Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Money for nothing, Chicks for free

As I was reading through my usual blogs, I came across this most interesting and highly debatable post on The Dog's Name.

While Indy has his own opinions (well-backed up as usual) on the subject and I know that there are many people out there who feel the same way, I disagreed with this so much that I had to blog about it (imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Indy):

"Women will give a less than physical perfect man a chance to show he has possibilities...a man won't give you a chance unless he finds you physically perfect (which is different for every guy, but it still holds true)"

" A guy will assess you very quickly by looks along, he will "thin-slice" you into either a yes or a no, just as women do. As he gets to know you he will either downgrade you as he finds you have no characteristics he admires beyond looks, or upgrade you if you do. But if you are an initial "no" then chances are he won't even give you the time to show him your "deeper" qualities. Women tend to have a third intitial classification which could be termed "maybe" and it is from the maybe catagory that a man may advance his cause with "deeper" characteristics."

I am obviously not a guy, but I have a hard time believing this. I mean, "if you are an initial "no" then chances are he won't even give you the time to show him your "deeper" qualities," are men really this shallow?

I understand that looks are that important. But I find it hard to believe that there isn't a guy out there who went out a with a woman who wasn't "physically perfect" to him who then later changed his mind. Either by learning more about her or by other means. It may not happen often but I think it's a bit of a stretch to insinuate that most men would never give a girl a second chance if she isn't as perfect as he is used to (I know many guys who've at least slept with women they've called a "bag head"...of course, not the most knoble of men, but still...)

But then again, I may be way off on this (men baffle me).

Of course Indy's point in the blog was that women are that shallow as well. Not so much with looks, but with money: "While you might argue that no-one you knows would go out with a man for money, how many do you know that would go out with a man if he had none?"

Now I'm not one to be called a feminist, far from it, but I had the impression in this day and age that women were kind of done with the whole gold-dogging attitude of generations past. Yes, if you do open gossip magazines you read about trophy wives and rich men with young women, but that's not the general population. I personally don't know many women who would turn down a man because he doesn't make enough money and I certainly don't know any women that are dating men because they have money.

Maybe I don't hang out with shallow enough people, I don't know. But from the way I see it, most women these days are out there in the work world and bringing in the big bucks like the men do. No, there is no equal pay yet for women and yes men do earn a lot more. But women are more independent, more ambitious (look at the number of women who put off childbirth to further their career), I just don't see that it is even neccessary for a woman to depend on a man for money. Yes in the earlier times it was, as women didn't have a real place in the workforce, but that can no longer be used as an excuse.

And just because a man has no money, in no way implies he has no ambition, so that can't be used as an excuse either. Many talented and ambitious writer, artists, social workers all have promising careers and motivation up the ying yang and yet don't make much. It would be silly to insinuate that money is important in a man because it implies he has ambition.

While some might find that women get defensive about this subject because we can not admit how truly shallow we are, I just can't agree.

Yes, I understand that looks and money can and do play major parts in our relationships. But insinuate that men won't settle for anything less than "physical perfection" in a partner and that women wouldn't give a poor man a chance is a bit too risky for me.

(BTW this is not an attack on Indy at all, for I can understand where he is coming from and his opinions are very honest, I just merely found that the comment section on his blog was too enclosed for a debate. I also know that there are people who would agree or disagree with my views, as well as Indy's, and this is why blogging can be such great fodder for argument ).


M said...

I reckon there is truth to both but only to a certain level. I really don't know any gold digging everyday women and I personally have never looked for that myself - and comparing normal women to superstars in magazines is just laughable! Women go out, earn their own living and pretty much do their own thing these days. I think that having a job is important for both people and most women would agree with me. but that doesn't mean that they HAVE to earn a shitload. Just like being attracted to your partner is extremely important..after all you have to have the horn to get it on eh? ;) hehe

The phrase 'looking for physical perfection' is maybe only appropriate to a certain type of man rather than all men. Maybe gold digger is only appropriate for a certain type of woman.

But I'm in total agreement with you on this.

Indiana said...

Ok, lets try to make one thing clear, before I get lynched ~grin~ What I said was "he finds you physically perfect" which is different for every guy...it may have been a poor choice of words but it does not change the premise that both genders date people they both individually and societally influenced find HOT.

I also stated a number of times that there are exceptions to this and to every rule...

But yes, I know women don't want to hear it or believe it but men are shallow...and while if you are in the same social group he may over time come to see you in a different light, he will not go out of his way to "hang out" with a stranger he has no attraction to and therefore give you the chance to show you are more than just your looks.

Be honest, neither would a woman.

The point of my blog had nothing to do with money, that was an out of context quote by a reader. And in response to Sarah on that matter when she asked isn't it unfair for men to judge women on looks, I responded with, "is it any less unfair that a woman choses the rich man over the poor", I followed it up with a comment about women using the flimsiest of reasoning to judge a man as "yes or no" in an initial meeting (ever heard the story about the man with ugly shoes ~grin~) and asked if women can use such shallow justifications for rejecting a guy without seeing the man beneath what is wrong withmen doing exactly the same thing...

...unfortunately some readers sawthe words "money and women" in the same sentence and ran away with an arguement I never made.

I do believe that the ability of a man to provide for both his partner and if it gets to that, family, is a factor in both his datability and his long term possibilities when he is judged by women. Does this mean that all women look only for a man with money, no, but it does mean that his ability as a provider is I believe part of our genetic makeup and something women either consciously or subconsciously still look at.

almost famous kiwi said...

Let's be honest girls, we too can be very shallow. We may pride ourselves on being open and non-judgemntal but it's not always true. It is a fact that in order to have a healthy sexual relationship you have to be sexually attracted to a person.

I think what Indy was saying was that everyone has a different take on who is "sexually attractive" but that men tend to make that decision on a first sight basis, and this I agree on. I know it sounds harsh but don't women do that too? If you meet a guy and he's not attractive to you then you're not going to pursue him.

However, there is an exception to this and that is in the case of two people who are friends and then become romantically involved. If you have gotten to know a person over a period of time they can become more attractive to you as you get to know their personality.

I don't know how many women out there are still looking for a man to make the money, tough life ahead for them if they are. Women of today are fiercly independent and not only want to make their own money but secretly want to make more than the man in their lives, why? Because we've come too damn far not to!

Anonymous said...

All I said was that putting "sexual excapades" as an interest in your profile could give people the wrong idea, that you are a slut. You obviously didn't understand my comment. Otherwise, you are apparently a smart and attractive girl. If you admit to being a trashy bitch and slut, that's really sad for you and your boyfriend.

About your post, I basically agree with what that guy said. A guy does make a snap judgment about looks. I will put women into two simple categories, yes and no. I think most guys are the same. As far as what almost famous kiwi said, I think women make their snap judgments too. Probably more complicated though, as they may go for more than appearance. A shallow girl is a turnoff for a real relationship. But I doubt most hot women want to date a guy who makes much less than them, because the fact is they have their pick.

jeff and ross said...

Anon: I'm pretty certain there's no other way to take your first comment and as if that wasn't enough, you have the balls to deny implying anything, patronize the person you insulted and insult her again. I find that really sad. Is this comment obvious enough to understand?

Wanderlusting said...

M - I agree, there is truth to all of this, as stereotypes come from somewhere. But personally I just don't see women going after men for money, and neither do you, and of course this could mean that we just don't hang out with those types of women.

See, I don't know about you but I've known guys who've gone out with girls that they weren't that attracted to...

Indy - I didn't misqoute you, just brought out what I wanted to comment on. People can read the links I provided to the original article (hehe it's an article now) and make their own judgements...and I hope they do, your post was a lot more than just a few things out of it that I found fault with and it was interesting to read what everyone else had to say as well!

But I am being honest and this goes to Almost Famous Kiwi too, I have given guys that I did not find attractive a chance and found myself finding them attractive at a later time. This did not neccesarily happen over a friendship or over a large amount of time.

I think it's sad if women will turn men down because they are too thin or aren't tall enough because in the end they may just come to love those things about the person that originally turned them off in the first place. Your idea of "physical perfection" can change and I believe it is ever revolving...thereby if you turn down someone (and of course I have done this too) because they weren't your current ideal, you may miss out what could be your ideal. I mean, I never used to like avocados but I forced myself to eat it and after awhile I grew to love them. I eat them all the time now and with relish! (that's with enthusiasm and not the condiment).

Maybe I am a rare case, but I've given guys I was NOT attracted to a chance. Sometimes it worked out, sometimes it didn't...you just never know and it's a shame on what you can miss out on if you don't try and be open.

Anonymous - You obviously can't take a joke. Sexual escapades? Ice capades? Any kind of capades? Have you even read my profile? And while I am at it, since when does "sexual escapades" indicate that someone is a slut? Ever heard of commited couples, or married couples having sexual escapades...good lord it's sad to think that you can only be sexual by being a slut.

Speaking of slut, when did I admit to that? Oh it must have been the 4 people I've slept with. Dirty, dirty me.

As for being a trashy bitch, sure I'll admit to it...only because it's so laughable and everybody knows it couldn't be further from the truth.

Sarcasm is so lost on people these days.

Anonymous said...


fantabulous brit said...

While there are some ladies out there who go after men for money, there are also ladies who go after men for looks. There are also ladies who go after men regardless of looks or money. After all, there are a lot of ladies out there, they can't all be selective in the same way.

However are men so different than women that the above analogy can't be applied to them? I should think and hope not.

As for anonymous hate comments - you seem to attract the weirdos, myself included - I have to side with your boyf Ross. There was no other way to take that comment. Some person - who still yet hides behind her mask of anonymity - just wanted to get to you. Don't let it. Their attempt at explaining why they did it isn't fooling anyone, so don't worry.

M said...

Maybe I am a rare case, but I've given guys I was NOT attracted to a chance. Sometimes it worked out, sometimes it didn't...you just never know and it's a shame on what you can miss out on if you don't try and be open.

You are a beautiful person inside AND out.

And it's true, you would miss out on a lot, besides we're missing the ultimately true fact that looks fade.

Wanderlusting said...

Dan - Are u lost? ;)

Fantabulous - Well said, that was what I was trying to get at. I think more men judge on looks than women do on money (or looks as well). Although I do find myself nodding to what Indy mentioned earlier on how women might pass up a guy because of his shoes...I witnessed that once.

M - Awwww, thank you! But I don't think that makes me a saint. It's just that I have given guys that I didn't find attractive a chance because I thought, hey you never know. I've also not given guys a chance as well and not regretted it. I think it just comes down to being open...I know a fabulous guy that women might dimiss because of his short stature but they would honestly be passing up on a genuinely great man. Thankfully, most women don't care about him not reaching that particular ideal, they give him a go and they are pleasantly surprised.

The best part is, he has said to me "Look, I know I'm short. But I have a lot to offer and when a woman gives me a chance, she sees that too."

Sometimes confidence does a world of wonders and he has it in spades.

Anonymous said...

So Lucky that youre boyfriend defends you...

Anonymous said...

I would just like to say that I like the fact that you 'felt' so much about a post that you had to reply and that it is fair and even. I haven't read all of Indy's post but you probably already know that I am a big fan because he does, in general, capture what men think. He should be compulsive reading for gals and guys IMHO.
Great post btw

Anonymous said...

I think the term "physical perfection" is whats throwing this off. Every guy has something different that they find attractive. What he might be saying is that if you don't find a girl attractive then you're probably not going to ever find her attractive no matter what sort of personality she has, where as a girl might not think a guy is cute but over time can come to think of him as cute because he's really funny, or nice, or sweet. But what's attractive to me is not necessarily attractive to another guy, so a girl doesn't have to be "physically perfect" just what is attractive to me. Which may or may not be what anyone else likes.

As far as the gold digging goes, my girlfriend broke up with an extremely wealthy guy from an extremely wealth family to date me and I don't even have a car. I think that says a lot. Mostly that I'm awesome.

Anonymous said...

I'll just say that I agree with what Eric just said way, way more than with Indy's ideas.

Wanderlusting said...

Anon - Thanks, I sure am lucky and he's very good at it.

Scorpy - Agreed. The thing is I read Indy and he's usually so poetic (and I know you are reading this Indy so yes you are) as well as romantic...a very different guy from what is typical and that is why he has so many female readers, myself included. The only reason this post really effected me was because it seemed like a departure from his usual self. Which is why Sarah was like "Are you smoking crack?" It seemed like a cynical view from someone I always considered non-jaded.

That said, at the same time it's great because it was a post about someone's personal views, something he obviously felt passionately about and it was sorta nice to see this different side of him. Yes Indy, you are awesome, you and your harem.

Eric - You are awesome! I know that Indy did not mean physical perfection in that sense and more in what you are saying...what the guy finds attractive to himself. I just don't see how it's so impossible for a guy to see something in a girl that he didn't see before. Then again, I'm no guy and it seems to me that this is a very big difference between men and women.

Minijonb - Great to see a different point of view too, especially from a man

Anonymous said...

I tried to add my 2¢ earlier but blogger wouldn't cooperate.
I have given men that I wasn't initially attracted to a chance.
That being said, there are some things that are dealbreakers for me.
I refuse to date someone who is dumb. If I can't have an in-depth intellectual conversation I can't date them
I refuse to date someone who is dirty. Not showering, brushing your teeth or wearing the same clothes for 3 days is something that I can't get past unless you are camping and are usually spic & span clean.
I refuse to date someone who immediately puts me on the defensive. Those kind of men tend to be abusers and I won't even go there.
I refuse to date someone who won't work. Not because I care about money, but I do care about self respect and even if you are independently wealthy you should be doing something with your life(volunteering or full time student status is acceptable).
I refuse to date someone who doesn't like kids. Why get emotionally attached to someone who there is no potential with? I refuse to do that to my son.
Everyone has make or break things on their list. Many of mine are not something that you can discern at first glance but they are important to me.
Men are VERY visually based so I can understand why they automatically rank a woman based on looks. What I think is shoddy is that they don't allow a womans personality to impact what ranking they receive.

Indiana said...

I am always surprised which posts elicit the most responses particularly the topical debate ones...but I do like reading the opinions of others and seeing it reinforced that for every experience fueled theory or idea we have there are always exceptions.

I'm not sure if it was a cynical view or a response to a recent happening that inspired the post but I do know that, if I am honest, it has been my experience...so maybe that says more about my history and my bad choices than anything else.
And as for being jaded, what can I say somedays I feel my age and the weight of being alone other days I revel in the same.

Wanderlusting said...

Indy - well I'm not one to talk, since I'm quite jaded too (not about money and looks obviously but other things like cheating and...cheating. And sex. And cheating).

Anyhoo as I am younger than you I guess you just have to chalk it up to experiences. While you may have not good experiences with the money/looks thing and I have, you may have not had bad experiences with infidelity like I have.

As surprising as it was to see this side of you, I'm glad I did...after all, everyone has a sore spot and if you didn't it would just mean you haven't experienced enough. And you are quite worldly as it is.

Anonymous said...

not so far lost that i can't be saved. besides, i have a handheld gps. i'm never lost.

Wanderlusting said...

Physically it's almost impossible for me to get lost, it's like I have internal gps.

Mentally, yes and often.

Anonymous said...

I've dated many men that I wasn't originally all that attracted to. Mind and personality is so much more important to me. And I don't need a guy with money but I do need a man with ambition and goals.

We can all be shallow, men and women. I don't think either gender is more shallow than the other.