Question for lady Dopers (although men can chime in with their observations as well):
It is a common notion among some men (in particular, the more fringe/extreme ones such as incels) that wealth is a major draw for women, in dating/relationships. Indeed, using Elliot Rodger as a mis-example, he specifically stated that he knew that women weren’t attracted to him for who he was and that he needed to acquire wealth to attract them.
Obviously, that is oversimplified if not mostly flat-out wrong. But is a man’s wealth - in and of itself, independent of any other attribute - attractive in the dating realm? Say you have a guy who is handsome, smart, charismatic, confident, funny, etc. (all the non-material qualities that are often said to be what women want in men), and then add a $10 million bank account on top of that - is he therefore more attractive than if he had only $10,000, in his bank account, like adding “attraction points?”
Conversely, if a man is rude, ugly, irresponsible, selfish, boring, etc. but somehow has many millions of dollars (say, he inherited it,) is he somehow more bearable than if he didn’t have a dollar to his name? (because that’s what the logic of some incels is)
(No agenda in this question, just trying to get the factual Straight Dope. Is there truth to the notion, or not?)
Of course it’s true. It’s not only an opinion held by men. It’s also applies to women. In what world is wealth not attractive to most people? That doesn’t mean that all people place wealth at a high priority even if they are attracted to it.
Since I don’t know any really wealthy people, knowing a man was rich would get my attention in that I’d be curious what he and his life were like. If I found him appealing anyway, the money would be a bonus, but if he was a jerk, no amount of money would make up for that.
Considering I’ve pretty much always made more than my husband, it’s a safe bet that I’m not motivated by filthy lucre.
Not to me. I assume that wealthy people, either sex, are assholes until proven otherwise. Self-made men can be interesting depending on what they made themselves into. Trust fund babies are always real weird. Neither are exactly attractive.
But there are plenty of attractive jerks out there.
A person who’s physically attractive is, by definition, attractive, even if they’re a raging asshole. I interpreted the OP as asking about whether wealthy men are attractive in that sense.
Right, I’m asking if wealth acts as some kind of “bonus points” thing for men (in the eyes of some women.) In other words, it elevates a man who would have otherwise been a 1 to a 4, and a man who would otherwise have been a 7 to a 9, etc.
(yes, the 1-10 scale is problematic, but it works for expressing things)
There’s a conceptual error in a lot of these discussions. (NOTE: I’m not accusing you of making that error, I’m just pointing this out).
People begin arguing back and forth about whether or not women (or men) find Quality A enticing in and of itself or instead choose partners with Quality A for pragmatic & related reasons.
The error lies in assuming we can isolate where and whether Quality A is sexually attractive in and of itself. What is erotic to us is in part learned behavior, soaked up from the social context. Many hetero guys in modern western civilization have a sexual response to the combo of short skirt and hosiery. That mostly has to do with having learned to associate short skirts and hose with women, and only marginally with whether those garments are intrinsically attractive or provocative ways for a female person to display her contours. A more extreme case is where guys get an erotic tingle just from seeing a pair of slinky panties – not on anyone, just by themselves – which is all by association and nothing intrinsic.
There is certainly a social context that eroticizes male wealth (and other forms of success, and power and confidence) for hetero women. Doesn’t mean there aren’t practical reasons for finding wealth a net positive in one’s dating partners, also doesn’t mean confidence isn’t without its intrinsic attractions, but none of us operate in a social vacuum. Images and scenarios are presented to us through our lives of what is sexy, and although we aren’t mindless passive sponges, we’re sponges, and do take these in.
If you’re talking about a level of attractiveness that occurs before they get to know the person well enough to know whether or not they’re a raging asshole, wouldn’t “rich” just mean “dresses expensively”?
To answer the thread title’s question: Science says yes—maybe. For instance, here’s an article about a study where salary information affected how attractive women found pictures of men.
Note, though, that salary isn’t exactly the same as wealth; you can be lucky enough to be born into wealth. Note also that, in this study, salary was the only information the women had about the men (aside from what they looked like). In the absence of other information, they might well be assuming that higher salary correlates with higher intelligence, talent, energy level, or other attractive traits.
But I do find it interesting that women were so different from men in how much salary affected their judgment of attractiveness.
A guy who has a job (or at least one who stays employed) and is able to maintain the lifestyle he wants without massive debt can be massive “points” for me. It doesn’t matter what their income or savings is.
I’ve dated a lot of guys without jobs. I’ve dated a guy who was very well off. They all managed to be terrible.
Lets say a man is nice, kind, stable…does it make him more attractive if he is also good looking?
Lets say a man is good looking a rich, does it make him more attractive if he is also really a great guy?
Some negative characteristics can override a ton of positive ones (all dependent on which woman you are talking about)…for instance, raging asshole would put even rich guy in the no column for me, but Melania married him. Many people find Johnny Depp to be very attractive, and he is rich, but after the Amber Heard situation, I wouldn’t be dating him. A woman might find an attractive, kind man to be well - attractive - but if he can’t hold a job, then that might override his good looks and kindness. Heck, for some women, you could be ideal in every category and like pineapple on pizza and it would be a reason to dump your ass - while other women are willing to settle for “any guy willing to date me, no matter how much of a loser or an asshole he is.”
But wealth generally goes into the pros column while extreme lack of assets generally goes in the cons column.
If you’re talking wealth beyond has a decent steady job and isn’t way over his head in debt, then, for me, it’s a low level qualifier. I’d imagine as women become more and more economically self-sufficient, they will be less likely to look for a guy with big bucks. It’s really pretty meaningless in the long run. Even if he really were a billionaire Trump would still be repulsive.
Any person who doesn’t is in my mind, not worth pursuing. Its a matter of priorities. I need my partner to be able to be financially responsible and carry their own weight. Your priorities may be different.
I think anyone who gets married without a financial review of each others status - their debts and assets - is an idiot. Even if you have nothing, its worthwhile to know before you get hitched that your partner don’t have $100,000 in student loans for a degree in Russian History and credit card debt (my ex-sister in law). You can make the decision to marry anyway, but forewarned is forearmed.