But I think that’s easy to understand - heterosexual men who think in “traditional” (read sexist patriarchal!) ways can see it is a threat to their own role if a potential partner is wealthier, more successful, more intelligent, etc.
I don’t think the OP’s question as stated is realistic or particularly interesting - other things being exactly equal, having money is objectively a benefit. But it takes time to discover a person’s true nature, so we rarely know if every other element is equal.
I think the more interesting question (which seems to be what most people are addressing): if we don’t know somebody well, what does the fact that they are wealthy imply is likely to be true about them? That’s the more realistic context in which we can say whether we feel it’s an attractive attribute.
Wealthy people are likely to be assertive and intelligent. But, certainly at the extremes, they are also probably more likely to be psychopaths! And the fact that a wealthy person may have chosen to use their intelligence to pursue wealth says something about them.
It’s always some point system with these incels. They see women (well actually vaginas) as just things you unlock in the video game of life.
Neither can women.
Extreme wealth I think might actually be a turnoff for me. I’d be worried I’d be expected to move in a sort of world that I’m not interested in. And my reaction to somebody who thought they actually needed, say, a billion dollars, would be ‘no you don’t, we’d need to give most of that away’.
Competence is a plus. (And money’s a pretty imperfect indicator of competence.) Willingness to pull one’s own weight in the relationship as a whole is a very large plus. Money is nice to a point; but I’d rather have a competent person who’s willing to work than a rich jerk who just expects to be waited on and isn’t good at anything much, or even is only good at making money.
Nothing at all – not looks, not money, not brains – is going to override a major level of jerkiness. I’ve had my sexual interest in somebody I thought very good looking turn off like a light switch when he said something sufficiently obnoxious.
– I’m seriously dubious about a study that gives only two bits of info about a person (looks and money, in that case.) That just plain isn’t enough to go on, and it certainly isn’t enough to tell whether kindness, or competence, or compatibility of ideas, or anything else would override both of those categories.
I was under the impression that most women don’t date someone so they can have sex.
More like things “those assholes” unlock but they are never given a chance to, um, insert their keys to unlock the vajayjay goodies.
I said, “Looks at the checkbook first.”
A lot of these incel types are convinced that the only reason women don’t want to date them is that women are only attracted to men with stacks of cash.
They seem to have it backward. A man with stacks of cash will attract a lot of women.
Besides, if they think that, why aren’t they working to get rich, instead of whining online all the time?
I do wonder if it’s wealth, or more the ability to spend freely as perceived from the POV of the woman. A rich dude wold seem to spend fast and furious to a Middle class or ‘lower’ woman, even if by his own standards he is being frugal. It is the willingness to invest in her that is attractive, and rich people can be deceptive in this as they can spend so much more and it means so much less to them.
IME money is just a personality amplifier. Sure, a bunch of it allows a guy to dress nice, have reliable transportation, and spend money on fun stuff and that’s definitely an attention getter. But after he’s got her attention, how does he do?
A good friend is leaving her guy next week because he’s a mooch. Good looking guy, personable enough, but can’t be arsed to get a job because her income is sufficient to support both of them. She evidently found him unattractive eventually, not because he didn’t have any money, but because he was a mooch.
Fellow that works hard but doesn’t net much in the way of spending loot–IME is more highly favored than the mooch as long as he isn’t too beat down by his situation.
And the guy for whom money is a vulgar necessity? I think he just has too many opportunities to be observed not treating people well despite/because of his advantage.
Most women who date at all are hoping to have sex at some point in the relationship. They may not want sex right away, and they may want other things in addition to sex, but generally people who don’t want any sex don’t date. (Possible exception for romantic asexuals; but I’m pretty sure that’s a minority, not “most”.)
All of the above, by the way, is also true of many men. The proportion who only want sex and want it NOW may be greater for males, though it’s hard to tell for sure due to varying societal pressures; there are certainly also women like that.
True, and I am not a woman, but most women I suspect don’t date for the specific purpose of having sex.
I am a man, and I suspect that if men could easily and legally have sex without dating, there would be a high percentage of men who would do that.
I’d say incels have it sideways. Women don’t want to date them because they’re raging misogynist assholes.
This has not been my observation over the past three decades.
I work in IT, and have worked in large law firms for pretty much the last thirty years. At this point, at the biggest law firms, pretty much half the incoming first-year lawyers, graduates of the best law schools, are women.
These are highly educated and highly intelligent women. And they have been socialized and educated to expect that they can choose to have careers, and make partner at the firm, and become seriously wealthy on their own.
Of course, having a choice implies that one may choose the opposite, and these women often do. About half of them will quit working once they have their first, or certainly their second, child. Not take a leave, quit altogether. And they will still expect to live a lifestyle befitting their educational and professional status.
And they marry, quite consciously, men who can provide them with that lifestyle. Often they meet their husbands in law school, or shortly thereafter in the legal world.
It’s kind of a problem. Those women who do not quit the profession get kind of pissed off about it, the reason being that firms may become less willing to mentor and put resources into professional development for women, when half (more or less) of them will leave the profession fairly soon. The women who choose to stay kind of resent this.
Well, yes.
Yes, that too.
It’s certainly true in Thailand, I’ll clue ya.
My mother always told me it was just as easy to fall in love with a rich guy as with a poor one.
My experience did not bear this out. At all.
Not even in the case of someone who had other good attributes.
And it’s not like I didn’t have chances. I had rich friends who had brothers, and whose brothers had friends. There were possibilities, they just didn’t work out. I should probably add that most of my rich friends managed to do something that disqualified them from my friendship somewhere along the line, too.
Note that being poor, in itself, isn’t particularly attractive either.
Now I have a long-time friend (not one of the rich ones) who is, shall we say, much more likely than I ever was to attract rich guys. She had the same experience. Rich guys are a turnoff.
We don’t know what’s wrong with us.
Of course it is.
Females are hard wired to look for mates who are good providers. In the ancient days, it was the dude who could hunt well. Nowadays, it’s the dude who has a decent income, or at least the prospects of a decent income.
However, IME, that doesn’t mean that modest wealth equals modest attractiveess while extreme wealth equals extreme attractiveness. People tend to be most comfortable with people in or around their own socioeconomic level.
Obviously, a billionaire Scrooge who hoards his money in a bank vault and never spends anything isn’t going to be any more attractive to women than a guy on a low income. But most rich guys spend their money on nice things, because that’s what money’s for. To say women are attracted to the lifestyle rather than the money is to draw a distinction without a difference.
It might be true, but it’s not “obviously” true. To me, it’s at least plausible that the mere fact of having all that money could make him more attractive to women (so they’re attracted to something other than the lifestyle).