It is never ok for a guy to use a woman for her body or he only wants her for her looks. Those type of guys are usually seen as the asshole fuckboys or wannabe players. The mature ones who want to get married usually want a girl they really get along with and who they see themselves married to. Definitely looks are still a factor for these mature men who want to get married. However, women also care about looks too. So it's like being a hypocrite. You don't want guys to put importance on looks however most women put importance in looks too.
I understand what you are pointing out. The double standard where it's ok for guys to use women and it's not okay for women to use men basically. Although, it was never ok. It was never socially ok for guys to treat women like trash. It was ok for them to sleep around however, they don't need to treat women like objects. That's just them choosing to be a piece of shit. Doesn't make it right.
If a guy treated a woman with respect and let her know he only wants sex and the woman agrees and there is that mutual understanding and respect between each other. And he treats every female with that respect then he wouldn't be perceived as a bad guy. As soon as he objectifies women then it does become sexist and messed up.
I also think there is a line to be drawn when it comes to shallowness and just wanting a better life for both partners. When it comes to a woman caring about money. If she only wants the guys money to herself and she plans on spending all of his money and doesn't contribute at all just basicslly uses him. That's messed up and she's definitely a gold digging bitch.
On the other hand, I think if she cares about her future husband having a good job while also she's working too and wants to have a comfortable life. Like her paycheck contributes and his paycheck contributes and they share a bank account together and it's mutual. To me that's ok. No one is using no one. They are working together.
Of course there's still that difference a woman can choose to work or not but a guy always has to work. That double standard. But in today's day in age most women want to work and help out with the bills. And I feel like maybe some women would want a guy who has a stable job and not someone who is fired all the time or quits all the time, he is always out of a job. I feel like that may be the same for men too. If they want their women to work, they wouldn't really care for her if she can't keep a job. But depends on the man or woman. So this is my opinion about it all. Hope it answers it.
It’s not socially acceptable. That’s why people call them out as gold diggers and leeches and their parents end up disowning them.
But there are always going to be people who reject all of that and praise whatever the individual decides to do whether it’s seen as good or bad. Besides that, our history shows that we have not completely moved on from the idea that women should and need to be sold off to the highest bidder for protection and resources.
No, it’s not okay but humans are VERY slow and mentally limited, more so than we like to acknowledge.
I mean... this seems pretty clear cut to me.
Your looks are a part of you and your identity. Your looks are not a resource, they are not expendable, and they are not something just anybody can get through inheritance, thievery, or underhanded means.
Because of this, a person can be with a rich partner, acquire a bunch of their money, and then leave and still have that money. A person cannot be with a good-looking partner, somehow 'acquire' a bunch of their good looks, and then leave and still somehow 'have' those good looks.
Also, might I add that this is not a double standard, as this is a poorly worded question. It is socially acceptable for men AND women to be with a partner for their looks. It is socially unacceptable for men AND women to be with a partner for their money. It's just that men, traditionally being the providers for the woman and children, often have more money, so women are more often motivated to be with men for their money.
I'm not saying it's right for a man OR woman to be with their partner purely based on looks. But I believe it is more morally justified than a man OR woman being with their partner purely based on money.
Same reason women say it's better to like someone for their personality than just their looks.
Money is external. It's not even a part of the man. It may suggest he has desireable characteristics, but it doesn't mean that necessarily. And, as phrased, "marrying FOR money, not FOR desireable characteristics which incidentally generate money."
The money is not him. She loves the money, not him.
The difference? A woman is certainly more than her looks, but her looks are still *a part of her*, even if they may be more external than personality.
Money. That is not part of a man, at all. It is even more external than only desiring appearance.
That said, it's not illegal. You can do whatever you want to do that doesn't hurt anyone else.
But, you're always going to have to deal with social judgement based on your behavior. Societal judgement is the basis upon which we establish proper behavior and improper behavior.
That said, I'm pretty sure most people look down on a man who goes for women based only on their appearance, do you disagree?
Opinion
109Opinion
I think that neither of those things are ok. But if they're both choosing each other, that's on them.
Depends on your social circle. If it consists of highly educated people they will definitely look down on that unless she is smart
u Why must social standards follow logic and reason?
To be honest, I find both ideas shallow. Marrying somebody for their money and ONLY their money... That's fucked up. That's moreso a parasitic relationship if the woman abuses it. If it isn't really love, then it's a waste of time to get married.
What if they lose it all? What if you drain them of their money? What if they find somebody who is better overall who isn't there just for the money? What if they find out? So many what ifs are present that it makes it questionable.
And to be with a woman only for their body? Even those with basic knowledge about aging knows that external beauty doesn't last forever. I mean, the body is part of the attraction process, yes, but if it's only for the body, then it probably won't last.
I'm moreso inclined for a requited love based relationship. Love each other? Good. Love each other for who they are, not their property or their looks? Great! Now go fuck each other or get married.
(Seriously though, just have some morality. Have that and I think you'll be fine.)
Because it used to be the social norm For centuries, women were dependent on men for financial security, whether as a wife or a mistress. Only a few, short decades ago, that began to change very slowly. But old attitudes still persist and I doubt i they will completely disappear. It's so baked into our psyches that the majority of both men and women still hold the traditional attitudes. After all, if women are smaller, weaker and, therefore, seen as dependent on men, what does a man look like when he is dependent on a woman for financial support? Society would see him as sub-male - a weakling, a laggard, a loser, a fop, a slacker, a parasite, a gold digger, a gigolo, an exploiter...
All that would discount the possibility that he might be a narcissist or a smart sociopath who is out to get rich without working.
I'm not saying that this is what I would necessarily think. Hell, it might just be a means to upward mobility. Maybe the two actually love each other. I don't know. I'm just saying how it might be perceived by the broader society.
I don't want to be with an ugly gal. Simple as that.
I don't want to paint my house an ugly green yellow for the same reason, I have to look at that shit every day.
And frankly, I'm willing to pay for it lol. I'd welcome a girl marrying for money, long as she's easy on the eyes and good in the kitchen. That's sounds disrespectful, but my point stands.
More to the question though. Men pay a hell of a lot of attention to fine details in a womans looks. It is a fine toothed comb looking for imperfections. You'll say "nah I don't do that" subconsciously, you do. It is an important aspect for a man.
You are tripping me up with the question. The vibe I get is that the above reasoning is completely sexist and I should be on a stake for judging if I'd want to be with a girl by her looks. You are saying that is okay. Which I of course agree with, it is okay. If a girl looks at me and says I'm ugly, she ain't gonna date me. Simple as that.
As for the money thing, I think because it is taboo and sexist to view the man as the provider and protector, and the women a nurturer and healer. It is being ground into our brains by the progressive media that we do not need gender roles. Women are heavenly discouraged, and told, and believe they don't need a man to support them.
I'm tired, and tend to rant at midnight
First things first, it is not socially acceptable for a man to be with a woman just for her looks. Anytime a man is with a woman just for her looks, nothing else, it is seen in an extreme negative light. A guy may hook up with a woman just for her looks just like women may hook up with a man just for his looks. So, that's pretty even stevens, but to be in a relationship with a woman just for her looks (trophy wife) that is frowned upon greatly. The trophy wife is typically okay with this because she's just with him for his money. So, frowned upon again, but at least it evens itself out.
Also, a womans looks may play a big factor in him courting the woman but that just gets him into the door, it doesn't keep him there. Likewise, how a man looks is just as important to women in general as it is to men finding womens looks important. That doesn't mean it's the most important but it does play a factor. You have to be physically attracted to your partner in some way, shape, or form otherwise it's just a friendship. I girl may get my attraction emotionally, but if I'm not physically attracted as well, then I'll see her as a friend. Granted the more emotionally attracted you are to someone the more attractive their physical appearance is. Whether or not it's enough to break it pass the platonic stage is another story.
So, women will date men because of their looks and men will date women because of their looks. (not saying only their looks but it always plays a factor). But the difference in your question is (of course we are speaking in general terms) women will use a mans income as a factor in whether or not to date a guy but men will not use a womans income as a factor in whether or not he will date her. Are there outliers? of course, but generally speaking that is the difference to your question.
Because look is always a part of love life. You can talk about personality all you want, but if you're not at least a bit attracted to someone physically, you'll probably not even consider dating.
Also, the guys who go after women for their looks do it to have sex with them. And they're clear about it. So there is no cheating here.
Then, you can realize than even if you go for a woman for her look, you can still have a normal life, with someone you like.
When you go after a guy for money, you can't straight up tell him, because he would reject you. So the "relationship" is basically based on you using him and his money, mostly by lying to him about what you feel for him, creating a fake relationship you'll end as soon as you got all his money. It's nothing but a scam.
And finally, men who go after women for money are also not really praised, on the contrary. And why didn't you compare men who goes after a woman for her look with women who do the same?
Because it exists and it's not rare.
It's not sexism, it's not gold digging, it's not any of these petty reasons. It all boils down to biological nature.
I know that a small but vocal community of my dear liberal party are doing all they can to erase biological imprinting and bias, but these things have been hard coded into our DNA since Lucy birthed us all. Biologically, meaning on a baser level of instinct, men try to select a mate that can carry on his seed, his name, and his bloodline. Also biologically, women seek a "protector" and "provider" who has the capacity to ensure her offspring are taken care of, and that she has the resources to be able to take care of them. Now, are every man and every woman like this? To some degree, yes--hard coded, once again. Can you strive to not be like this if that's what you so choose? Yes, by denying your human instincts.
I'm not going to speak to the moral implications, because morals are wholly subjective. Whereas you might MORALLY see it wrong to base choosing a partner based on looks, I personally couldn't be with someone that I'm not physically attracted to. Physical attraction also varies from person to person. There are some men who are very attracted to larger women, and that's awesome for them and their bbws. Then there are men who like a good body, but unique or different facial characteristics such as myself. There are all types in this world, and trying to force everyone into the model of what you think is right would make this a very boring place.
Face it. There will never be a time on this planet, for as long as it goes on before the inevitable nuclear winter, that everyone will judge everyone SOLELY on personality. If anything, we are getting further from that with outage culture.
People are hypocrites. Its all about demand and supply.
Lets not forget that just for the past like 100 years women can actually work and earn their money without being treated like property and their worth determined by their looks. Its all the ruins of mens world. Getting a ritch husband trought history was a achivement and men wanted a pretty wife. Things are different now, women can work, but things dont change over night. Women are still underestimated and not as respected at work as men and in a lot of cases underpaied or discriminated to the fact that they will have to be away cause they might have a baby.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. It's actually the other way around. People will defend and support a woman being with a man for "financial stability" - and you'll even have those ridiculous evolutionists and science nuts explaining it as "biology" - while we label men as being "shallow" for being with a woman for her looks.
I don't think this question is correct.
Because society is absolute hypocrisy. People dont really take the time to think. They just react as programmed, by society.
There is no need to think more, so long as what you do is acceptable to others, right?
Lol
Still, if you take the time to really dig and think about it. You start to realize just how prolific hypocrisy is in our society. How there is no reason behind most of our social behaviors, its just how we've been programmed.
No there really is no difference.. If anything, women marrying for money is a far more sensible thing to do than for a man to marry for looks.
Reason being, looks are guranteed to fade. Money can to, but its not a guarantee.
So here's another one along the same lines...
Do you feel its wrong for a man to marry for money?
It's fine for men to marry only for looks? Who said it was fine? I never heard of that "issue" before tbh, men are more and more avoiding marriage and wouldn't get themselves so deep in that shit if they aren't sure about what they're doing.
Either way it would lead to an unhappy marriage, following hormones and doing something as big as marriage because of them is like the worst thing somebody can do to themselves and their partner, so they'd have to deal with the consequences and Karma will do its work.
But how would the girl not see through it? It would be pretty damn obvious if the guy wanted to MARRY her just for her looks, their shallow approach and standards should be pretty clear to see.
Yeah--what she's doing there is taking the half of the opinions of two separate groups of people, putting them together and pretending that that's what "everyone" thinks. I'd suggest to you that the vast, VAST majority of people who find it unacceptable for a woman to marry for money or a visa ALSO find it unacceptable for a man to marry solely for looks. I'd also suggest that the vast majority of people who find it okay for a man to marry for looks would have no problem with a girl marrying for money or a visa. She's concocting a bullshit strawman argument and pretending that "society" thinks that way.
God what an idiotic false equivalency. Is this woman in an asylum? Is she retarded? Why in the hell are there people so damned dumb around that someone has to explain something like this? Maybe human kind doesn't have any predators to clean it's gene pool is the problem. In the wild members of a heard this damned dumb would have been picked off by lions or something. Fuck me some times it feels hard to breathe the frustration of the shear dead weight of stupid pressing down on me. Holy shit. This ass hole is actually comparing marrying someone for physical attraction vs something that isn't even sexual at all. A gross basic street whore that isn't even in to a man in the most shallow sense, somehow compares to a shallow guy who's hung up on a woman for her looks. And she can't fucking make the distinction! Look at her god damned post! She's actually that shit for brains stupid.
I see nothing wrong with either, its literally how our society works. Mia is just bitter that men have held her to a standard.
Men exchange resources for access to the vajj *read reproduction. Mens desire for the vajj is based on fertility indicators *read being pretty and in shape. Women are genetically programmed to seek out men who exhibit resource gathering potential and who seemingly have the ability to protect them. Think men in uniform cliche. Muscles, abs, tall, big house, nice car, well dressed etc.
Excellent question... but uh, generally speaking, there's the association that females enter a relationship due to the partners resources and that males will enter a relationship due to the females looks... it comes under the "human reproductive behaviour" theory in psychology -it's pretty old but yeah... it comes under a more evolutionary perspective than the other theories about relationships.
So while it's not viewed very highly socially (back in Victorian times it was acceptable) it's likely due to the fact that in modern day society women have the ability to get a job and make their own money therefore they shouldn't require a partner to have money.
Choosing a partner based on money would go under the attraction to status.
While choosing a partner for looks would go under the attraction to health.
As it would go, a healthy person would be more likely to be fertile the same can't really be said for someone who is rich.
So there's that too.
Not necessarily a justification, but money is not a part of a person. It is something you can take away, and something you can have without said person. You can’t have someone’s looks. You can maul them and ruin their looks, but it’s not something you can steal for yourself.
That said, both are shallow reasons for dating. We define a person by their conscious. If love is the goal of dating, and most would say it is, you won’t find it in their body or their money.
That being said, if you are just going out for fun, you don’t really need a reason so long as you have fun and nobody gets hurt.
I never thought it was okay for a woman to marry for money. I DID think it was okay for me to require a certain level of independance and self sufficiency in my partner so we can build on what we both contribute. I always planned on working though. If my partner preferred that I didn't, work then it would be a standard that my husband make enough to support the both of us so that I have no problems managing the household and raising the children comfortably (although I still would always prefer to be working rather than being a stay at home mom). But I never directly assumed that ut was okay to marry a guy for his money. And the reason its not really acceptable for a man to marry for looks is because looks fade. While requiring financial security can be a good foundation for a marriage, looks are NOT a good foundation. Looks will gradually degenerate in both partners and the marriage will become invalid the moment the man is no longer attracted to the woman. Thats why
Because being liked for your looks is still flattering, it's still being liked for a part of you that is very important for relationships. Would a woman date someone who looked awful either? Don't pretend it's just guys!
Meanwhile, liking someone's wealth has nothing to do with them, it's even more shallow than looks. A lot of women wait for their rich partnerto *DIE* (or plot a divorce in advance) so they can steal his resources. That isn't anything about the man, not even his physical being. It's just GREED!
The physical aspect is very important for relationships. A man won't care about how much you make as long as he doesn't have to financially support you. Horny guys who only want to fuck are way less shallow than gold diggers.
Most Helpful Opinions