Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Attitudes to gender and money are often stuck in the past, as this thread perhaps indicates. I find it refreshing when a woman earns as much or more than me, and welcome the fact that this is becoming more commonplace than it used to be. I have never detected any interest in making a relationship merely transactional in any woman that I have gone about with.
Fiddlesticks to a sample of one 
The only place to discover what women (and men) really want is an article in the Daily Mail. You know it makes sense
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619439/Wh...
Before the Mail Haters and Male Haters join forces with flamethrowers directed at the DM, this is a study published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour no less.
Article in the DM around the results from a study published in JoEaHB said:
Men and women might wax lyrical about looking for someone who is kind, sensitive and funny.
But a new study shows that when it comes to finding partners, the dreaded cliché seems to be true.
A study published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour shows what really matters to men is looks - while women want a man with a booming bank balance.
The study asked hundreds of young men and women what mattered when choosing a partner.
The categories were attractiveness, wealth, ambition, kindness and intelligence.
And results shows men were overwhelmingly swayed by an attractive face and body, while women were hooked on wealth and ambition.
Professor Gad Saad, who co-authored the study with Tripat Gill, said the research seems to highlight how evolution has led us to this 'irrational' decision-making.
Courts are clearly not immune from the impact of human evolution But a new study shows that when it comes to finding partners, the dreaded cliché seems to be true.
A study published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour shows what really matters to men is looks - while women want a man with a booming bank balance.
The study asked hundreds of young men and women what mattered when choosing a partner.
The categories were attractiveness, wealth, ambition, kindness and intelligence.
And results shows men were overwhelmingly swayed by an attractive face and body, while women were hooked on wealth and ambition.
Professor Gad Saad, who co-authored the study with Tripat Gill, said the research seems to highlight how evolution has led us to this 'irrational' decision-making.
Article in the DM around the results from a study published in JoEaHB said:
A study published in the Journal of Evolution and Human Behaviour shows what really matters to men is looks - while women want a man with a booming bank balance.
And women have campaigned hard for decades to tip the scales in their favour to retain that bank balance post divorce, while at the same time artificially enhancing and altering their looks to make them more appealing in the first place.Ginetta G15 Girl said:
supersingle said:
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.
Dear gods I've read some stupid s
te on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.So.
In your opinion all women are just after (men's) money?
So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?
You sir are a pillock of the fist degree.
Edit: Actually you are not, what you are is a f
king idiot. Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Sunday 19th October 00:51
Strong response ...
You should spend some time in Asia.
What matters a lot to just about all the women I meet here ( regarding men) is :
Job status
Education
Wealth
Earnings
Personality and interests
Compatibility
The money side IS important here - even for very well off successful women- and they are very upfront about it.
They will want to know on first date : what you do for a living, where you live , education ... And get an idea of previous jobs / history.
It's all about financial security and 'providing' - and this also applies to women who may be millionaires in their 30s. They still want the guy to 'deliver'. What's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
supersingle said:
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.
Dear gods I've read some stupid ste on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.So.
In your opinion all women are just after (men's) money?
So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?
You sir are a pillock of the fist degree.
Edit: Actually you are not, what you are is a f
king idiot. Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Sunday 19th October 00:51
Strong response ...
You should spend some time in Asia.
What matters a lot to just about all the women I meet here ( regarding men) is :
Job status
Education
Wealth
Earnings
Personality and interests
Compatibility
The money side IS important here - even for very well off successful women- and they are very upfront about it.
They will want to know on first date : what you do for a living, where you live , education ... And get an idea of previous jobs / history.
It's all about financial security and 'providing' - and this also applies to women who may be millionaires in their 30s. They still want the guy to 'deliver'. What's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs
turbobloke said:
Fiddlesticks to a sample of one
As you always lecture us about statistics and evidence, what about your statement that"women" (not "some women", or "most women", but "women) think they are sitting on a fortune? What about the various assertions made here by others about "all women"? I don't blame Ginetta Girl for a "strong response" to the Neanderthal stuff posted here.
I have never been asked about my job history on a first date. If a woman, or a man, is interested in a date's education and job, that is just as likely to be because they want to establish compatibility of outlook as it is to be about some mercenary evaluation of worth.
I have never been asked about my job history on a first date. If a woman, or a man, is interested in a date's education and job, that is just as likely to be because they want to establish compatibility of outlook as it is to be about some mercenary evaluation of worth.
Breadvan72 said:
turbobloke said:
Fiddlesticks to a sample of one
As you always lecture us about statistics and evidence, what about your statement that"women" (not "some women", or "most women", but "women) think they are sitting on a fortune? What about the various assertions made here by others about "all women"? You're jolly good at picking the wrong bits of what other people say when trying and failing to upbraid them on PH, including this thread where the relevant posts remain visible.
One time recently it was a diversionary focus on the marriage aspect of a same-sex relationship, when the same sex bit was pertinent (i.e. male, see posts timed yesterday at 10:12 and 10:19hrs).
Then there was your selectivity in claiming that the generality of a statement about women was sufficient to satisfy misogyny criteria, when there also needed to be hate or strong dislike (which was self-evidently missing, see posts yesterday and in particular around the definition at 12:32).
The most recent and equally feeble attempt above refers to the 'sitting on a fortune' phrase, and deliberately ignores the very specific selection and use of the word 'connotation' (see post yesterday timed at 06:47) which is defined as an idea or feeling i.e. not a claim to a proven statement of fact whether statistically or otherwise based. Your sample size of one (man) remains duff, HTH.
You're a legal professional yes?
In more general terms political correctness will always try and will always fail. The real world remains as-is. There is not an ounce of misogyny in anything I've posted.
Ducking the question, as usual, I see, or is the rule "all generalisations are odious, save those made by turbobloke"? It was, by the way, you who introduced the irrelevant topic of same sex marriage. Read your posts. If you really can't see misogyny in this thread, or indeed in your assertion that women think they are sitting on a fortune, then your specs may need cleaning.
Ducking the question 
Superb irony.
If course I introduces the same sex marriage thing which is why I referenced my post, and as per my reply the key element was same sex (male) not marriage, which was your diversionary focus.
I gave times for each relevant post in refutation of your bluster. Anyone can check it out for themselves. Your response to that was just verbiage, as usual.
Resorting to name calling and vague but basleless accusations says it all.
Superb irony.
If course I introduces the same sex marriage thing which is why I referenced my post, and as per my reply the key element was same sex (male) not marriage, which was your diversionary focus.
I gave times for each relevant post in refutation of your bluster. Anyone can check it out for themselves. Your response to that was just verbiage, as usual.
Resorting to name calling and vague but basleless accusations says it all.
turbobloke, I fail to see how responding to your irrelevant comment about same sex marriage (irrelevant because in the case under discussion the parties were not married) is "diversionary". Nor have I called you names. I have suggested that your comment about women sitting on a fortune is by its nature misogynist. It is an unevidenced generalisation, and invites a conclusion hostile to women.
supersingle said:
We're living in the past, misogynists and Neanderthals.
Anyone else playing PC bingo?
Don't forget the really neat bit - while we neanderthals (ho ho what a card) are stuck in the 50s (we all miss screenings of the popular BBC programme 'Billy Bunter' mainly for its political correctness) we'ere also obsessed with "horrible modern cars" copyright BV on PH yesterday at 18:50 hrs. O'Reilly! Anyone else playing PC bingo?
The car I've owned for longest was originally a B-reg car, that's B in old money not new money, and when selecting a 911T chose a 965 over a 993. Obviously I'm the exception that proves the rule
unless we're talking Ford Model T territory and BV is older than previously thought.BV insult bingo is available to all and therefore very inclusive but the full house prize was won many threads ago
You know, it could be worse.... he could have shacked up with this mental SWT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798428/an...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798428/an...
supersingle said:
Until very recently marriage (for women) was primarily about finding a man who could provide for a family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman desiring that.
To be fair that also included the idea of marriage meaning for life and possibly even beyond based on love in good times and bad,for richer or poorer,for better or for worse and family meaning in the literal sense.Not the adopted extended family as described in this case brought along as baggage as part of a deal in which the mug in question got stitched up with what should have been the ex husband's responsibilities.Probably because,like many other single men who've been left on the shelf,he desperately and mistakenly took what he could get in a world of too few young single women.In which case we wouldn't even be arguing about the situation in this case.
vonuber said:
I see this thread has dished up the standard PH tripe when it comes to women. Ho hum.
The usual amount of powitical cowwectness, check.Complaining about things nobody actually said, check.
Selectivity about what was said in order to get all pc about nothing, check.
Vague statements from a PHer or two complaining about PHers, check.
Hey you've got a point, the usual tripe is indeed out and about.
There wasn't something on-topic to add by any chance?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff