Survey says: Women like money, men like youth

[clv0116]

I was flipping around for a few minutes before bed last night ad came upon a Discovery Channel episode on Sexual Attraction. I missed part so the DVR will be looking for the rest but the segments I did manage to see were pretty interesting.

 

 

First study:

 

The men liked young pretty women. It was pretty simple. For the women not so simple.

 

A group of mens photos were 'rated' by women for sex appeal, scale 1-10 and recorded. Then the photos were printed on what looked like good quality photo stock as a sort of dating resume, showing a full length shot, head shot, and (newly added) a short bio including ... employment and income information. Given this slip of paper to look at the women were asked to rate the same men. The men were uniformly rated as attractive based on stated income, no strong correlation with their previous rating. Interestingly the women said they were better looking, not that they would prefer to date them.

 

It was funny in that for instance a gut that was rated a 9+ on average was reduced to a 3 when it was reported he was working retail at a wage of $23K per year whereas a guy who averaged about 4 was elevated to an 8+ when he was presented as a software entrepreneur making $375K per annum.

 

 

In the context of our little forum here I found that pretty illuminating since a very few women here will directly admit they find men with money more attractive yet they do prefer men to spend money on dates and everything I observe in real life says Discovery got it right.

 

As I suspected, probably not even a conscious thing going on here and the guy s that are all pissed off about it should just get with the program and stop whining.

 

 

 

I'll watch more as I have time this week but .... please discuss.

[SoulSearch_CO]

Yeah, well...this could just as easily be an evolutionary thing as the whole "men like youth" thing. Money equals being able to take care of his family. I'm just explaining the possibility for this result.

 

As for me- yeah, seeing a guy only making 23K is a huge turn-off to me. But that's because I'm making at least 12K more than that per year and I like the guy I'm with to make at least what I'm making. Otherwise I'd feel like I have to take care of him, or like there could be a possible inferiority issue down the line.

 

But before someone jumps on me asking some ridiculous hypothetical question about if the man I were with were to become disabled and unable to make what he was making before - no, I would not leave him. Choosing from a pool of potential dates is totally different than sticking with someone you love.

 

On the other hand - if a guy was a 3 in my eyes, making 10 times more per year than I do would not elevate him to an 8. So for me, it does not work both ways.

[IrishCarBomb]

So... you're telling me that women go beyond looks to find sexual attraction but men are just into looks?!? Dang we come off as pretty shallow.

[quankanne]

very few women here will directly admit they find men with money more attractive yet they do prefer men to spend money on dates and everything I observe in real life says Discovery got it right.

 

men with money aren't necessarily more attractive. They just have more money to hide the flaws, IMO. That said, I've never like going out with men who were stingy, and one of the things I love about my husband is that he never, ever makes a stink about it if I order something expensive off the menu. One ex would piss and moan about it whenever we'd go out to eat, even though HE was the one telling me to order this or that. I just don't get that ...

 

there's a novel called Animal Husbandry that talks about men's attraction to women, and the author floated an "Old Cow/New Cow" theory based on animal husbandry. A man (the "bull," if you will), is attracted to all the cows in the pasture, but once he mates with one, she loses her appeal and becomes "Old Cow" in his eyes. And nothing she does can regain his attraction. I think the point of the novel's comparison is that men refuse to settle down because they – because of their animal instinct – want to spread as much seed around as possible, and therefore aren't monogamous. Which ties into the Discovery Channel show, where you say "men like pretty women."

 

yeah, so they can spread their seed!

[Trialbyfire]

So... you're telling me that women go beyond looks to find sexual attraction but men are just into looks?!? Dang we come off as pretty shallow.

You're quite something Irish!

[alphamale]

.... please discuss.

there is nothing to discuss as this has been well known for centuries...

[clv0116]

I think the point of the novel's comparison is that men refuse to settle down because they – because of their animal instinct – want to spread as much seed around as possible, and therefore aren't monogamous. Which ties into the Discovery Channel show, where you say "men like pretty women."

 

Actually another segment of the program addressed that and it's not true according to the researchers. There are apparently structures in the human brain discovered via medical imaging that are directly responsible for causing the phenomenon of pair bonding. And yes, men have them too.

 

But that would be a different thread.

[clv0116]

there is nothing to discuss as this has been well known for centuries...

 

I find the most interesting part that it seems to be largely involuntary. See the rationalizations already given above in the general form of "well yes I do that but it's because ...."

 

The need for denial is intriguing.

[clv0116]

Yeah, well...this could just as easily be an evolutionary thing as the whole "men like youth" thing. Money equals being able to take care of his family. I'm just explaining the possibility for this result.

 

They came to the same conclusion for both men and women, essentially both genders mating preferences seem to promote choices that would lead to successful procreation. Not that the cause changes anything really.

[movingonandon]

Ideal is to find a young pretty girl who already has 2 kids . One less thing to do, and you still get to be a daddy. This will also free up time to accomplish my plan for world domination, which will have much greater impact on history than impregnating a girlie or two :laugh:

[blondesmiler]

From one females prospective, I do not want a man for his money I have my own.

 

I'd like an equal, a partner in life, so someone that has what I have or equivilent.

[calazhage]

It is amazing women will never admit this..

 

I read another study in which very attractive men were dressed up as people in a low wage field, and unattractive men were dressed up as though they were in a successful field. Overwhelmingly, the women stated the better dressed men were attractive, and the men whom appeared to have a low wage job were simply unattractive.

 

In the end, I see this as men having the advantages. We can make more money, and become more attractive. We make more money as we get older, so out value increases. Women can do some things, but they cannot simply become more attractive than a younger more attractive female.

[blondesmiler]

Women can do some things, but they cannot simply become more attractive than a younger more attractive female.

 

Maybe but we generally tend to be far better in the sack than our younger counterparts! Thats good enough for me to be proud of being in my thirties!!

[Shygirl15]

Ideal is to find a young pretty girl who already has 2 kids . One less thing to do, and you still get to be a daddy.

Right. Plus you'll also have so much fun dealing with all that baby daddy drama. What a perfect situation.

[alphamale]

From one females prospective, I do not want a man for his money I have my own.

 

I'd like an equal, a partner in life, so someone that has what I have or equivilent.

if you don't want a man for his money would you date a good-looking and self-educated janitor who makes $11 per hour?

[confused_2008]

One could say this boils down to basic biological instincts or something to that effect. Although there are always exceptions, our body is hard wired with a desire to procreate. Youthful women are seen as more able to bear children. A well to do man is seen as better able to provide for his family.

[clv0116]

It is amazing women will never admit this..

 

You are 100% right. The fact that it is what it is is much less interesting than the widespread denial and ignorance about it.

 

In the end, I see this as men having the advantages. We can make more money, and become more attractive. We make more money as we get older, so out value increases. Women can do some things, but they cannot simply become more attractive than a younger more attractive female.

 

On the other hand a pretty woman is essentially instantly wealthy. Hard to see that downside.

 

 

 

From one females prospective, I do not want a man for his money ....

 

You say that but either you are a real statistical anomaly *or* you're wrong about yourself. Given that a lot of women tend to be in denial over this I think you've either just rationalized it as "I'd like an equal" or some other form of denial.

 

Maybe but we generally tend to be far better in the sack than our younger counterparts!

 

No you're not. You have less to work with, sorry. Given that logic 90 year old ladies would be uber hot in bed. Other research has found a structure in the human brain that seems to control the pair bonding mechanism. It looks like women are best served to bond early when their value as a mate is highest and imprint themselves into this pair bonding structure before they fade and are replaced.

[morelaugh]

Let me draw your attention to a couple of things, OK?

 

Not all men are pigs, not all women are whores and the London underground is not a political movement.

Those are all mistakes.

 

if you don't want a man for his money would you date a good-looking and self-educated janitor who makes $11 per hour?

No, but I personally don’t know one man who would either.

Now, if I was a self-educated janitor, that would be a different story.

 

My point is this is very one-sided perspective; it covers only a small part of a multidimensional issue. People are attracted to one another for many reasons, not only for their looks or money.

Perhaps it is 100% valid for gold diggers and dirty old men. But most of the population doesn’t fall into those categories.

 

There is a Latin maxim ‘similis simili gaudet’ - translated it means 'like takes pleasure in like'.

People tend to feel best in the company of people of the similar, education, similar intelligence, similar interests,….

Huge difference in either and it simply doesn’t work.

 

It is amazing women will never admit this...

No matter how many times anyone repeats this, it simply won’t make it true.

[clv0116]

.... this is very one-sided perspective; it covers only a small part of a multidimensional issue. People are attracted to one another for many reasons, not only for their looks or money.

Perhaps it is 100% valid for gold diggers and dirty old men. But most of the population doesn’t fall into those categories.

 

Science says women perceive men with means as more attractive, all else COMPLETELY equal. Men with a lot of money are seen as MUCH more attractive. Dislike it all you like, it's fact.

 

Science also says men want young pretty women. Again like it or not it's how we are made and it's best to accept that and move on. For what it's worth I would date a $11 an hour janitor *IF* she was hot enough. Why not?

 

 

 

No matter how many times anyone repeats this, it simply won’t make it true.

 

It's the scientific method at work, sorry the facts don't fit your notions.

[clv0116]

One could say this boils down to basic biological instincts or something to that effect. Although there are always exceptions, our body is hard wired with a desire to procreate. Youthful women are seen as more able to bear children. A well to do man is seen as better able to provide for his family.

 

Indeed another study on the same program was an observation of speed dating. Essentially the men knew everything they needed to know by the time they sat down whereas women needed to dig a lot longer to determine fitness.

[calazhage]

There is a Latin maxim ‘similis simili gaudet’ - translated it means 'like takes pleasure in like'.

People tend to feel best in the company of people of the similar, education, similar intelligence, similar interests,….

Huge difference in either and it simply doesn’t work.

 

Well, this is not what the thread is about..The thread is about biologically what the sexes are attracted to. Not what makes us feel the best. How can that even be measured?

 

So the girl whom works at the business, is not more attracted to the owner, boss, or CEO? She is more attracted to coworkers? Nurses are not attracted to doctors? They would be more attracted and turned on by male nurses, because they are more similar?

 

I have talked to hundreds of guys about their women, and never once have I asked, or have they asked me "What is her level of education?" That is just not something men think about. That is however one of the excuses women use when claiming they do not care about money..."Oh, I just want an educated man, and they just happen to also make more money"

[morelaugh]

Science says women perceive men with means as more attractive, all else COMPLETELY equal. Men with a lot of money are seen as MUCH more attractive. Dislike it all you like, it's fact.

 

Science also says men want young pretty women. Again like it or not it's how we are made and it's best to accept that and move on. For what it's worth I would date a $11 an hour janitor *IF* she was hot enough. Why not?

 

 

 

 

 

It's the scientific method at work, sorry the facts don't fit your notions.

Another mistake.

 

Survey is a useful scientific method that can serve as a basis for various conclusions and interpretation. A single survey can establish whether or not a relationship exists between two variables but is not sufficient to determine any facts.

 

No scientist will tell you that their study based on a survey represents facts, because they are aware of multiple limitations of this method.

 

Read about scientific survey design and data analysis – it’s not as simple as it looks

[belladonna]

I don't know why you love bringing this up all the time. Why can't you just judge a woman on who she is and how she treats you then on some some "scientific" study that barely means anything? Studies contradict each other all the time. There are many things to take into account with those studies that TV specials like on the Discovery Channel neglect to mention because it has to be dumbed down for the general population and it makes the show less interesting.

 

Maybe it's my age but I really truly do not care about what a guy earns. It would be nice if he made enough to support himself, but even then if I like him it really doesn't matter (as I've learned recently). Education is just as irrelevant to me. It's just that I know I'm going to have a good job and will be able to support myself so why do I care what he makes? And I also have plenty attractive, female friends who are with guys who don't have loads of money and are completely happy. It's not that rare! lol I would totally date a hot janitor

[Lizzie60]

I like both.. money AND youth..

[morelaugh]

So the girl whom works at the business, is not more attracted to the owner, boss, or CEO? She is more attracted to coworkers? Nurses are not attracted to doctors?

No! I thinik this is completely false.

 

There are women who are attracted to money. They are known under the name gold diggers are by no means representative of all women.

 

As for education – educated women are attracted to educated men, regardless of the money.

There are lots of uneducated men with money and poor educated men. Money is not criterion, what’s inside is. When women tell you they don’t care about money, why don’t you believe them?

 

I am not trying to talk on behalf of men here, but I’m guessing that whether man cares about woman’s education or not, largely depends on his own level of education.