The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Why do women value money more than men?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:15 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator People say men only want money to get women.
But that raises the question - what do women want money for (since it's not necessary for them to attract mates)? Why don't men want the things that women want money to buy? |
 |
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:16 PM Author: Bipolar ultramarine knife If Ferraris were free, every man would drive one. If engagement rings were free, no woman would want one. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:16 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator so you think women are just dumb and superficial by nature? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160193) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state no, not all women. some. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160197) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:18 PM Author: Beady-eyed nofapping friendly grandma too, too many
also: see ASIAN |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state profound (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160196) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:20 PM Author: mahogany adventurous becky "If Ferraris were free, every man would drive one. If engagement rings were free, no woman would want one."
That was something I said under one of my old monikers. But you're not a plagiarist, you're just speaking the truth. Carry on, good pumo.
|
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:37 PM Author: Bipolar ultramarine knife I recall this, and I credit you. HT: your old moniker. ty, FRIEND (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160866) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 3:23 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161805) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2010 7:59 AM Author: Impertinent toaster lay Heard this a long time ago but its still true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14169114) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2010 8:09 AM Author: titillating walnut dysfunction Nah, cars like that are a status symbol to get women. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14169142) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:16 PM Author: Beady-eyed nofapping friendly grandma Because they're whores
|
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 6:12 PM Author: Up-to-no-good Voyeur Stock Car titcr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163371) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:16 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state chickenheads (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160192) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:17 PM Author: motley chad status. humans aren't greedy or materialistic by nature but they are social. a part of our socialization is signalling higher status to others. women exhibit this more than men. ywia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160194) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator i guess my question is: why do women care about status while men don't as much? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160221) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:21 PM Author: motley chad men do, just not as much. you tell me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160225) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:22 PM Author: Dashing Stain Orchestra Pit the male equivalent is beating up another man. up through fuedalism that pretty much was what you're worth.
it's still true in some parts of the world today. see afghanistan. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:22 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Men exhibit their status through their job titles and cars, and also in non-monetary ways like muscles and having hot girls around them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160234) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:29 PM Author: Bronze Bateful Pit the job title is only to get the girls. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160292) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:33 PM Author: Zippy business firm goal in life Getting the girls is only to signal to other alphas that you are ALPHA and you bros can take care of each other no homo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160335) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:21 PM Author: Dashing Stain Orchestra Pit men do it by beating the shit out of each other. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160223) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I don't think that's really true. Men like cars and electronics and lots of other expensive things, and they also like the fact that money allows them to attract women.
Women also like things that are either enjoyable in and of themselves or that let you signal status to others, and additionally like money because it makes them feel secure about having enough resources to raise their offspring. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:22 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator right but women date men to get $ all the time
men never do this - why? |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:24 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha You must have read some evolutionary psychology by now, especially since you're friendly with Chalmers. Women have an instinct to seek men who are somewhat secure, because in the past they needed to find mates who were able to do a good job feeding them and their children. That instinct persists today, even in women who don't like children.
I don't think this is the only factor, as all the threads where women picked a tall guy over a rich guy show, but it's one of a few working to determine attraction. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:25 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator i guess i didnt realize that it's ultimately related to the desire to raise children
so basically men arent as materialistic because they don't need to be concerned with raising children |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:27 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I don't think that's right, though. Men are materialistic in a way that focuses on making money, so they can appeal to attractive mates. Women are focused on being attractive, so they can appeal to wealthy mates.
Again, massive over simplification that ignores several other factors at play, but I think that's basically a breakdown of the wealth dynamics. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:29 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator i guess i meant personally materialistic
men want money, but only to attract women. hypothetically, if there were some way for a man to have sex with/impregnate tons of hot young women without having money, he wouldn't care as much about money
women value money for money's sake, as it makes them feel more secure about raising children
basically men want wealth so that they can trade it for hotness, and women want hotness so that they can trade it for wealth. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:30 PM Author: motley chad and woman want wealth to impress other women (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160308) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha That's true too. Men try to impress other men by having attractive girlfriends, though, so it kind of plays in the same way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160317) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:33 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator why is impressing other women important from an evolutionary perspective?
i can understand why men want to impress other men (protection, to form alliances, for business reasons) but what could an early human woman really do for another early human woman? if anything women should want to impress men. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:35 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha It's not like humans lived in little two person, isolated families. If you're living in a small band of people, your status in that group has a lot to do with how pleasant your life is. Plus, it's not like you're guaranteed your mate will both live and stick around forever. If you're a low status widow, or a low status woman whose husband has moved on to another woman, you're going to be in a much worse position than a woman who has a sort of grandmotherly respect from others. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160351) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:27 PM Author: motley chad i don't think it is. i think it's a byproduct of our socialization which is taken to an extreme in massive communities like NYC, LA, etc. or thanks to globalization, the whole world as opposed to a small hunter-gatherer community (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160760) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha As an extremely broad theory, I can buy that. Women tend to be a little more materialistic, men tend to be a little more looks-focused, both end up having some pretty shallow impulses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160309) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:27 PM Author: motley chad but the materialism goes so much farther than having enough to support children (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160280) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator right but id imagine thats the evolutionary root of the materialism... id guess marrying a guy who can buy you a really expensive engagement ring signals to you that he'll take good care of your kids. i think the engagement ring itself isn't that important. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160314) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:59 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler If true, this would result in a statistical disparity in sexual behavior and preferences across the sexes. But you insist that any such disparity must be destroyed. How would removing such a disparity be sustainable without constant societal pressure on one of the sexes to conform to a role outside their preferences? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160513) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:03 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha As many others have noted on the thread, these instincts that were developed in a time of great food scarcity now do not relate all that well to the modern world, and have in many cases resulted in counterproductive behavior. I don't think any harm would be done by encouraging people to consider other models and options, without any actual limits on free choice. Well, some might be done to handbag manufacturers and jewelry stores, but that might not be so bad from a social perspective.
And, as I've said to you two times before, my quarrel is not with people having preferences. It's with labeling or judging those who don't suit their preferences. Find your virgin, pensive, and stop worrying so much about what other women are doing. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:15 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "And, as I've said to you two times before, my quarrel is not with people having preferences."
You've said two different things. Last time you clarified that your quarrel is not with people having differing preferences generally, but you also maintained that you do have a specific quarrel with any statistical disparity across the sexes with regard to sexual behavior and preferences. Have you changed your mind on that?
"I don't think any harm would be done by encouraging people to consider other models and options."
Maybe or maybe not (depending on what form "encouraging" takes). But unless you want to genetically reengineer humanity, the optimal model might be one that both fits the advantages of a modern society and their natural tendencies.
"It's with labeling or judging those who don't suit their preferences."
I don't know about this. I know you like to think of yourself as open to people's preferences, but you frequently sniff or snipe at those who don't align with your preferences.
Anyway, labeling and judging those who don't suit your preferences is indispensible ("She is X and so I judge her to not fit my preferences"). Now, you might have a complaint about tone, but that's another matter. This forum has never taken a socially correct tone, anyway. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:19 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I don't have a problem with statistical disparities as long as people are aware of all their options, have the opportunity to consider them, and are not punished for pursuing them.
It might. Personally, I think the optimal model gives people the freedom to choose where they wish to fall on the spectrum, after having the opportunity to consider their behavior rather than merely doing it reflexively or because compelled to by social norms.
That's not what I meant, and you know that's not what I meant. Imputing other characteristics onto people who do not meet your sexual preferences is the behavior I find objectionable. Someone may be compatible or incompatible. They are not "good" because they are compatible or "bad" because they are incompatible. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:37 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "I don't have a problem with statistical disparities"
Glad to hear it.
"as long as people are aware of all their options, have the opportunity to consider them"
So people raised in a modern libertine environment who only have a superficial understanding of the argued advantages of traditionalism are sexually repressed?
"are not punished for pursuing them"
If a group of people shun someone as a desirable mate, do you condemn that as "punishment" or do you allow it as an expression of sexual preferences?
"Imputing other characteristics onto people who do not meet your sexual preferences is the behavior I find objectionable."
People don't make judgments and draw inferences in a vacuum. Part of judging whether someone will meet your sexual preferences involves imputing related characteristics to them.
"They are not "good" because they are compatible or "bad" because they are incompatible."
Not universally, they aren't. But they may be "good" mates for you or "bad" mates for you. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:41 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I think that people who have only been exposed to non-committed relationships lack an understanding of all their options, yes. I'm not sure many of those exist. I don't think repressed is a good word to use, as it tends to imply that the person ought to change, not just they ought to learn more before deciding.
It depends what you mean by shun. If it means that they decline to date this person, there's nothing wrong with it at all. If they refuse to work with this person, attempt to marginalize them socially, or otherwise try to negatively impact them in ways that don't specifically relate to dating them, then it's inappropriate.
I disagree with most of what this entails.
They may be suitable or unsuitable mates for you. They are not heroic, unheroic, moral, immoral, or anything else of that nature. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:47 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "I think that people who have only been exposed to non-committed relationships lack an understanding of all their options, yes. I'm not sure many of those exist."
Depending on where you put the threshold for a "committed relationship," many of those exist. And committed relationships are a necessary but insufficient criterion for many traditional forms. So, yeah, a huge proportion of women are sexually repressed in the sense of not fully understanding all of their options.
"They are not heroic, unheroic, moral, immoral, or anything else of that nature."
They aren't universally heroic/unheroic, but they may be heoric/unheroic within a certain framework.
I don't see that we have much general disagreement left. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:55 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Almost everyone I know has knows married couples, and married couples where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife stays at home. I'm not sure how much more traditional you wish to go, but even the furthest realms can be seen on television. Society isn't perfect and there could be more information period, but I don't think it's strongly biased towards either end of the sexual spectrum right now.
I reiterate my objection to using the word repressed. I would not use it against a woman who chose to wait for marriage to have sex, whether or not she was fully aware of other choices. Again, it implies that the person's natural state is otherwise and that change is needed, not just something that should be considered.
No, they are not heroic or unheroic within a certain framework. Those words imply other traits, which as I've stated, is inappropriate.
I actually think we do based on this set of comments, but I'm more than happy to be left to finish my lunch. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:00 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "Almost everyone I know has knows married couples, and married couples where the husband is the breadwinner and the wife stays at home."
Even 18 year olds? Teenage years are formative, including for sexuality.
"television"
lol
"I reiterate my objection to using the word repressed. I would not use it against a woman who chose to wait for marriage to have sex, whether or not she was fully aware of other choices."
Okay.
"No, they are not heroic or unheroic within a certain framework."
That's false. Heroic means "red" and unheroic means "blue" within a certain framework.
"Those words imply other traits, which as I've stated, is inappropriate."
LOL at "inappropriate." Then English is inappropriate. Go learn some ultra-refined and sanitized version of Esperanto or something. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:06 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Outside of inner cities, yes. People can look to their parents, the parents of their peers, their older siblings, others in their communities, and so on. Not everyone will have a full range of models, but I think most people have some exposure to the common ones growing up. This could be improved, of course, in all directions.
As for television, it's imperfect, but some lifestyles are fairly outside the norm and may not be adopted often enough for everyone to know someone who personally undertakes it. The Duggars are fairly far towards one end, poly people are fairly far towards the other, and thankfully for all of us, everyone can learn about their ideas even if they don't meet them personally.
In a world where "hero" has no other meaning, sure. In this one, it's been purposefully chosen to imply a set of traits beyond sexuality. Hell, you even initially advanced it as such.
When we're choosing new terms, we can attempt to choose ones that are more neutral. However, none is needed in this case. "Chaste" is one that exists and defines women as being virginal or as only sleeping with men to whom they ar emarried. It's easily expanded here to women who only sleep with serious boyfriends. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:17 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "This could be improved, of course, in all directions."
I suppose. I have no interest in arguing fine points with you because it's fruitless. I'll just say that in my observations, a large number of people are astonishingly ignorant of what makes traditional relationships work.
"In a world where "hero" has no other meaning, sure."
Again, go find some constructed language with no semantic interconnections.
"In this one, it's been purposefully chosen to imply a set of traits beyond sexuality."
Yeah, because traits beyond sexuality have import to many people's sexual preferences.
"Hell, you even initially advanced it as such."
LOL, you dumbass. YHAOATTTSBHTF.
"When we're choosing new terms"
There is no "we." You aren't a participant in the group that has use for that term because you are uninterested in that mode of sexuality. And I'm uninterested in your linguistic imperialism. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:22 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha All languages have semantic interconnections. But we have many words to describe sexual behavior. There is no need to choose a new one which has a strong primary meaning that has moral connotations and nothing at all to do with sex.
You can separate traits related to sexuality from other traits.
Sure I am, because its opposite "unheroic" is regularly applied to me. I consider this to be one of the shunning techniques I described above, and I consider it wrong. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:25 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state what are you guys even talking about (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161319) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:27 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Oh, god, I don't know. More pensive nonsense. Thank you for reminding me to stop. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161340) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:47 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler LOL, you dumbass. YHAOATTTSBHTF YHAOATTTSBHTF you have an odd access to things that should be hard to find YHAOATTTSBHTF. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161450) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:47 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler "But we have many words to describe sexual behavior."
Does a group of people with a certain set of sexual preferences that they feel is inadequately summarized by any existing term really need to apply to the Rowan Goodspeak Committee for approval before coining a new term?
"There is no need to choose a new one which has a strong primary meaning"
That's lingo. Someone feels something missing in the available lexicon and introduces a term. Others also feel that the term helps them to better express themselves (more accurately, more precisely, more efficiently, etc.) and so adopt it also.
"You can separate traits related to sexuality from other traits."
This particular objection is absurd. I take it that you have no objection to the term "attractive," even though it can refer to traits related to sexuality as well as other traits.
"Sure I am, because its opposite "unheroic" is regularly applied to me. I consider this to be one of the shunning techniques I described above, and I consider it wrong."
Even if you fully import the connotation of "heroism," it's not exactly cruel to say that someone isn't heroic by your standards, since "heroism" has the connotation of a high bar. Saying that someone is "not heroic" might not be the thing to do in polite company (which xoxo isn't), but it's not like calling someone a "slut."
And few people are going to mistake "save a baby" heroism with the xoxo term. It's readily apparent as lingo.
But as I was the one who brought up semantic interconnectedness, I'll acknowledge that due to the messiness in communication, you might feel some displeasing semantic leakage when someone pseudo-publicly classifies you "unheroic." But given the general understanding of "heroism" as lingo, given the interest of a group to admire those who meet its ideals (e.g., as "heroic"), given the interest of a group to its own language, given the positive-focused nature of the term ("heroic/unheroic" vs. "slut/nonslut"), and given the free-wheeling nature of this forum, your protest and your suggested remedy are each disproportionate to your interest. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:55 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha None of those are sufficent reasons not to object to a term. I am not in a position to prevent others from speaking, but it's perfectly valid for me to both refuse to use a word and to mention that I object to it when others use it. The fact that it is not quite so derogatory than other possible usages is not enough to render it acceptable to me.
Attractive doesn't have moral implications. Heroic does. In its common useage, it seems to be an attempt to push women towards one place on the spectrum and away from another, which as I've stated, I feel is wrong. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 3:22 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler Not classifying someone as heroic (especially where "heroic" is understood to mean fitting a certain set of sexual preferences) is "not quite so derogatory" as calling someone a "slut." Okay. LOL. Any more ridiculous characterizations to share?
"Attractive doesn't have moral implications."
LOL. I knew you would do this, you dumbass. All I'm saying with the "attractive" example is that "you can separate traits related to sexuality from other traits" is irrelevant. I wasn't addressing any other objection (such as your shitty "moral implications" objection), which is precisely why I said "This particular objection is absurd."
"perfectly valid for me to both refuse to use a word and to mention that I object to it when others use it"
Insofar as it is perfectly valid for you to have an eggshell attitude on the subject, this is true. Otherwise, it is not.
"Heroic does [have moral implications]."
Putting aside the question of exactly to what extent "heroism" implies "morality," so what if it does? A group of people can have its morals. A certain figure can be heroic to one group of people if not to another. Or does the Rowan Rightway Committee only allow neutral, universal heroes? LOL.
"it seems to be an attempt to push women towards one place on the spectrum and away from another, which as I've stated, I feel is wrong."
Okay. A group of people has a certain internal set of moral standards. This group sees the world in a certain way, and finds things to admire in certain behaviors that not all other groups do. If this group extols people who adopt those behaviors, you could say that it is "an attempt to push people towards" that group. Instead of "push," you might also say "pull," "entice," "invite," etc.
We agree that some "invitations" (e.g., a gun to the head) are not acceptable. But for you to go so far as to say that categorizing some as admirable constitutes an unacceptable coercion on those who are not regarded so is an extreme and unreasonable position to take (even if it is within your rights to do so).
I would go so far as to say that if we care about people understanding the various options, on a practical level we want the various groups to promote their ideals. When they do so, there is an inevitable clash of some sort in the common sphere. What we have here is among the softest of possible clashes: failing to reach the threshold of admirability within a group that you have rejected. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:40 PM Author: bright cruise ship Men only look at expensive electronics and sometimes cars as fun toys, not status symbols. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163079) |
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:19 PM Author: insecure insane hall love of her life security, status, they like shiny things. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160205) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:19 PM Author: Harsh foreskin hairy legs Genetics...money=stability=good place to raise children (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160206) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:20 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state to the unevolved woman, maybe (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160215) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:23 PM Author: Harsh foreskin hairy legs It's imprinted on them...this doesn't just go away after a few generations dude. They have a genetic predisposition to favor wealth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160247) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:25 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state why do hot hipster chicks fuck williamsburg "artists" and "musicians"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160262) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: Harsh foreskin hairy legs At the end of the day, almost all of them settle down with a provider. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160318) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:33 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha That doesn't really seem to be true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160328) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:32 PM Author: maize sex offender weed whacker because they are too high to consider future "offspring raising" traits in their partners and they are all the chicks see on the daily. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160326) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:34 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Those men are high status within hipsterdom, and our brains often confuse status with resources.
This happens with high school athletes and members of prestigious fraternities too. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state yeah, it's all about being the ALPHA of your TRIBE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160400) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:57 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Yes. Well, unless your tribe is D&D players and there are no women in it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160495) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:34 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator arent most hipster girls like 22
also a lot of them have family money |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:36 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Nah, there are a lot of 30-year-old hipster girls from average families. Neither of those things should really affect genetic attraction either. People just miss that while a musician may be low status to the rest of us in society, they're very high status within that little clique. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160361) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:38 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator how do 30-year-old hipsters support themselves?
you cant really be a barista or work for an independent online magazine forever |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:41 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha The ones I know: graphic artist, graphic artist, advertising, IT, bartender. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160384) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator oh the first 4 are professionals. these chicks probably arent dating starving artists, right?
i thought the guy was talking about girls whon date guys that are like waiters by day and dream of starting up a shitty band |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:44 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state ummm, tons of hipster girls have good jobs and date guys with less than good jobs. hth. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160406) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:46 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator i guess i dont know much about the hipster aesthetic
the ones i know are all young and either grad students or people with shitty jobs
i dont know any hipster lawyer chicks whore dating starbucks baristas or something |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:48 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state "i dont know any hipster lawyer chicks whore dating starbucks baristas or something"
lol that this slip. btw, i know a few lawyer chicks who date hipster guys with shitty jobs.
EDIT: nm, you just don't use ' |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:53 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha Dogshit!
That being said, I think the reason you see this is that there aren't many hipster lawyers, period. It's not all that uncommon to see a hipster girl who's moved on to her more adult job dating a guy who isn't there yet. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:53 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha The girl in advertising is dating one of the graphic artists. The other graphic artist is gay. The bartender is supposedly dating some guy who's a drummer, but I haven't met him. I don't think the IT guy dates anyone.
Hipsters almost always date each other. It's just that the older ones of both genders tend to get more normal jobs and do the arty stuff on the side. You're not going to find a lot of hipster girls dating doctors or whatever. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:39 PM Author: Soul-stirring jew "You're not going to find a lot of hipster girls dating doctors or whatever."
I've tried to get them to date a finance guy with mixed results |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:41 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I can kind of see that. You seem to fit in rather well with hipster culture and share a lot of the same tastes, but there is a bias there against more mainstream careers that have nothing to do with the arts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160921) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:46 PM Author: Soul-stirring jew I should stick with more conventional girls. I'm aspirational in this regard, though, and I have time, so I'm not gonna quit just yet (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160960) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:49 PM Author: Cream demanding property alpha I sort of picture you with someone who's kind of like you. Educated and upwardly-mobile, but open-minded and with some hipster social tastes. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160998) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:51 PM Author: Soul-stirring jew dream girl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161015) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:42 PM Author: Soul-stirring jew I've met some older hipsters who have attained some financial success (bar owner, work in the art or music world, etc) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160929) |
|
Date: February 19th, 2010 8:01 AM Author: Impertinent toaster lay None of us are "evolved". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14169120) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:22 PM Author: turquoise home because, unlike men, they are raised to be unitarian in culture and to follow the herd. when they grow up, they only way to get their own identity is through the stratifying effect of money (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160237) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:24 PM Author: insecure insane hall love of her life does the way you worded the OP reveal something about you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160255) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:28 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state yeah, op is very shallow and not heroic at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160286) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:31 PM Author: Infuriating Senate Messiness honestly? because i am shallow and so are other women. men want sex like i want nice things. the desire for nice things that women is probably a result of the old mating requirement that females had before they had sex, which was adequate resources. women invest more in each child then men do in terms of biological cost so they evolved to care far more about the presence of resources. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160313) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:34 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot money correlates with lots of other traits good to have in a long term mate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160338) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:38 PM Author: turquoise home lol, like? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160370) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:39 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator stability? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160376) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:42 PM Author: turquoise home that's a result of the money, not a trait of the man. and as evidenced by the crisis, this isnt as stable as you might think (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160390) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:44 PM Author: Infuriating Senate Messiness agreed this is bullshit
here are he reasons 1. women enjoy spending money 2. women are programmed to seek resources before mating |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:46 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot those are reasons too. but even in a scenario where i were not allowed to share monetary resources, high income is still preferable (all else constant). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160423) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:47 PM Author: Infuriating Senate Messiness you would not care if not for those two reasons (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160429) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:48 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot i care much more for the reasons that i mentioned than the reasons you mentioned. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160449) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:46 PM Author: turquoise home ergo women are shallow and lack their own individual identity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160425) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:52 PM Author: Infuriating Senate Messiness yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160471) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:56 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state there are plenty of heroic women out there, dood. just have to get out of manhattan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160493) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:39 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot lol like intelligence, stability. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160378) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: turquoise home see above for stability, and the intelligence thing is just silly.
pretty weak list |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:43 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot i'm pretty sure if you regress income on iq, you'll get something positive.
it's not perfect and it's not 1 for 1 but nothing is.
stable as in can hold down a job and function on a day to day basis. not stable as in the sector is stable. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:45 PM Author: turquoise home but there are also plenty of dumbs who make bank.
any other qualities that money correlates to? is a well-off husband gonna be good to you? gonna raise your kids right?
lol, you dont fucking care. you just want chanel |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:47 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator i think women try to select for guys who will be good dads also, but having a certain amount of money is sort of a base requirement
i mean, it doesnt matter how "good" a guy is to you if you and your kids are starving |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:48 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot these arguments are all stupid because then ppl start talking about extremes of other things.
all else constant, money is a huge positive. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:49 PM Author: dead indian lodge masturbator agreed
|
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:51 PM Author: turquoise home but why is money more of a positive than the man himself? most men think the opposite regarding women because when it comes to women, money correlates with a whole shitload of undesirable traits (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160463) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:51 PM Author: Concupiscible bonkers state probably the majority of women would rather date a lotto winner than an engineer. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160465) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 12:45 PM Author: onyx razzle-dazzle tanning salon i don't give a fuck bout the riches
as long as she suck dick and do dishes |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 1:40 PM Author: Soul-stirring jew Not sure this is true. Men value money and status; that's why we seek it. They are tools we like to have access to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14160902) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 2:19 PM Author: provocative rigpig Men get boring. Money never does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14161263) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 3:23 PM Author: Amethyst hideous genital piercing marginal utility
men have more money; so they want it less |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:14 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface Well, I guess this is one positive of having grown up a spoiled suburban brat: I've never had to worry about money, so I never think about it. Also, as I've posted before, I feel guilty whenever anyone spends money on me. So at least I don't suffer from ONE of the many stereotypically female vices.
TBH, I find people from poorer backgrounds (no matter where they are now) more attractive, all other things being equal. |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:32 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler Many people in your position don't value money precisely because they've never had to worry about it, but they get outraged and confused later on in life if there isn't enough money to provide them with everything they were used to having. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162434) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:32 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface While I acknowledge the possibility, I don't see this happening. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162439) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:34 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm You felt no shame making your parents pay sticker for Brown while you slacked off and got terrible grades over going to UMaryland on a full ride. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162454) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:37 PM Author: galvanic duck-like cuckoldry spot :D you need to cut a book deal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162477) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:51 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm i have lots of good ideas which is why i need a job (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162619) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:57 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface "You felt no shame making your parents pay sticker for Brown"
Are you retarded? Do you ever read my posts DIRECTED TOWARD YOU? Is your short-term memory that shitty? |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:00 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm Usually you don't go ad hominem so quickly. My cogent argument must've struck a nerve. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162706) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:01 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface lol @ you attacking me repeatedly with things you know aren't true (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162727) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:04 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm parents pay sticker for Brown -- CONFIRMED
slacked off and got terrible grades -- CONFIRMED
had a UMaryland on a full ride -- CONFIRMED |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:05 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface I didn't apply to UMD. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162779) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:06 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm So it was Princeton/Brown or BUST? FLAME. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162788) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:07 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface No. I applied to a broad range of schools that I liked for various reasons. I got into 7, was WL'd at one, and was dinged by the last. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162794) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:08 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm There was no BIGINSTATEPUBLIC on that list? Surely a 2390 would get a full ride. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162806) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:09 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface I got a full ride at UDel and strongly considered attending. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162813) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:11 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm DUDE YOU'RE GETTING A FULL RIDE TO DEL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162838) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:11 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface ty. 175 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162846) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:11 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler LOL. A distinction without a difference. Are you turning into Rowan? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162844) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:13 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface Um, what? Of course it's an important distinction--it's a different SCHOOL. Sorry for not claiming to have gotten a scholarship at a school at which I didn't get a scholarship... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162863) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:14 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm UMaryland = UDel for all intents and purposes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162874) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:22 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler The question is whether it is important in terms of what you did to your parents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162930) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 6:10 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface You're dumb. I am fortunate enough to have parents who expected to spend $200k on my UG education and another $200k on my little sister's, and who saved up enough money to be in a position to do so comfortably. "What [I] did to [my] parents" was please them by attending the school that I wanted to attend. Fuck off, you piece of shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163345) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 6:45 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler So, the distinction isn't important in that respect, amirite? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163636) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 6:46 PM Author: Abnormal Odious Ratface ...yeah (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163650) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 6:48 PM Author: deep cracking deer antler EVERYBODY DANCE NOW (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14163674) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 8:10 PM Author: Floppy Telephone Pisswyrm "Also, as I've posted before, I feel guilty whenever anyone spends money on me." That was your claim. That's a lot different than "well if they 'saved' the monies then I will take them for whatever they are worth." |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 4:58 PM Author: Erotic Spectacular Background Story School Cafeteria The supply of money is lower than the supply of willing men. Pretty simple actually. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162686) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:21 PM Author: costumed wonderful hominid Even Oprah has a boyfriend (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162928) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:28 PM Author: metal submissive field Any time you attempt to find a biological or sociological basis for modern behavior, you're just pissing into the wind; there's far too many variables to be isolated and accounted for, and modeling software that can even begin to account for it is still decades away (I'd assume) not because we don't have the technology to quantify it, but because it would take an army of people to write the code. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14162973) |
|
Date: February 18th, 2010 5:52 PM Author: Aphrodisiac Church Behaviour patterns left over from a time when men controlled the resources.
Back in the day, the infant mortality rate was really, really high. So, to ensure the genes of a tribe were passed on successfully, women needed to spend much of their adult lives pregnant. There is evidence that able bodied women were engaged in agricultural type stuff, but nonetheless way fewer women than men could do hard work, because women had to be preggo all the time. As a result, women couldn't work as much as men could, so men were left to hunting and fighting, which gave them control of food and land resources. This resulted in women depending on men to provide for their offspring.
Now, consider the fact that men produce hundreds of thousands of sperm cells per month while women produce only one fertilizable egg per month. The opposite sex's genetic material has always been in greater supply for women than for men. This is why women can get laid by just asking dudes for sex, while men need to work for sex. The supply and demand of the thing works in women's favour, or at least it did back when sex was largely a matter of reproduction.
So, back in early agricultural societies:
1. Resources were scarce for women
and 2. Willing sexual partners were scarce for men
So it was biologically rational for men to value the female body and women to value the male's ability to acquire stuff.
This is no longer the case today, but people have been better at keeping their kids alive for the last few hundred years or so than they were back in the day, so the genes that make us act this way haven't been weeded out. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2010 8:00 AM Author: Impertinent toaster lay "Now, consider the fact that men produce hundreds of thousands of sperm cells per month"
Way to kill any credibility you might have had here. |
|
Date: February 19th, 2010 8:04 AM Author: Impertinent toaster lay Money is a means to an end for both. Its just that men take more value in merely possessing a hot chick, while women want diamonds, fashionable clothes for every new season, jewelry, etc. Basically, its all superficial and materialistic, its just that we strive for different things. In conclusion, women's lib was a huge mistake. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1226818&forum_id=2#14169126) |