Women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers

Darkbloom · 18-01-2009 2:38am

Mont wrote: »

where the hell did you get that link, thats whats scaring me

I Googled his name to see if he was real!

Biggins · 18-01-2009 2:39am

I came across some studies a couple of years ago that came to the assumption that because females are more of a naturing and motherly tendency, they subconsciously chose what they consider best for them eventually when setteling down (at least), pick those that will offer the best advantages, etc to her and her offspring.
This idea put forward makes sence to be honest.
The only thing that really has changed since time began for the female of the spicies, is the methods/ways out there that will show this indicator factor for them. Be it food, money, stronger shelter, etc the stronger in each category the Alpha-male homosapien is to the female, the better his chances subconsciously to begin with against the Beta-males also in his company or area.

Darkbloom · 18-01-2009 2:42am

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/cbe/postgrad/phd/pollet.htm

Some of his other "studies" look hilarious. Why aren't clowns like him on the dole?

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 2:47am

Biggins wrote: »

I came across some studies a couple of years ago that came to the assumption that because females are more of a naturing and motherly tendency, they subconsciously chose what they consider best for them eventually when setteling down (at least), pick those that will offer the best advantages, etc to her and her offspring.
This idea put forward makes sence to be honest.
The only thing that really has changed since time began for the female of the spicies, is the methods/ways out there that will show this indicator factor for them. Be it food, money, stronger shelter, etc the stronger in each category the Alpha-male homosapien is to the female, the better his chances subconsciously to begin with against the Beta-males also in his company or area.

All this presupponing human beings being the same as wild animals...not even dogs "work" like this (anymore?), c'mon...

18-01-2009 3:04am

It's called " fethering the nest!" the more feathers (money) you have the more attractive you are..... so if you have fewer feathers... but they are good quality ones,.. she will make them go a loooong way.

towel401 · 18-01-2009 3:16am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

All this presupponing human beings being the same as wild animals...not even dogs "work" like this (anymore?), c'mon...

i think the idea is that humans might be slightly more complicated than wild animals but really the wild animal part is still running the show in the background. its kind of depressing really

Silverfish · 18-01-2009 3:24am

I rolled my eyes so hard at this thread I dislocated one of them.

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 3:25am

towel401 wrote: »

i think the idea is that humans might be slightly more complicated than wild animals but really the wild animal part is still running the show in the background. its kind of depressing really

Hi there ^_^

I agree that we are still instinct...but from this to say that we are all survival instinct and nothing else...it's quite sad.
Instinct it's a good stuff, for me, but I mainly have feelings and thoughts, dunno about the rest of the humanity, I choose my friends and lovers among the ones that don't (or doesn't seem to) look for convenience in relationships...I think it's a good starting point, both for males and females.

Now I stop cause otherwise then someone can come and accuse-me to be to open-hearted... :P

Sherifu · 18-01-2009 3:26am

Silverfish wrote: »

... I dislocated one of them.

That was from Naked Terry i'm sure. *afraid to open attachments*

Silverfish · 18-01-2009 3:28am

The women that go after men for their money get the type of men who are with women for their looks.

Its 50/50, each party benefits in a different way.

Thundercats Ho · 18-01-2009 3:31am

julep wrote: »

That's complete and utter bollix.

I'm a fat poor bastard and I've made women cum.

Only two, but I did it.

Bravo

BraziliaNZ · 18-01-2009 3:41am

Silverfish wrote: »

The women that go after men for their money get the type of men who are with women for their looks.

Its 50/50, each party benefits in a different way.

Is going for women for their looks a bad thing though? Pretty much every rich and famous man in the world has a hot chick. Does this make them shallow people? No, it means men like hot chicks more than not so hot ones.

mickeymoney · 18-01-2009 3:41am

Mont wrote: »

Lets just say 90% of women would shag Brian Cowen but 0% of men would shag Mary Harney

This illustrates that most women are inherently w****s

On a scale of 1 to 10, Id still give Mary Harney one.

Silverfish · 18-01-2009 3:43am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Is going for women for their looks a bad thing though? Pretty much every rich and famous man in the world has a hot chick. Does this make them shallow people? No, it means men like hot chicks more than not so hot ones.

Er.... yeah.

So the women are shallow (you know, the point of this thread) for being with them for their money, but the men are not shallow for being with them for their looks?

Oh lol. :rolleyes:

Double standards ahoy!

musicmonky · 18-01-2009 3:45am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

Haha...interesting...so, guys, all of you, next time you can do it 2 times in a row, the first time without any care, the second without "finishing" it and obviously without condoms and if she get pregnant ask musicmonky what went wrong...cause the penis it's a semen displacement tool, no?

FFS

dont shot the messenger... touchy.
i said it was bolloxogy
deary me

K-9 · 18-01-2009 3:46am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Is going for women for their looks a bad thing though? Pretty much every rich and famous man in the world has a hot chick. Does this make them shallow people? No, it means men like hot chicks more than not so hot ones.

No, they are shallow twats!

They believe women are gold diggers, So guess what?

They get Gold Diggers!

S.I.R · 18-01-2009 3:46am

i think all people are gold diggers, namely in this day and age where stroking skills are required... or if your a girl, gold diggin, but theirs no gold to dig...

well their is,

But im taken :rolleyes:

BraziliaNZ · 18-01-2009 3:47am

Silverfish wrote: »

Er.... yeah.

So the women are shallow (you know, the point of this thread) for being with them for their money, but the men are not shallow for being with them for their looks?

Oh lol. :rolleyes:

Double standards ahoy!

Well i never said anyone was being shallow, it all makes sense to me. If I was rich and famous I'm sure I'd have a lingerie model on my arm, and I'd be well aware of why she's with me, doesn't mean you can't form a normal relationship.

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 3:49am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Is going for women for their looks a bad thing though? Pretty much every rich and famous man in the world has a hot chick. Does this make them shallow people? No, it means men like hot chicks more than not so hot ones.

If it's not bad to judge and chose a person mainly or only by how she/he looks, you can't really blame someone else to look for other material possessions like gold, cars, money...both are very superficial way to choose someone...and we could even say men (inconsciously?) chose younger and better looking women cause they are or they seem easier to get pregnant and to have beautiful children...
I'd go better for "this world it's a materialistic s***hole...but whatever suits you ^_^
This is exactly what Silverfish ways saying, they deserve eachother.

Seifer · 18-01-2009 3:52am

The confusion persists

There is no choosing. It is subconscious. These women are not actively going out to find rich guys.
That is what the study in the original post said so at least deal with that instead of going off on tangents about shallowness.

musicmonky · 18-01-2009 3:52am

so is everyone saying that there is no such thing as a relationship , its a transaction..

or im i stupid...

i know i am but want conformation.

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 3:53am

musicmonky wrote: »

dont shot the messenger... touchy.
i said it was bolloxogy
deary me

Doh! I apologize!

(me no english mother tongue, me no very familiar the "bollox" word...lol)

So, if she get pregnant go and ask the famous american professor ^_^

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 3:53am

Seifer wrote: »

The confusion persists
There is no choosing. It is subconscious. These women are not actively going out to find rich guys.
That is what the study in the original post said so at leat deal with that instead of going off on tangents about shallowness.

So again...u are saying we are all survival instinct and no thoughts, fellings, personal tastes...

S.I.R · 18-01-2009 3:54am

musicmonky wrote: »

so is everyone saying that there is no such thing as a relationship , its a transaction..

or im i stupid...

i know i am but want conformation.

im i stupid.

Yes, yes you are.

Congrats, your conformation :pac:

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 3:56am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Well i never said anyone was being shallow, it all makes sense to me. If I was rich and famous I'm sure I'd have a lingerie model on my arm, and I'd be well aware of why she's with me, doesn't mean you can't form a normal relationship.

A relationship based on "I pay you to be attractive"...interesting...dunno why doesn't seem a good start to me

musicmonky · 18-01-2009 3:56am

S.I.R wrote: »

im i stupid.

Yes, yes you are.

Congrats, your conformation :pac:

are u talking to yourself on a website...?

hmmm. thats a new one on me

Seifer · 18-01-2009 3:57am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

So again...u are saying we are all survival instinct and no thoughts, fellings, personal tastes...

No I'm just saying talking about consciously gold-digging isn't relevant.
Obviously our sub-conscious plays a big part in our lives but it's hard to measure how big.
But who's say to say that your thoughts, feelings and personal tastes aren't all governed by your survival instincts?

S.I.R · 18-01-2009 3:57am

musicmonky wrote: »

are u talking to yourself on a website...*

hmmm. thats a new one on me

nah, just double qouting you.

:cool:

BraziliaNZ · 18-01-2009 3:58am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

A relationship based on "I pay you to be attractive"...interesting...dunno why doesn't seem a good start to me

well if you were rich and famous you'd be mixing with perfect 10s that are interested in you because you are powerful and famous etc, these are major attractions for all women. One of the rewards of success I guess.

Macha · 18-01-2009 4:03am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

these are major attractions for all women.

Wow. Do you normally make generalisations about 3 billion people or is this a once off?

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:04am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

well if you were rich and famous you'd be mixing with perfect 10s that are interested in you because you are powerful and famous etc, these are major attractions for all women. One of the rewards of success I guess.

Sorry but this is serious bullcacca...
U can see how healthy these relations are...they divorce after one year and she brings him to the court (or in some situation the opposite, when she's richer) to obtain some more material confort...It doesn't work and it's obvious.
Or they stay toghether until she's pretty and then he chose another 20 something and she's miserable and brings him to the court, etc...
Either way, very sad.

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:09am

Seifer wrote: »

No I'm just saying talking about consciously gold-digging isn't relevant.
Obviously our sub-conscious plays a big part in our lives but it's hard to measure how big.
But who's say to say that your thoughts, feelings and personal tastes aren't all governed by your survival instincts?

So...hmmm...next time i won't spend my money for the loaf of bread, I'll steal it,it's easier and i can save money for something else that I can't steal...eh?
I'm quite broke, u know, who cares if it's dishonorable...
C'mon...
(Obviously instinct plays a part, but no, it doesn't play every part...for example, if I was dying of starvation I'd sell my body to survive...but I don't sell my body to buy a Gucci bag...can u see a difference?)

Going to bed, this is all getting a bit ridiculous, Nite ^_^

musicmonky · 18-01-2009 4:10am

men are very simple.
women need to be woo ed and part of the courtship is money

sorry to copy a previous poster
http://i42.tinypic.com/30uejio.jpg

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:11am

musicmonky wrote: »

men are very simple.
women need to be woo ed and part of the courtship is money

sorry to copy a previous poster
http://i42.tinypic.com/30uejio.jpg

As someone else already said...A man that looks for that kind of woman deserves that kind of woman, it's even simplier.

Thundercats Ho · 18-01-2009 4:11am

musicmonky wrote: »

so is everyone saying that there is no such thing as a relationship , its a transaction..

or im i stupid...

i know i am but want conformation.

Initially it may be that way, money is'nt always the driving factor though. Strength being a main factor. These are inherent methods in chosing a partner. Thereafter, the rest of us come into play....................

BraziliaNZ · 18-01-2009 4:12am

taconnol wrote: »

Wow. Do you normally make generalisations about 3 billion people or is this a once off?

Yes I can safely say that being powerful and rich is a major boost to attracting the vast majority of women on the planet

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:13am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Yes I can safely say that being powerful and rich is a major boost to attracting the vast majority of women on the planet

LMAO
nice moments, thank you

BraziliaNZ · 18-01-2009 4:15am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

LMAO
nice moments, thank you

You must be living with your head in the sand friend

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:17am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

You must be living with your head in the sand friend

You probably got what you deserved and now are cinical, "friend" ^_^

Macha · 18-01-2009 4:18am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Yes I can safely say that being powerful and rich is a major boost to attracting the vast majority of women on the planet

These sort of sweeping statements that reveal the mistaken arrogance of a person to decide that they know exactly how another person thinks purely based on their gender are really quite tiresome, not to mention totally inaccurate and stupid. *yawn*

Seifer · 18-01-2009 4:18am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

So...hmmm...next time i won't spend my money for the loaf of bread, I'll steal it,it's easier and i can save money for something else that I can't steal...eh?
I'm quite broke, u know, who cares if it's dishonorable...
C'mon...
(Obviously instinct plays a part, but no, it doesn't play every part...for example, if I was dying of starvation I'd sell my body to survive...but I don't sell my body to buy a Gucci bag...can u see a difference?)

Going to bed, this is all getting a bit ridiculous, Nite ^_^

You still don't seem to understand the difference between a conscious action and a subconscious one.
If you have sex with someone so they will buy you a gucci bag then that is a conscious act.
If you find yourself attracted to someone that can buy you a gucci bag and have sex with them because you have feelings for them you may be doing this because you're hardwired to find a mate that can provide for you adequately i.e. subconscious.
That is what the study is saying.

Tirabaralla · 18-01-2009 4:25am

The study is saying that females have more orgasms with richer men, not what you say...this can depend on different things and could even not be accurate, but this is another story.
AND, if I'd find my self going out and having relationships all the time or mostly with people that can afford to buy me a Gucci, I should be very hipocrit (dunno the spelling and to tired to check for it, sorry) not to notice it and not to consider I am very dependent on material possessions or material possibilities of my partner, at that point it would be at least partially conscious...or maybe I'm wiser than the average human being (I am not)...LOL

spinandscribble · 18-01-2009 4:59am

if its true then god played a funny trick on me and made me attracted to bums.

Seifer · 18-01-2009 5:06am

Tirabaralla wrote: »

The study is saying that females have more orgasms with richer men, not what you say...

The study does say that but the conclusions that can be drawn from this fact are what is important, such as:

Pollet, and Professor Daniel Nettle, his co-author, believed, however, that the female orgasm is an evolutionary adaptation that drives women to choose and retain high-quality partners.

nobodythere · 18-01-2009 6:16am

Who needs a study for this? Waste of time. Every single ancestor of yours for five hundred million years has successfully mated. Conclusions are easily made from this.

Acacia · 18-01-2009 10:11am

Reminds me of a joke-

What's the difference between sex for cash and sex for free with your girlfriend?

Sex for cash is cheaper.

beertons · 18-01-2009 10:16am

^ Lol

18-01-2009 10:29am

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

Yes I can safely say that being powerful and rich is a major boost to attracting the vast majority of women on the planet

Have you moved on to non-working women these days?

Of course there is always the option that statement isn't a cop out on your part, How likely is it that sex appeal and massive cocks sway the majority of womankind.

Ummm....sorry BrazilaNZ.

minidazzler · 18-01-2009 11:52am

Wait, females have orgasms???? No, that can't be true, orgasms make people happy, adn all my one does is moan.

blinding · 18-01-2009 12:01pm

I wonder if the gold digging women are more likely to be faithfull or not.

All you need is a gold digger thats unfaithful as well.It is pretty well documented that 1 out of every 8 children is not by the father that they are supposed to be from.

Happy spouse hunting to all the young males out there.
They were not wrong when they said that females are complicated.

Women are inherently programmed to be gold-diggers

Comments