Guys: What is your biggest complaint about Women?? (attractive, social, attract)
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.
NO IT DOESN"T. MONEY MATTERS IN THE MIDDLE!!!! This is a common fallacy, but one that needs to be debunked nonetheless. It is along the same lines of thinking that a man of modest means (let's say median individual income plus one sigma, minus one sigma) doesn't need a prenup because he isn't filfthy rich. I've told the Chris Rock joke about a million times, but here it comes again, to illustrate my point:
In other words. Women can greatly benefit from subsidizing their cost of living overhead by a second party, yielding their own income, however meager or extravagant, as automatically wholly and fully DISCRETIONARY. Ergo, if you made 30K but a man covers your Macaroni Grill dinners and cost of living overheads, you just made the equivalent of 80K/yr when normalized for disposable income! This is much more than the average woman will be able to earn on her own. Why do you think they are so indignantly opposed to prenups?!?!
Conversely, as a function of that extra overhead, the male counterpart is stripped from his ability to pursue his financial spenditures with the freedom and access he otherwise would have if he wasn't subsidizing the woman's proverbial use of his "Honda Accord and Macaroni Grill dinners". Does that math compute to you now?
If I had 10 million that wouldn't ding me, even if she spent half I'd still live to my heart's content. But when I'm only about 10-20K in gross yearly income above the cost of living line, paying for a second mouth just knocked MY discretionary income, putting me back in the poorhouse for my troubles. Would you do the same job you do today for 30K less with nothing to show for it? I think not. We men call that alimony, by the way. When you bust your hump for 80K but only make 40.... Screw that.
See, but women are seldom faced with that dilema, as their demand that their mate be higher earning than they is considered righteous and par for the course. But a man demands of women to be higher earning and we're all of a sudden materialistic cheapskates. Gimme a break
So I disagree. Seeing as how most women, just like most men, make 50K or less individually, women in aggregate ARE actively trying to trap a man for the marginal cost of living subsidy of Macaroni Grill Dinners and Honda Accords, allowing them a normalized discretionary income they couldn't attain on their own. This is what the martial contract IS in dual income household AMerica. Stepping on your man's shoulders as you sink him so you can attain the material standard you can't on your own (as proven statistically by income figures). Oh and in exchange you grace him with the "priviledge" of access to your vagina. So Macaroni Grill is right.
You do realize that women THROW themselves at guys who have little to any money at all, right? As long as you can afford to keep a clean place of your own and buy a car, women will usually put more weight on the following factors:
1. Charisma
2. Social status (the grown up equivalent of high school popularity)
3. Other women's perception of you
4. Looks
5. Your unattainability
Materialism is an equal-opportunity corrupter of human souls.
Perhaps but it is men who must provide the material to satisfy women. This at least puts a break on their materialism.
When I went to college, the wealthy guys got all the interest from most of the women. These guys were happy to get all they could but eventually things sorted themselves out and they then usually married the real lookers. Those women who were the next step down, who had it together, then focused their interest on guys with jobs with good financial prospects.
Years later, I can still see the results. When I see a woman who obviously was a looker, I invariably see the trappings of wealth - jewelry and expensive cars - but this can be fake or leased. The real deal is looking at where they live and they live where the mansions are.
The next level of women have nice, well furnished houses in upper class neighborhoods.
As to the rest of women. I'd like to think that there are many who are not materialistic. However, the point is, it really doesn't matter whether they are or aren't since it will seldom make any difference.
women will usually put more weight on the following factors:
1. Charisma
2. Social status (the grown up equivalent of high school popularity)
3. Other women's perception of you
4. Looks
5. Your unattainability
That's all well and good but men with these things are often wealthy to boot.
If not, they are usually heading for a career that will provide a reasonable amount of money.
This reminds me of how women always say that they want a man with "confidence". What they are really saying is that they want a man with those attributes that give him confidence. Anything less is just considered false bravado and they hate that!
You do realize that women THROW themselves at guys who have little to any money at all, right? As long as you can afford to keep a clean place of your own and buy a car, women will usually put more weight on the following factors:
1. Charisma
2. Social status (the grown up equivalent of high school popularity)
3. Other women's perception of you
4. Looks
5. Your unattainability
I think the women that put weight on factors 2, 3, 4, and 5 don't have a very good chance of being really happy.
Yes - I'm sure there are many materialistic women out there. There are also many who are not. But like other people have said - we all have our own definition of materialistic. If you think a woman is materialistic because she doesn't think Subway is the best place to go for a romantic evening - then yes, most women are materialistic. If you think a woman is materialistic who cares what kind of a car you drive and has to wear designer clothes - then I'd say that there are a lot of women out there who are not like that.
Peronally, I don't even know the names of the designer brands. Whenever someone tells me they just got a designer pair of shoes or a purse or something, I just smile and nod and pretend that I know what they are talking about. Unless they were mentioned on Sex and the City - I haven't heard of it!
You do realize that women THROW themselves at guys who have little to any money at all, right?
It’s actually the opposite. Come on, don’t you remember past threads here about how women don’t want to baby sit a guy, don’t want to be anybody’s taxi, etc.? Or all those threads about how bad it is if a guy still lives with his parents, uses a coupon on a date and shows he doesn’t have money, etc. Women, generally speaking, want a man who is above their level or at the very least their own. But below? Not quite. Before someone says it, yes, there are exceptions.
Now, this doesn’t necessarily make women bad. A woman with her need to feel taken care of, provided, secure, etc. is part of their nature. Does this make women materialistic? Depends on what you call materialistic.
The day a woman agrees to marry me that makes more than me, will be the day I'll concede the preponderance of women are not materialistic. I'll even sign a prenup telling her I won't get a red cent from her sweat and labor as proof my interest is not material in nature. I'm not holding my breath though.
And for good measure, let's remind ourselves that only 22% of couples have higher earning women. Combine that with 42% of children are today born out of wedlock, reinforces the idea that a woman rather use a good looking man as sperm donor any day of the week and twice on Sunday, than marry said man who makes less than her. She'll hack it with grandparents as de facto father figures (and de facto spousal support) rather than suffering the indignity of settling for a lesser earning man.
My offer is open-ended. I'm waiting to be proved wrong. As a matter of fact, I welcome the opportunity to be proven incorrect, as I would be delighted in marrying a woman of higher earning means. If it's good enough for women to aspire to without being crucified, it's good enough for me to aspire to without being crucified.
The day a woman agrees to marry me that makes more than me, will be the day I'll concede the preponderance of women are not materialistic. I'll even sign a prenup telling her I won't get a red cent from her sweat and labor as proof my interest is not material in nature. I'm not holding my breath though.
And for good measure, let's remind ourselves that only 22% of couples have higher earning women. Combine that with 42% of children are today born out of wedlock, reinforces the idea that a woman rather use a good looking man as sperm donor any day of the week and twice on Sunday, than marry said man who makes less than her. She'll hack it with grandparents as de facto father figures (and de facto spousal support) rather than suffering the indignity of settling for a lesser earning man.
My offer is open-ended. I'm waiting to be proved wrong. As a matter of fact, I welcome the opportunity to be proven incorrect, as I would be delighted in marrying a woman of higher earning means. If it's good enough for women to aspire to without being crucified, it's good enough for me to aspire to without being crucified.
I think you'll be waiting a long time, and it has nothing to do with earning power. Nothing turns people off like bitterness.
The day a woman agrees to marry me that makes more than me, will be the day I'll concede the preponderance of women are not materialistic. I'll even sign a prenup telling her I won't get a red cent from her sweat and labor as proof my interest is not material in nature. I'm not holding my breath though.
And for good measure, let's remind ourselves that only 22% of couples have higher earning women. Combine that with 42% of children are today born out of wedlock, reinforces the idea that a woman rather use a good looking man as sperm donor any day of the week and twice on Sunday, than marry said man who makes less than her. She'll hack it with grandparents as de facto father figures (and de facto spousal support) rather than suffering the indignity of settling for a lesser earning man.
My offer is open-ended. I'm waiting to be proved wrong. As a matter of fact, I welcome the opportunity to be proven incorrect, as I would be delighted in marrying a woman of higher earning means. If it's good enough for women to aspire to without being crucified, it's good enough for me to aspire to without being crucified.
That's super tempting, but unfortunately I am already married.
Oh good god, it never ends does it, the "all women are materialistic", "all women are b*tches", "all women eat strawberry icecream".
What the heck is wrong with the men who post here?
I'm just astounded at the broad generalisations and the obvious women-bashing.
But I love strawberry ice cream!
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.
Screw that. 
