Accusations of golddigging

Howie Felterbush said:
:confused:

Isn't it the same thing, really?

He's got more money, and therefore he has more choices because of the money, because more women would want to marry a rich dude, which is basically gold-digging on the women's part.

Right? Or not?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. I think a "gold digger" is there for the gold. I think someone who happens to meet a person of high status and is actually swept up by the status is entirely different than only dating people of high status.
 
She looks pretty average to me, it's not like she's a supermodel. She's about as attractive as her husband is. Even so, wealth makes you more attractive to people, because you represent security. Like it or not, we're animals with needs.
 
Halfcentaur said:
...wealth makes you more attractive to people, because you represent security. Like it or not, we're animals with needs.
Click to expand...

But one of the more frustrating aspects of human nature is that people, especially women in this domain, approach matters from a positional rather than absolute frame. Security historically means having enough to eat, a pleasant shelter/protection from demonic hordes. Now the demands are much greater. A "provider" could rather easily bring that in on 30/40/50k a year, but it's not enough. Not nearly.

I think Robert Frank talks about the silliness of this evolutionary arms-race when it comes to a stag's huge antlers. Eventually males become so large they're spending an obscene amount of time finding and eating food. Interestingly, humans have been able to thwart certain aspects of our biological imperative, but not this part (probably because it cannot be done through technological means -- short of genetic re-engineering, which was historically supported by the left).
 
I wish I was wealthy enough I had to worry about being golddug.
 
If it's any consolation, guys get accused of it occasionally, too.
 
jj said:
If it's any consolation, guys get accused of it occasionally, too.
Click to expand...

...and it's a very mean thing to say, especially when it's based on not nearly enough information to actually know why the couple is together. It demeans the accused digger by saying they value money above all else and it demeans the "diggee" by saying that their best asset is their wealth/status. It's hurtful and I wish it wasn't so easy to jump to such cynical conclusions about other people.
 
sgtbaker said:
...and it's a very mean thing to say, especially when it's based on not nearly enough information to actually know why the couple is together. It demeans the accused digger by saying they value money above all else and it demeans the "diggee" by saying that their best asset is their wealth/status. It's hurtful and I wish it wasn't so easy to jump to such cynical conclusions about other people.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm getting at.

Despite what movies might present not all women and men are into so called "Hollywood beauty" and any perceived disparity in so called "hotness" in a couple is purely in the eyes of the beholder.
 
Travis said:
Despite what movies might present not all women and men are into so called "Hollywood beauty" and any perceived disparity in so called "hotness" in a couple is purely in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my post? Sure, it doesn't hold true for every single individual on the planet, but it's an undeniable fact that beauty is not purely in the eye of the beholder. Humans do prefer certain looks, they do prefer money, they do prefer power, and so on. It may be rare for them to consciously notice these preferences, and even rarer to actually admit to them, but pretty much every scientific study on the matter shows that they exist. Perceived hotness is not merely in the eye of the beholder, it's a measurable trait that the majority of people will agree on.

This obviously does not mean that everyone only ever likes rich people that every agrees are hot, but you seem to be going way too far in the opposite direction and trying to imply that because everyone doesn't agree all the time, it's not possible to identify general trends at all. Those trends exist whether you like them or not.
 
I'm wondering why money shouldn't be a factor. It doesn't buy happiness, but it sure pays the rent.
 
Cayvmann said:
I'm wondering why money shouldn't be a factor. It doesn't buy happiness, but it sure pays the rent.
Click to expand...

Having a reasonable amount of money eliminates many sources of unhappiness.

More money can buy midget hookers. I think that's close enough to happiness.
 
rustypouch said:
Having a reasonable amount of money eliminates many sources of unhappiness.

More money can buy midget hookers. I think that's close enough to happiness.
Click to expand...

I knew a stripper team* (I know, I didn't know they existed either!) who had the stage names of 'Love' and 'Happiness'. I thought it was clever. We got on the conversation of stripper names and how so many are flowers or gems. Gem, Amber, Crystal, Diamond... I want to meet one named Anthracite.

EDIT: *Who claimed to be.
 
tyr_13 said:
I knew a stripper team* (I know, I didn't know they existed either!) who had the stage names of 'Love' and 'Happiness'. I thought it was clever. We got on the conversation of stripper names and how so many are flowers or gems. Gem, Amber, Crystal, Diamond... I want to meet one named Anthracite.

EDIT: *Who claimed to be.
Click to expand...

Stripper names are sometimes very awesome. I was out to lunch with coworkers once, and one of them blurted out "Hey, I know that guy, that's Silk!" Everyone stared at her. "Silk?" "Uh, yeah, he's a, um, performance artist in um, dance." Apparently he belonged to a troupe with theme names. Silk, Satin, and Velvet. I asked if there were Brocade, Linen, Polyester Microfiber, and Wool as well, but she didn't know. She'd only seen these strippers often enough to recognize one of them, fully dressed, at a Chinese buffet.
 
Cayvmann said:
I'm wondering why money shouldn't be a factor. It doesn't buy happiness, but it sure pays the rent.
Click to expand...

All the happiness in the world can't buy you money.

Travis said:
Despite what movies might present not all women and men are into so called "Hollywood beauty" and any perceived disparity in so called "hotness" in a couple is purely in the eyes of the beholder.
Click to expand...

The reason movies present this image is because it largely (not completely) reflects what people want to see. Evolution continues, and while we have different preferences, it's foolish to reduce yourself to cliche and say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches (presumably) find other cockroaches attractive. Flies love eating ****. Does that mean it's all hopelessly subjective? No. Cockroaches, flies, and homo sapiens have hard-wired attraction triggers. These truths are general, not absolute.

-------------------------

Another point on money. If a female earns 100k+/year, one might guess that, because she's financially secure, it won't matter how much money a man makes. And that guess is mistaken. It's relative. Wealth is sort of like height: women (generally) desire a mate who is taller & earns more money. This does not make them "gold-diggers," but it does indicate that income matters.
 
Last edited:
Cain said:
All the happiness in the world can't buy you money.



The reason movies present this image is because it largely (not completely) reflects what people want to see. Evolution continues, and while we have different preferences, it's foolish to reduce yourself to cliche and say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Cockroaches (presumably) find other cockroaches attractive. Flies love eating ****. Does that mean it's all hopelessly subjective? No. Cockroaches, flies, and homo sapiens have hard-wired attraction triggers. These truths are general, not absolute.

-------------------------

Another point on money. If a female earns 100k+/year, one might guess that, because she's financially secure, it won't matter how much money a man makes. And that guess is mistaken. It's relative. Wealth is sort of like height: women (generally) desire a mate who is taller & earns more money. This does not make them "gold-diggers," but it does indicate that income matters.
Click to expand...

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine a very attractive young woman, let's say she's an identical twin of Natalie Portman, and have her working behind the counter of a cell-phone store (I was going to have her work in fast food but that's too easy). And let's imagine a highly successful businessman who makes around $500,000 a year - not super rich, but definitely someone who doesn't worry about money...oh, and he looks like Channing Tatum (because I've never come across a woman who doesn't swoon at the mention of this guy's name). He asks her out.

Now reverse the roles.

Which pair of people is more likely to become an item?
 
Halfcentaur said:
She looks pretty average to me, it's not like she's a supermodel. She's about as attractive as her husband is. Even so, wealth makes you more attractive to people, because you represent security. Like it or not, we're animals with needs.
Click to expand...

Exactly. When we go from admiration to envy, we start insinuating his wife is a whore.

I didn't watch it so I don't have an opinion on how it was portrayed. But you see it a lot. Starts off with "she's hot", but she isn't yours, she belongs to this other guy so of course she's just a whore.

I can understand it being irritable when you are trying to focus on this athlete doing something so rare when you got someone in the backbench saying "yeah, but his wife is a whore". These backbenchers are cowards and don't come out with it directly of course. It is insinuated. Implied. So they can always deny they are calling her a whore while doing just that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom