which is "more" shallow? Does it matter? Rejection is rejection. Trying to make yourself feel like you're "not being shallow" based on some sort of comparison like this doesn't make you any less shallow, you want a hot-looking woman and that's it and health has little to do with it (I was at my very sickest at my thinnest, and I was THE hot commodity...dizzy spells/fainting/memory loss/hair loss notwithstanding..."health" my ass).
Hey, what can I say. When you've tried to explain the same general idea to someone over and over and the person still isn't getting it, sometimes you have to get blunt.
Particularly if that person is basing his entire perception of the opposite gender on bad information and is trying to spread the misogyny around for the new herd.
Yup, that gets me pretty darned un-charming. And I'm good with that.
Hey, what can I say. When you've tried to explain the same general idea to someone over and over and the person still isn't getting it, sometimes you have to get blunt.
Particularly if that person is basing his entire perception of the opposite gender on bad information and is trying to spread the misogyny around for the new herd.
Yup, that gets me pretty darned un-charming. And I'm good with that.
Well you showed him that women are not extremely shallow about money just looks lol
Neither. They are both, technically, shallow as they are looks-based. Both have merits in biology so that's pretty much equal.
With short height having been a disadvantage in the past all the way up until, say, the last 75 years or so as far as work/survival.
Both are shallow in the technical sense. I realize what you're getting at: height isn't something a guy can do about. Neither is a significant deformity or a genetically inherited disease in a woman, is it shallow that a man might not date her?
The first situation is quite normal. The second a genetic abnormality. Your comparison isn't valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
The question isn't what you or I personally consider "shallowness". "Shallowness" will always mean different things to different people. I will only go out with intelligent man (and am now married to one); that's shallow too. There may be a perfectly stupid man right behind him who has a wonderful heart.
What's at the heart of my argument is that saying women "have a choice" in what we want and are therefore "shallow" for the same things (looks -- whether it's height for a man or physical symmetry/beauty in a woman) that men are shallow about, then excusing the men for it because "for them it's biological," isn't just frustrating and ignorant, it's 100% contrary to scientific fact.
I think where the difference in opinion comes from relates to the nature of the preferences. Those "same things" are not the same. One unchangeable (just like race). The other changeable. Being discriminated against for something you've no control over is what the Civil Rights era was all about after all. That's why there may be animosity towards a woman's preference.
I think I've rewritten my response a half a dozen times, but it's time for bed.
Well you showed him that women are not extremely shallow about money just looks lol
Huh???
I was showing that it's a complete fallacy that women are "more" shallow than men about looks and refuting the fact that when women are shallow, they have "a choice" about it but that biologically men "can't help it" so presumably the men aren't doing as bad a thing.
Have you actually read the thread?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
