If you ate prime rib every day, for breakfast, lunch and dinner, 375 days a year, for 10 years, you might just want McDonalds, or Arby’s, or Red Lobster, or a cup of yogurt, etc. It doesn’t really matter how hot a woman is; most men eventually will want other women. Whether they will act on that want is another story.
These criteria seem to have less to do with whether or not the man has a *pleasant *personality than a suitably ambitious one. There’s only a slim chance that you will marry a man considerably below your station, no matter what can be said about his personality.
Not that you should necessarily be blamed for this. You could call it just another example, along with Tiger’s adultery, of how human behavior is influenced by evolution.
I don’t, and I’ve been with the same woman for 20 years.
I don’t doubt that men are shallowly judged, but I guess I would rather by shallowly judged by what I do than what I look like. One, I have something to do with and actually serves as a bit of commentary on who I am, the other is just what I was born with.
EDIT: I can see where some of you are coming from, but I still don’t like the implication that cheating on an attractive woman is somehow more of a moral violation. I’m probably still reading too much into it though. I think I’m just annoyed that people make shallow judgments in general.
Are you most men?
torie, I don’t think it’s seen as more of a moral violation, per se. It’s just more incomprehensible. I’m not a dude, but I think the feeling is that if you’re going to cheat on your wife, it’s probably because you found someone else more physically attractive. So if that someone else is less attractive, well, WTF, yo. I am not saying this makes sense or that I subscribe to this way of thinking; it’s just the impression I get from listening to guys talk about it.
I’ve read this, so am not an expert, but men want variety. If he had prime rib every night, sometimes a burger is attractive.
as an aside, Diana was chosen to give birth to royal hiers with good(read non reptilian) genetics, so attractiveness there was not the prime motivator.
Yes, it’s dehumanizing to hot women and uggos. That’s why it’s not saying women should be treated more decently if they’re attractive. The sentiment dehumanizes all women equally. And in this case, so what? It’s a golfer nobody has ever met and pictures of women he’s fucked on the television. That’s why I said **torie **is overthinking it. Because none of the guys saying things like that are giving it any thought.
In fact, if it were a situation where a personal friend cheated on his gorgeous wife who was a raging bitch, guys would be MUCH more likely to say “well, she’s really hot but she’s a raging bitch. I can see why he cheated on her.” Guys might put up with ornery hot women if there’s a chance of fucking them, but by and large we have very little patience for our friends’ bitchy women.
Well don’t worry, because it’s not the implication. As has already been explained, the implication is that he’s trading down.
What MsWhatsit said: I don’t think anyone is implying anything about morals. “What an idiot!” generally isn’t a moral judgment.
Can’t you see how that can also be upsetting?
This is something I’ve been coming to terms with- the idea that no matter how smart, how successful, how caring, how artistic, how giving I am, my value to potential mates is going to be reduced to “is she hot?” Now, maybe this is just a fact of life. It does, indeed, seem like when men have their choice they tend to choose for attractiveness first, and everything else second. And that when possible, many successful men have no problems leaving their well-matched spouses for very young women who can’t possibly be fulfilling the intellectual and spiritual aspects of a relationship.
Fact of life or not. it’s a tough one. I was born with my face and body. I try to take care of my body and look nice, but the truth is that I’m getting older every day. My value is constantly, invariably, going down. It’s a pretty damn brutal thing.
It’s absolutely not the same as judging men by money. If a beautiful woman left her rich husband for the plumber, nobody would be saying “She cheated on him! What an idiot!” Maybe they’d call her a slut, or say she must have really liked that plumber. But they wouldn’t say “how could she leave a rich husband like that!” And anyway, as has been mentioned before, you have a fair amount of control over your career.
Evolutionary Psychologist True Believers aside, I think this is changing a lot in our society. We are seeing more and more well-off women picking and choosing younger more attractive men. Women are beginning to participate in sex tourism. etc. What we value in a mate can change quite a bit depending on the society- for example, farming societies value sturdy wives who can farm, whereas hierarchal societies prefer frail women who specifically look like they can’t farm (thus increasing prestige.) Our current beauty-money trope is probably deeply influenced of the nuclear family strict division of labor that came into being during the industrial revolution. Since these things are quickly changing, we are also seeing a changes in love.
Usually, I think it means, “That’s so unfair! I’d like to screw [hot chick], and he does screw [hot chick] and doesn’t even appreciate it. I want to screw [hot chick] more than he does, obviously. God, are you listening? If you let me screw [hot chick], I’ll treat her better.”
That’s exactly what people would be saying. They’d also be giving it as little thought as they give “He cheated on a hot chick?” which is almost none. The only difference is that depending on the scenario the woman leaving the rich man may get to keep all of his stuff but the man leaving the hot woman never gets to keep fucking her. If you balance it out, like two situations where they’re not married but in a committed relationship, the thoughtless rote response would be “holy shit, she cheated on that rich guy?” or “holy shit, he cheated on that hot woman?”.
And they’re both totally banal and thoughtless things to say.
Yes. When I was married I found myself lusting after women who were nowhere near as beautiful as my wife. (never acted on it BTW)
Ironically, if I were single and met these same women; I probably wouldn’t have gave them a second thought.
Ain’t love grand? 
Who’s to say he was getting prime rib every night? Maybe she was cold as ice. Just because they were married doesn’t mean he gets to have prime rib every night. Maybe she only wanted to give him prime rib once every few months. The guy was hungry and figured McDonalds would be just fine.
Who is “they”?
The really ironic thing for me was finding out after I got married how many women suddenly seemed to become interested in me just because I was married. I got more pings with a wedding ring than I ever did without one.
This is a very thin smoke screen for trying to justify the attraction to money.
If “control over career” was a really important principle to women, the high school guidance counselor would be able to shag Heidi Klum, Elizabeth Hurley, etc just like the rich guys.
The high school guidance counselor is a noble profession (arguably more noble than NFL football players or movie actors). It obvious he “controlled the path of getting into that career.” His white-collar work will allow his fingernails tol stay clean just like the rich guys. Nevertheless, one key thing separates him from guys like Steven Bing (who is below-average looking) – money.
Money matters. Looks matter. Age matters.
When you start off inheriting $600 million like Steven Bing, it gets you shortcut access to abundant vaginas.
This wasn’t particularly funny or insightful the first time I read it on the SDMB, and it certainly isn’t the 20th. I have no sympathy for anyone stupid enough to believe looks and morality match up, or that all gorgeous people have free passes to be assholes, or that having to ‘put up with someone’s shit’ is an excuse to cheat.
Dan Savage had an interesting column a while back that might provide some insight into the confusion. Perhaps it’s not just men seeking variety (or, wahh, marrying and fathering two children with frigid bitches who won’t put out!), but also some evidence of social pressure to conform when it comes to what they find attractive, something that may be felt even more by celebrities with endorsement deals.
Forgive me, Mr. Savage, for quoting the piece in its entirety, but I feel like it’s relevant.
ETA I pretty much ask everyone I meet what they do for a living, and I often have no clue how much it makes them unless they really want me to know (e.g. I have poor architect friends and know millionaires in construction). I had no idea I was such a gold digger, or that I wanted to sleep with my SO’s parents since I asked him about them before finding out what he did. Career and school are an enormous part of people’s personalities. Pretending finding out about them is equivalent to asking about their hair color or cup size is ridiculous. Keep tabs on your conversations this holiday part season – it’s pretty up there with ‘Hello’ and ‘How do you know [the host]?’ (though perhaps people will tiptoe with the high rate of unemplyment – maybe ‘What field do you work in?’ would be more polite).
A man is only as faithful as his options. If he scored a hot chick once (recently), he can do it again. So runs the thinking.
The quote isn’t meant for you. The quote is to help other men knock their fantasy women down a peg and get a reality check.
There have been various psychology studies that showed people judge attractive people as more trustworthy than ugly people. That conclusion may be flawed but there is evidence that people are hardwired this way.
Society shouldn’t give them a free pass, but society does.
May all the husbands who divorce their comatose vegetable wives go to hell. The vows say, “till death do us part” and not “till death or comatose do us part.”