Golddigging behavior as a function of age

Started by Galt, Oct 15, 2009, 01:23 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Galt

Here's my idea (I welcome opposing opinions):

In your 20s, girls your age are pretty easy no matter what your money status (I guess I'm working on memories of college - that was in the early 80s for me, but women were pretty easy in the pre-AIDS era).

In your 30s and 40s, I think it starts getting a bit more serious with women looking for money. Meaning that they will base a bigger part of their decision to marry - and a bit less on their decision to "date" -  on how much money the man has. That is in relative terms, whatever level the woman is on.

Women older than that (surprisingly - because they have the least to offer in terms of body and looks) are out on an almost cut-throat basis for men with money.

--------

It seems that young girls are fairly easily impressed and pretty much don't think about a whole lot (as can be expected, I guess), whereas older women get more bloodthirsty about going after money.

Galt

Note: Women going after money learn to cover up that behavior with age. Don't look at what they are saying - or at the man behind the curtain or the fast-moving hand versus the other hand with the coin - but instead at what they DO.

Mr. X

Yes always judge behavior and NOT intentions or words. For example I used to be concerned about women who dated abusive or doushce bag boyfriends but then, over the years came to realize these women don't need my help or concern. They picked these guys specifically so their actions speak more than their tears and weeps.

Women can complain, cry, bitch etc but what they DO is the real indicator of who they are. If they gold dig it doesn't matter their story or intentions.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

Galt


Yes always judge behavior and NOT intentions or words. For example I used to be concerned about women who dated abusive or doushce bag boyfriends but then, over the years came to realize these women don't need my help or concern. They picked these guys specifically so their actions speak more than their tears and weeps.

Women can complain, cry, bitch etc but what they DO is the real indicator of who they are. If they gold dig it doesn't matter their story or intentions.


Fully agree.

There's a bizarre idea floating around that you just kind of do what is in your unconscious / subconscious mind (and I have no idea how that developed) and your conscious mind just "rationalizes" it (in other words: finds a plausible explanation for what you just did). If you wake up in the morning and lie in bed for a few extra minutes, try to think about what the exact second was that you "decided" to get out of bed - was it a conscious decision or did you just do it?

That isn't just bullshit - apparently people who had their corpus callosum cut (the connective tissue between the right and left hemispheres of the brain) were very good at rationalizing behavior from the other side of the brain. They didn't even notice they were doing it themselves.

Galt

#4
Oct 15, 2009, 04:16 PM Last Edit: Oct 15, 2009, 04:20 PM by Galt
Anyway ...

My golddigging-with-age report is based on a few instances I have seen of really moderate looking women targeting retired men (divorced or with a dead spouse) who had some kind-of money. Not all that much on the scale of things, but probably a lot for the woman.

It almost gets laughable, but these not-very-good-looking older women get these kind-of-wealthy-for-them men to marry them at their age. And it's all very serious.

Kind of picture all of this "action" taking place in a gated Florida community.

poiuyt

Nothing's specifically wrong with the mutual behaviours of the sexes when left to their own means and nature plays itself out unimpeded as it has done for millenia.

Things start to go wrong when such and such group begin to assert themselves to be oppresssed by nature and as such are entitled to have it both ways.

For example:

1.
In exchange of resources and material security for sexual and reproductive access, males and females got together in mutual trade offs. Nowadays males are held out and portrayed to be evil for their part in this equation because it implicitly binds the woman against her natural sexual liberty and economic rights to freedom. What femaleist genderists never mention is the way men are also sexually and economically bound by the same equation. And they want to keep men inexorably bound by their previous part of the human equation.

2.
In exchange of the agreement to be mutually bound by familial deed, males and females have been procreating children in health and safety for millenia. Nowadays males are held out and portrayed as oppressors for daring to want to remain in the family as overseers until their children are of majority and have outgrown the need for protection. What femaleist genderists never mention is the absolutely critical need of children for their fathers protection and oversight, against strangers, intruders and even the mother herself.

3.
In exchange for mutual care and assistance to each other, males and females have been happily growing old and happily dying, one after the other in their 80s and even 90s. Nowadays femaleist genderists wish to portray males as not as deserving of their benefit arising from this well established human equation. Hence women are held to be entitled to withdraw their part of this mutual caring equation, whilst the man continues by force, to provide his part. For example the mans home and pension is held to be communal property of which the woman is entitled to half.

4.
Even young women are nowadays groomed to view themselves as owners of sex, which is only to be given or withdrawn on their own one-ided terms. But cultural bigots and femaleist genderists hypocritically deny the very existence of the other side of this sexual equation. That is that to young fdemales, young males whatever their material worth have just as much, if not more allure, sexual currency and sexual potency to be given or withdrawn on their own terms.

So you see Galt, it is not that one genders' side of the human equation is naturally bad or good, naturally more lascivious or less, naturally more grasping or less. No. It is that the underlying social model adopted is glaringly biased, hypocritical and damaging because of its one-sidedness.

outdoors

 i have met a few rich women that did nothing for me as far as attraction goes-yet the opposite is true for women- beautiful women will screw a goat if it happens to drive a nice car.

money does not make me wanna have sex or a relationship with a woman i am not attracted to...maybe its just me being foolish?

mens_issues

#7
Oct 16, 2009, 10:37 AM Last Edit: Oct 16, 2009, 08:35 PM by mens_issues

i have met a few rich women that did nothing for me as far as attraction goes-yet the opposite is true for women- beautiful women will screw a goat if it happens to drive a nice car.

money does not make me wanna have sex or a relationship with a woman i am not attracted to...maybe its just me being foolish?


Outdoors, the imagery of a goat driving a fancy car (convertible?) with an admiring woman looking at him has had me laughing for the last few minutes.   :laughing6:
Men's Issues Online - a voice for men's advocacy http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MensIssuesOnline

Follow Male Positive Media on Twitter - https://twitter.com/MalePositive

.

I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.

RookhKshatriya


I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.


No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.

:engel2:
Anglobitch: the site for men who know Anglo-American women suck

dr e



I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.


No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.

:engel2:



Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

RookhKshatriya




I agree with poiuyt's analysis.

Women seek out men with status, wealth and protective qualities because these enable women to feel safe and secure enough to be nurturing to the man and, if applicable, their children.  In itself I believe there's nothing defective or unnatural about this desire by women to seek out safety and security in selecting a mate.  It CAN go into overdrive if fed by materialism and narcissism, but that is easily countered by a healthy dose of male discretion.

Too often, however, what women do is project their own way of thinking onto men.  Some women think that if they are successful and have money and status, somehow those qualities will be sexually attractive to men.  Which is more attractive to a man, a female Secretary of State or a feminine, soft-spoken and physically attractive waitress?  It's the waitress, of course.  An aging woman with a law degree thinks that she can compete with the waitress, but men evaluate women on a different basis than women evaluate men.

Even successful women can't help but choose men who are possess even more success, wealth and status than the women do; they try to "marry up" even though a woman's success was supposed to make a man's protection and provision irrelevant factors.  Biology still asserts itself; women instinctively seek out men who can provide and protect.


No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.

:engel2:



Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 


Maybe not. But then, it's not as simple as you paint it to be, either.

I must admit, you seem a bit of an anomaly in the American men's movement. Most of my American friends are single or divorced and very angry. If you are so happy, what do you want from the movement? Why are you involved with it?

:engel2:
Anglobitch: the site for men who know Anglo-American women suck

outdoors

Quote
No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.






Quote
Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 


thats very good dr e i am very happy for you--but it seems to me that succesful marriages nowadays are few and far between--there is a new phrase i read somewhere,where women now initially get married to "practice husbands" such as RookhKshatriya describes.

Galt

In contrast with Poiuyt and John Dias, I think real golddiggers are worthy of scorn. They are worthy of scorn because they consciously use the chivalry of men and the family law that developed from that chivalry to enrich themselves.

Heather Mills apparently told a friend or two that she was going to go after Paul McCartney for his money. She fleeced him royally. She is a golddigger.

Anyone want to defend her or say she is not worthy of scorn? 'Cuz she's just a girl following her genetic instincts? Have at it.

RookhKshatriya


Quote
No they don't. Young, attractive women are naturally attracted to thugs, gangsters and sociopaths as sexual partners. In their late twenties, shackled with unwanted children from those animals, they start looking for Mr Solvent to pick up the pieces of their ruined lives. They might want security from a MARRIAGE partner - but those nice, decent guys are seriously unwanted as SEXUAL partners. That's why we have all these turkey-necked, entitled old fuckers blaming all men for their own fucked-up, dysfunctional decisions.

Get going your own way, guys.






Quote
Oh please!  You are generalizing to the max.  Not all young women seek out thugs.  There is such a thing as a successful marriage, I am living proof of that.  The world is not as simple as you seem to try and paint it to be. 


thats very good dr e i am very happy for you--but it seems to me that succesful marriages nowadays are few and far between--there is a new phrase i read somewhere,where women now initially get married to "practice husbands" such as RookhKshatriya describes.


'Starter Marriages' is the official term. There is even a book about it, for Anglo-American brides-to-be.

:engel2:
Anglobitch: the site for men who know Anglo-American women suck

Go Up