She’s only with him because…

[Cherchezlaspice]

Inspired by another thread. People don’t earn their looks, they say nothing about them as a person. So, when dating, why is being selective about looks/appearance seen as acceptable, but being selective about career prospects and material success a negative?

I think it’s interesting. People will go ‘she’s only with him for his money’ and that’s apparently a bad thing. Nobody goes ‘she’s only with him because he’s handsome’ because that’s somehow fine?

‘I’m really attracted to men with brown eyes/broad shoulders/bald heads’ = perfectly acceptable for some reason

‘I’m really attracted to men who earn over £100K = not acceptable.

Why?

Because physical attraction is something every couple needs to get together. Its an evolutionary non negotiable, instinctive and emotional. If you don’t fancy someone, sleeping with them is compromising on something quite deep and primal.

Whereas choosing someone for a more “rational” reason like salary feels like a product of capitalism. It might be sensible but its more left brain and cold blooded and for that reason feels alien to some.

Because finance / a career with high income can be transactional - it can be a benefit that can be passed to with intent or acquired by a positive or negative action the other party, they may benefit and see improvement in their own status without effort. So, is it jealousy that someone can 'better' themselves either by finial stability, even be upwardly mobile by association with others? Especially if felt others deserve or wish to lay claim to that benefit, eg children from a first marriage v wife of a second marriage?

You're comparing initial attraction to a relationship, they tend to have different motivations. The initial attraction was for his money versus they have a long term relationship only because of his money.

Initial attraction is usually based on more obvious characteristics, looks, points of similarity or similar values, could be jobs, sharing future goals, sharing values about things like political leanings or social justice or the environment, money or job prospects could be part of that.

Long term relationships are hopefully based on something deeper than whatever the initial attraction was. I wouldn't say people think a relationship just due to looks is considered ok either, you certainly hear the other side of the money relationship, which is he's only with her for her looks, I wouldn't think any better of either partner in that case.

Some very interesting responses! I don’t agree with all of them. For instance, I can honestly say I’ve never heard ‘he's only with her for her looks’ @LunaAndHerMoonDragons and I don’t think physical attraction is as vital as you do @GreenestValley , but still interesting.

If you went out with someone just because of how they looked of course it would be judged

We’re not in other people’s relationships, so we don’t know if anyone is with a partner just because of any single reason. However, if you went out with someone stupendously rich, particularly if you were considerably less rich, you’d be called a gold digger.

If you went out with someone stupendously good looking, people would assume their looks were a key factor, but I don’t think you’d be judged. If you were considerably less good looking, people would think you were ‘lucky’. There is no term for a ‘looks digger’. It’s not a concept that exists or is captured by the English language.

Because a human being is not the same as metal circles with the Queen's head on.

Being a human being is also not the same as having broad shoulders or a nice nose. Looks come down to physical features that are (generally quite arbitrarily) decreed to be attractive at a point in time. Why is basing attraction on said arbitrary physical standards (many of which we can do nothing about) more valid than basing it on ‘metal circles with the Queen’s head on’ that you can at least earn?

Too tired, not well worded, but rich men marrying young beautiful women because they are young and beautiful isn't exactly a new thing. Maybe he's only with her for her hot younger body and the sex would be more accurate.

Because if you're with someone for their looks you actually adore them and enjoy being intimate with them, whereas if it's just for the money you could secretly loathe them and you skin might crawl when you're intimate.

Tell your partner you're really attracted to them and you make them feel good, but tell them you're really attracted to their wallet and you make them feel like shit.

For instance, I can honestly say I’ve never heard ‘he's only with her for her looks’

Because the phrase that’s used is “Trophy wife”, and if you haven’t heard that you haven’t been listening.

Yes, but why do you think that? As previously stated, people don’t earn their looks. They say nothing about their character of personality. Why is liking said looks ‘actually adoring’ them, but liking their money (which they generally had to do something to get) likely to make them feel like shit?

Why is one valid and positive, but not the other?

if you haven’t heard that you haven’t been listening

I think this is a fairly interesting topic and I wanted to chat about it. I don’t think I’ve been uncivil, so not sure what this is about.

Anyway, for me ‘trophy wife’ only really crops up on MN with any regularity. I’ve certainly never heard anyone say it in real life and even on here it doesn’t pack quite the same vitriolic punch as ‘gold digger’.

Yes, but I suppose my point is that’s not a thing that people routinely say. And, when they do, it doesn’t seem to be steeped in judgement because society seems to accept looks as a valid reason to be with someone, but not success.

‘He’s only with you because you’re young and beautiful’ wouldn’t be a particularly impactful insult. ‘He’s only with you because you’re rich’ would be.

Trophy wife is quite a common theme, it's not just on MN.

I'd say the one thing that's usually a common factor is that whatever the insult it's usually aimed at women - for example gold digger can be used for men but usually it's women who get called one because they generally earn less than the men they're with; and trophy wife, while seeming at first like an insult about a man who's only interested in a woman for her looks, actually also implies that the women in question only have their looks to rely upon, that a woman's worth is in her looks, and that no man would be with them if they didn't have them.

I don't see the difference in underlying motives.
Good looks are associated with good genes and healthy babies. Good access to vital resources ( money buys food, shelter, medical care etc etc) is associated with babies surviving to adulthood.
One motivation or driver isn't necessarily more worthy or noble than the other in my eyes. Whether we want babies or not, they are ultimately what sex is all about, no?

So a "trophy wife" is not an English phrase then?

Ah should've read to the end, already been said

Yes, it’s interesting that the insults seem to zoom in on women. Like, what are the terms for a man who has a trophy wife or dates a golddigger?

Anyway, I’m not sure that ‘no man would be with her if she wasn’t gorgeous’ is really seen as an insult by most people.

I hadn’t thought about it from this perspective at all, but it certainly makes sense to me!

Is it more palatable to say you're attracted to men who are successful, clever, ambitious for example? Rather than rich?
If it is in fact the character attributes that made them rich that you are praising them for?
What about men who inherit their wealth who have done nothing to deserve it?

Personally my attraction to men is mostly about the kind of person they are. Neither looks or money (although I do have looks preferences too).

@forinborin To be fair, I said there was no English term for ‘looks digger’. The trophy wife (again not a term I’ve encountered irl) is the person whose looks are being ‘dug’. There doesn’t seem to be a term for the person doing the digging.

Which I suppose relates back to @GeekyThings point regarding the insulting terms being focussed on the women in the equation.

Because as I said if you're into someone because you find their looks attractive, there's no way you're lying next to them with your skin secretly crawling. But if it's their money you're after, there's a good chance their touch repulses you but you grin and bear it.

Also a person's body is much more intrinsically 'them' than an externality. So if you like their body, you're into 'them', as opposed to just liking their money.

@MichaelAndEagle I’m not praising anyone for anything. It’s an abstract conversation about sociocultural norms and I’m inviting anyone who fancies it to muse with me for a bit.

People who inherit wealth have done exactly as much to deserve it as people who inherit a strong jaw. So, if we were to be logical, these things would have equal value, no? And people who earn their wealth have done more. So, again logically, this should mean more than said strong jaw. But, obviously, logic doesn’t come into it. So, I’m wondering what does.

And I do think that ‘successful, clever, ambitious’ are infinitely more palatable than ‘rich’, but would still get some people’s backs up. You say you’ve a looks preference, do you have a money preference? If not, why not, do you think?

@MichaelAndEagle I’m not praising anyone for anything. It’s an abstract conversation about sociocultural norms and I’m inviting anyone who fancies it to muse with me for a bit.

Sorry I didn't mean you specifically. The collective you.