Why I want a woman who wants me for my MONEY

[Turkey]

Ok, cheese subject title but I thought it would get some attention. 

It looks like the issue of wealth is cropping up again in a few threads.  I wanted to put forward my views on this as I think it is the thinking of many but has not been adequately represented.

The issue seems to be framed as a dichotemy where on one side men are saying that one of the primary reasons for a woman to select a western man is because he has a lot of money (him/his country etc).  The other side seems to be saying that women do not select based upon the WM's money and that the relationship is about 'love' or some variation.  Neither side seems to be dismissing the other side completely but place a different emphasis on the question of money.

I agree with both and no i'm not running for office .  I have stated in another post that I have no problems for women using money as a determinating factor for mate selection.  I believe that it is natural and encourage this practice as a way to ensure that offspring have the best opportunities to become well adjusted civic members of society.

I think where we are getting some friction in the discussions is not really about whether or not money matters, but more along the lines of to what degree this is important to the FSUW.  The point then becomes, is it a question of whether or not the money is a good factor for mate selection or a question of greed (as in the deadly sins sense).  It is not that the woman seeks status that is at issue but rather the excess and irrational desire for status that becomes critical.

A few observations:

When one of our esteemed gentlemen talks about 'league' he is referring to the natural process that we each have internalized where upon we automatically without thought compare our estimation of physical attractiveness to the attractiveness of the opposite sex.  In general, if you are a good looking guy, you will receive positive reception from good looking females.  If though, you are on the other side of Quasimoto then you may find that the attention that you may receive from the opposite sex may be limited.  This, I don't think is in question and i'm sure that each of us can agree from our personal experience the truth to the issue of 'league'.

It is a truism that attractive women are seen with men with questionable looks but who happen to have above average incomes/wealth/fame.  Many have commented on this phenomena so I think that it is accepted by this group as true.  This points to the issue of status.

There is a difference between mate selection for long term relationships and for short term relationships.  I think that this is an area where some disagreement has come up before on this board.  Many of the factors that occur during a one night stand or situation where there isn't commitment still exist in relationships that are long term.  The notion of 'free sex' can occur but it must be defined in specific contexts.  There is a natural tendency for pair bonding that was proven even in free sex of the 60's.  Those who do not differentiate point to the physical and emotional effort and effects that occur to prove their position.

But, there can also be pair bonding with 'free sex' mating strategies.  Humans like some species of birds do exhibit a strategy where the female will select a mate to raise offspring and different mates for gene selection.  This is not in a majorit of cases but it is prevelent enough to mention as a point that there are mitigating factors that allow for the discussion of short term mating strategies.




A few articles about status for mate selection:

http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/sexualselection.html

"human mating system is unique among apes in that it is characterised primarily by monogamous pair bonding (with occasional polygamy) and shared parental effort in child rearing. This leads to a whole set of tendencies untypical of apes such as the preference of males for young or youthful-looking mates and the preference of females for high status, often older, men.

Underlying all of these theories is the hypothesis that, because we have not evolved much in the last hundred thousand years, and because we evolved in a particular environment (sometimes described as the environment of evolutionary adaptedness or EEA which is usually assumed to be the African savannahs) living in a particular way (as social usually monogamous, occasionally polygamous hunter-gatherers) our minds should be adapted to that way of life.

It is worth noting that this is quite different from the approach taken by sociobiology in the 1970s, which attempted to explain modern human behaviour as adaptive. Modern theorists, in particular the proponents of evolutionary psychology (EP), rather attempt to explain the human mind in terms of tendencies which developed in the EEA.

As Matt Ridley puts it in The Red Queen:

There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy affairs with other men’s wives who will bear bastards . . . Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.

Likewise, deep in the mind of modern woman is the same hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they both be the same man . . . Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth and genes. "


http://www-personal.umich.edu/~kruger/ep8.html

"In a study of 37 cultures on six continents and five islands, Buss (1989) found that women value prospective male suitors on a cluster of characteristics related to resource potential: good financial prospects, ambition, industriousness, older age, and emotional maturity. On the other hand, men value potential female partners in terms of fecundity, the ability to produce and care for children. This is expressed in a preference for youth and physical attractiveness (Tesser & Martin, 1996). Cunningham (1986) found that "baby face" features, i.e. large eyes and a small nose, were consistently positively correlated with attractiveness in women, perceived fertility, and perceptions of few medical problems.

...

A female's choice of mates is generally more important than the male's choice in driving sexual dimorphism within a species (Kendrick, Trost, & Sheets, 1996). Since women have to make a greater obligatory investment in offspring though gestation and infant care, they are more choosy about whom they are going to mate with (Buss & Malamuth, 1996). This universal preference has selected for men who are able to provide for potential offspring through the resources they are able to devote. Men then have to be more competitive with each other for access to women. This has created a strong demand for men who are able to provide valuable resources, resulting in the characteristics of assertiveness, aggressiveness, and sensitivity to hierarchy found in men."


http://www.mindship.com/moller.htm

"Humans are sexually size dimorphic with males being larger than females, females limiting male reproductive success, and male resources being the ultimate goal for female mate preferences. Given this evolutionary past and the way in which even current human behaviour closely matches this history, it is unlikely that we can change human nature to just a small degree. What can be done is attempts to build societies that emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of the two sexes rather than trying to impose sexual equality (that is doomed to fail) onto our appearances and psychologies, traits that have evolved during millions of years in our primate evolutionary past."

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Conceptual-2.html

"Female sexuality

The basic challenge: The reproductive challenges of human females stems from two central facts--that she is the one to grow the baby inside herself (a destiny she shares with all her mammalian sisters), and that her baby will benefit greatly if the father invests in it after that quick and easy moment of conception. Babies are extremely resource demanding -- the sheer fact of pregnancy places severe stresses on the woman. A pregant mother shouldn't have to do heavy labor; see for instance a major study in the US by Ellen Mozurkewich (2000), showing that heavy work during pregnancy was associated with premature delivery, high blood pressure and underweight babies. In brief, the prediction is that the human female should have a set of cognitive adaptations for avoiding conception until she has found a mate that is worthy and willing to invest in their baby--not an easy task.

Why is this the female's challenge, rather than the male's? In humans, as in many species of nesting birds, males are critically important in provisioning for their offspring (this is not true for other primates). This has been established through painstaking research on hunter-gatherers, by Hillard Kaplan and others. Since it is their common baby, and since the father can contribute very significantly to the child's health, we do in fact find massive paternal investment in the human animal. Yet theoretical considerations suggest that the father can be predicted to be less motivated than the mother under a range of circumstances. To claim that some of this difference may have roots in evolved cognitive structures is not to provide deadbeat dads with an excuse. If the evolutionary logic has any validity, it is a dimension worth paying attention to; possibly, it can help us act more rather than less wisely.

Female beauty: Why do human females often look and typically aim to look beautiful, while their avian and animal sisters are so uniformly dour? In most species, it is the male that is visually striking.

...

Mate selection: The criteria for what is a good choice will vary between the sexes; for a treatment, see the work of David Buss. Females are found to value kindness, intelligence, status, and a sense of humor in potential mates--and this is just the beginning. A female also needs to be sensitive to cues for a willingness to invest--an attentive suitor brings gifts, perhaps, and doesn't double-time. Finally, a willingness to invest isn't worth much unless it is accompanied by the ability to do so--health, wealth, and connections should matter--that is, in the logic of evolution."


This is the tip of the iceberg.  If you have about a hundred million billion godzillion years, you can google search mate selection and they will almost universally agree with the propositions that:

1.  Man is an animal
2.  The study of human sexuality can be studied in the same manner as other species
3.  Women seek men wiht 'status' (wealth/income/fame)
4.  Men seek beauty and youth



In this overwhelming context, I completely agree with the notion that FSUW want to have a better life and that they feel they can get it by marrying a WM.  I also think this is to the betterment of mankind and fully welcome international marriages as a strategy to improve the options that are currently available independently in the individual countries as viewed by the individual participants.

I wanted to reiterate that seeking a mate that has money and is able to take care of the family is natural and that a more accurate framing of the discussion is the question of whether or not this is taken to the excess of what can be correctly called greed (ie. gold diggers).

[TigerPaws]

Turkey,

A bit long winded but I will generally agree with what you have said.

TigerPaws

[Kuna]

I didn't get to the end... sorry... 

[Rvrwind]

You forgot to add that for some guys, all they got going for them is money, without it they couldn't find love in a sheep pen!!

[TigerPaws]

You forgot to add that for some guys, all they got going for them is money, without it they couldn't find love in a sheep pen!!

Ok. And your point is?

TigerPaws

[Ste]

Ooops, methinks the atmos on this thread is turning a little sour....

[Turkey]

I don't think it was the intention of anyone to make this a personal thread. 

[TigerPaws]

Turkey,

Don't take anything Richard says as personal unless you anger him, piss him off, insult him or otherwise get on his bad side. Besides that he is a pussy cat.

TigerPaws

[Lily]

Well, this is a natural point of view, and as such it sure should be taken serious.

I agree with almost everything that is outlined. However, we people are not only natural animals any more. With the time, civilization and social life has made a great impact on us. There are more women now who never wanted to produce kids, so that they could eventually skip the requirement for a man to assist her in parenting. There are men who can hardly bear a young and beatiful woman on their side if she is intellectually underdeveloped.

Nature is powerful, but at the same time it is not everything any more...

[Rvrwind]

Besides that he is a pussy cat.

Yeah, but I have claws!!!
It wasn't aimed at anybody, I was at the time I wrote it thinking of a couple of guys that I have delt with in the recent past. Uglier than 50 mile of bad road, way overwieght & bald & one in his late 50's & the other in his early sixties. Every woman that looked at their pics grimaced. They did have lots of money though, but guess what, wasn't enough for my ladies.
So I referred them to BH & LTP,  Can't say I ain't generous,

[Turkey]

Well, this is a natural point of view, and as such it sure should be taken serious.

I agree with almost everything that is outlined. However, we people are not only natural animals any more. With the time, civilization and social life has made a great impact on us. There are more women now who never wanted to produce kids, so that they could eventually skip the requirement for a man to assist her in parenting. There are men who can hardly bear a young and beatiful woman on their side if she is intellectually underdeveloped.

Nature is powerful, but at the same time it is not everything any more...

I think that you are completely correct that political and social evolution is an important factor in the development of relationships.  With that said though, one can not ignore the physical reality of our biological heritage.  I think that sometimes this conflict does come out in some of the discussions.  One side might argue that the institution of marriage is a life long commitment and would make their arguements based upon that time frame.  Others have pointed out less idealistic arguments based upon either a lower probability of happiness in any given couple or a shorter time horizon.  One area I think one sees this is in the discussions regarding WMVM vs. WOVO.

In other areas that we see evolutionary mating strategies include the decision by women to 'cheat'.  This is evidenced by the shape of the man's penis, higher incidents of 'cheating' when the woman is ovulating and men raising children who are not their biological offspring.  Somehow our views of relationships have to account for this.  While we may create social institutions to improve our odds we must understand that it (biological legacy) is a reality and make our mating decisions from an informed perspective such as seeking mates with traditional moral values associated with families such as commitment, sacrifice and duty.

Shape of men's penis:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/42665/penis_evolution_intersexual_and_intrasexual.html

"There is some evolutionary evidence that the human penis evolved as a mechanism to displace sperm(1). By using the coronal ridge to create a suction mechanism, the penis is able to remove sperm already deposited in the female’s reproductive tract. This is significant because it would imply that females are not monogamous, otherwise sperm displacement would be useless, because only one male’s sperm would be present. Humans are culturally socialized to believe that women do not seek out sex. If the penis did evolve as an instrument to displace sperm, which there is much evidence to suggest, Western culture may have to reassess the way they categorize women sexually. "


Cheating when Ovulating:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uqLvCWa9BQAJ:homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/Honors/H53/clothingandovulation-Christina%255B1%255D.doc+women+dual+mating+strategy+ovulation&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

"hus, if a woman cannot secure a long-term partner who also has favorable genetic quality, it may make adaptive sense for her to secure the investment from a long-term partner, and to obtain better genes from a short-term partner (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000). It has been found that during the follicular cycle, women with a long-term partner are more prone to “have extra-pair copulations” (Penton-Voak, 1999). Particularly, there is a peak in a woman’s sexual interest at ovulation, which causes men with more masculine features to be more preferable (Penton-Voak, 2000).

      In a study conducted by Dennerstein (1994), researchers found that, female sexual interest occurred during the potentially fertile stages of the menstrual cycle and peaked at the maximally fertile stage of the cycle.  More specifically, a female’s sexual desire and arousal increases towards the mid-to-late follicular phases (Gangestad, 2001). In a more recent study, researchers found copulation more frequent in the follicular phase compared to the other phases (Burleson, 2002), reiterating how sexual interest increases during the follicular phase. More generally, how sexual interest fluctuates with the menstrual cycle. However, this study will look more specifically at the period of ovulation.

      The benefits to a female short-term strategy may be highest around the time of ovulation in the monthly cycle, when a woman is most likely to conceive. In line with this reasoning, recent studies have found that women’s mating preferences tend to vary over the course of their ovulatory cycles.  When they are most fertile, women are more likely to have extra-marital affairs (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1997), and to prefer men with masculine faces (Penton-Voak, 1999) and the scent of symmetrical men (Gangestad & Thornhill, 1998), than at other times of the cycle when they are less fertile."


Men raising children who are not their biological offspring:

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2247523206

" British scientists say Thursday that as many as one in 25 fathers worldwide could be raising another man's child, believing he or she is his own.

Some of the mix-ups can be attributed to artificial insemination, but the majority are due to a woman having sexual relationships outside the marriage, says Professor Mark Bellis, one of the researchers."

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Globe_and_Mail_Moms_Little_secret_14DEC02.htm

"But as the number of gene hunts and diagnostic tests has grown and grown, the leading cause of these anomalies has proved to be mistaken fatherhood.
Some peg the range at 5 to 10 per cent; others, such as Jeanette Papp of the University of California at Los Angeles, feel that 15 per cent is reasonable for the Western world, even if there is no hard evidence. "It's hard to do studies on these things for ethical reasons," says Dr. Papp, director of genotyping and sequencing in UCLA's department of human genetics. "I mean, how do you tell people what you're really looking for?"

A British survey conducted between 1988 and 1996 by Robin Baker, a former professor at the University of Manchester, confirmed the 10-per-cent figure. That seems high to skeptics such as Dalhousie University geneticist Paul Neumann, although even he admitted that "my colleague, who's a woman, tells me women have no trouble believing it. . . . It's the men who can't.""




While we can create social institutions that will help us as a species to thrive, we should be honest with ourselves why and learn.  The incidents of non matching parenting due to dual mating strategies is shocking but is a far cry from a majority.  I don't think that it would be a stretch to argue that valuing traditional values such as committed lifelong families as an institution would increase the probabilities of a successful long term relationship and effective mating strategy.  Of course the participants have to be able to read correctly that the individual is as committed as they are and not fall in love with a picture 


On the statement you made about intelligent/unintelligent women/men, I think that it is clear that people have to be in the ball park as far as intelligence.  Someone who has and IQ of 130 (+2 standard deviations) in a relationship with an average mate is the same as someone who is average in a relationship with someone who is clinically mentally retarded.  I don't think that those types are relationships (where there is a large IQ difference) are very easy to maintain nor possibly ethical.  For some men, this is a pickle due to men having a flatter distribution of IQs then women.
 

[catzenmouse]

Turkey,

 You've got WAY too much free time. Why not get on a plane and see for yourself? Just a thought.

Ken

[DKMM]

Lily,

That's because you are a Russian which means you come from a culture that has some civilization left.  Here in the boorish western world, people have come up with ways to justify their skewed ways and the "I can't help it I'm just an animal" is increasingly used.  Throw in some scientific studies and one way or another they will show we are just animals and want to hunt, hoard resources and have sex.  I call it devolution.

DKMM

[TigerPaws]

want to hunt, hoard resources and have sex. DKMM

Hum...
Sounds like fun to me DKMM what happened to your balls?

TigerPaws

[Bruno]

bla bla bla....

Shape of men's penis:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/42665/penis_evolution_intersexual_and_intrasexual.html

After reading the first page of the proposed article, i have not continue read it and not read the rest of your post... Guy, if you use reference, try to use something serious... these article use non sense for justify some obscure theory over the superiority of the human penis... by example :

"The human penis is unusual in many different respects. It is abnormally large, compared to other primate species. The average length of a human penis is five to seven inches(1). The closest genetic relatives to humans are chimpanzees. The average chimpanzee penis is about half of the size of human penises, or about three inches(1)."

This try to show that human is penis is superior to these of chimpanzees because we have it two time more long that them... Ok, it is true but... a chimpanzee have a body who is 2 time more little that our body... so, in proportion, we are equal...

If size not related to body proportion is a sign of superior evolution, whale are the most evoluate animal... more than 6½ feet ( 2 meter )...

And about your quote... "the coronal ridge to create a suction mechanism"... yep, it is true but only when you go out... and before go out, you need to first go in... the "go in" lead to the reverse effect, pushing previous sperma more inside !!!

Maybe some here need to follow real formation of biologist before begin seek a wife ( russian or local )... but the first step is to use your critic spirit when you read article writed by a graduat student who seem to not understand what he write...

Since i have not loose my time to read over your first reference, i will not comment about it !!!

If you are not afraid to loose your superior complex related to your penis, take a look at http://whalepenis.org/images/whalepenis.jpg

EDIT : same related to the lenght of body, you can see that whale are far superior to human !!! And the coronal bridge is more developped !!!

[Turkey]

Interesting comments everyone LOL

Umm, the reference to the penis had nothing to do with superior evolution vs. other species.  It was pointed out as a evolutionary countermeasure against women choosing a dual mating strategy.

And yes the whale penis is frightening amazing.  Thank you for sharing.


DKMM, I agree with you that there are some political forces that do exactly what you describe in a wide range of issues.  I am not one of them.  If you follow my posts you will notice that I believe that it is social evolution that has been in recent history a larger force for adaption.  Understanding human behavior does not excuse that behavior is what I understand your point to be, and I am very comfortable with that. 

[DKMM]

TP, hangin right here between my legs thanks for askin.  btw, where do you declare your tax residency from your boat?   

Bruno, that response was one of the most entertaining I've read in a while.  I think there is a unique flavor to your approach to English that belies an intelligent and humorous man over there in Belgium.  Keep up the good work!

[Bruno]

Bruno, that response was one of the most entertaining I've read in a while.  I think there is a unique flavor to your approach to English that belies an intelligent and humorous man over there in Belgium.  Keep up the good work!

Happy to entertain you  About language i use here, it is French-glish 

Since we have speak over the biologic sexual part of the relationship... some other thing are more important that size or form from sexual part... "biologic love" is more related to hormone...

Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly-overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust exposes people to others, romantic attraction encourages people to focus their energy on mating, and attachment involves tolerating the spouse long enough to rear a child into infancy.

Lust is the initial passionate sexual desire that promotes mating, and involves the increased release of chemicals such as testosterone and estrogen. These effects rarely last more than a few weeks or months. Attraction is the more individualized and romantic desire for a specific candidate for mating, which develops out of lust as commitment to an individual mate forms. Recent studies in neuroscience have indicated that as people fall in love, the brain consistently releases a certain set of chemicals, including pheromones, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, which act similar to amphetamines, stimulating the brain's pleasure center and leading to side-effects such as an increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. Research has indicated that this stage generally lasts from one and a half to three years.

Since the lust and attraction stages are both considered temporary, a third stage is needed to account for long-term relationships. Attachment is the bonding which promotes relationships that last for many years, and even decades. Attachment is generally based on commitments such as marriage and children, or on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests. It has been linked to higher levels of the chemicals oxytocin and vasopressin than short-term relationships have.

In 2005, Italian scientists at Pavia University found that a protein molecule known as the nerve growth factor (NGF) has high levels when people first fall in love, but these levels return to as they were after one year. Specifically, four neurotrophin levels, i.e. NGF, BDNF, NT-3, and NT-4, of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love were compared with levels in a control group who were either single or already engaged in a long-term relationship. The results showed that NGF levels were significantly higher in the subjects in love than as compared to either of the control groups.

The part of the quote in blue is very interesting when we apply it to the general population of these forum... Several extern people say that lust is one of the reason why we are seek and marry sexy young RW... But if we analyse the usual relationship here, lust cannot be a factor ! Why ? Very simply, due to the distance relationship and administrative delay...

Let me give a example... you date a RW during 2 weeks... Lust stage and plenty of hormone... these who propose during the first meeting are influenced by these lust hormone... but the majority of guy propose at a second trip, several month later, when the hormone of the lust stage have dissappear... at this time, hormone from men have already reach the "affection" stage... but this stage last 1.5 to 3 years... so, it mean that when come the time of the K1, some relation have already reach the "Attachment" stage...

Attachment is generally based ... on mutual friendship based on things like shared interests.

So, from the bioligic point of view, long distance relationship will be more based on the "attachment" stage, these where shared interest and mutual friendship are the main factor... maybe it is the reason why foreign marriage have a lower divorce rate that local one... the lust factor is almost nul at the time of marriage... this can explain why several K1 are not leading to marriage, mainly these based on lust during the initial meeting...

I know, it is  but it is a example for show that biologie can explain the comportement... without use some obscure reason based on form or size of the sexe

[TigerPaws]

T btw, where do you declare your tax residency from your boat?   

Grand Cayman Islands = No taxes! 

TigerPaws