I don’t buy that females have an evolved instinct to prefer “good providers” that men do not have. I’m not saying they don’t, either–I’m just saying I haven’t seen any compelling evidence that this is true. Monstro is correct–lazy bums don’t seem to have any less trouble pair-bonding than wealthy men, honestly. And while it makes sense that women would prefer men who are “good providers”, lots of things make sense that aren’t true. Even if there was selection pressure on the African plains, who the hell knows what served as a “good provider” to primitive women, or how it camp to express itself?
Evolutionary psychology is one of the most corrosive, toxic forces in modern society. ANYTHING can be made to sound sensible, and it’s used a way to make the patriarchal structures in our society sounds like inevitable biology.
That’s right now. In a time period that is about as screamingly atypical at any 100 years has been out of the last 100,000. To draw conclusions about biological inclinations based on demographics in the Western World in 2019 is about as sensible as trying to draw conclusions about wolves based on the Westminster Dog Show. Sure, you can cherry pick a few things and say they mean something, but that’s ignoring the big picture and how abnormal that is–and how there’s no reason to believe that the behaviors you’ve selected as indicative really extends back in an unbroken line to what made sense in a pre-historic wolf pack.
My whole point was that some cultures do not, and this is not something which happened recently, separate by gender who provides and who cares. Even setting aside that farming societies (an enormous chunk of humanity throughout history) simply could not and therefore did not have that kind of separation; that those “traditional” gender roles are from the Industrial Revolution; even if we set that aside, when you look closely at any society which at first sight has had that gender separation, it breaks apart in seconds. That 19th century burgueoise ideal you’re still buying into 200 years later didn’t even apply to anybody except a few people, and for a lot of those to whom it applied it was a hobble rather than any kind of natural inclination. But go on, keep missing the whole reason I used the word “people” where you keep saying “men” and “women” separatedly.
Also, I can’t help but notice that in abortion threads, pregnancy and childbirth are so trivial that the idea of weighing those experiences against the right of a fetus to life is ridiculous; but in THESE threads, pregnancy and childbirth are so devastating that women in a state of nature must have spent virtually all of their time as utter invalids, profoundly dependent on men and making no economic contibutions to the household whatsoever and basically existing as a DNA replicator device.
It’s interesting how in both cases the experience of pregnancy/childbirth is cast in a way that perpetuates patriarchal structures.
People really need to get over this “hard wiring” stuff in the context of relationships.
Right now, successful, happy single women are a rapidly growing demographic. They’ve got good careers, good finances, no drama, and they don’t really want to fuck their happiness up by putting up with a guy who is a throwback from the cave man days. These women aren’t going to pursue “good providers”. They are going to be attracted to guys who enhance the good life she’s already got. Guys who are eager to share house chores and cooking and child-rearing and emotional labor. Years from now, when we are all living on UBI because automation has taken all the jobs, the notion of women being “hard wired” to be attracted to men who are good providers is going to be replaced with the idea that women are hard wired to be attracted to men who can run a vacuum cleaner and diaper a baby. And that too will be bullshit, but I hope I’m around to laugh real loud when I hear people say it.
The original question was whether or not wealth is attractive. It’s kind of a non-question though because if you are asking about women in general the answer will make no sense. Some women are attracted to wealth, some aren’t. No idea on the distribution but I do know some that fall into both categories.
Pregnancy and childbirth are not trivial; any statement of such would be completely absurd. Across human history they’ve been very major causes of young adult female deaths, as has violent competition for resources/status and with those resources/status, well the chance to mate, for males.
I’ve never heard an anti-choice advocate argue that pregnancy and childbirth are trivial. I disagree with their positions but claiming that that is what their position is is a egregious misrepresentation.
Of course evolution has played a role in what men and women find attractive in potential mates; and of course culture and personal experiences also play roles. One can well argue for importance of the cultural factors and for individual personal experiences, but arguing that human attraction is not at all impacted by evolutionary factors, inclusive of women being biased to finding as attractive factors that might correlate with healthier offspring, or with better access to resources, within cultures/environments that have generally been patriarchal (only varying in degrees) is taking a position of extreme human exceptionalism from all other species that I would find surprising for many here to take.
The aphorism that “power is an aphrodisiac” really is not so controversial, and wealth is a very real form and manifestation of power within a society. Maybe I’m wrong but my guess is Trump would be haunting incel forums if he hadn’t been rich.
Of course individuals vary. (Some women are particularly attracted to men shorter than they are but holding everything else equal more are more attracted to a man taller, but not too much taller, than they are.) But the on average distribution is not a “who knows?” non-question thing. Across cultures wealthier men have more reproductive success. Nature of the culture has impact but the impact is still very real and consistent:
(Bolding mine.)
Again, there can be a wide range of individual variation, and huge cultural impacts. The cultural impacts are very likely changing in our (post-industrial) information age just as what gets defined as “masculine” is being impacted. (Inclusive of the importance of being a present and involved partner and parent as part of being “a real man”) Accepting huge cultural, personal history, and specific individual circumstances impacts, does not mean that the impacts of evolutionary forces suddenly completely disappear.
Could you please cite an example of a recognised anti-abortion rights activist (as opposed to some weirdo on an incel board) dismissing pregnancy and childbirth as “trivial”?
Men and women were asked to rank pictures of members of the opposite sex out of 10. The study goes on to say that when women are told that a random guy is rich, they add two points to his score. A guy who scored 5/10 would be rescored as 7/10 when the women were told he had a six-figure salary, regardless of what he looked like. Conversely, wealth had almost no impact on the Male scores.
This study took place across three different continents. The results were cross-cultural.
Also, quick question for those who think evolution plays no part in what we find attractive: Can any of you name a single society, at any time, at any place, and of any size, where women showed a clear preference for short men over tall men, or poor men over rich men? Just one will do. From anywhere, and at any time in human history. Just one.
Well certainly that website is saying that what they see as a right to life outweighs the impacts of pregnancy on the mother and it minimizes the still very real health risks of pregnancy to the mother. But even that odious site doesn’t try to claim “trivial” (less important than what they see as a right to life is not the same as trivial), and the statement was threads.
This random man is not claiming that no one ever has been so absurd as to claim that pregnancy is trivial, but the typical anti-choice argument in these threads is not that dismissive of its impact; it is elevating the right of a group of cells over the rights of a woman.
In any case, possibility of pregnancy and childbirth are of course big deals, and choice of a sexual partner was of more survival cost impact to women than men for almost all of humanity’s existence. Are people here really of the belief that that fact had no impact on what women respond to as attractive in a potential sexual partner?
For me personally, the extent to which wealth would be attractive would depend on how much of an influence it would have on his lifestyle, his personality, his perspective, and his relationship with material things. The less we have in common in those areas, the less I’d be drawn to him. In my experience in dating men from affluent, status-oriented backgrounds, image tends to matter a lot to them, and they expect their women to look like money. That would get old real fast for me because my values lie elsewhere.
All other things being equal, yes a rich guy will have a easier time getting women. Mainly because there is a subset of the female population that values money over other things and will not consider anyone who doesn’t earn over a certain dollar amount; being wealthy means now these women will be open to him. Other women may not necessarily value money over other things, but will be more willing to overlook the lack of an initial spark in the hope that it could develop over time. In neither class of women are they more attracted to the guy, though. They are just deciding to go with what they see as a good thing.
I think AHunter3 makes a good point: when we think “rich guy”, a certain archetype comes to mind. A Bruce Wayne/Gatsby/Most Interesting Man mysterious gentleman who is handsome, well-dressed, confident, brilliant, and has everything he could possibly need in the world except true love. Who wouldn’t be drawn to these qualities? The wealth is almost besides the point, except as a means for him to express his undying love and generosity. If we envision someone who is decidedly not these things—imagine the basement dwelling “loser” archetype (obese, unhygienic, uneducated, video game addicted)—he doesn’t suddenly become attractive if you make him a trust fund baby, right? That doesn’t mean some woman somewhere won’t see him as an opportunity, but to conclude this makes him objectively hotter is a gross oversimplification.
So, you with the face, your answer to the op’s question: is the same handsome, smart, charismatic, confident, funny, etc. (include shares your values and interests) guy any more attractive if he also happens to be wealthy, would be …?
The op did not ask if wealth was the only factor that mattered and would trump all else. It asked if it played a role if all else was the same. Would the exact same grungy musician be equally attractive/unattractive if he was scrounging to get by as if he was sitting on multimillion dollar streaming deals?
The claim that pregnancy and childbirth are a “temporary inconvenience” is, as others have said, extremely commonly made. And that claim does indeed trivialize that process. A failure to use precisely the word “trivial” doesn’t change that.
– I don’t think anyone’s claiming that evolution’s had no effect whatsoever on sexual appeal. Evolution’s what made us sexual beings in the first place. What people are objecting to is that “hard wired” claim which implies that everyone will automatically do whatever the person making the claim thinks is wired in. There are a huge number of factors affecting who any particular person finds sexually appealing. Some of them are due to evolutionary reasons, some of them are due to societal pressures, some of them are due to personal experience, and some not only between but within each of those categories are in any given person likely to conflict with each other.
Evolution in itself is a whole lot more complicated than people who go in for the “hard wired” phrasing seem to think it is. As monstro said, the actual daddy isn’t always the one who has the high status; he may be the one who snuck in around the corners while Rich and Successful was off being important.
Him being wealthy would appeal to my pragmatism, so it would help his romantic prospects with me, yes. Wealth is like health; it increases your options is life and decreases the likelihood you will suffer due to an unforeseen crisis.
That said, I’ve never knowingly come across a rich guy who is indistinguishable from a non-rich guy except for his wealth. All the ones I’ve knowingly met have made it obvious they live in a different world of values than me. So this hypothetical is rather unrealistic.