Tiger Woods

[davelj]

[quote=KSMountain]Bingo, CA Renter. Naillled it.[/quote]

Agreed. Can’t argue with any of that.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]
A good explanation for this is involves my theory regarding how men and women are valued differently. As mentioned before, I believe a woman’s most valuable assets are her youth and beauty (and fertility), while a man’s most valuable assets are money and social status. This is why I believe a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is usually back-loaded (as he makes more money over time, in most cases).

Women chase after these men because they are wealthy and/or because they are famous (social status). Men chase after women because they are young/beautiful. The female “groupies” are more visible because our society focuses on celebrities; therefore, everything about their lives is more visible.

If you want to see the male version of groupies, just follow a very attractive, young woman around. They get hit on all day long — literally everywhere they go. Men don’t chase after celebrities because they don’t value money/social status in their mates like women do; they value youth/beauty, instead. This is why most male stalkers will stalk “regular” women. Women don’t have to be rich/famous to attract men (some very rich/powerful men are seen dating/marrying bartenders and waitresses), but a woman with many stalkers/suitors will almost always be young and/or beautiful.[/quote]

CAR –
Let’s add some clarification and granularity to your points. First, men chase women because they want to get laid, not because they’re beautiful. It does not matter if a woman is plain, beautiful, short, or fugly as all will garner some level of attention proportional to their attractiveness, physical or otherwise. Certainly beauty increases the odds of establishing a relationship beyond a one night stand, but other factors over time should be recognized as equally if not more important, such as chemistry, personality, and ease of being intimate. I think they are, but the challenge is that both men and women continuously change over time such that it is very difficult to discern if love / compatability will endure over the long term. My response to those who say you should marry for love and not money/beauty is – Ya Think?! For a marriage to be successful and lasting, I believe you have to get lucky.

Women I think seek men primarily for attention, companionship, emotional connection, etc. with goals of culminating a long term relationship. Men of wealth and social status enjoy an advantage only at the introductory stage, albeit a big one. If they turn out to be an ass, abusive, or unfaithful, I think most women would end it. The exception is if the man is in the elite wealth club, such as Tiger, where extreme wealth can outweigh almost anything. Confusion on what truly attracts woman can occur because wealthy and powerful men on average are probably interesting and attractive in other ways by default, and would attract women regardless of their wealth. In this case, wealth and attraction can be incorrectly conflated. Therefore, the notion that wealth for men and beauty for woman are their biggest assets in securing a relationship is only correct in the context described.

The reality is that most couples meet through a variety of circumstances, fall in love, and eventually enter a long term committed relationship. It’s that simple. Most of my rich friends married with nothing more than a degree and the promise of a good career. Money was not a factor. While most rich guys seem to have hot wives, there are also a lot of poor and plain looking guys with hot wives. Likewise, it’s not uncommon to see rich men with average looking women.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]
A good explanation for this is involves my theory regarding how men and women are valued differently. As mentioned before, I believe a woman’s most valuable assets are her youth and beauty (and fertility), while a man’s most valuable assets are money and social status. This is why I believe a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is usually back-loaded (as he makes more money over time, in most cases).

Women chase after these men because they are wealthy and/or because they are famous (social status). Men chase after women because they are young/beautiful. The female “groupies” are more visible because our society focuses on celebrities; therefore, everything about their lives is more visible.

If you want to see the male version of groupies, just follow a very attractive, young woman around. They get hit on all day long — literally everywhere they go. Men don’t chase after celebrities because they don’t value money/social status in their mates like women do; they value youth/beauty, instead. This is why most male stalkers will stalk “regular” women. Women don’t have to be rich/famous to attract men (some very rich/powerful men are seen dating/marrying bartenders and waitresses), but a woman with many stalkers/suitors will almost always be young and/or beautiful.[/quote]

CAR –
Let’s add some clarification and granularity to your points. First, men chase women because they want to get laid, not because they’re beautiful. It does not matter if a woman is plain, beautiful, short, or fugly as all will garner some level of attention proportional to their attractiveness, physical or otherwise. Certainly beauty increases the odds of establishing a relationship beyond a one night stand, but other factors over time should be recognized as equally if not more important, such as chemistry, personality, and ease of being intimate. I think they are, but the challenge is that both men and women continuously change over time such that it is very difficult to discern if love / compatability will endure over the long term. My response to those who say you should marry for love and not money/beauty is – Ya Think?! For a marriage to be successful and lasting, I believe you have to get lucky.

Women I think seek men primarily for attention, companionship, emotional connection, etc. with goals of culminating a long term relationship. Men of wealth and social status enjoy an advantage only at the introductory stage, albeit a big one. If they turn out to be an ass, abusive, or unfaithful, I think most women would end it. The exception is if the man is in the elite wealth club, such as Tiger, where extreme wealth can outweigh almost anything. Confusion on what truly attracts woman can occur because wealthy and powerful men on average are probably interesting and attractive in other ways by default, and would attract women regardless of their wealth. In this case, wealth and attraction can be incorrectly conflated. Therefore, the notion that wealth for men and beauty for woman are their biggest assets in securing a relationship is only correct in the context described.

The reality is that most couples meet through a variety of circumstances, fall in love, and eventually enter a long term committed relationship. It’s that simple. Most of my rich friends married with nothing more than a degree and the promise of a good career. Money was not a factor. While most rich guys seem to have hot wives, there are also a lot of poor and plain looking guys with hot wives. Likewise, it’s not uncommon to see rich men with average looking women.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]
A good explanation for this is involves my theory regarding how men and women are valued differently. As mentioned before, I believe a woman’s most valuable assets are her youth and beauty (and fertility), while a man’s most valuable assets are money and social status. This is why I believe a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is usually back-loaded (as he makes more money over time, in most cases).

Women chase after these men because they are wealthy and/or because they are famous (social status). Men chase after women because they are young/beautiful. The female “groupies” are more visible because our society focuses on celebrities; therefore, everything about their lives is more visible.

If you want to see the male version of groupies, just follow a very attractive, young woman around. They get hit on all day long — literally everywhere they go. Men don’t chase after celebrities because they don’t value money/social status in their mates like women do; they value youth/beauty, instead. This is why most male stalkers will stalk “regular” women. Women don’t have to be rich/famous to attract men (some very rich/powerful men are seen dating/marrying bartenders and waitresses), but a woman with many stalkers/suitors will almost always be young and/or beautiful.[/quote]

CAR –
Let’s add some clarification and granularity to your points. First, men chase women because they want to get laid, not because they’re beautiful. It does not matter if a woman is plain, beautiful, short, or fugly as all will garner some level of attention proportional to their attractiveness, physical or otherwise. Certainly beauty increases the odds of establishing a relationship beyond a one night stand, but other factors over time should be recognized as equally if not more important, such as chemistry, personality, and ease of being intimate. I think they are, but the challenge is that both men and women continuously change over time such that it is very difficult to discern if love / compatability will endure over the long term. My response to those who say you should marry for love and not money/beauty is – Ya Think?! For a marriage to be successful and lasting, I believe you have to get lucky.

Women I think seek men primarily for attention, companionship, emotional connection, etc. with goals of culminating a long term relationship. Men of wealth and social status enjoy an advantage only at the introductory stage, albeit a big one. If they turn out to be an ass, abusive, or unfaithful, I think most women would end it. The exception is if the man is in the elite wealth club, such as Tiger, where extreme wealth can outweigh almost anything. Confusion on what truly attracts woman can occur because wealthy and powerful men on average are probably interesting and attractive in other ways by default, and would attract women regardless of their wealth. In this case, wealth and attraction can be incorrectly conflated. Therefore, the notion that wealth for men and beauty for woman are their biggest assets in securing a relationship is only correct in the context described.

The reality is that most couples meet through a variety of circumstances, fall in love, and eventually enter a long term committed relationship. It’s that simple. Most of my rich friends married with nothing more than a degree and the promise of a good career. Money was not a factor. While most rich guys seem to have hot wives, there are also a lot of poor and plain looking guys with hot wives. Likewise, it’s not uncommon to see rich men with average looking women.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]
A good explanation for this is involves my theory regarding how men and women are valued differently. As mentioned before, I believe a woman’s most valuable assets are her youth and beauty (and fertility), while a man’s most valuable assets are money and social status. This is why I believe a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is usually back-loaded (as he makes more money over time, in most cases).

Women chase after these men because they are wealthy and/or because they are famous (social status). Men chase after women because they are young/beautiful. The female “groupies” are more visible because our society focuses on celebrities; therefore, everything about their lives is more visible.

If you want to see the male version of groupies, just follow a very attractive, young woman around. They get hit on all day long — literally everywhere they go. Men don’t chase after celebrities because they don’t value money/social status in their mates like women do; they value youth/beauty, instead. This is why most male stalkers will stalk “regular” women. Women don’t have to be rich/famous to attract men (some very rich/powerful men are seen dating/marrying bartenders and waitresses), but a woman with many stalkers/suitors will almost always be young and/or beautiful.[/quote]

CAR –
Let’s add some clarification and granularity to your points. First, men chase women because they want to get laid, not because they’re beautiful. It does not matter if a woman is plain, beautiful, short, or fugly as all will garner some level of attention proportional to their attractiveness, physical or otherwise. Certainly beauty increases the odds of establishing a relationship beyond a one night stand, but other factors over time should be recognized as equally if not more important, such as chemistry, personality, and ease of being intimate. I think they are, but the challenge is that both men and women continuously change over time such that it is very difficult to discern if love / compatability will endure over the long term. My response to those who say you should marry for love and not money/beauty is – Ya Think?! For a marriage to be successful and lasting, I believe you have to get lucky.

Women I think seek men primarily for attention, companionship, emotional connection, etc. with goals of culminating a long term relationship. Men of wealth and social status enjoy an advantage only at the introductory stage, albeit a big one. If they turn out to be an ass, abusive, or unfaithful, I think most women would end it. The exception is if the man is in the elite wealth club, such as Tiger, where extreme wealth can outweigh almost anything. Confusion on what truly attracts woman can occur because wealthy and powerful men on average are probably interesting and attractive in other ways by default, and would attract women regardless of their wealth. In this case, wealth and attraction can be incorrectly conflated. Therefore, the notion that wealth for men and beauty for woman are their biggest assets in securing a relationship is only correct in the context described.

The reality is that most couples meet through a variety of circumstances, fall in love, and eventually enter a long term committed relationship. It’s that simple. Most of my rich friends married with nothing more than a degree and the promise of a good career. Money was not a factor. While most rich guys seem to have hot wives, there are also a lot of poor and plain looking guys with hot wives. Likewise, it’s not uncommon to see rich men with average looking women.

[cabal]

[quote=CA renter]
A good explanation for this is involves my theory regarding how men and women are valued differently. As mentioned before, I believe a woman’s most valuable assets are her youth and beauty (and fertility), while a man’s most valuable assets are money and social status. This is why I believe a woman’s contribution to a marriage is front-loaded, while a man’s contribution is usually back-loaded (as he makes more money over time, in most cases).

Women chase after these men because they are wealthy and/or because they are famous (social status). Men chase after women because they are young/beautiful. The female “groupies” are more visible because our society focuses on celebrities; therefore, everything about their lives is more visible.

If you want to see the male version of groupies, just follow a very attractive, young woman around. They get hit on all day long — literally everywhere they go. Men don’t chase after celebrities because they don’t value money/social status in their mates like women do; they value youth/beauty, instead. This is why most male stalkers will stalk “regular” women. Women don’t have to be rich/famous to attract men (some very rich/powerful men are seen dating/marrying bartenders and waitresses), but a woman with many stalkers/suitors will almost always be young and/or beautiful.[/quote]

CAR –
Let’s add some clarification and granularity to your points. First, men chase women because they want to get laid, not because they’re beautiful. It does not matter if a woman is plain, beautiful, short, or fugly as all will garner some level of attention proportional to their attractiveness, physical or otherwise. Certainly beauty increases the odds of establishing a relationship beyond a one night stand, but other factors over time should be recognized as equally if not more important, such as chemistry, personality, and ease of being intimate. I think they are, but the challenge is that both men and women continuously change over time such that it is very difficult to discern if love / compatability will endure over the long term. My response to those who say you should marry for love and not money/beauty is – Ya Think?! For a marriage to be successful and lasting, I believe you have to get lucky.

Women I think seek men primarily for attention, companionship, emotional connection, etc. with goals of culminating a long term relationship. Men of wealth and social status enjoy an advantage only at the introductory stage, albeit a big one. If they turn out to be an ass, abusive, or unfaithful, I think most women would end it. The exception is if the man is in the elite wealth club, such as Tiger, where extreme wealth can outweigh almost anything. Confusion on what truly attracts woman can occur because wealthy and powerful men on average are probably interesting and attractive in other ways by default, and would attract women regardless of their wealth. In this case, wealth and attraction can be incorrectly conflated. Therefore, the notion that wealth for men and beauty for woman are their biggest assets in securing a relationship is only correct in the context described.

The reality is that most couples meet through a variety of circumstances, fall in love, and eventually enter a long term committed relationship. It’s that simple. Most of my rich friends married with nothing more than a degree and the promise of a good career. Money was not a factor. While most rich guys seem to have hot wives, there are also a lot of poor and plain looking guys with hot wives. Likewise, it’s not uncommon to see rich men with average looking women.

[scaredyclassic]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…

[scaredyclassic]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…

[scaredyclassic]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…

[scaredyclassic]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…

[scaredyclassic]

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that, scaredy. Tough people living a rough life. Interesting though, they understand how a move to “modernization” would affect them (becoming maids and “unskilled” labor), and the wisely choose to remain as they are.

These are the kind of people who could handle a collapse of our banking system! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that, scaredy. Tough people living a rough life. Interesting though, they understand how a move to “modernization” would affect them (becoming maids and “unskilled” labor), and the wisely choose to remain as they are.

These are the kind of people who could handle a collapse of our banking system! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that, scaredy. Tough people living a rough life. Interesting though, they understand how a move to “modernization” would affect them (becoming maids and “unskilled” labor), and the wisely choose to remain as they are.

These are the kind of people who could handle a collapse of our banking system! 😉

[CA renter]

[quote=scaredycat]http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

really neat article on a very rare group in tanzania that never abandonned hunter-gatherer lifestyle despite some contact with nearby farmers.. available in this month’s NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC (my kid brought it to me!) or online also..male/female relations are quite a bit different than our assumptions…[/quote]

Thanks for sharing that, scaredy. Tough people living a rough life. Interesting though, they understand how a move to “modernization” would affect them (becoming maids and “unskilled” labor), and the wisely choose to remain as they are.

These are the kind of people who could handle a collapse of our banking system! 😉

[Author]

Posts