Women’s Health Interactive Forums

  • If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are women attracted to perceived wealth?

Collapse
X
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
Clear All
new posts

  • I am not a greedy person, but would probably date a rich man. This is hard to believe, but I wouldn't want his money. I would like the fact he was intelligent, creative, talented, confident, brave: the list goes on. Now there are many people with little or no money who are also these things. But money does attract me. Still, personality is more important than a man's bank account. I can understand the allure of wealth, however.

    Comment


    • It appears as though richer man are more satisfying in bed than than the not-so-rich:
      Last edited by jns; 06-19-2018, 12:01 PM. Reason: Outbound links are not allowed.

      Comment


      • TXguy, why do you think that?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by atskitty2 View Post
          TXguy, why do you think that?
          I had provided a link to the survey, but I guess that is not allowed.

          I do think women are drawn to wealth, because wealth symbolizes power, and power symbolizes security and safety. Security is the number one need of most women.

          I also theorize that the divorce rate is so high because most men can't deliver security to their women, due to pop culture's assault on manhood and social re-engineering. I call it the Oprah effect: Women are just as powerful, strong, and aggressive as men. Men are dumb, less intelligent, and need lots of guidance from their women. When was the last commercial you saw that poked fun at the WOMAN instead of the dumb man? Or the last sitcom where the woman, not the man, was portrayed as the complete idiot? Or the last movie that had a normal portrayal of a man? So this business of reducing the man and elevating the woman has had the effect of creating all sorts of problems in man-woman relationships. The man has learned to be completely passive and let his woman take the lead. The woman works just as much as him, earn as much as him, decides just as much as him, guide just as much as him. The man has become a passive schlub. He cries a lot, bears his soul a lot, he acts like a woman. He can't provide her any security because he's a whipped little puppy. She thought she wanted a mirror of herself with a penis, but she was wrong. She figured out she really wanted a man. Oops.

          Meanwhile, the woman has completely lost respect for her man. She doesn't want to have sex with him, because she is repulsed by him. He isn't a man, he's just a male. She has no respect for him whatsoever. And so the two then go to counseling or a marriage intensive and negotiate some sex for him. He unloads the dishwasher so that he can then get a little. That works for just a bit, and then she's lost any remaining respect for him. She then files for divorce and goes about trying to find a real man, not the one Oprah is talking about.

          Oprah is wrong.

          Comment


          • The link was to a Daily Mail article that didn't contain a link to the study or other studies that claim richer guys are more satisfying in bed. It did say that the study was from data from "The Chinese Health and Family Life Survey". I think it is a stretch to say that survey can be applied universally. There was no information about what is the typical sex life of a Chinese couple in China but I would bet it is different than the sex life of a couple in the USA or Canada or Europe. It may be that society in China has deified rich guys so much that women actually find wealth to be sexy.
            I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
            ...
            Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

            From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Texasred View Post
              Interesting conversation.
              Security seems paramount to many women, and while money does not equal security, it's way ahead of whatever's in second place.

              As for me, I've always found myself most attracted to the "exciting" woman, the flirtatious, outgoing, and most-importantly, intellectually-stimulating woman, the one who can argue, debate, and match wits with with me - without it becoming "personal." "Security" never has crossed my mind.
              I like this answer.

              Comment


              • Good Morning TXguy,

                It's called the feminization of American men. I call it the pussification of American men. Either way, they're girly men.

                I read an probing article post-9/11 the thesis of which was sissifying of American men manifested in girly men aboard hijacked airplanes who did nothing while women and children were slaughtered save for one jet. Would men of previous generations have allowed women and children to have been slaughtered?

                The latent yet inexorable quest is complete subordination of Americans to an omnipotent state, the complete opposite of a prominent core tenet of our Founding Fathers: rugged individualism. We are forced to acquiesce to government for solution/resolution of all things American, of all things previous generations of Americans did themselves.

                Kids get in fights on school grounds, and they're labeled bullies. We took our lumps and learned to fight, which government doesn't like.

                Dueling was outlawed because only government has power and authority to take human life. People are afraid to defend themselves from deadly threats due to potential and maybe assured governmental reprisal.

                Americans have been stripped of the essence of what it once meant to be American.

                There is not a darn thing intellectual about feminine hijacking of American culture. We were duped by pseudo-intellectualism and hostile coercion in to accepting a corrupt agenda. Feminizing of America is the antithesis of intellectual thought.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by atskitty2 View Post
                  Men also seek out women with money. If all was equal, as in the original question, men also would likely choose a woman (or man) of means.
                  Might be true for girly men.

                  Real men know that if they marry for money, they'll earn it.

                  Rich dudes expect their gold diggers to earn what they believe they might get in return for sex. We know this arrangement as prostitution.

                  Comment


                  • I don't live in a top 1% city, but I'm with 10 miles of two.

                    My ex-g/f was in the top 1% category until she lost wealth. She hasn't taken to being poor with good character.

                    If you want to test a man's character, give him power. If you want to test a woman's character, give her adversity.

                    My ex-g/f thinks she entitled to what the rest us get from working. She's fortunate to have family that supports her to the tune of 10k a month. She thinks she shouldn't have to work because elites of her caste don't work, which is one of the serious issues that divide us.

                    The Internet has just about put gold diggers outta business. Dudes can dial in sex within hours. And in reality, that's all gold diggers bring to a "relationship": sex. It's a gray area of prostitution. Consideration in exchange for sex is the definition of prostitution.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by TXguy View Post
                      It appears as though richer man are more satisfying in bed than than the not-so-rich:
                      This might be neo-urban legend.

                      Comment


                      • TXguy,

                        My ex-g/f's ex-husband was rich until he succumbed to mental illness. My ex-g/f said that he was among the worst dudes she has ever banged. He was sexually inexperienced and degrading of her considerable skills. He thought good sex was mounting her, penetrating her, thrusting until he got off, and rolling off her and back to his side of the bed.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by WaveRider View Post
                          Good Morning TXguy,

                          It's called the feminization of American men. I call it the pussification of American men. Either way, they're girly men.
                          Precisely.
                          The Oprah crowd say, "Oh, why can't men be more like women? Why can't they be 'sensitive' and 'in touch with their feelings?'"
                          And then when they find a man like that, they despise him for his lack of the essential characteristics of a man.
                          And rightly so.

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=WaveRider;810045]
                            Originally posted by atskitty2 View Post
                            Men also seek out women with money. If all was equal, as in the original question, men also would likely choose a woman (or man) of means.
                            Might be true for girly men.

                            Real men know that if they marry for money, they'll earn it. "



                            I think generally, men and women both want to acquire a lot, from little effort/work. I know many men that have little intention or interest in working for a living. Many women also.

                            Another symptom of our declining culture, and we can separate it by gender, but I see this in both.

                            And there are degrees of severity. I know some people that wouldn't work for less than $20/hr. Completely unwilling to pay their dues and work through the ranks. In my part of the country, earning that at an entry level is unheard of with no degree. I know others who won't take a job for less than 6 figures...and no degree or skill set to warrant that salary.
                            Work ethic is a more and more rare attribute. And it is lacking in men and women, imo.

                            Comment


                            • Hi astkitty2,

                              I cannot disagree with a word in your last post.

                              Close to a year ago I read an elaborated abstract of a study of Ivy League students. 40% were unable to discern reality from fiction.

                              A degree isn't what it once was. When I graduated college, only 10% of Americans had college degrees. Thanks to artificial demand created by government and novel scholarly "disciplines" one can "earn" a degree in numerous disciplines for which there is no market. The result is over 50% have college degrees, yet most have no job skills. They think a degree in women's studies entitles them to a 6-figure income. In the real world, it's a useless degree.

                              My guess is a legitimate hard science course is no longer necessary to earn a degree, probably because it would reduce graduates by 80%.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by amy40

                                so why did she marry him if sex is the most important thing in her life?
                                I would like to see WR's answer but I'll hazard a guess from his previous posts. Sex may have been the most important thing in many ways but she was a poor rich girl and the lure of having the rich lifestyle overrode her requirements for good sex, at least for a while.
                                I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience.
                                ...
                                Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

                                From a speech by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 at St. John's Church, Richmond, Virginia

                                Comment

                                Womens Health orange logoGet The Newsletter

                                Receive our passionately crafted, medically reviewed articles and insights — the stuff nobody else talks about but you want to know — delivered right to your inbox.

                                Latest Posts in Our Forums

                                Collapse

                                Latest Topics in Our Forums

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X