Why is it considered more shallow for a woman to date a man due to his wealth? Isn't dating him for his height and good looks more shallow?

sublimemongrel · 2017-01-22T18:52:44+00:00

Because it's for material goods. It doesn't appear genuine.

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T18:58:05+00:00

If he worked hard to earn his wealth: Got the right education, right experience, right skills, right choices... he did it due to his personality.

I think the question is, if he didn't work for his wealth -- say, if he was born into it or won the lottery -- would she still be dating him? If so, then it's not his work ethic, decision making, intelligence etc. she loves him for, it's his money.

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T19:36:29+00:00

You don't fuck money, but you can fuck attractive people.

i_have_a_semicolon · 2017-01-22T18:51:34+00:00

Can we get a working definition of exactly it means to be shallow? Because being tall and handsome are more intrinsic to a person's identity than their wealth. Or at least that's how I would argue it. But then neither of those things say anything about a person's character and "self" which is what we really want to be loved for.

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T21:14:39+00:00

Sex is an important part of romantic love. If you're not attracted to a person, good sex (or any sex at all) is unlikely to result. Love and sex form intimacy within a relationship.

But dating a man just on his money, even if you find him really unattractive, is likely to lead to poor sex, sooner or later. And you're unlikely to ever love him.

Almost everyone wants love. Getting with someone just for money is like a business transaction or a form of prostitution.

theiamsamurai · 2017-01-22T22:21:57+00:00

Money is something external you own, looks are part of who you actually are.

Now I'm far from on the whole "women are all shallow, men are all romantic" bandwagon don't get me wrong on this one, but the women who specifically look for wealthy men, yeah of course they're shallow.

But also, who gives a fuck?

drok007 · 2017-01-22T18:42:33+00:00

Genetics is probably the most important thing. Everything else can be changed, that's why the 'be yourself" stuff is so retarded.

ProbablyBelievesIt · 2017-01-22T18:53:06+00:00

It's shallow because some women are way more attracted to spending the money, than the personality traits that won it. And he really needs to be careful about what some people will do to get their hands on as much of it as possible.

Meanwhile, someone attracted to "Tall" is attracted to something about the other person that isn't going to go anywhere else soon. Besides, if we simply shame every single thing that's shallow, all by itself, then nobody is allowed to be attracted to anyone anymore.

And nothing deeper can ever hope to grow from it.

slothsenpai · 2017-01-22T18:53:38+00:00

The way I see it, money is material, at least someone's height and looks is a physical attribute that's part of them and their genetic linage. As a guy, we like to feel physically attractive and desired by females whereas no man wants to be seen as an ATM machine.

EchoZeroEleven · 2017-01-22T19:43:35+00:00

This provokes two different answers.

1) she was only interested in me after I became successful. She doesn't care about who I am, only what I am. (Cue Bill Burr joke about the finish line)

2) She chose me because I proved myself as a successful strong man, why would she chose someone unproven who couldn't handle the work? There is no difference between what I am and who I am.

Atlas_B_Shruggin · 2017-01-22T20:39:56+00:00

Why does anyone care what people who don't matter think is "shallow"?

goatismycopilot · 2017-01-22T19:07:49+00:00

Because whatever women do is shallow, date wealthy men, date tall men, date good looking men, but men who are the true romantics only care about a woman's looks which is not shallow because genetics.

manybickering · 2017-01-22T19:48:55+00:00

Because there are more poor average looking men out there so that is the general opinion.

However I would agree that I'd rather be judged on my wealth and generally anything I have even minor control over than be judged on my height which is completely and utterly outside of my control.

ddiogenesofsinope · 2017-01-23T08:44:22+00:00

Can you point me to the shallow scale you are using to compare these two equally shallow things?

wtknight · 2017-01-23T14:31:02+00:00

Neither is really shallow. Evolutionarily, a woman is looking for both healthy genetic traits and provider traits for her potential offspring, even if at the time she's looking for them she has no desire to have offspring. That part is hardwired into our brains and is difficult to ignore. Of course, having provider traits is more than just proving that you have the ability to acquire wealth. There are all kinds of provider traits that have to do with showing that you have a pleasant personality and possess good fatherly attributes. If you can't show a woman that you have any of these traits, though, then there's probably no reason that she should ever select you as a sexual partner.

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T19:09:02+00:00

My height and my looks are more an intrinsic part of me, if you put me onto a desert island I would look exactly the same as I do now, until I've let my hair grow out, gained a load of scars from fighting and cannibalised my enemies before anointing myself in their blood.

prodigy2throw · 2017-01-22T19:36:16+00:00

What characteristics should women base their mating choices on if not any of those things?

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T21:11:30+00:00

I think it's just that the image of the noble working class manual worker is popular in culture, strong but held down by the man. A lot of working class people know and admire relatives like that but no one has reason to root for some ugly guy.

markd315 · 2017-01-22T21:55:22+00:00

Because women should not rely on men to be financially stable.

That is patriarchy itself. It is female weakness. I don't care about this word "shallow." Everyone is attracted to certain things, often the same things and will pursue those, but being a burden makes you a weak person, and being unable to provide for yourself puts you at risk of exploitation.

bones_and_love · 2017-01-22T22:27:32+00:00

If he worked hard to earn his wealth: Got the right education, right experience, right skills, right choices... he did it due to his personality.

And there are ways of phrasing that exact attraction without it sounding as shallow. You could say you're attracted to his passion, work ethic, leadership, dominance in business, political ability, education, decision making, etc. Or you can say things tangentially related like "I feel like he can make good decisions for the both of us and I love that."

But money... it comes and it goes. No one, not even the hypothetical guy, wants to be dated for the reason of "I want someone to buy me expensive food and clothes." They themselves want to be attractive to their partner based on their attributes [which may or may not be causing wealth as a byproduct].

anitapk · 2017-01-23T00:00:44+00:00

Because you want to fuck someone and their body not their bank account

genghiskhannie · 2017-01-23T01:49:37+00:00

Wait. What? Both are shallow. Neither are romantic, at all.

Also, some people are born with money.

[deleted] · 2017-01-23T02:13:09+00:00

Girl A likes you because she thinks you're kinda cute and funny. Girl B likes you because she found out you got an inheritance or won the lottery. Which one bothers you more? Stop trying to make this an argument. The latter will always be wrong. You don't want the person. You want what they have.

mpnsk · 2017-01-23T12:30:57+00:00

Wealth is not based on merit. It is based on success. Plenty of people work their ass off and aren't rewarded for it.

So how is women's obsession with success linked to character?

NalkaNalka · 2017-01-22T19:23:08+00:00

There is no such thing as "shallow". There are no objective criteria to it. It's just some word people who are lacking in desirable qualities came up with to get back at people they envy and resent.

wub1234 · 2017-01-22T19:01:50+00:00

The implication if someone is dating another person for their wealth is that they're making a conscious decision (not always true) whereas we are drawn to people because of their physical features, we do not make conscious decisions over them even if we are conscious of why we are attracted to them.

DarkLord0chinChin · 2017-01-22T20:03:21+00:00

Depends on whether she is sexually attracted to him or not. If a woman was sexually attracted to wealth I'd have no problem with it...

hentaipolice · 2017-01-22T20:24:56+00:00

I think it's because it's a lot more obvious if a woman is going for someone because of their money vs if they're going for someone because of their looks.

voteGOPk · 2017-01-22T20:39:01+00:00

because deep down we realize primal urges are just that, primal and carnal and we agree that can't be anymore shallow than wanting to drink water instead of piss when you are thirsty.

gopher_glitz · 2017-01-22T22:25:35+00:00

When you see a women with an ugly man who is wealthy you assume that she isn't genuinely sexually attracted to him. So she is just 'going through the motions' to get his money so she doesn't have to work etc. Then if things go south, she'll can take his wealth and he'll be left less of a man, making it harder to rebuild or find another women.

It's the same reason most men just don't do the escort thing because they know the women is probably repulsed by them.

On the other hand, being tall and handsome (quality genetics) inspires genuine lust and sexual attraction. She actually wants to see him naked and have him on top of her etc. And if things go bad, he'll have another one lined up to go.

Obviously the ideal scenario is to reproduce with a rich 'Chad' but second would be to at least have 'Chads' baby then lock down a beta bucks to pay for everything.

Simple nature.

Macheako · 2017-01-22T23:21:32+00:00

who gives a shit. Be who you wanna be with for whatever dumb reason ya want. But being with a guy solely for his money, or his good looks likely won't lead to a happy, lasting relationship. That's why they say it's shallow.

[deleted] · 2017-01-22T23:57:01+00:00

I consider them equally shallow.

DB605 · 2017-01-23T01:05:54+00:00

It is generally considered shallow to date anyone for only a single transient or inconsequential quality, ie. looks, money, property, job, education, etc.

despisedlove2 · 2017-01-23T03:15:25+00:00

It isn't shallow. It is honest however.

neostoic · 2017-01-23T03:30:24+00:00

That's actually a pretty interesting topic. The current push for romantic love and against such shallowness is a relatively recent development. I remember being surprised at Catherine from Wuthering Heights saying that she loves Edgar for his money(though she specifies that there are also other reasons). And Jane Austen is notorious for her obsession with finances.

My best guess is that this change has something to do with more equal standards of living between classes nowadays. Also the advent of feminism allowed women to be make their own upkeep.

Also wealth being something that is earned by the individual as opposed to being a function of his social class is also a somewhat recent idea. In most cases through human history it's just as inborn as good genetics. The real self-made people are relatively rare and usually old, by the time of success. So the choice is between not-yet-rich Chad and not-yet-rich non-Chad. Why should any woman choose the latter when Chad has just as much a chance at success, if not more, due to good genetics?

speed3_freak · 2017-01-23T03:56:26+00:00

Not shallow: Dating a man because he has the personality, drive, education, experience, and skills to provide a stable life.

Shallow: Dating a man because he has money.

Lots of people who are in example 1 are not wealthy. Lots of people in example 2 didn't work for it.

YetAnotherCommenter · 2017-01-23T05:46:35+00:00

Why is the latter considered more pure and romantic?

Because we live in a society where materialist prudence is seen as shallow/immoral/selfish/bad/egotistical, where "love" is treated as some magical irrational thing that just happens and cannot be explained, where "love" is seen as this "higher" and "spiritual" thing (which must therefore be completely divorced from the lowly material realm).

Or, in short, Platonism.

There are several other reasons but all of them are cynical. For one, all that "love" stuff frankly strikes me as an extended rationale for sexual attraction, and to admit one's sexual attraction is a physical urge would thus debase one's desire and fall afoul of the Platonic standards I described above. So the idea that gold-digging is shallow materialism and pure animal fucklust for hot bodies is "pure and true desire/romance/love" could be a defensive standard set up to avoid having to feel like a shallow person.

Another reason could be classism/jealousy and a desire to avoid being gold-digged, but last time I checked it was women who were the primary shamers of gold-diggers.

A less cynical reason might be because gold-digging is inherently dishonest - it is pretending to truly desire and hold affection for a man. At least a woman who fucks a Chad because he's hot is not lying about finding Chad hot.

oldredder · 2017-01-23T11:48:03+00:00

Using a man's money drains him of something he earned, that's why it's shallow. A woman can't drain a man of his good looks or fitness by being with him for those things.

But a Chad, or a tall and handsome guy, he was born that way. He never worked hard to become tall and handsome. It is in his genetics.

Which is even more important than money and therefore the purpose of life. Seeking the purpose of life is not shallow, it is proper. Bypassing it with money is shallow.

EliteSpartanRanger · 2017-01-23T15:18:15+00:00

Neither is more shallow in terms of dating.

It's just that dating men for their wealth is not recommended because it's a lot better if the woman could take care of herself financially. Divorces happen, and if she couldn't take care of herself financially, she won't be able to get back on her feet after the divorce. A lot of women who marry men for their wealth also have to probably tolerate a lot of bullshit like infidelity. It's not a healthy dynamic. Also, an adult being able to take care of themselves is a respectable trait. It's the same reason why heirs and heiresses who inherit millions of dollars, but do no work, don't get respected by the majority of society.

SilentLurker666 · 2017-01-23T21:45:32+00:00

What you failed to realized here is that society's (and BP's) view on relationship is based on emotions, aka Romantic.

Women who chooses to go with anything besides their "emotions" would be seen as more "pure", but what's really happening (consciously or subconsciously) is that they are rationally making a cold, logical decision in their minds. Furthermore, their "feels" is just a way to avoid their conscious.

In your example, a women could easily turn around and justify going with the wealthy, educated partner because it makes her "feel" safe and she like the little things he does for her... aka buying her expensive gifts and taking her out to high class restaurants....

Title	Why is it considered more shallow for a woman to date a man due to his wealth? Isn't dating him for his height and good looks more shallow?
Author	ManGoingHisOwnWays
Upvotes	30
Comments	135
Date	January 22, 2017 6:33 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/5pincp/why_is_it_considered_more_shallow_for_a_woman_to/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/why-is-it-considered-more-shallow-for-a-woman-to.270479 https://theredarchive.com/post/270479

Comments