Whatever motivated her to get into the bed to begin with does not matter once the sex starts and she is actually into it.
Maybe. She might just be thanking you for moving her piano. Or softening you up for those diamond earrings she's had her eye on. Perhaps, just scratching an itch.
OF course if the only thing you're interested in is the sex, then it really doesn't matter what she is thinking.
Ha, no. I'm VERY sure that there are women I've slept with who were attracted to me for money. There are a couple cases where I'm pretty sure if I didn't drive a Porsche and wasn't blowing money... this chick wasn't sleeping with me.
I'll stay out of the debate here, but thought it may be worth mentioning a subtle point that I've noticed often with my work peers. I work in a type of field where most career paths tend to follow experience through the years. In other words, most people at my level tend to be the same age, due to career growth plans that take time. So, in my forties, I started noticing so many of the peers in the leadership career paths who were divorcing, and it is surprisingly common to see them marrying again to women who are seven to nine years younger. My wife and I both noticed the odd unspoken differences in the office parties among my peers and spouses, but it sure seemed like everyone was noticing, judging by the way the couples tended to split up into middle aged groups, and those with younger spouses.
The point that I'm trying to get to is that I don't think that we can just say that it is about money when people marry younger spouses, as a few of the replies seem to be suggesting. Outside of the work environment, one fairly consistent trend among many who are in successful career paths in traditional work environments is the tendency to take a very serious, determined approach to many aspects of life. Most that I know can name physical activities that they take very seriously, community support roles, etc. In the end, it probably doesn't change anything about the discussion, but I think it is far more complicated a subject than we would normally think. May be interesting, but my brother married an older woman when he married, and it was her maturity and confidence that really caught his attention.
Maybe. She might just be thanking you for moving her piano. Or softening you up for those diamond earrings she's had her eye on. Perhaps, just scratching an itch.
OF course if the only thing you're interested in is the sex, then it really doesn't matter what she is thinking.
Well she was leaning over the piano when it got moved!
I hear you and I know it is not about me. I suppose a lot of guys are like that.
I can honestly say the women I have had sex with did not choose me for the diamonds. Now I hope my wife saw my potential, and maybe saw the good in me but what she also observed was an example of pre-selection. Yes down the road I started buying my wife diamonds because I love her and I could. But she let me know a long time ago she had enough diamonds and was plenty happy without any more.
Anyway, a guy does not have to be poor or selfish or stingy to have a high SR. But he can be.
I just think there are guys who exist in the middle of this continuum who "in there own way" out score either end of the spectrum. The guys in the middle have a blend and likely are in it for more than the sex. They have Alpha / Beta balance. If someone wants to insist they have lower SR than the pool guy then fine. Or lets just say strippers. I suppose the best looking of them at a glance mya have a high SR but do they really? I can't speak about male strippers. But female strippers are just skanky to me. Skank is just not appealing to me. But I am open for women liking the looks of male strippers. Maybe men are just less shallow.
Skittling: “shorthand for giving a gift of low monetary value. The theory is that giving a low quality gift will make the woman more attracted than the same man in the same circumstances giving a high monetary value gift. So the theory goes that all things being equal, treating a woman relatively poorly with gifts will make her love you more.”
The reality in a good LTR, a woman will appreciate a meaningful much less expensive gift and love you to death for it. Life is good. Lingerie may even come out of the lingerie vault.
Quote:
I will lead (Alpha) a relationship in which I will be very nice to you (Beta)
BTW -- Random comment. I love the Big Bang Theory and it cracks me up when they talk PUA.
__________________
Rectitude--Courage--Benevolence--Respect--Honesty--Honor--Loyalty
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
"Why do we fall? So we might learn to pick ourselves up."
"It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us."
Last edited by Entropy3000; 03-08-2013 at 10:03 PM.
I'll stay out of the debate here, but thought it may be worth mentioning a subtle point that I've noticed often with my work peers. I work in a type of field where most career paths tend to follow experience through the years. In other words, most people at my level tend to be the same age, due to career growth plans that take time. So, in my forties, I started noticing so many of the peers in the leadership career paths who were divorcing, and it is surprisingly common to see them marrying again to women who are seven to nine years younger. My wife and I both noticed the odd unspoken differences in the office parties among my peers and spouses, but it sure seemed like everyone was noticing, judging by the way the couples tended to split up into middle aged groups, and those with younger spouses.
The point that I'm trying to get to is that I don't think that we can just say that it is about money when people marry younger spouses, as a few of the replies seem to be suggesting. Outside of the work environment, one fairly consistent trend among many who are in successful career paths in traditional work environments is the tendency to take a very serious, determined approach to many aspects of life. Most that I know can name physical activities that they take very seriously, community support roles, etc. In the end, it probably doesn't change anything about the discussion, but I think it is far more complicated a subject than we would normally think. May be interesting, but my brother married an older woman when he married, and it was her maturity and confidence that really caught his attention.
I think the concept of SR has levels to it. Again for me I may notice on a very base level a "good looking" woman. However that dissipates in the blink of an eye. The next level is would be a classy looking woman who appears to have a clue. And so on. The longer the exposure the more meaningful nd less base level this gets. SR then turns into ... Substance.
Perhaps when someone is very young the levels are not so many as with those with more ... experience. Because again my kryptonite for a woman ... One that I would consider dangerous ... is a good looking woman ... who is highly intelligent and very capable ... has a good sense of humor and is her own person ... and why not also dressed very classy.
__________________
Rectitude--Courage--Benevolence--Respect--Honesty--Honor--Loyalty
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
"Why do we fall? So we might learn to pick ourselves up."
"It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us."
Last edited by Entropy3000; 03-09-2013 at 08:04 PM.
Women have just as much a stake in having healthy children as men do - that is, it's exactly as important for a woman, when it comes to the maintenance of the lineage, to have a child capable of surviving to reproducing age (and then actually reproducing).
That's why there *is* such a thing as a handsome man and it's generally correlatable with certain easily discerned physical traits: facial and bodily symmetry, a certain BMI range, a certain shoulder to waist ratio. There are some less obvious ones too - a certain rate of testosterone, which manifests itself in various physical and psychological/social ways, etc.
It's not as if women are not interested in a man's looks and/or attitude at all.
I didn't say women weren't interested in a man's looks. I happen to think that some women can be more interested in looks than men at times. That being said, I also think that women can be less interested in looks than men. It's down to the individual and her priorities, imo. From my limited experience men seem to place a higher value on physical appearance than women. But I think, again, that has to do on the individuals personal desires. Not every man is going to want the same things in a spouse, so not every man is going to be attracted to the same kind of woman. Likewise, not every woman is going to want the same things in a spouse, so not every woman is going to be attracted to the same kind of man.
Quote:
David Beckham, even if he were dirt poor, would manage to pull a ton of one night stands. Bill Gates, if he were dirt poor, would not. Is Gates' more attractive - in a sexual sense, even - because of his status as a billionaire? Yes, perhaps to some degree, but I think that has less of a role than its usually given credit for. I don't think a lot of women would want to have a one night stand with Bill Gates, with no financial reward at all, simply because he's a super rich guy (unless we're talking just novelty, or tell your friends, or whatever - I honestly don't think that alone is getting many motors running).
But no one has said that financial status alone is enough to get women to have sex with an unattractive older man. What has been said, that I have seen, is that there isn't one particular thing which attributes to a man's sex rank; rather there are many different things that attribute to a man's sex rank, financial stability being one of them. As a twenty year old, I didn't care much about financial stability. I had a job. My then boyfriend, now husband, didn't have a job. He was looking, but couldn't find one. Throughout the first year of our marriage he didn't have a job, I lost mine, and he was still just as sexy to me.
As an almost twenty-five year old, my husband has a full time job, and has kept it for over a year now. That has increased his sex rank from my viewpoint. We have our own place that isn't rundown and dirty, we have food; we live check to check, but it's enough to keep us going as we are and that makes me happy. So, something that didn't matter to me at twenty, now matters a great deal at twenty-five. Would I have sex with a man just because he was rich? No. Is one of the reasons that I'm sexually attracted to my husband because of his financial stability? Definitely.
Quote:
Beckham has the luxury of having both status and looks and attitude. As entropy noted, it's not mutually exclusive.
It is also not clear that men *biologically* seek to spread their seed as widely as possible. Even from an evolutionary perspective, this is not the best idea, as it would result in a reduction of genetic diversity -- which is important for immunity, health, and longevity.
Genetic diversity is not the sole goal of mating... choosing the healthiest, strongest genes is also involved. Dual goals that are totally met by a dominant male with exclusive mating rights. The "best" male genes combine with diverse female genes. This fact alone explains a myriad of human behaviors.
If our ancestors were primates who lived in social groups led by a dominant male who kept mating rights to all the females - while every other male just tried to steal some booty on the side - then those characteristics likely exist somewhere inside of us today. It may very well be that humans moving toward monogamous behavior increased survivability by promoting greater cooperative social behavior given less intense mating competition... and thus humans are fairly monogamous, but that ancient primate is still in there. We're actually like Chimpanzees in this regard: promiscuous, but having preferred mates. Take away social norms, standards and morality issues (heavily influenced by culture; and yes, in spite of porn and easy sex, our culture still frowns on promiscuity... else we wouldn't have words like "tramp" and "player") and how promiscuous do you think human beings would be? I think its obvious our primal desires are still there... the promiscuous chimp. Most of the time, we simply don't act on them.
Our closest primate relatives (genetically) are bonobos and chimpanzees. Neither are monogamous. Chimps have preferred mates, but are promiscuous - mating practices differ widely according to conditions such as size of the group and available food... but there is often a dominant male trying to maintain exclusive mating rights. Of all animals, Bonobo sexual activity most resembles humans. They are the only animal other than humans to engage in face to face sex, oral sex and a variety of other things.
We share a common ancestor with Bonobos and Chimps, so it is very likely that ancestor was not monogamous either.
Created2Write:
I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything, I don't think. I believe my comment about things not being mutually exclusive was directed at someone else.
I would be very interested in empirical tests on sexual attraction and money. That is, whether or not knowledge of money itself has any role at all in *sexual* response, and not merely a role in mate selection.
It would be tough to pull off and isolate money as the differentiating factor and only deal with unconscious sexual reaction, as opposed to any perception/rationalization. My own experience suggests that status is a somewhat different animal than wealth - I had a relatively high "status" when I was playing rock and roll guitar even if I was broke. I also have noticed that my more well-off friends do not have many one-night stands and women often try to draw them into exclusive relationships fairly quickly.
Created2Write:
I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything, I don't think. I believe my comment about things not being mutually exclusive was directed at someone else.
I would be very interested in empirical tests on sexual attraction and money. That is, whether or not knowledge of money itself has any role at all in *sexual* response, and not merely a role in mate selection.
It would be tough to pull off and isolate money as the differentiating factor and only deal with unconscious sexual reaction, as opposed to any perception/rationalization. My own experience suggests that status is a somewhat different animal than wealth - I had a relatively high "status" when I was playing rock and roll guitar even if I was broke...
I think in years gone by a man's financial and social status would certainly have been an attraction factor, because that status would determine very much the sort of life a woman and her children could expect to lead.
These days, most women don't view men as meal tickets (although some might) because they are now equally educated and quite capable of obtaining their own financial security, and I think this has or is changing the way women view men. Whilst women with a reasonable/high financial status of their own might seek men with similar status, I don't believe it will have the same bearing on the attraction factor as it might have done in the past.
Created2Write:
I wasn't disagreeing with you on anything, I don't think. I believe my comment about things not being mutually exclusive was directed at someone else.
I didn't think you were, either. I just had my own thoughts about your comments.
Quote:
I would be very interested in empirical tests on sexual attraction and money. That is, whether or not knowledge of money itself has any role at all in *sexual* response, and not merely a role in mate selection.
This would be difficult to study. For some people, money isn't very important. They can live happily in a marriage where there isn't much money to go between them. Others who have grown up without much income, and had to make sacrifices on things growing up, might put a stronger emphasis on money. Moreover it would be difficult to identify whether or not the need/want of money was more of an instinctual reaction, or sexual reaction.
Which is why I agree with AK's assertion that an increase in income can increase a man's sexual rank, but doesn't make his sex rank. My husband is currently the sole bread winner, so the fact that he is a hard worker and is constantly noticed by his superiors in good ways definitely makes me feel more confident in him as a provider. As a woman who wants to have kids some day, this appeals to me. I like feeling secure and confidant in my husband. It definitely adds to his sexual appeal.
If he were to be a total jerk, however, and neglect me, it wouldn't matter how much money he made; I'd be gone in a second. So, there are multiple things that add to my husbands SR from my perspective.
Quote:
It would be tough to pull off and isolate money as the differentiating factor and only deal with unconscious sexual reaction, as opposed to any perception/rationalization. My own experience suggests that status is a somewhat different animal than wealth - I had a relatively high "status" when I was playing rock and roll guitar even if I was broke. I also have noticed that my more well-off friends do not have many one-night stands and women often try to draw them into exclusive relationships fairly quickly.
I'm not disagreeing with anyone, just ruminating.
Again, imo it comes down to personal interests. Not all women desire one night stands, no matter how sexy a man may be. I never did. Not all women want oodles of money, while some women base their lives on finding the wealthiest guy available. So, obviously, rich men will have higher SR's to those women because they're rich.
I guess I've made a mess by conflating "sex rank" with "sexually attractive."
The women who "base their lives on finding the wealthiest guys available" may think the rich guy has a high SR even if he doesn't sexually arouse them in any real way, right?
My point about one-night stands has to due with *sexual desirability*, rather than anything about personal interests or "sex rank" as defined by the qualities we want in a person we're in a relationship with. Your description of feeling secure with your husband because of his current/future financial state seems to be implicate something "relationship-oriented" rather than anything sexual. So if what we mean by "sex rank" is like "relationship rank", I agree.
The women who are looking for the wealthiest guy available have no incentive for having a ONS with Kim Dotcom if it truly is just a ONS. (http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/201...4f1ca52289.JPG). His "sex rank" may be high in the sense that these women would love to be in a relationship with him, even if they wouldn't want to sleep with him (except as a necessary, and unfortunate, corollary to being in that relationship). If you told one of these women "This guy has 100 million dollars. Do you want to bang him even if it means you will never see a cent of it?" I'd guess the answer would be an overwhelming "NO!"
What I'm saying is - if we could measure sexual response reliably, by looking at some combination of brain and genital reaction - I'd guess that we'd see very little from women who looked at Kim Dotcom and knew he was a multi-multi-multi-millionaire.
I guess I've made a mess by conflating "sex rank" with "sexually attractive."
The women who "base their lives on finding the wealthiest guys available" may think the rich guy has a high SR even if he doesn't sexually arouse them in any real way, right?
Perhaps. I'm not one of those women, so I don't know if the financial abundance is enough to sexually arouse them or not. I would think, if the financial abundance was so important that they couldn't live without it, that it would do something to arouse them sexually.
Quote:
My point about one-night stands has to due with *sexual desirability*, rather than anything about personal interests or "sex rank" as defined by the qualities we want in a person we're in a relationship with. Your description of feeling secure with your husband because of his current/future financial state seems to be implicate something "relationship-oriented" rather than anything sexual. So if what we mean by "sex rank" is like "relationship rank", I agree.
Not necessarily. Sex rank isn't about things we want in potential mate, as far as I understand. It's more about things that create attraction and builds that sexual desire. Now, those things can also transfer over to become attributes that we desire in a mate, but they're not meant to be listed as actual relational attributes.
Quote:
The women who are looking for the wealthiest guy available have no incentive for having a ONS with Kim Dotcom if it truly is just a ONS. (http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/201...4f1ca52289.JPG). His "sex rank" may be high in the sense that these women would love to be in a relationship with him, even if they wouldn't want to sleep with him (except as a necessary, and unfortunate, corollary to being in that relationship). If you told one of these women "This guy has 100 million dollars. Do you want to bang him even if it means you will never see a cent of it?" I'd guess the answer would be an overwhelming "NO!"
Again, financial security isn't the only thing that increases a man's sex rank. Even for the women who put the most value on financial abundance, there are inevitably going to be other things that attract those women sexually.
Quote:
What I'm saying is - if we could measure sexual response reliably, by looking at some combination of brain and genital reaction - I'd guess that we'd see very little from women who looked at Kim Dotcom and knew he was a multi-multi-multi-millionaire.
I agree, because men don't just base their sexual rank on financial security, or on physical attractiveness. And even women who value financial abundance more than any other attribute, are going to have other things that attract them sexually.
I agree, because men don't just base their sexual rank on financial security, or on physical attractiveness. And even women who value financial abundance more than any other attribute, are going to have other things that attract them sexually.
Right, what I'm suggesting is that financial abundance probably would not be a factor at all in this case - not that it's just one factor among many. That is, a one-night stand with a 500 pound guy with a net-worth of $100 million dollars is just as unappealing as a one-night stand with a 500 pound guy with a net-worth of $100 dollars. The "relationship" rank of Kim Dotcom is positively influenced by his net-worth; his sexual desirability is likely not influenced at all by his net-worth.
I could be wrong on this, but what I'm saying is essentially that I don' think financial security has much to do with *sexual desirability* even if it has something to do with a relationship. The gold-diggingist gold-digger has no incentive at all to sleep with Kim Dotcom if they get no financial reward out of it; the fact that he has money only makes him more "attractive" if the gold-digger has access to those funds in some way. It is not a *sexually* attractive quality in and of itself like Brad Pitt's 6-pack, or Tatum Channing's face, or Daniel Craig's attitude/demeanor (moving away from looks in that last one, but same idea)
Finances / Status / Power are not just about security. They represent high value. They can be a reflection of good genes as much as a tight @$$.
So they do add into attraction.
All else equal the same guy has higher value if he has status and power.
He is going to draw more because he is interesting if nothing else.
But I agree that women vary. Some women actually are looking for a trim guy with a prominent member for a ONS. Some are looking for a hot guy who she never has to see again. Others will be drawn to a very confident man. Men with status and power tend to be very confident, very cool, perhaps witty, comfortble in their own skin. So it is less about money and more about the confident man. He knows another woman will be along in a moment... or not. He does not care.
He has Alpha and Beta skills. He probably has other women around him. So pre-selection is in order. Other women are all about the pool guy fantasy and so on.
__________________
Rectitude--Courage--Benevolence--Respect--Honesty--Honor--Loyalty
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
"Why do we fall? So we might learn to pick ourselves up."
"It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us."
Last edited by Entropy3000; 03-12-2013 at 06:03 PM.
I think "status" is a pretty fluid concept, but agree that demonstrations of value add to sexual desirability. But I'm not sure money, alone, does much.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe we would see a sexual reaction in some women (in some empirically-testable way) to Kim Dotcom + knowledge of Kim Dotcom's wealth, that wouldn't be evident in women who just saw Kim Dotcom without his wealth.
I think, if we had to put reduce it to something, that *sexual* attraction would revolve almost wholly around looks and personality, with personality = confidence/arrogance. Personality would probably play a larger role than looks.
936Likes
Re: A man's physical attraction (or "sex rank") 
