MysterEcks, I don’t think you are being overly cynical, I think you are being overly simplistic. I don’t have any problem with defining love as finding someone who satisfies your needs and who’s needs you are willing to satisfy–I don’t think that is even a cynical definition. I do think that people have a great number of needs and that while sex is one need, it is just one among many --the need for compainionship, for affection, for help managing day-to-day life, for a co-parent, for laughter, for excitment, for intellectual stimulation. If it were just about sex, there would be no reason to couple up on a long term basis at all–we’d just meet up at bars.
CZJ? No way. Just because she used her beauty to snag an actor doesn’t make her a whore. She was on the cusp of being a star anyway. And reportedly she has talent though I’ll admit to not seeing any of her movies.
CZJ doesn’t even make the Top 10 list, which includes such notable money grubbing ho’s as Marla Maples (I’m sure she would have loved “the Donald” had he been a POOR man with weird lips and a comb over), ANS, and Anne Heche (who is so desperate for attention she’ll turn into a lesbian).
Perhaps, Manda JO, but I would suggest that for most people appearance is the gateway issue. Most women will have no interest in a 350 pound nerd, regardless of how nice, smart, and funny he is; ditto in the same way if the genders are reversed. Maybe Nerd and Nerdette will find each other and be perfectly happy in the best storybook tradition–happier, even, than Mr. and Mrs. Beautiful People–but that doesn’t change my thesis. Because if looks weren’t the gateway issue there would be a lot more mixing and matching than there really is in nature.
Unless there’s money involved… (See how I pretend this discussion has something to do with the OP?)
Sue beat me to it. Except for Traffic Michael Douglas has been in a series of forgetable (even Wonderboys, which deserved more aclaim) films in the past 6 or 7 years, during which time his wife has been climbing towards stardom. Traffic and his marriage are probably the only two reasons anyone thinks of him lately. I’ll vote for ANS too. (I’m female, by the way)
According to my intro to psych professor in college, people are deeply attracted (rather than surface attraction- how we see movie stars) to people about as attractive as they are. Which is why you * probably would* see Mrs. and Mrs Nerd and Mr. and Mrs. Beautiful, at least according to the theory.
I also don’t think that many people would be interested in marrying Mr. Physically Beautiful if he were dumb, mean, boring, and poor. I’m not denying that looks–and more so, sex–plays a role in mate selection. I’m just saying that it is not the only issue, and that people look for mates to satisfy all sorts of needs, not just the need to get off. If anything, the need to get off is the one most easily satisfied by yourself or through casual friends.
My ex-fiancee.
Seriously. Her gold-digging friends looked at our engagement ring and said:
Swear to you, those exact words. She (I’m almost positive) cheated on me with, then left me for and later got engaged to a trust-fund baby.
As for the OP, ANS. By my definition, she’s the one that married to get something (oodles of cash) that she would have had no way to get otherwise.
elfkin477: I don’t know enough formal psychology to argue the point, but I can’t help wondering if your prof wasn’t presenting something as causewhich is really effect. In other words I have no doubt that a majority of couples are composed of people of roughly the same attractiveness level, but I suspect this is due to that majority of both genders which tends to go for the most conventionally attactive they can attain in a partner.
With the possible exception of “poor”–which leads us back to the issue of money as an override–I can’t agree. Maybe dumb, mean, boring Mr. PB wouldn’t be found worthy of long-term involvement by many, but they would be more than happy to get to know him to the point that they find out. Nice, smart, funny 350-pound Mr. Nerd will also not have many interested in marrying him, because most will write him off on sight…and PB will at least get dates, whereas N mostly won’t.
No, and I’m not saying looks are the only issue. But I’m saying that for a majority it’s the gatewayissue–one who does not meet the requirements, however defined, will never be given the chance to demonstrate anything else.
True, though I think that for a lot of people the matter of looks isn’t just a matter of sex–there’s a status symbol element as well. I mean, maybe a given woman might have no real problem with the idea of having sex with Nerd, but wouldn’t want to be seen with him. Did ANS’s elderly squeeze want her just for sex, or also (or maybe just) as a trophy–hence the term “trophy wife.” (Perhaps PB, if he’s poor, can find a spot as a trophy husband.)
To go back to the OP–if for no other reason than Manda JO and I are holding a debate about apples in a thread dedicated to oranges, and I keep waiting for Stoid to show back up and yell at us–it seems to me that whether ANS or anyone else is a “gold digger” is irrelevant as long as the diggee doesn’t mind being dug.
Well, that it different from your original claim, where you stated:
This was the statement I objected to becasue it seems to claim that the majority of relationships–including marriges–are exclusively about swapping sex for sex. My point was that few people marry someone–as oposed to date or hire someone–solely to satisfy thier need for sex. Most people marry the person that satisfies a variery of needs that they have. That isn’t to say that any of those needs are “deeper” than the need for sex, merely that they are much broader.
I’m still here because I think that Rickjay made an excellent point (if true) and Stoid totally dodged it. I am hoping that by keeping the tread open she will come back and answer it. Also, I am enjoying htis hijack and we don’t seem to be in anyone’s way.
Er…it’s not what I say, it’s what I mean…
You’re quite right–I didn’t explain myself in my first post, and then I completely forgot to clarify what I meant afterwards. My apologies for that.
Heh…I take it you’ve never attempted to debate Stoid. Good luck, though.