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.
As a male, I certainly don't want a woman whose primary interest in me is that I am rather materially well-off and can hence well take care of her and myself (i.e., to the exclusion or near-exclusion of her being able to take care of herself . . . hence, with me being her life benefactor all-in-all).
And yet, interestingly, in my life history to-date (being a male now in the first-half of my 60s per this writing), at those times in life when I wasn't financially solid and secure and/or didn't have an apartment of my own to present to the world (rather than living in, say, a rooming house or living communally with however many roommates/housemates) and didn’t have a viable livelihood to show for myself (rather than holding a low- or lower-end job or, for that matter, being unemployed/underemployed or being helped by family at the time), the fact of the matter is that, in such times in life, I simply didn't put myself out there at all to the female half of humanity in terms of seeking or presenting myself to women for dating, relationships, or marriage considerations. For I have my own self-pride and self-image that I try to live up to and don’t wish to be seen as a life laggard or underachiever to them. To me, it would be tantamount to putting myself out there in a half-baked position for consideration by women (analogous to myself going to a formal occasion such as a wedding and dressed in a tuxedo except that the tuxedo is only covering the upper-half of my body . . . yet, for the lower-half of my body, I am in my underwear and barefoot or are outright naked). Why do so? If I can’t present myself to womankind as being a man who “holds his own” well-enough, I’d rather not put myself out there at all for their consideration until such a financial/economic picture would change for the better for me.
In other words, while I don’t wish to attract an outright “gold digger” type (I do happen to be financially secure and viable now, so to speak), I do think it is reasonable for any woman to want a man that exemplifies that he is financially viable enough and hence can “hold his own”. I don’t think of that as being unreasonable on their part nor consider her a so-called “gold digger” for looking for this quality, amongst all the other considerations, in a prospective committed relationship with or marriage to a man.
As a male, I certainly don't want a woman whose primary interest in me is that I am rather materially well-off and can hence well take care of her and myself (i.e., to the exclusion or near-exclusion of her being able to take care of herself . . . hence, with me being her life benefactor all-in-all).
And yet, interestingly, in my life history to-date (being a male now in the first-half of my 60s per this writing), at those times in life when I wasn't financially solid and secure and/or didn't have an apartment of my own to present to the world (rather than living in, say, a rooming house or living communally with however many roommates/housemates) and didn’t have a viable livelihood to show for myself (rather than holding a low- or lower-end job or, for that matter, being unemployed/underemployed or being helped by family at the time), the fact of the matter is that, in such times in life, I simply didn't put myself out there at all to the female half of humanity in terms of seeking or presenting myself to women for dating, relationships, or marriage considerations. For I have my own self-pride and self-image that I try to live up to and don’t wish to be seen as a life laggard or underachiever to them. To me, it would be tantamount to putting myself out there in a half-baked position for consideration by women (analogous to myself going to a formal occasion such as a wedding and dressed in a tuxedo except that the tuxedo is only covering the upper-half of my body . . . yet, for the lower-half of my body, I am in my underwear and barefoot or are outright naked). Why do so? If I can’t present myself to womankind as being a man who “holds his own” well-enough, I’d rather not put myself out there at all for their consideration until such a financial/economic picture would change for the better for me.
In other words, while I don’t wish to attract an outright “gold digger” type (I do happen to be financially secure and viable now, so to speak), I do think it is reasonable for any woman to want a man that exemplifies that he is financially viable enough and hence can “hold his own”. I don’t think of that as being unreasonable on their part nor consider her a so-called “gold digger” for looking for this quality, amongst all the other considerations, in a prospective committed relationship with or marriage to a man.
I think this is for the men who have never had a relationship before getting financially comfortable.
I think it really depends where you live. Own a home in Detroit? Big deal. Own a home in San Francisco? That's damn attractive for sure!
In SF I'm just excited when I meet a man who doesn't have roommates. "You can afford a one bedroom apartment by yourself?! You must have a real career and good credit."
This seems like a sure way to get a golddigger and i would always be wondering if she is with me for money and I couldn't accept that.
Moderator comment: Tread lightly, folks. Refrain from gender bashing, or this thread will be closed down.
Sad to say but the whole idea that a man only has value if he makes a lot of money is a manifestation of the patriarchy just as much as impossible beauty standards are for women.
Why does it seem like it's always the broke guys who worry about gold diggers? LMAO!
I think any woman who expects men (rich, average, or poor) to be the ones who are always paying for her drinks, meals, entertainment, and so on can be considered a goldigger I suppose.
This is somewhat comparable to the women who complain that all guys want is sex. Then you look at them and how old, unattractive, and out of shape they are and wonder why they even worry about that .
Anyways, women like that or men in any economic status can be taken advantage of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
What's funny too, is that some of these dudes go on about how women aren't "traditional" anymore, but "traditional" women will absolutely want a man who's a strong provider. It's the "modern" women who will always offer to go dutch.
I agree and we also see the other side where women raise their first against gender roles that expect them to do house chores, cook for a man, do his laundry, etc. because they are modern independent and empowered but once they are on a date they expect and demand men to take initiative, to ask them out, to pay for their expenses, to court and romance them, to propose, to buy them a ring, to talk to their family about their relationship, and so on. It seems they hate gender roles and expectations only when it benefits them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xpat
Sad to say but the whole idea that a man only has value if he makes a lot of money is a manifestation of the patriarchy just as much as impossible beauty standards are for women.
Basic male/female psychology. Men are more forgiving about a woman's economic status while women are more forgiving about a man's physical appearance. It is more likely for a man to go out with a woman who is in a lower economic level than the other way around. Sure, there are exceptions of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder
21st century women love to brag about how well they can take care of themselves. Hold her to that.
You are right. They are modern independent empowered women until the check arrives to the table. All of a sudden "if he is a real man he will pay for my expenses."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123
What about men who use their money and power to manipulate young women? You guys don't hold the moral high ground with all of your "gold digger" rhetoric.
I can't tell you how many times I was offered dinner at expensive restaurants, shopping trips or weekend getaways by affluent men while I was working for the airlines. Business travelers and pilots were the worst.
Is this what they mean when they tell other men that they have to make money to be successful with women?
Unfortunately, in this superficial world, a lot of women are attracted to rich men and rich men will take advantage of their status to "buy" women pretty much just like women who are attractive and in good shape will use their physical charms to attract men knowing how men go for what their eyes find attractive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chowhound
I'll say it, there are some guys that are so unattractive that they have to pay for it. Lol, I'll say it, I don't care about the PC police.
Guys like that will have to pay for it as that is all they have to attract a woman. A woman who doesn't have a brain to have a decent conversation about current events will have to show skin as that is all she can offer. In the end, unattractive or attractive guys still end up paying anyways.
She is considered cheap for not affording to pay for the food she ordered and expecting men to pay for it.
Well, I'll tell you one thing. If some guy asks me out to dinner, we sure as heck aren't going to Burger King, or to any fast food place! That's not where I'm putting a dime of my money!
What fun are forums if you can't beat a dead horse!
It's pretty easy to tell if a woman is gold digger a few weeks to a month in. If you keep enabling her and giving in then that's on you, not the "gold digger." There's a lot of relationships where they're both aware of it, but he digs the arm candy and she digs the cash. It would be a boring world if everyone was an angel.
I haven't dated many of them but I'm pretty low key. I drive old cars, live in a modest home and have absolutely no debt. I try to eat at home most the time and I don't do much aside from sports and the gym.
My current girlfriend has a great career in the medical field makes 6 figures. She always figured she made more than me until I left my paystub open on my computer when we were gonna watch some netflix 4-5 months in.
What about men who use their money and power to manipulate young women? You guys don't hold the moral high ground with all of your "gold digger" rhetoric.
I can't tell you how many times I was offered dinner at expensive restaurants, shopping trips or weekend getaways by affluent men while I was working for the airlines. Business travelers and pilots were the worst.
Is this what they mean when they tell other men that they have to make money to be successful with women?
To me those men are part of the problem, they mess up the playing field for many GOOD men who may not have money to blow like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydney123
Or perhaps it's their rational for not doing well with women. "I can't get a girl because I am broke."
I know a lot of guys who don't make a ton of money and they still manage to find a wife or girlfriend.
Not every guy who has a partner is a baller and there are plenty of guys in relationships.
There is a difference between not making alot of money and being broke, and even more of a difference between what a woman thinks is broke and what a man does.
To me as long as I have food in the fridge, clothes on my back and a roof over my head I'm not broke.
But by the standard of most women I am because I don't have a lot of disposable income.
So when women point out guys who "don't make alot of money be still have wives and girlfriends" I notice that they are(not always but...) usually pointing at a guy who falls into one or two of a few categories:
1. makes crappy money but good to great benefits(military/government workers, teachers etc etc...).
2. entry level jobs where you move up by seniority(military, government and many union jobs where all you have to do is stay employed long enough and eventually you start making good money)
3. Broke but won the genetic lottery(not just good looking but extremely so, looks like the guys they put on the cover of romance novels)
4. He is still with the same girl he met in highschool or shortly after(they met and fell in love BEFORE she reached the age when most women start judging men by their resources.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
Would you be attracted to someone who isn't at or near your income level anyway? Why do so many guys think that women don't have lucrative careers? Or do you just have a thing for cashiers and secretaries?
Yes I would, when I was making good money I was more concerned about the important things:
A. do we get along.
b. do we like the same or similar things.
c. do we have a compatible sense of humor.
d. does she have the free time to devote to a relationship and give it the attention a relationship deserves(often career women fail this one miserably).
e. are we both equally attracted to each other.
f. is she faithful and does she behave in a faithful manner.
g. are we sexually compatible.
h. is she non-materialistic.
i. is she self sufficient (meaning can she take care of her basic needs without resorting to posting a back-page ad anything beyond that is gravy but not a requirement)
Hell what her paycheck looks like is not even in the top ten.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
How about dating peers, and marrying one of them? Is that such a revolutionary concept?
If your speaking of coworkers that's never a good idea, if you are speaking of people in the same socioeconomic level that would shorten the pool for all parties concerned, you see the bottom and the top are dominated by men and women make up the majority of the middle(at least most places I have lived) so dating solely among peers would only benefit women close to the top as the dating pool would be majorly in their favor as the male female ratio is heavily imbalanced, and men in the middle would also get a bump up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunion Powder
Meh. Lots of beautiful cashiers and secretaries out there that would make far better partners than most lucrative women I know.
Yep and they actually have the free time to date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auraliea
I'm really over this entire subject. If someone is determined to think all women are gold diggers and that wanting someone who is on the same level as them is shallow, just don't fool with them.
They are clearly set in their ways and nothing is going to change that for them. It is what it is. You can throw all common sense, logic, knowledge, and evidence in the world at these people, and they will still refuse to see it.
Let them think what they want and continue to stay stagnant for the rest of their lives.
*shrugs*
But I'll say this, why gold dig when you already got the gold?
Someones level should not be determined by income. That's where the anger is coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ComeCloser
I don't know. Is a woman expecting the man to pay for the $6 worth of Burger King on a date still considered a gold-digger?
No, she's a catch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
My relationships weren't based on haves and have nots. Plenty of times I pulled more then my fair share...And vice versa. I figure ..Together we are a team. Apart we are just floundering. I dated a millionaire (sold his software company) and not a dime would I ask or take from him. He actually wanted to share his wealth. I just wasn't cut out for that lifestyle...Also dated a guy who was unemployed. Saw him make good on his helping out... So it never came off that he or I owed one another...
Now I have worked with gals who married for money. Works for them as they are trophy wives ..And enjoy the social goodies.
None of them are equiped to make it by themselves...
If most women thought like you there would be a lot less complaining, and MRA's and MGTOW's would not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PriscillaVanilla
It is rather ironic. Gold Diggers don't pursue men who don't have money, and therefore, it's not something they need to worry about.
Let the rich guys worry about this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta_BD
So true! LOL! It's men with no gold to dig worrying about women trying to take their money. The thing is, men with money know their wealth attracts certain kind of women that will also fit into their lifestyle and they go for and marry those women and provide for them.
To quote an interwebs meme, "So many broke dudes worried about golddiggers. Ain't nobody trying to steal your call center check!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1981
Gold diggers are a small percentage of people in this society and they tend to be very easy to recognize. there are probably more men who are trying to impress normal women with their crappy possessions, than gold diggers. its all ridiculous, humiliating behavior, in my eyes.
Which is why they are a problem, if most women are gold diggers to a greater or lesser degree then the pool of women for those with little to no gold is more shallow than the puddle of tears in their pillows.
The materialistic culture we live in hurts men at the top (when they get cleaned out in a divorce) and men at the bottom(because most women rich and poor mostly go after men at a certain level and up).
This was only kept in check in the past because it was taboo to cross status lines, the daughter of a farmer usually married the son of a farmer or maybe the son of a rancher. the daughter of a blacksmith would most likely marry the son of a blacksmith, cobbler, cooper, carpenter, mason etc etc ... but you get the point...
because those social taboos no longer exist to that degree the wealthiest men can date and marry the most attractive from his class and those below his class. women can date up much easier than a man can and even if a man sticks to women at his level he still has to compete with men a few levels above him now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stockyman
I'm going to take a wild guess and say that most men who have never been on a date who are in their 30's tend to either live at home or with roomates and have a lower than average income for where they live. Pretty hard for women to want to pay the majority of the time for low wage earners. It's okay when you are just out of high school or just graduated college or trades not to have money. It gets stale staying at home watching Netflix and having take out all the time.
Not if the woman is really into you, plus there are plenty of fun things to do for little to no money.
Where are those mythical women who like "walks in the park"?
Well, I'll tell you one thing. If some guy asks me out to dinner, we sure as heck aren't going to Burger King, or to any fast food place! That's not where I'm putting a dime of my money!
I agree. I would suggest another place and be straight up front "Hhhmmm I am not so sure about X restaurant..." or just be grateful and order something just to spend time with that person. But yeah, if I could chose I rather eat somewhere else.
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.
. 
