Sugar Daddies and sugar angels

batistuta9

Amica wrote: »

You totally missed my point. I didn't ask if it's despicable - what I meant is: is it worse to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

you can't say worse as it's going to be subjective but i would certainly think it's culturally less accepted to be with someone solely for money

Amica

batistuta9 wrote: »

you can't say worse as it's going to be subjective but i would certainly think it's culturally less accepted to be with someone solely for money

culturally less accepted - I'm not really sure whether you're right but I would find this strange given that there's no real ethical difference

batistuta9

Amica wrote: »

culturally less accepted - I'm not really sure whether you're right but I would find this strange given that there's no real ethical difference

if people think a person is in a relationship for money, they'll call them all sorts, golddigger, prostitute, user.

if they think a person is in a relationship for looks, there's generally an acknowledgement of the other persons looks ("could you blame them" type responses), then speculation there's some other quality as well or they wouldn't stick around as 'beauty is only skin deep'

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

Amica

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.
Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I think you're right on that one

dr.fuzzenstein

Candie wrote: »

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

A lot of people will have rude awakenings, when reality fails to meet the dream. Having a high maintenance girlfriend who likes you for your financial qualities rather than your beergut, bald head and wrinkles is a lot like owning a Ferrari or very old vintage car. The idea of owning them is a lot nicer than actually owning them. The dream of driving along in them and being admired is soon replaced by astronomical maintenance bills, patchy reliability and a big thirst for fuel. It's OK if you can piss away a fortune on one and have staff to maintain it.

ancapailldorcha

Candie wrote: »

I think it's possible that the perception of the relative acceptability is different with each gender.

Men might think being with a man for money is worse than being with a woman for beauty because they're the shallow target in that scenario, and vice versa.

I wouldn't contemplate being with a man who didn't like me and value me for myself and I don't understand how anyone would settle for less than that, male or female. I certainly wouldn't be able to be with someone I didn't like, respect and value for their specialness.

That said if everyone is getting what they want and can live with the devils bargain, then go for it. I'd find it hard not to judge anyone who enters that arrangement as being superficial and vacuous though, either gender.

Success seems to be more and more defined by material possessions these days. I've noticed it more and more since I moved to the UK though that could be partly explained by recent technological events. Family and being social in general seem to be more of a priority in Ireland. I could be talking complete nonsense there though.

Amica

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

A lot of people will have rude awakenings, when reality fails to meet the dream. Having an old rich man who likes you for your pretty face and hot body rather than your lack of education/resources/ personality is a lot like having a modelling contract with a big agency. The idea of having it is a lot nicer than actually having it. The dream of receiving the best of everything and being admired is soon replaced by the pressure to stay thin, economic and emotional insecurity and a big workout/beauty regime probably with some anti-aging plastic surgery (Botox and the like). It's OK if you can piss away a lifetime on one and have other admirers to fall back on just in case

just to compare

dr.fuzzenstein

Amica wrote: »

just to compare

That works for me. I hang around a lot in Motors. Might just color my metaphors.
And women, just like old cars do occasionally boil over.

newport2

Amica wrote: »

discussion seems to have focussed more on the sugar angel's side (she's only with him for his money) and the possible lack of morals/self respect etc related to it...is it more despicable to be with somebody for their money than for their looks?

I think nature intended both traits to be attractive, man ends up with more attractive children, woman ends up with man who can provide for her and her children. It's really modern society that has raised the question of whether this is right or not, mainly due to the fact that people like to think that they are less shallow than they really are. We are driven by a lot of things that we don't necessarily make rational decisions about.

I suppose you could argue that he earned his money, whereas she was born with her looks. So at least his wealth is somewhat a reflection of who he is - perhaps less shallow to be attracted to this although perceived by society to be more so? But that's simplistic rubbish, money is not necessarily a good reflection, a lot is not honestly earned or perhaps inherited.

I don't think there's any answer to your question, just an opinion. To be with someone solely because of their looks or money is wrong IMO. But there's nothing wrong with being initially attracted to someone for these traits.

KomradeBishop

There's plenty wrong with being initially attracted to someone because of money - with physical attraction, that's largely hardwired (even though you can condition yourself to some degree, on what you like), with money, that takes conscious choice to 'like' someone for probably the most shallow of reasons.

There's nothing that should be done against it though, other than it being something that (like my previous post mentioned) should always carry judgement, socially.

newport2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There's plenty wrong with being initially attracted to someone because of money - with physical attraction, that's largely hardwired (even though you can condition yourself to some degree, on what you like), with money, that takes conscious choice to 'like' someone for probably the most shallow of reasons.

There's nothing that should be done against it though, other than it being something that (like my previous post mentioned) should always carry judgement, socially.

IMO you don't choose to be attracted to somebody, you either are or you are not. For whatever reasons. You don't ask yourself "will I chose to find this person attactive?" At least I don't. (I'm not talking about someone who actively pursues someone wealthy and whose first question is "What car do you drive?", that's different)

As to whether you should remain in a relationship when you realise that what initially attracted you was money (if that's still the case), then that's a different question and allows for a rational decision to be made. I would agree with you here.

Korat

Love is the ultimate narcissism. It's a bit like religion in that it cons people into thinking they're special, chosen by some cosmic force rather an accidental encounter with someone whose needs match what they're offering.

Fed on a diet of soap opera story lines and romantic fairytales most people probably think romance is a good foundation for a relationship. The facts tell a different story. Separations, single parents and highly educated childless women were rare even just 20 years ago.

The idea of a financial incentive in a relationship has been around a lot longer than romance with far better results. It's only a pity that this Sugar Daddy-Sugar Angel arrangement doesn't work for the middle or working classes.

Marriage is a restriction of human rights, I believe. I really don't understand why some minorities kick up such a fuss to have it imposed on them. You can move house or change job as your needs change but you've to break a sworn oath to change your marital partner. Ridiculous!

Amica

Marriage is a restriction of human rights, I believe.

they're not forced into it! :pac:

LordNorbury

newport2 wrote: »

IMO you don't choose to be attracted to somebody, you either are or you are not. For whatever reasons. You don't ask yourself "will I chose to find this person attactive?" At least I don't. (I'm not talking about someone who actively pursues someone wealthy and whose first question is "What car do you drive?", that's different)

As to whether you should remain in a relationship when you realise that what initially attracted you was money (if that's still the case), then that's a different question and allows for a rational decision to be made. I would agree with you here.

That's a very simple analysis there. A lot of women (and a lot of men for that matter!), could look at a middle class guy on 28K a year and find him attractive, warm and personable, yet could perceive that same person as completely undateable because of his career status or income.

She (or he), could look at the very same person driving an X5 worth 100K who is wealthy, and be completely attracted to him.

The sugar daddy website works because an attractive young girl could have her whole years college fees and subsistence sorted with the stroke of a pen if she meets a guy who is loaded, who she might even just be slightly attracted to, or who she can stay attracted to long enough to give him enough sex and companionship in terms of time and company, where he might write a cheque for 20K or whatever. In this country, even a 3K payment would cover the college registration fee, and 3K is small change to someone who is earning 500K a year or 1.2 million Euro a year. An attractive girl could get this deal done over a weekend in the sun with a sugar daddy, what is the alternative for her, a year of working weekends and flipping burgers or working in Dunnes? If you take the Catholic guilt out of the equation, it is kind of a no brainer for some women who are attractive enough for it to be a viable option for them...

It seems strange to me that when it comes to subjects like abortion, Irish women are roaring "MY BODY MY CHOICE!", at society, whereas when it comes to a woman's right to use her body to earn income, whether it be online prostitution or sugar daddy type arrangements, it seems that these adult decisions are sneered at and seriously judged.

KomradeBishop

newport2 wrote: »

IMO you don't choose to be attracted to somebody, you either are or you are not. For whatever reasons. You don't ask yourself "will I chose to find this person attactive?" At least I don't. (I'm not talking about someone who actively pursues someone wealthy and whose first question is "What car do you drive?", that's different)

As to whether you should remain in a relationship when you realise that what initially attracted you was money (if that's still the case), then that's a different question and allows for a rational decision to be made. I would agree with you here.

You don't choose to be attracted to someone, when it comes to personality/physically (even though you can influence what you tend to be attracted to), sure, but you do choose to be 'attracted' to someone, when it comes to money (or even, not-attracted to someone, due to lack of).

Wibbs

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There's plenty wrong with being initially attracted to someone because of money - with physical attraction, that's largely hardwired

I would argue that status attraction for men is also largely hardwired in women and history and the various cultures out there would back this up in a big way. The man with more status attracted more women. Money is just an obvious status marker, fame, social standing, political power, talent, charisma would be others.

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't choose to be attracted to someone, when it comes to personality/physically (even though you can influence what you tend to be attracted to), sure, but you do choose to be 'attracted' to someone, when it comes to money (or even, not-attracted to someone, due to lack of).

I think this can be doubted. There's a common theory that men are more affected (innately/instinctively) by physical appearance than women are, and women are more affected (again innately/instinctively) by power in its various forms (e.g. money, social status etc) than men are. If that's true, then it could definitely be argued that women are naturally more attracted to powerful men including rich men.

A lot of women (and a lot of men for that matter!), could look at a middle class guy on 28K a year and find him attractive, warm and personable, yet could perceive that same person as completely undateable because of his career status or income.

is 28k a year really so little as to make you undateable?! I wouldn't be put off by that at all!

newport2

Wibbs wrote: »

I would argue that status attraction for men is also largely hardwired in women and history and the various cultures out there would back this up in a big way. The man with more status attracted more women. Money is just an obvious status marker, fame, social standing, political power, talent, charisma would be others.

Exactly my point Wibbs, thanks

Amica

newport2 wrote: »

Exactly my point Wibbs, thanks

yeah mine too. thanks

KomradeBishop

LordNorbury wrote: »

...
It seems strange to me that when it comes to subjects like abortion, Irish women are roaring "MY BODY MY CHOICE!", at society, whereas when it comes to a woman's right to use her body to earn income, whether it be online prostitution or sugar daddy type arrangements, it seems that these adult decisions are sneered at and seriously judged.

It should be perfectly legal, and nobody should be told what to/not-to do with their own bodies, but why should it not be judged?

I think whether it's appropriate to judge, depends heavily upon the circumstances - and monetization of sex is actually a much more complicated set of moral questions than people think, tying into wider economic/social issues - but I think monetization of sex/relationships should (depending on context) always carry some amount of social judgement against it, because of the social dynamics it could create if universally accepted (or even approved of).

Amica

I think monetization of sex/relationships should (depending on context) always carry some amount of social judgement against it, because of the social dynamics it could create if universally accepted

can you elaborate on this? What kind of social dynamics would you envision?

KomradeBishop

Wibbs wrote: »

I would argue that status attraction for men is also largely hardwired in women and history and the various cultures out there would back this up in a big way. The man with more status attracted more women. Money is just an obvious status marker, fame, social standing, political power, talent, charisma would be others.

I agree with you to an extent, on social status being a factor, but when it comes to money I still judge that as being a conscious choice, when it comes to attraction.

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I agree with you to an extent, on social status being a factor, but when it comes to money I still judge that as being a conscious choice, when it comes to attraction.

money is a key form of social status. Maybe you're too entrenched in your own gendered perspective here?

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

I think this can be doubted. There's a common theory that men are more affected (innately/instinctively) by physical appearance than women are, and women are more affected (again innately/instinctively) by power in its various forms (e.g. money, social status etc) than men are. If that's true, then it could definitely be argued that women are naturally more attracted to powerful men including rich men.


is 28k a year really so little as to make you undateable?! I wouldn't be put off by that at all!

It's a bit too much of a generalization - I don't personally believe, that all of attraction is 'innate', and when it comes to 'status', I think there is a huge range of choice in influencing what you are attracted to there - depending on the type of status.

newport2

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think whether it's appropriate to judge, depends heavily upon the circumstances - and monetization of sex is actually a much more complicated set of moral questions than people think, tying into wider economic/social issues - but I think monetization of sex/relationships should (depending on context) always carry some amount of social judgement against it, because of the social dynamics it could create if universally accepted (or even approved of).

But who judges whether it's appropriate to judge?

LordNorbury

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It should be perfectly legal, and nobody should be told what to/not-to do with their own bodies, but why should it not be judged?

I think whether it's appropriate to judge, depends heavily upon the circumstances - and monetization of sex is actually a much more complicated set of moral questions than people think, tying into wider economic/social issues - but I think monetization of sex/relationships should (depending on context) always carry some amount of social judgement against it, because of the social dynamics it could create if universally accepted (or even approved of).

It's only complicated I think, like a lot of other subjects, when you look at it from a religious or in particular from a purely Catholic perspective. There are a lot of things happening in Ireland today that would have been unthinkable from a moral perspective only 20 years ago. One example is single women deciding to have a child via a fertility treatment if she so wishes. Whether it is right or wrong that the child will be raised without a father figure in its life (something I personally disagree with), it is happening up and down Ireland in 2015 as women in their 30's have started to realise the futility of waiting for a successful loved filled relationship before deciding to have children.

Whether it be for right or for wrong, the world these days I feel is not concerning itself with the morality of decisions, people now have rights and the attitude seems to be these days that you make your decision and if it brings consequences, then so be it, because it'll be you that will be dealing with them, whether those consequences be good or bad.

When it comes to sugar daddies and the likes, things like the availability of contraception have opened up options and choices that were just not worth the risk of taking only 20-30 years ago.

If you think about it from a sexual angle, say that girl who is 21 and studying in Ireland, if you fast forward her life to be a somewhat attractive girl in her mid 30's and single in Ireland, she will be going on dates, she will be getting wined, she'll be having sex, and some of it, or a lot of it, will be casual if she is fussy and not desperate for a relationship and there are a LOT of single women who fit into that category in Ireland right now.

In that context, is a saucy weekend away with a guy who is paying and who says he'll sort your college fee's (3K in Ireland I think) and throws you a few additional quid as he sends you back on your way home, is it really that bad?!?

Amica

It's a bit too much of a generalization - I don't personally believe, that all of attraction is 'innate', and when it comes to 'status', I think there is a huge range of choice in influencing what you are attracted to there - depending on the type of status.

I don't think it's all innate either but I do think we're influenced by our innate instincts and I do think there's some variance between the genders. Women in general aren't as affected by good looks as men are I think and this thread is convincing me that men in general are less affected by status than women are. Again I think you're too entrenched in your gendered perspective here. Would you also say that there is a "huge range of choice" in influencing how much you're attracted by appearance? Maybe you, as a man, don't feel there's such a huge choice when it come to being attracted to good looks yet a lot of women would disagree with that.

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

can you elaborate on this? What kind of social dynamics would you envision?

I'm not entirely sure on this, as I haven't thought of it in detail before, but if it became completely accepted and not judged, it would have the potential then (over a very long time) to become something that could even be approved of, and/or become adopted on a wide scale.

I think then, that any worsening of economic inequality issues in society, would have a kind of complicated dynamic, that would worsen how those issues affect social inequality as well; I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences.

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

money is a key form of social status. Maybe you're too entrenched in your own gendered perspective here?

Eh? In any case, your post doesn't contradict what I said.

KomradeBishop

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's only complicated I think, like a lot of other subjects, when you look at it from a religious or in particular from a purely Catholic perspective. There are a lot of things happening in Ireland today that would have been unthinkable from a moral perspective only 20 years ago. One example is single women deciding to have a child via a fertility treatment if she so wishes. Whether it is right or wrong that the child will be raised without a father figure in its life (something I personally disagree with), it is happening up and down Ireland in 2015 as women in their 30's have started to realise the futility of waiting for a successful loved filled relationship before deciding to have children.

Whether it be for right or for wrong, the world these days I feel is not concerning itself with the morality of decisions, people now have rights and the attitude seems to be these days that you make your decision and if it brings consequences, then so be it, because it'll be you that will be dealing with them, whether those consequences be good or bad.

When it comes to sugar daddies and the likes, things like the availability of contraception have opened up options and choices that were just not worth the risk of taking only 20-30 years ago.

If you think about it from a sexual angle, say that girl who is 21 and studying in Ireland, if you fast forward her life to be a somewhat attractive girl in her mid 30's and single in Ireland, she will be going on dates, she will be getting wined, she'll be having sex, and some of it, or a lot of it, will be casual if she is fussy and not desperate for a relationship and there are a LOT of single women who fit into that category in Ireland right now.

In that context, is a saucy weekend away with a guy who is paying and who says he'll sort your college fee's (3K in Ireland I think) and throws you a few additional quid as he sends you back on your way home, is it really that bad?!?

I think it's complicated, because when you introduce monetization of sex/relationships, you're pulling in all of the economic/social moral issues related to economics.

If you think of it on an individual scale, it doesn't seem bad, but when you think of it on the scale of how it may affect a whole society - minus judgement of it (even potentially with approval of it) - then it can introduce problems that tie into social/economic issues.

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Eh? In any case, your post doesn't contradict what I said.

how about this post:

I don't think it's all innate either but I do think we're influenced by our innate instincts and I do think there's some variance between the genders. Women in general aren't as affected by good looks as men are I and this thread is convincing me that men in general are less affected by status than women are. Again I think you're too entrenched in your gendered perspective here. Would you also say that there is a "huge range of choice" in influencing how much you're attracted by appearance? Maybe you, as a man, don't feel there's such a huge choice when it come to being attracted to good looks yet a lot of women would disagree with that.

LordNorbury

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think it's complicated, because when you introduce monetization of sex/relationships, you're pulling in all of the economic/social moral issues related to economics.

If you think of it on an individual scale, it doesn't seem bad, but when you think of it on the scale of how it may affect a whole society - minus judgement of it (even potentially with approval of it) - then it can introduce problems that tie into social/economic issues.

I don't think it does, maybe you have a point though, if for example you had 1,000 women a year taking a tax free lump sum from a sugar daddy, this obviously has some economic implications, as that is 1,000 people who are not working part time to pay their way through college, etc. But the same could be argued for a mechanic or a chippy working in the black economy and drawing the dole as well.

Korat

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think whether it's appropriate to judge, depends heavily upon the circumstances - and monetization of sex is actually a much more complicated set of moral questions than people think, tying into wider economic/social issues - but I think monetization of sex/relationships should (depending on context) always carry some amount of social judgement against it, because of the social dynamics it could create if universally accepted (or even approved of).

Monetization? I assume you intend that to mean an on going process of turning sex into something you pay for?

Well that's been the case from day one among the human species. The oldest profession after all involves payment for sex. Your moralistic judgments on that are the new factor.

You're trying to say that selecting a partner for financial reasons rather than emotional ones is new when in fact the opposite is the case. Your views might turn out to be the passing fad, like when it was ok to use opium, it took a while but people realised that opium had serious negative side affects regardless of how good it made people feel.

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

I don't think it's all innate either but I do think we're influenced by our innate instincts and I do think there's some variance between the genders. Women in general aren't as affected by good looks as men are I and this thread is convincing me that men in general are less affected by status than women are. Again I think you're too entrenched in your gendered perspective here. Would you also say that there is a "huge range of choice" in influencing how much you're attracted by appearance? Maybe you, as a man, don't feel there's such a huge choice when it come to being attracted to good looks yet a lot of women would disagree with that.

I'm not really interested in the wider discussion of comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status etc.; the point of what I'm saying is that attraction to status, depending on the type of status, has a lot of conscious choice behind it.

Amica

I think then, that any worsening of economic inequality issues in society, would have a kind of complicated dynamic, that would worsen how those issues affect social inequality as well; I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences.

so you think that the economic gap would be widened if it was socially acceptable for people to choose a partner based on money? Can you explain why?

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

so you think that the economic gap would be widened if it was socially acceptable for people to choose a partner based on money? Can you explain why?

It is perfectly socially acceptable to choose a partner based on money, money has married money from time immemorial and always will. This is one of the ways in which the economic gap does widen.

KomradeBishop

Korat wrote: »

Monetization? I assume you intend that to mean an on going process of turning sex into something you pay for?

Well that's been the case from day one among the human species. The oldest profession after all involves payment for sex. Your moralistic judgments on that are the new factor.

You're trying to say that selecting a partner for financial reasons rather than emotional ones is new when in fact the opposite is the case. Your views might turn out to be the passing fad, like when it was ok to use opium, it took a while but people realised that opium had serious negative side affects regardless of how good it made people feel.

I'm not saying anything is 'new' - I'm saying that it should be perfectly legal/allowed, but - depending on circumstances - it should be judged socially, so it doesn't become completely accepted (as I believe/speculate, that the social dynamics that could create - which tie into wider complicated economic/social issues - would be bad).

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not saying anything is 'new' - I'm saying that it should be perfectly legal/allowed, but - depending on circumstances - it should be judged socially, so it doesn't become completely accepted (as I believe/speculate, that the social dynamics that could create - which tie into wider complicated economic/social issues - would be bad).

Why do you think it would be bad? The only caveat I can see is that the wealthy partner in the relationship may be in a position of power over the other depending on the circumstances.

LordNorbury

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the wider discussion of comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status etc.; the point of what I'm saying is that attraction to status, depending on the type of status, has a lot of conscious choice behind it.

There are women in the media, Irish "model-celebrity" types and I'm not going to mention names but there can be no reason other than wealth that could be behind the decision of women to date these men. One woman has a well known track record of only dating wealthy men and has been known to work the "celebrity" circuit for years to that end, this women herself is not particularly accomplished whatsoever in her own right in terms of her career or earning capability.

There is nothing new to this in my view, if you go back 200 years in Ireland, Lady XYZ married Earl ABC, and Countess this married Duke that, it was in fact very rare for women to marry outside of their class, as anyone who watches Downton Abbey can attest to.

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

so you think that the economic gap would be widened if it was socially acceptable for people to choose a partner based on money? Can you explain why?

I didn't say that, but I think that if the economic gap widens (economic inequality tends to vary a lot over long periods of time, and there are probably lots of ups and downs to come throughout the future, in this regard) - if it widens, I think the social dynamics that complete acceptance (even approval) can create, would cause a greater negative effect on society when an economic gap is large enough (and I don't think it'd need to be that large to cause problems either).

Amica

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not really interested in the wider discussion of comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status etc.; the point of what I'm saying is that attraction to status, depending on the type of status, has a lot of conscious choice behind it.

comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status is central to this thread topic! You only want to talk about the situation from one perspective. Saying you're "not interested" in seeing things from the other side is the surest way to a biased one-sided opinion

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you think it would be bad? The only caveat I can see is that the wealthy partner in the relationship may be in a position of power over the other depending on the circumstances.

I think on an individual basis it doesn't really make a difference, but on a society-wide bases (with full social acceptance, or even approval), it would be a lot different, and bad.

KomradeBishop

LordNorbury wrote: »

There are women in the media, Irish "model-celebrity" types and I'm not going to mention names but there can be no reason other than wealth that could be behind the decision of women to date these men. One woman has a well known track record of only dating wealthy men and has been known to work the "celebrity" circuit for years to that end, this women herself is not particularly accomplished whatsoever in her own right in terms of her career or earning capability.

There is nothing new to this in my view, if you go back 200 years in Ireland, Lady XYZ married Earl ABC, and Countess this married Duke that, it was in fact very rare for women to marry outside of their class, as anyone who watches Downton Abbey can attest to.

I didn't say there was anything 'new' to it...

Amica

jimgoose wrote: »

It is perfectly socially acceptable to choose a partner based on money, money has married money from time immemorial and always will. This is one of the ways in which the economic gap does widen.

How does this widen the economic gap? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't see the argument

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I think on an individual basis it doesn't really make a difference, but on a society-wide bases (with full social acceptance, or even approval), it would be a lot different, and bad.

You've not said why.

jimgoose

Amica wrote: »

How does this widen the economic gap? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't see the argument

There's a lot of vague claims that women choosing men for money will widen the economic gap. I'd like somebody to explain that argument. So far nobody has made one

I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's simply that people choosing marriage partners from the same socio-economic demograph as themselves tends, at the macro level, to maintain the status quo. And that's one major reason it's done! :pac:

KomradeBishop

Amica wrote: »

comparing attraction to looks with attraction to status is central to this thread topic! You only want to talk about the situation from one perspective. Saying you're "not interested" in seeing things from the other side is the surest way to a biased one-sided opinion

I made a very specific point, that I think attraction to status (depending on the type of status) has a lot of choice involved - which is what the line of discussion between the two of us started on - so I don't want to be dragged into another tangent (among the many that I'm already trying to keep on top of), when you haven't contradicted that.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You've not said why.

I have, but it's probably lost in the speed of replies here:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure on this, as I haven't thought of it in detail before, but if it became completely accepted and not judged, it would have the potential then (over a very long time) to become something that could even be approved of, and/or become adopted on a wide scale.

I think then, that any worsening of economic inequality issues in society, would have a kind of complicated dynamic, that would worsen how those issues affect social inequality as well; I think it'd create a lot more distance between people, over economic differences.

There is a fair bit of other discussion branching off from that too.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I have, but it's probably lost in the speed of replies here:

There is a fair bit of other discussion branching off from that too.

I've reread your posts and you haven't beyond a vague reference to social dynamics.