Money+Social Status=Any woman you want

[Kishi Uzumaki]

Not a very complimentary attitude towards your own species.. You make them all sound like ill mannered uneducated awkward silly losers.

Luckily for you I say women have better opinions of them expecting such things from them . xd

Can you be kind enough to tell one of those opinions .

 

[Οdin]

Depends on the person.

 

[Momochifanboy]

I think they learn it from sociaty and yeah they are gold digging hoes.

 

[EnDash]

Not a very complimentary attitude towards your own species.. You make them all sound like ill mannered uneducated awkward silly losers.

Luckily for you I say women have better opinions of them expecting such things from them . xd

A little self humor never harmed anyone. Besides not all the species of men are ill mannered uneducated awkward silly losers, just the ones between 12 and 15

<p>
You are right . you can atleast be fashionable and witty then some cute girl will find you attractive .* he asked any women . These 11 = any women</p>

Well in truth i believe you don't need to change yourself so that women will accept you/will want to date you. What you need is to look hard enough for a woman that already does

 

[-Punk-]

You just need money & they'll come .

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

Well in truth i believe you don't need to change yourself so that women will accept you/will want to date you. What you need is to look hard enough for a woman that already does

I used think this way when i was young got friend zoned :heh: look like doesn't work for me anyway you try that way i will try my way .

 

[Hexuze]

Nope simple pick up, proves that it isn't. That's the whole point of their videos:

[video=youtube;X7PAYhmoKkA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7PAYhmoKkA[/video]

 

[EnDash]

I used think this way when i was young got friend zoned :heh: look like doesn't work for me anyway you try that way i will try my way .

i'm sorry but "friendzone" for me is just an excuse for being too shy to ask the girl out or for being to ignorant to accept that she rejected you. girls don't have to date every guy that is nice to them, and the best thing to do as i said is to move on and continue looking for a girl that won't "friendzone" you.

frankly i haven't dated that many girls in my life, and i am fairly young. but at the very least i think it's respectful for the other spectrum in dating not to hate them for rejecting you. well as long as the girls are also respectful that is.

 

[oShux]

Not all women are like this but isn't it safe to say the most attractive women only require these 2 things? From high school to college to life after school with these 2 traits you can get anyone you want despite your personality. My question is, Is this type of mindset innate or learned?

True but not always. I've had girls crush on me left and right simply because of my personality. I'm not all that when it comes to looks I'm like a 7 or a 7.5.

Spoiler

I was friend zoned by not one but two girls. Both of them were calling me their bestfriend and shit. And you know what they say once you're in the friend zone you're not coming out and hey I'm not rich I'm a average dude who isn't even the handsomest guy in the world and yet both of them fell for me because of my personality.

Spoiler

Shit there was even this one time when this girl called me ugly when we first met(not to my face of course) and then a couple of months later she fell for me too. She was a sl_t though so her existence is invalid to me.

If you read then hopefully you get the point. Of course if you have money or social status or even a nice car yes you get her attention easier but that doesn't make her a gold digger or a ho if you think about it that's human nature. It's just like how as a male a girl with big breasts or a nice ass would attract my attention more than a girl who's just average

 

[Jack Spicer]

Money and social status can help with a lot people and a lot of things.

 

[Prime Rib]

we live in a double standard society thats controlled

 

[Revyy]

Men do this too. Idiots.

 

[Disquiet]

Not all women are like this but isn't it safe to say the most attractive women only require these 2 things?

I'm not sure I'd say most, but they're definitely abundant in society. I think a lot of those women that are that superficial still admires a great personality, confidence, humor, etc.

From high school to college to life after school with these 2 traits you can get anyone you want despite your personality.

And a woman can get any man they want (assuming we're talking about in general), as long as the former is nubile (and even then there are exceptions); no personality required. I'm glad that you've mentioned that, because the consequences of both gender's superficial attraction to each are the same; negligence of the opposite ***'s personality and feelings. So whether I adore one for their body, or their belongings, I'm still dismissing their personal feelings and persona am I not? So why even make an effort to persistently and arduously point out the errors in the other gender but not your own? Such a parochial attitude will not produce healthy or benefiting discussions for both sexes (I'm not talking about this thread by the way, just in general). It will just make the other retaliate. "We only do this, because you do that."

From a neutral POV, this whole battle of the sexes is like watching two thieves live in the same house, and Number 1 complains only when Number 2 steals from a certain kind of person. They both have their preferences of who they do and don't steal from: kind people, arrogant people, parents, singles, couples, race, etc.

They then argue over who is more virtuous based on the type of people they steal from...

Again:

So whether I adore one for their for body or personal belongings, I'm still dismissing their personal feelings and persona am I not?

I seriously doubt either side is going to be proselytized by one person's opposing or condescending (this is often the way it is perceived) view on the opposite ***; even if it's true. What's the point of Number 1 and 2 disagreement over who is more virtuous? Men will say women want so much from them, women will say men only want their bodies. It'll never end, partly because both sides are right, though mostly because of bias. They're just pointing out the wrongs they clearly see, and using that to parry any arguments against them.

My question is, Is this type of mindset innate or learned?

A bit of both, though mostly the latter. Survival is our number one priority. Society pretty much has life monopolized. Ever been told you have no life if you don't go out and participate in social actives? That shows you how conditioned the minds are. We're not even allowed to define life on our own. Social activity=life. The more socially active and capable you are, the better your life will be, generally speaking. Yeah we may be able to go live out in the woods, but how much fun that would be if you're someone who really enjoys being around people? What about family? Then there's the option of going homeless and living on the streets, but good luck in even getting your friends and family to think highly of you, let alone visit you. Society has near perfect control of life. It's pretty much its way or no way. Any entity that holds your survival and safety in its hands is without a doubt redoubtable. What other life is there aside from the one society has created for us? Since it pretty much manages life, the majority opinion or mores will become the code of conduct for all. Both sexes are just enacting what they were taught. That's partly why, as noted earlier, both genders tend to have superficial views. We're all cut from the same cloth. Most of us dream of that bob vivant lifestyle.

At some point in society, it became a man's duty to take care of a woman. This may have something to do with men being more physically fit to handle all the rigorous work, especially during the eras when there was no machines or computers to do it for us. Since woman was less capable lifting heavy objects, cutting down trees, plowing, etc; especially when pregnant, it was morally accepted for men to take the reins. This is just a logical guess by the way, don't take my word for it lol. I'm sure there are many more factors. Anyways, it's not surprising we eventually got what we have today. These behaviors and perspectives are deeply seeded. However, there are more women becoming independent, and many more are challenging those anachronistic perspectives.

Men can be very competitive and conniving, and "snake" their way to a fortune. Women can be as well, they just have unique weapons for accomplishing this task. Make no mistake, both are highly manipulative. It's just that women have all these "easy" men around them that gets excited pretty easily over their womanly features. Both sexes conspire their way to fortune in their own way, using whatever means they have. Just because you don't have such an arsenal, doesn't mean you should hate on the ones that do. I'm sure men wouldn't pass up such easy opportunities to make a fortune. Logically, we can only use what's available. Unfortunately for guys though, women aren't that thirsty for their dong. Again, I accentuate, I'm speaking generally here. Not all men and women are out to maliciously manipulate.


It's a fact both genders are generally superficial. What's the point of repeating such facts to each other? Your pencil is red. Well yours is blue! Well yours is red! Yours is blue! Argh yours is red!

That's simplified, but yeah, we all get it now.


Here's a segment of a post of mine I made in another thread. The topic is unrelated to this thread (it was about self-proclaimed geniuses), but I did touch upon some thing you mentioned in the OP.

Society - We live in a world where a high intelligence is more or less universally seen as 'superior', not to mention 'needed' in not only the political and economical aspects of society, but in relationships as well (which at times, is a result of the first two) Not many want a partner that's going to bring the both of them down with his/her 'stupid' actions, or make them look bad in their social life. When introduced to friends and parents, it is expected of the partner to at least be of average intelligence. Although you may not get the answer in an open-questioned survey, you will undoubtedly see it more frequently in a multiple choice survey; individuals stating 'smarts' as a prerequisite in a relationship. Compare this to facets such as built, looks, etc. and I'm sure it will be a more periodic requirement. I'm certainly not saying every couple is 'intelligent', poor neighborhoods and conditions, along with people making similar choices will undoubtedly breed people of more or less equal intelligence. Though I should say, people that don't tap into their brain's full potential. Of course there are other factors that is a cause as well, not only can a higher intelligence be intimidating, but there are many that are arrogant because of their high intelligence. I'm sure we all heard the phrase "I want someone that's intelligent but not arrogant." It's the way some of us associate it. So, that's two reasons why someone would choose a partner of equal or less intelligence. What people often don't understand is, a lot of behavior and thinking is contingent upon society. What is seen as 'wrong' could easily be seen as necessary in the absence of society. Vice versa, what is seen as 'necessary' could easily be seen as 'wrong' in the existence of a society. What I'm getting at is, intelligence gets a lot of its significance from the existence of society, and the progress thereof. There is one thing that is absolute though, it is always normal for a human being to value their own survival. For the most part, survival means participating in society. A lot of people want to get to that point where they can survive comfortably and easily; without worry. This induces conditioned behavior and thinking. This cognitive experience will definitely play a role in our choices and decisions. To end this segment, I'll just repeat something I said earlier: intelligence gets a lot of significance from the existence of society and the progress thereof.

 

[Strawberry]

maybe if we ahd more people with lambos we'd know.

 

[hateful]

What about being nice?

Hahahahahahahahaha. Oh that's rich.


What you need BlackFlame is to be a believable liar, with the grace and skill of a bomb disposal technician.

 

[Amantius]

True that brah, true that...
It's a ****ed up thinking that's more common than you realize.
I had one that even told me that before. =)

 

[-Sky-]

Your relationship is only as real as the feelings that created them.

Also, men are ten times easier to get than women.

 

[KingHashirama]

That simply means they are attracted to the money. So you don't have them.. your money has them. =D

 

[YowYan]

Men do this too. Idiots.

No, not at all. Men (in general) only care for looks as shallow as they are.

 

[Senju Bean]

Are you kidding me? You need to be tall and handsome too. I know short ugly rich guys that can't find dates no matter what.

Money is an indirect indicator of genetic quality. Looks and height are direct indicators.

If you are tall and good looking, then you must have good genes.

If you are rich, you may or may not have good genes. After all, in such a scenario, you could have inherited the wealth from a intelligent businessman grandfather but you yourself may not have inherited specific gene for such creativity.

Thats the difference.

Oh yes, and women are only interested in quality genetics, even if they deny it; they are bounded by the laws of evolution.