This is a discussion on Gold diggers within the Sex and Relationships forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; Originally Posted by fourtines I do, thanks. Everybody loves my cooking, I even get paid a little for it sometimes. ...
We also recognize "made up" face and hair, and tend to judge them with one scale (OK, that's her best), while unmade hair and face get judged on a different one (OK, she's casual, that's what I'm waking up with). I think women noticed this a while ago, and the current fashion seems to be "made up but not to look like it", but you can still kinda tell.
Why not just do shit together that costs no money? that involves getting to know one another, but without the need to spend tons of cash? I personally prefer...'personal' dates. Walks, walks on the beach, carnivals, going for drives and talking, playing games together, etc. I honestly love the feel of intimacy. This is my personal preference though and every woman is different.
So yeah, you can have fun without spending a boatload. At the end of the day, what kind of woman do you want? What kind of relationship? Do you want to provide for her? Go on expensive trips with her? Start a family and provide for them? Own a house? If so, you need to realize she'll look at your income and you'll also need to look at your income.
Really...looking at finances is planning for the future. If I met a guy I wanted to settle down and have kids with, we need to look at incomes and if we can afford to have kids without causing money issues. And yes, it's important to plan for your future properly. Just jumping into having kids when you're not prepared is stupid and damn irresponsible.
And let's not forget...men still make more money than women for the same jobs, so yeah, that's why the whole money thing falls on men.
I beg to differ.
Some women VALUE TRADITIONAL PROTECTOR/PROVIDER MEN...that's the not the same as being "a gold digger."
Some women really want a family, like multiple children, and so it's exceedingly important to them that their husband is at least financially stable, but not necessarily wealthy.
How would you define "gold-digger" then? You are right that someone who doesn't want to pay on a date or values the traditional role isn't necessarily a gold digger. Someone who wants many children is planning on doing a lot of work themselves. Plus the traditional female role usually consists of doing a lot of unpaid work. So this person wouldn't be a gold digger. They would be a person who is happily married...or much more commonly someone who is being exploited based on their values.
Maybe what we're really debating is people who use others for purposes other than sex/love within the context of a romantic relationship. Children are usually products of the sex-love continuum and therefore must indicate some sort of economic compromise. And we are talking about an economic system...that's clear all throughout this thread.
And honestly, someone who under no circumstances will agree to pay for their own damn mango margarita at the Olive Garden is just stingy. What if the poor guy has other mitigating characteristics that would also serve in the parental role--such as intelligence, organizational skill, or poseable thumbs?
I think we could extend it to this question: How many women remain happily married to someone who is considered physically unattractive by the general public or to someone to whom they themselves are not attracted just because of money? The financially minded traditionalists can always sue for half in the third to half of cases where the marriage does not work. Most marriages last about 3 to 5 years in this country.
Nitou Touché, I have to agree that a woman coming sloppily dressed to a date would be the near equivalent of a man being a cheap skate on the that date. I argue for: women dressing sloppily would definitely weed out all the men who just want to have to sex.
However, I also agree with bellisaurius's points, I don't really care about her clothes (to a certain degree of course). In fact, the thing I really want to know regarding her looks is how she looks underneath her clothes. Baggy clothes would definitely hinder that, but only if she wore baggy clothes all the time. Furthermore, I agree that when I see a "made up" women the second thought that pops into my head after "she looks hot" is "that's not what I'm waking up to every day." For this reason, I actually would not like makeup on prospective mates except for special occasions. The same goes for push-up bras and other artificial beauty boosters.
Now let me flip that around to the other side of the equation. I do expect to spend considerable money on prospective mates, except only on special occasions and definitely not on the first few dates. To spend crazy amounts of money all the time is to try to fake that I'm wealthy when I'm not.