The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-05-2005, 06:03 PM
astro astro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Do rich guys and poor guys get laid faster and more easily than middle class guys?

Just curious what the practical and emotional calculations are that go on in a middle class woman's mind when she's dating different economic stratas.

Assuming a guy is pleasant, reasonably intelligent and fun to be around, how would the scope of financial means (wealthy - middle class - poor) affect the real world probability of his getting laid within the first 3 dates.

I'm figuring that the rich and poor guys would have nothing to prove, and nothing to lose respectively and these attitudes are attractive to lots of women, while the striving middle class guys would have to work the hardest to get some action.

And please don't be disengenous and say "it doesn't matter". Relative power relationships matter a lot to most women even if it's not polite to acknowledge it overtly. My thought is that if the women perceives the man is more economically powerful, or less economically powerful than she is, she is more likely to be receptive to sexual overtures than with someone at her economic level.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 11-05-2005, 06:17 PM
Giant_Spongess Giant_Spongess is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
I think it's more complicated than that. Humans being humans and such.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-05-2005, 07:10 PM
Laughing Lagomorph Laughing Lagomorph is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
I think part of the problem with your thesis is that you are painting with too broad a brush.

For starters I know there are lots of poor guys who are striving, and I'm guessing there are a lot of middle class guys with nothing to prove (whatever you mean by that exactly).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-05-2005, 07:28 PM
soulmurk soulmurk is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
And please don't be disengenous and say "it doesn't matter". Relative power relationships matter a lot to most women even if it's not polite to acknowledge it overtly. My thought is that if the women perceives the man is more economically powerful, or less economically powerful than she is, she is more likely to be receptive to sexual overtures than with someone at her economic level.
The truth is that to a lot of women, it doesn't matter.

This board, being what it is, seems to attract an exceptionally high number of intelligent people, but every "Do women prefer X to Y" thread I've ever seen has been ultimately resolved with women popping in to mention that it's never as simple as X and Y. There are other cues to consider.

That doesn't mean that there aren't some women who aren't drawn to money or power or status, because there are. I think in most cases they're called groupies. And it's not to say that most women (or men for that matter) wouldn't enjoy being involved with someone who could provide economic excess. The simple fact is, though, that it's only one of many considerations.

Take, for example, a wealthy man with poor hygeine vs. a middle class man who is well kept. It's an over-simplification, but who do you think most women would choose? If the genders were suited to your tastes, who would you choose?

As far as getting laid more easily and often, I don't think economic factors are really important so much as dedication to the result. I know plenty of average joes who go out every weekend and are generally successful in their quest to not go to bed alone that night. Of course, their standards are generally set pretty low to begin with, and they seem to get lower as the night wears on and their intoxication increases, but that's their own prerogative and the ends justifies the means (to them at least).

The same could be said for wealthy guys. Being wealthy and hanging out in ritzy clubs doesn't automatically increase their likelihood of getting laid simply because of that fact... they have to work at it just like anyone else. Granted, it's probably easier for them to buy rounds of drinks and flash their bleached toothed smile and mention their Ferrari in passing, but they're in competition with other guys who can do the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-05-2005, 08:54 PM
Beware of Doug Beware of Doug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
I'll tell you what gets you laid/liked/loved. It's not money. It's how much of you says "man." It's something to do with being a little impassive, a little scruffy, a little burly and phleghmatic and opaque. You don't want to show warmth. Just indirectly imply it.

It's a sad state of affairs, but a few phony manipulators have ruined it for the rest of us guys who really want to show a woman how we feel. The gals by and large prefer someone they can imagine warming up to them rather than someone who demonstrates that warmth first. It'd almost inspire more trust to be curt and snappish, driving them away a little, than showing honest attraction.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-06-2005, 08:45 PM
Shakes Shakes is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas Tx.
Posts: 10,372
You know Astro, I've wondered the same thing myself.

Although, I'm not rich, I got into an agruement (A freindly one) with one of my (very attractive) ex-girlfriends. It went a little something like this:

Me: "...Oh, please! give me a break! You would NOT be dating me if I scrubed toilets at McDonalds for a living!"

Her: "Oh bullshit! I don't think how much money a guy makes before I will date him. My last boyfriend didn't even HAVE a job!"

Me: "Yeah, right, that's exactly it. -Because in your fucked up, female logic; a guy NOT having a job is "cooler" than a guy who bust his ass cleaning piss off of porcelain for a living."

Her: "Whatever"
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-06-2005, 11:51 PM
Rick Rick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 15,697
There are people that claim that if you want to get laid, you go through the trash at an ATM and find a receipt with a huge balance. you then arrange to give the girl of your dreams your phone number on the back of 'your' ATM receipt.
So the story goes, you will get a phone call about 0.37 seconds after she notices "your" bank balance.
That could be why Google lists 36,200 hits under fake atm receipts like this site
Quote:
Pick up women or men quickly at bars, dances, social events. After you write your number on this receipt (conveniently folded in your wallet), hand it to the member of opposite sex and watch how fast they call you! When she sees the SIZE of your bank balance, she'll be digging YOUR "gold" in no time! Even has the typical black bars on back of the receipt for added authenticity!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-07-2005, 04:32 AM
Kalhoun Kalhoun is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro
My thought is that if the women perceives the man is more economically powerful, or less economically powerful than she is, she is more likely to be receptive to sexual overtures than with someone at her economic level.
It had the opposite effect on me. The rich guy I dated seemed like he expected it, and therefore, I wasn't gonna do it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-07-2005, 06:07 AM
Who_me? Who_me? is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
I think that any theories about who gets laid more often is wrong when it concerns money or the lack thereof. It's just like the guys who complain that nice guys don't get laid.

Personally, I've found that most guys who complain about not getting sex are whiners and don't get laid because they are whiners. Most of the rest are beggers, and although I'm not a woman, that wouldn't work for me if I were.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-07-2005, 11:20 AM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
I actually had a theory about the very same thing, for different reasons though. Both the poor and rich have a greater amount of leisure time than the work-a-day middle class. For the rich, their money provides them more opportunities to be in situations that lead to getting laid - partying every night, renting shore houses, living in swankier parts of town. They have more access to drugs, more time to work on appearance.

Many poor people are poor because they work interesting but low paying jobs - artist, actor, bartender etc. That gets them laid. Many are poor because they live a lifestyle of liquor, drugs and skanks since they were teenagers, never went to college and never achieved much out of life. Others live a "ghetto" lifestyle of 40s, blunts and hittin it with hood rats. But I bet the average poor shuck driving a taxi

The middle class in their plain vanilla way leads a lifestyle of study, hard work, long term relationships and family. They neither desire a lifestyle of permiscuity nor live in an environment that provides opportunities for it.

These are pretty broad brushes though.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-07-2005, 09:22 PM
astro astro is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537
I actually had a theory about the very same thing, for different reasons though. Both the poor and rich have a greater amount of leisure time than the work-a-day middle class. For the rich, their money provides them more opportunities to be in situations that lead to getting laid - partying every night, renting shore houses, living in swankier parts of town. They have more access to drugs, more time to work on appearance.

Many poor people are poor because they work interesting but low paying jobs - artist, actor, bartender etc. That gets them laid. Many are poor because they live a lifestyle of liquor, drugs and skanks since they were teenagers, never went to college and never achieved much out of life. Others live a "ghetto" lifestyle of 40s, blunts and hittin it with hood rats. But I bet the average poor shuck driving a taxi

The middle class in their plain vanilla way leads a lifestyle of study, hard work, long term relationships and family. They neither desire a lifestyle of permiscuity nor live in an environment that provides opportunities for it.

These are pretty broad brushes though.
Your ideas regarding leisure time are quite intriguing. I hadn't viewed it from that perspective.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-08-2005, 08:59 AM
Spectre of Pithecanthropus Spectre of Pithecanthropus is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Marmite Free Sector
Posts: 17,658
If we can put the monetary issues aside, it's often been suggested that middle class people in general tend to be much more inhibited generally than either the upper or the lower classes. More inhibition = less sex, so that might also imply the truth of the OP's thesis.

I've just been re-reading Class so when I saw this thread I thought it was going to be about the social and cultural angles rather than the financial.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-08-2005, 04:44 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
I have to think that the perception is being fueled by several media stereotypes:
1) The Hollywood/OC/Entourage/celebrity bullshit stereotype that people who have money live a life of grotesque hedonism and leisure

2) The disenfranchised aimless drifter angry charismatic loner stereotype

3) The romantacized gansta-rap gheto drugs and hoochies party stereotype

Id be interested if there actually is a study out there.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.