Selfish or just Realistic?
Reader Jeff sent me this article about the new generation of British women who want the easy life:
Wow, I guess this is why women need to keep men working. If the shoe is on the other foot and men decide to opt out, how is this new generation of golddigging leeches--I mean--"easy life generation" of ladies going to make it in the style they have become accustomed to? Afterall, they have their role models (Posh Spice, Kate Moss, etc.) to live up to. What could be more important?
A new survey has revealed that a generation of young women are rejecting high-flying careers in favour of a life of ease and luxury. The so-called 'Easy Life Generation' have seen their mothers struggle with demanding jobs while trying to raise families and have no desire to follow in their footsteps.
New Woman magazine discovered they desire wealth and status without the demands of long hours in the workplace, and many hope to marry wealthy partners. Celebrities such as Victoria Beckham, Kate Moss and Big Brother's Chantelle Houghton are their role models. So are the Easy Lifers being naive and selfish, or just realistic? FEMAIL finds out . . .
Wow, I guess this is why women need to keep men working. If the shoe is on the other foot and men decide to opt out, how is this new generation of golddigging leeches--I mean--"easy life generation" of ladies going to make it in the style they have become accustomed to? Afterall, they have their role models (Posh Spice, Kate Moss, etc.) to live up to. What could be more important?
posted by Helen at 2:54 PM
47 Comments:
see when women do it, its a good thing, when a man does it its immoral..
if women can do it, then men should be able to. whatever happened to equality.
men are responsiblity without rights, women rights without responsibility.
What I hope is going to happen is that the slacker females will be left with the slacker males. Sounds like they deserve each other to me.
Mike Doughty
I wouldn't say this is a new trend. Maybe just a return to the old ways.
A girl I knew in college in 1970 was torn apart because she was dating two guys, one rich and one she loved. Guess which one she decided to marry despite many tears over leaving the other.
My favorite quote from the comments:
"Women like these make it harder for
those of us who paid for their own education then have
and enjoy good careers with a self-earned good
standard of living to get a date with someone with
similar status to ourselves. Thanks girls! - Katrina
Murray, Germany"
The rub is this: "to get a date with someone with
similar status to ourselves".
Anything less would be marrying a freeloader, after all.
yeah, I'm with dadvocate. This isn't exactly some kind of new trend. When I tried online dating several years ago, this seemed to apply to every woman on the dating sites. I'm not saying all women are like this (my girlfriend certainly isn't), but it's not exactly rare or new.
But I have met plenty of women over the years that I immediately lost interest in when it became apparent that money was their first priority (actually, to be fair, they lost interest in me when they realized I didn't have any).
I don't know. It sounds to me like some of these women missed their mothers. I guess the real problem is that they are still not willing to sacrifice some fantasy lifestyle, even though they wish to devote much more time to their children than their own mothers did. I personally don't think I would be a very effective mother if I had to work outside the home, but that is because I am a very poor multi-tasker, and tend to blow up when I'm stressed. I'm very lucky to have fallen in love with a breadwinner. I don't believe men who stay home are freeloaders though. It's an unfortunate double standard. Each couple should define for themselves how they want to divide the labor. If these girls in the article find men who agree with them, then why is it a problem? Or any of my business?
Michele,
I guess the problem I have with it is that they expect some fantasy lifesyle like they had at home from mom and dad, complete with paid for holidays, shopping sprees etc. It seems a bit extravagant--and unlikely to be terribly satisfying. It sounds like they just want a man as a meal ticket--and I think that comes with a price. But like you say, if these women find someone willing to pay for these women's lifestyle, why not? Except that these same women have expectations that even in divorce, etc. they are entitled to big chunks of change to continue this pampered lifestyle. When does it end?
I get the joy of watching this one up close and personal. i have lived with a male roommate for about 2 years now. his wife of almost 9 months was cheating on him with several different people. she abandoned the last of that line of men to marry my roommate because the last guy, the one with "passion" couldn't guarantee that he would make enough money to support her. granted this isn't Posh Spice territory, but it's the same thing. my fiance and i have decided that we will kidnap him and hire him bodyguards (really mean women bodyguards) when she eventually throws him out while demanding half his income in support payments. he's stupid to marry her, but hopefully he will learn his lesson and get a better second wife.
This is just about as "old-fashioned girl" as it gets.
These women need a good bracing dose of feminism.
The problem with these women's thinking is that (1) many of the highly desirable (i.e., high earning) men are smart enough to at least suspect what's going on (2) the competition for these men is pretty fierce and (3) since men's biological clocks tick slower than women's, men can simply wait out their female contemporaries. This apparently drives women in their 20s nuts, since so many men are completely uninterested in a "committed" relationship until they are in their 30s or even 40s, if then.
Actually it may be cross-cultural since it's apparently even worse in Japan, where men are seriously balking at getting married, then working 60 or 80 hours per week to support their families. In many cases, a woman who mentions wanting to get married is likely to find the relationship ended almost immediately.
I don't know who it was that said, but it seems highly appropriate: "While you're trying to manipulate your environment, your environment is trying to manipulate you."
You asked when it will end, Dr. Helen? It will end when men stop marrying pretty gold diggers. I can't blame or feel sorry for either party.
Most of these women will likely be disappointed in their choice, or be replaced with a younger model, eventually.
The reverse is also true. I remember a guy in college and the girl who truly loved him. Who'd he choose? The human breasts. Sure, she's selfish. Sure, she has the I.Q. of a mashed potato. Sure, she is a meanie. Who cares? She has beautiful, perky boobs. He got what he deserved.
There is a reverse trend: an associate of mine laments that all she ever wanted was her mom. Her mom was working all the time. Her dad bailed on the family. It bothers her that she is missing out on her kids growing up too because she married a man who just can't find the perfect job after twenty years and twenty jobs trying.
Puhleeze, gender isn't the issue here. Vapid, lazy people are the issue.
These women could probably be attributed to the naivete of youth. At 25 it must seem so easy to find a nice rich man. But at 35, there will be a new crop of 25 year old girls for the rich man to partake of. It use to be when you married a girl you got a dowry, but I guess now, you get a pile of debt given their attitude to spend now, find a rich man to pay later. Are there really that many naive rich men now that the tech bubble has burst?
How terrifying it must be to women such as this to see men building a nice nest egg then choosing to retire early and live off that nest egg. How selfish of these men keeping all that money for themselves rather than taking a self-indulgent wife to keep in the style she believes she should be accustomed to.
While women such as this will be forced to find a new way to the easy life, I believe the real reason everyone is concerned that men are dropping out is that the hyper-competitive at the top sort can't fathom it. "How can you stop? Someone will get ahead of you."
There is also something missing that I think needs to be addressed. Some of these men are so horribly co-dependent that they don't want a woman who can stand on their own two feet. They have to be the knight in shining armor who rescues these women from their problems. These women, the gold diggers wouldn't exist if there wasn't a "market" out there for them.
I'm lucky because I married a man who A) has a steady job (Military for fifteen years) and B) appreciates that I am just as much of a breadwinner as he is. I don't depend on him to shape my identity and he doesn't have a trophy wife. I don't know how many times I've heard from male friends "I wish I could find a woman like you" but then they go on to date/sleep with/marry these vapid tarts who want nothing else than to live the life of Riley. Sometimes, I hate being lumped in with them just because I have breasts...
I'll get off my soapbox now-sorry!
I have no problem with stay-at-home moms. In fact, I think it would be better if there were more of them.
But the obsession with materialism? I don't get that.
As Rick said in Casablanca, "Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world." And as reported in NRO, 'after the Syrian withdrawal, many leaders were assassinated because of their role in the anti-Hezbollah resistance, among them Samir Qassir, George Hawi, and Jebran Tueni, the charismatic leader of the youth and liberal MP.' Meanwile, the BBC seems to be making the world safe for hatred of Israel and others high minded there safe for political correctness. Maybe the dissent of going shopping isn't so bad after all.
men will never stop marrying petty gold diggers, as during the dating the men get what they need, some men cant seperate physical love, from mental love, so if a gold digger jumps a mans bones, he may think its love..
and the comment about japanese men, working 60 -80 hours, when do they have time for themselves, society expects men to be bread winners, and support their wives, and if the woman works she keeps her money..
a sort of whats his is mine, and whats mine is mine. and they wonder why men are rebelling, real relationship is a process of division of labour, not what can i get out of it which is what most modern feminist women want.
and anyway the modern feminist is now all for sahm, etc as it gives them more power, in the press in sympathy.. look at this article, they sort of applaud women for staying in bed lazy, but they complain when men do it.. how can you have one rule for women and one rule for men that are totally the opposite.
To americanwoman
Actually, given the current U.S. laws surrounding paternity fraud, the solution might be for men to not get married at all. Predicting people's future behavior is notoriously tricky and people do their best to appear attractive at the start of the relationship.
OK, here's where I repeat myself. Sorry! Look up "Irrefutable presumption of paternity in marriage" or, better yet, look for a column by Robyn Blumner for the St. Petersburg (FL) Times on Fathers Day 2000 concerning paternity fraud. (It's on the Internet. Go forth and Google.) Pay particular attention to the quotes by the two female ABA committee chairpeople. Incidentally, the 50 state figure is now down to 46 and the 28.3% figure is from a self-selected sample.
if you can read this article
http://www.reason.com/0402/fe.mw.injustice.shtml
presumption of guilt, is a male thing
http://www.sptimes.com/News/061800/Perspective/Can_it_truly_be_Fathe.shtml
Perhaps we need a new coming-of-age ritual for our boys. Sperm bank deposits followed by vasectomy at 15. Hey, parents opt for genital mutilation at 1 month for little reason, they should certainly support something that prevents their child from becoming a slave.
Oligonicella
It's interesting that you should frame it that way and leave critical questions completely unanswered. First, did the stepfather assume his role voluntary, with all the facts and possibilities on the table, or was his only mistake believing some blood sucking leech of a woman? Second, where was the mother during this and what was her opinion in this matter? Third, how old was the child? Fourth, why did the father change his mind? Did he have personal demons of his own to conquer before he could be a father? Fifth, will the stepfather be allowed to have any role in the child's life?
I think that people, especially woman, who try to cast it as "for the benefit of the child" are trying to twist the reality of the situation to hide the obvious truth: what these mothers do is fraud and we should be discussing the length of the their jail terms, not whether some guy should be forced to subsidize his betrayer for years and to the tune of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Yes, the Blumner piece "opinion", but the quotes are cited and from credible experts. She even phrases the Nikki Bass quote to indicate that the sample is self-selected, which is very important in this case.
I don't think that women realize the risk that they're taking. Paternity fraud is THE evolutionary problem faced by the males in any species where there is significant paternal investment in the offspring and where paternity can be hidden (i.e, mammals and birds). Over tens of thousands of generations, defenses against this threat become part of the emotional biases of the males in these species. Rather than explain badly and briefly what others have explained in depth, I'm going to suggest that you read this:
http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/TheManWho.pdf
Wilson and Daly are psychologists at McMasters University who have been studying the evolutionary origins of human social violence for about 30 years.
*sigh* once more, with feeling people...
Women will stop valuing men primarily as providers when men stop valuing women first and foremost for their sexual attractiveness.
I ain't holding my breath though.
Is it fair for you to be treated like a meal ticket? Hell no. But don't ever forget, it ain't a walk in the park on the other side. You don't hear women whining about it. Or at least they go ahead and play by your rules rather than fighting it. Instead, women go through tremendous amounts of effort to be sexually attractive to men. Makeup, hair coloring and ironing, plucking, waxing, shaving, clothes, surgeries, botox injections. You don't see women in large numbers throwing out their razors and makeup.
Think men shouldn't have to go first in making the change? Well, somebody has to. And since, even if I accept your claims, men have only been "subjected" to women for a few decades, not thousands of years, I don't think it would hurt them to take the high road here.
Again, I ain't holding my breath.
Me? I love men. I enjoy them as friends and sex objects (rarely both at the same time). I don't need one to pay my way. I try now to have zero expectations of men. You don't get as disappointed that way. Of course, the corrolary of that is: I wont tolerate any expectations of me either. I tried marriage once. I worked, did all the cleaning, and any cooking that was done, tried to let him make most of the decisions (because I'm flexible and figured then he'd be happy), etc. while all the while being bored to death sexually (but still trying to do my "duty"). It got me nowhere. So sure, eventually I decided, something's got to give, and eventually I decided that thing was work. But that didn't really solve the problem. I WANT to work. But that means I've got to be an equal partner all the way around. What this ultimately means is: the single life for me! And probably a succession of lovers whom I eventually tire of and become only friends with.
Sheeeet. You don't see me complaining.
Does anyone actually have some documentation describing the "men valuing women primarily for their sexual attractiveness" thing? I keep hearing this from women, but the only time I've actually seen it in play is in the case of perpetual frat-boys who fall under the "tall, dark, and handsome" or some equivalent categorization and who are, thus, more desirable to women.
In my experience, only a fool marries (which is a clear indicator of what a mature man truly values) a woman based on her sexual attractiveness. And that certainly hasn't been the case in my circle of family, relatives, friends, or acquaintances (who don't fall into the perpetual frat-boy group).
Personally, I'm still trying to find a woman who won't lie to me in the first three dates. Another critter only a fool would marry.
5:46PM-
How do you tell if she's lied to you in the first three dates? Usually the liars are pretty good at it.
The ones I run into are not those that lie as a specific tactic (those kinds tend to avoid old geeks in general, thankfully), but those who lie because they've never learned not to and so do so frivolously and without much thought to the consequences. And we're not talking about uneducated youngsters here ... the last one was a 42-year-old MD.
Instead, women go through tremendous amounts of effort to be sexually attractive to men. Makeup, hair coloring and ironing, plucking, waxing, shaving, clothes, surgeries, botox injections. You don't see women in large numbers throwing out their razors and makeup.
Don't put this stuff on us men. Women do this stuff for other women, or for themselves. With the possible exception of shaving their legs and armpits, guys couldn't care less about this stuff. Hell, I barely pay attention if a women is wearing makeup. Also, tanning is incredibly popular among young women, yet I know of few guys (actually only one, and he's what women would refer to as a "male pig", yet he never seems to have any problem picking up women) who wouldn't date a woman because she's not tan enough. Furthermore, guys don't tell women to carry around Louis Vuitton purses, but you do anyway (actually most guys I know would prefer you didn't).
Sorry, but Cosmo has more influence over what women do than what us guys say or think.
Once again, I wonder why Dr. Helen seems to harbor so much anger towards her own sex. Why is it that when young women hope to snap up a life of ease they are pegged as gold-diggers, while their male counterparts who still live with their parents at age 30 are just reacting logically to a society that despises and undervalues them? I feel sorry for both groups -- how does one live with so few inner resources, so few goals in life? -- but I resist the continual suggestion on this site that it is only women who are to blame for unhappy relationships and hardships in today's life.
I don't think the people on this site suggest that only women are to blame for unhappy relationships and hardships. What is being argued against is the pervasive belief that anything associated with men is de facto evil, bad, inappropriate, unacceptable, and wrong, when the same behaviors exhibited by women are judged to be appropriate, proper, and desirable.
To speak to your specific statement, I don't think anyone said that males living at home are reacting logically, I think it was said that it was a logical consequence of society's judgement of them. That is, people who are judged as evil for their virtues will no longer seek to be virtuous (logical consequence) unless they have such an intrasigent mind that they refuse to permit society to determine what is and is not to be considered virtuous, but, instead, judges and condemns society accordingly (logical reaction).
I'm 55 and find myself back in the dating game after 25 years.
Fortunately, I'm pretty well off, but I conceal it on the first date, almost to the point of misrepresentation. I dont get many second dates.
I believe women think they are entitled to be supported by "the man" no matter how old they are and where they are in their lives. Its the birthright of their sex.
On the other hand, the women I've met who are already financially set make no bones about their commitment to keep what they have for themselves.
To Oligonicella
I wasn't trying to be condescending. I was trying to introduce Wilson and Daly. The issues raised in their paper aren't exactly mainstream.
However, if you have knowledge about this area, I'd appreciate if you actually demonstrated it. So far, all you've done is say that these other people and I are incorrect without actually saying what you feel is correct.
First, where is there an online account of this case? (I will admit that if the father formally waived his parental rights, he probably shouldn't have been allowed to change his mind.)
Second, who are your experts on the other side and how can we get access to their opinions?
Third, what are the other "current ideas" on this issue?
Why is it that when young women hope to snap up a life of ease they are pegged as gold-diggers, while their male counterparts who still live with their parents at age 30 are just reacting logically to a society that despises and undervalues them?
I personally have no problem with a woman wanting a guy who is financially successful. Why wouldn't or shouldn't she? Anyone can have any qualifications they wish for whom they date. Of course, the more qualifications, the greater chance you end up alone, but if you're willing to take that chance, so be it (nothing wrong with being alone either). Although, there is a fine line between wanted a partner who is financially successful and "gold-digging". I'm not sure where the line is, but if you expect a $20,000 engagement ring, you've probably crossed it.
Likewise, I have no problem if a guy puts beauty above all else, either (although if he ends up with a gold-digger, which he likely will, don't complain about it).
However, I think the difference between a gold-digging woman and a man who lives with his parents when he's 30, is that the man only has one recourse to better his situation: his own hard work and motivation. A woman in a similar situation has an additional option: get married. Somehow, when a 30 year old man lives with his parents, it's a big societal problem. If a women does it, it usually just means she's not married yet. Nothing to see here, move along. A guy cannot expect to better his financial situation through marriage. In fact, if he wants to be better off financially, he should refrain from marriage altogether, and should definitely avoid having children.
Anyway, I'm personally less bothered by 30 year old men who live with their parents than gold-digging women because I don't have to deal with the former, whereas I used to have to deal with latter quite extensively. Other than his/her parents, who does a 30 year old living at home affect? A gold-digger affects every man in her dating pool that's roughly her age or willing to date someone her age.
I don't know if anyone saw this article in the New York Times about single men in their 40's, but it has some good stuff in it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/us/06marry.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1
It also has some idiocy, such as this:
As a response to some of these trends, many women with limited education have turned theirs sights on “marrying up,” choosing men who may be older, more established and more educated.
"As a response"? Women have always married up. That's the reason that these men in the article exist in the first place. If women were willing to marry down, there would be no need for the article to be written. The fact of the matter is, as women obtain a greater number of the college degrees, and as a result, higher paying jobs, they are going to have to start marrying down, or there's going to be many more guys like those featured in the article, and many more successful, single women.
Then, this made me laugh:
“Why would you want to be in a stable relationship with somebody who is unstable?” asked Ketny Jean-Francois, a never-married 30-something from the Bronx who has supported her 3-year-old son on her unemployment check and food stamps since leaving her job as a security guard a year ago. “It’s a myth that all women want to marry.”
So, a women who is unstable herself, who is living off of food stamps and unemployment, and who could be working but quit her job, refuses to marry a guy who isn't financially stable.
That just about sums up the whole situation, doesn't it?
Although, I'm guessing that the real reason she doesn't want to marry has more to do with the fact that a 30 year old, unemployed single mother isn't exactly a prime catch in the dating world, than any personal aversion to marriage on her part.
ok anonymous 12.56.
you make a point **Why is it that when young women hope to snap up a life of ease they are pegged as gold-diggers,** thats the point, they want a life of ease, its not about the man its about what they want. imagine if you can, a man marrying a rish woman and having a life of ease. what would you call him?.
this site isnt about anti women, its about pro man, because of the pervavsive atmosphere of men are worthless and worth less than women is the fault of women.
as one poster said, men have less options, than women, women can stay home, get married, work, have kids, and so on, men if men want to stay home they are lazy, if men dont want to get married then they are unstable, if men want to stay home with their kids, they are looked on as perverts. the only option men have is essentially to work, but even this they just see the man as a walking wallet.
mens worth to these women is as a bank, a sort of whats yours is mine, and whats mine is mine. this is why men are rebelling, women marry up, that statement shows how superficial those women are, love or money, they marry up for money, then usually have affairs for love.
graham strouse:
you may have said a bunch of other stuff elsewhere that pissed me off. can't remember. will have to review prior posts. but...
single professional lady with access to health insurance seeks bauble. marriage unnecessary.
you had me at, "I'm 33 [and] one ball short of a full sack."
interested? send pictures of abs and bald head.
I agree with an earlier commenter, these girls seem to have missed their mothers and want to enjoy being with their children. Is that so bad? Sure, they are flip and silly and have too much credit-card debt and want everything. If they weren't, they wouldn't have been featured in the article. Eventually they'll realize they have to choose between the extra things and their kids and they will make that choice. There are always extra things, no matter how rich your partner is.
What is so terrible about wanting to have a stable partner in life? If you're a person with kids the last thing you need is an unstable partner, male or female. I am comfortable asserting if you, male or female, can't hold a job you are an unstable person. If you, male or female, won't hold a job when the family situation demands it you are a jerk. If we were having to dip into retirement to fund my self-improvment projects while I didn't work my husband would have something to say about it. He promises.
These girls seemed to have watched their mothers and fathers give a lot of energy to *strangers* for money, more money than was needed for a reasonable life. Isn't there a thread somewhere in this blog about how video games desensitize children to violence? Why wouldn't living a life of material things, where those things are obviously the priority and magically appear, desensitize these young girls to the necessity of work (SAHM without help is work) and the importance of loving relationships?
Seek therapy.
What's gross is the cult of celebrity, that ordinary people think they are as fabulous as Posh Spice and Kate Moss and deserve a high market value male when they haven't established themselves as high market females. They should go out and accomplish something, like Kate Moss and Posh Spice, earn some money so they know what it is, and be or become as top end beautiful as models and pop stars, then they can have the high market value to bargain with for the rich guys. LOL
People want high lifestyles like celebrities and think they deserve it. Their wants are outrageous.
If these women said, I'm not going to work because I want to stay home with my children, I missed my parents...that would be a fine and decent thing, it's better for children. BUT to tack on I also want a wealthy celebrity indulgent lifestyle and so must have a rich man, shows them to be the greedy parasites that they are.
My mom used to tell me, it's just as easy to marry a rich man as a poor one. I responded, yeah, worked for you! Mom was engaged to a rich man when she met my Dad, and fell in love, true soul partner style. She made the right choice. From humble beginnings, they did very well for themselves, as partners. That's why I think a partnership is the only way to go, like the good doctor above.
The other problem is that when you marry a rich man, you end up married to a rich man. Like Graham's description of Carrie and Mr. Big.
(Of course, y'all realize that Sex and the City is homosexual fantasy? Picture the women as gay men, and it makes sense. I don't know ANY women like those crazy shrews.)
The true partnership thing is hard for me to find though, living in Appalachia, it's a different culture and they believe more in the man=dominator model with woman as household slave. Yuck.
WIFE is an acronym...wash, iron, f*ck, etc. LOL
Graham...I too am a cancer survivor, healthy except for too many cells in my bloodstream, with a zest for life, a redhead, but 41, too old? I'm not having babies. Ever visit Appalachia? LOL
Yeah, the cancer survivor thing changes things a lot, too. People are scared of the C word even though I'm healthy. Most guys I have dated seem to end up preferring someone younger who has never had a health issue (or experience, opinions, her own profession and means, for that matter). Not prejudice, just seeing who they end up with, the blank slate type.
hey, rowena hullfire, hands off my kool-aid! you wanna fight me for 'im? *puts up her dukes*
hehe. just kidding.
the first part of your post reminds me of a song by the Left-Wing Fascists (don't ask, long time ago) called "You're Not Good-Looking Enough to be a Bitch".
i liked the WIFE acronym. never heard that one before.
[QUOTE] Women do makeup, hair coloring and ironing... for themselves, not to be sexually attractive to men. Sorry, but Cosmo has more influence over what women do than what us guys say or think. [QUOTE]
Sorry Rizzo, I don't agree with what you've said. Men just don't know they are unconsciously influencing women to look sexy.
I've always had many male friends, but I used to be plain before I got a cosmetic surgery. After the surgery I look a lot better on the outside. I can tell you this: The frequency of men showing interest in me has increased since then. Now, do you say this is pure coincidence or what? Male strangers started striking conversations with me in the mall, at coffee shops, even cars stopping at the red light...
I don't mean to break your bubbles, but men UNCONSCIOUSLY see women's sexual attractiveness as important. Trust me, women naturally have intuition... they know this even without men saying it.
~spanky~
Spanky's comment just above is absolutely right. It's no coincidence that guys strike up conversations with her after her cosmetic surgery. Guys will pay a lot more attention to an attractive woman.
I've talked to a lot of attractive female friends when this topic has come up. Surprisingly, most of the women I've talked to don't realize the extent to which guys will be much friendlier to attractive women. I assume this is generally because they would like to see whether the woman will go out with them. Almost all of the women will say, "Oh, he was just being friendly." I'm certainly not saying this is somehow inappropriate; I'm just saying that most women don't seem to realize it.
its not that she is looking better, but she has confidence, thats the true beauty, you may look a million dollars, yet had the confidence of a eggplant, i have known some "plain" women, but they were confident, strong, and they were beautiful.
your mistaking self confidence, with physical beauty.. thats all plastic surgeons do, give you the self confidence in your self, even if you dont need it, its all about how you feel, before and after..
oh don't mind rizzo. he's being ridiculous. even, i hate to say it, but intellectually dishonest.
no honest man would dispute that a woman's sexually attractiveness is very important to them. men are visually stimulated. and, though i'm sure there are a few weird exceptions, they are for the most part not looking at porn involving ugly, fat, old women.
sure, a man would be just fine if the woman were gorgeous WITHOUT makeup, botox, hair color, sexy clothes, etc. say, elle mcpherson for example. sure, she's gonna look good when she rolls out of bed in a pair of sweats.
but most of us, unfortunately, do not look that good. we want to keep up with the elle mcpherson's though, give the men as close to that as we can. so it requires makeup, etc.
as i said its about self confidence
**but I used to be plain before I got a cosmetic surgery**
and after, you changed , you became more outgoing, more self confident. dont you think that could be the reason why you are getting so many more men after you.
i love my fiancee, because of who she is, it just so happens i think she has the sexiest body, i would take her over any model, and elle mcpherson. she has a self knowledge ans self confidence, that makes her truly beautiful.
people mistake, physical changes that means better, but its the psychological changes that occur after the surgery that cause the attraction
oh don't mind rizzo. he's being ridiculous. even, i hate to say it, but intellectually dishonest.
no honest man would dispute that a woman's sexually attractiveness is very important to them.
I'm hardly being intellecutally dishonset. I never said that a woman's sexual attractiveness is not important to men. It obviously is. In fact, I've often argued, to the consternation of women, in defense of men being attracted to the physical attributes of women (But what about her personality? Well, you can't see her personality from across the room.)
What I mean is that, the best way for a man to ensure that his wife/girlfriend does not lose weight or have plastic surgery is to suggest, even politely, that she might benefit from it. You'd have a better chance of ending up on Dr. Phil than having your wife/girlfriend take your advice.
Women obviously go through a bunch of activities that they think will make them more attractive to men. Some of them men care about (e.g., weight), some of them they don't so much (e.g., tanning). But not every dollar that women spend on their appearance is done to impress men. To many men, women who go through botox injections look ridiculous (have you seen pictures of Meg Ryan lately?).
I'm not sure why you want to convince me that you women work so hard to become physically appealing to men. Not only do I believe that not to be true, it would kind of make you seem slightly ridiculous if it were (not to mention that I'd have less respect for women in general).
And sorry, most men really don't care about makeup. A common complaint I hear from men, and I've made myself, is when certain women wear too much makeup. I rarely hear a guy say, "Yeah, she looks allright, but she could benefit from some more lipstick or eye shadow." It just doesn't happen. Besides, us guys kind of see makeup as false advertising.
Also, to spanky:
I don't mean to break your bubbles, but men UNCONSCIOUSLY see women's sexual attractiveness as important.
Men CONSCIOUSLY see women's sexual attractiveness as important, and I never said otherwise. So you're not breaking any bubbles with me. I'm just arguing that what women think men find attractive and what men actually do find attractive aren't always the same things, and that women don't always do these things to attract or keep men around.
Also, one more thing spanky:
After the surgery I look a lot better on the outside. I can tell you this: The frequency of men showing interest in me has increased since then.
But did you get the plastic surgery to make yourself more physically pleasing to men, or did you do it to make yourself feel better? Or some combination of the two? But I don't doubt that you get more attention from men now.
And could it be that, rather than men unconsciously influencing women to go through all these beauty related procedures that, perhaps, women go through these procedures to unconsciously manipulate men?
I'll jump in here. I think their is a place in this world for a gold-digging trophy bride. Don't assume these ladies are going to sit on their sofas filing their nails for a second. Beauty takes time and effort, and lots of money.
Plastic surgery is not painless, a good color job takes hours. Then there are the hair extensions, the teeth whitening, and the wax jobs. After you get done with all that, dinner still needs to be put on the table and the cleaning service needs supervision. The social schedule also needs to be arranged.
Once dinner is through, hubby is going to look forward to a nightime romp and Ms. Gold Digger better be ready and enthusiastic because the excuse "I've worked all day too and I'm tired" doesn't fly. The next day the process starts all over again.
On another comment on this blog someone mentioned that all men want is to get laid and they get married to ensure that will happen. Some men like to work long hours without complaints from their wives. Some men like extracurricular activity and a good Gold Digger might be willing to ignore the obvious.
In conclusion, Gold Diggers serve a purpose, some men find them very enticing and they do fulfill a need. However, some men and women like to be partners and equals, and that is good too.
I wish everyone luck with whatever they want.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home