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?

I'd say that a "trophy wife" is, weirdly, usually used as a characteristic of the trophy owner, not of the wife herself. Even the term itself implies she has no agenda or decision making power of her own, just needs to look the part next to all those golf and CEO of the year trophies.

@Faseeshes So, it’s the physicality of it from your perspective? How you look is ‘you’ but what you have is not? I’m not sure I agree, but it’s certainly an interesting perspective.

I think seeking a mate is very instinctive, and based on the combination of good genes for offspring, and a good provider.
That's from a biological point of view as a PP also mentioned.

I probably do have a money preference.
Not too much more money than me....I personally wouldn't like the power imbalance that would bring.
Not significantly less... I wouldn't like to be propping someone up.

However I think I'm generally attracted to people who are similar to me in lots of ways too. Not really, really good looking because I'd constantly feel inadequate. Not a fitness freak because I would think they'd find me lazy and I'd find them boring. But I'd need to have a physical attraction to them. That's a must.

In terms of other attributes, I'd want someone with a similar outlook, similar ambitions, similar values..

If someone is looking for a rich partner, does it matter if they are wealthy themselves? Is one less offensive?
Perhaps people's perception would be different?

I think you're right that Trophy Wife is an insult to the woman, not the man. Its almost praise for the man.

@forinborin That’s a fair point, but it’s still not really an insult being levelled at the trophy ‘owner’, is it? The ‘looks digger’ comes out pretty well.

@MichaelAndEagle It's all so nuanced, isn’t it? I think my preferences are very similar to yours. I thought this was interesting:

If someone is looking for a rich partner, does it matter if they are wealthy themselves? Is one less offensive? Perhaps people's perception would be different?

This is one of those areas in which MN and my lives experiences diverge. In real life, I think this is considered fair enough. But I also think some people tend to judge women fairly harshly for this - but only anonymously. You see posts on here (generally in Relationships) where women state they want men of similar education, career, earning potential, etc to them and they get hammered for their elitism and gold digging- despite already having ‘gold’ themselves.

You’ve never heard the term ‘trophy wife’ before? It’s not complimentary towards the husband, means their shallow and a bit of an ‘old fool’.

Not an insult, but it does imply that the motivation of one side is financial, and the other side is lacking in attractiveness to be able to attract a mate of this calibre without waving some $$$. So not an insult, but still a social valuation statement.
Exactly the same woman can be described as a trophy wife in one situation (marrying an old fat rich man) and as just wife in another (marrying a young fit rich man). Nothing to do with the woman herself.

I think in some ways people do earn their looks in that you can tell if someone looks after themselves, eats well, exercises, dresses nicely etc.

I also don't think someone has to be stereotypically good looking to be attractive - chemistry is way more complicated than that.

There is the term ‘sugar daddy’ for a wealthy man who has a younger female partner.

I think there’s nothing wrong going for a man with plenty of money BUT BUT BUT you need to fancy them. Sexual attraction IS important in my opinion.

Me and my husband are nearly 40 and I STILL look at him like yeahhhh I can’t wait to shag you later sort of thing. Feeling is very mutual too.

You don't think 'he's only with her for her looks' every time you see a plain, middle aged, wealthy man with a beautiful 20-something?

Oh should have rtft

Yes, but why? And why is the reverse so unpalatable?

If I went, ‘there’s nothing wrong going for a really good looking guy, but he needs to have lots of lovely money, financial stability is where it’s at’ you’d probably think I was a bit cracked.

Also, off topic but ‘nearly 40’ is young! Why wouldn’t you still want to shag each other? You wrote that like ‘nearly 90’ or something. You’re in your thirties! 😂

@Neverwrestlewithapig True! I totally blanked on that one. Not sure it’s quite the same as ‘looks digger’, but it’s certainly in a similar arena.

@dammit88 I think that’s fair, but for most of us, you’re working with what you’re working with. You can certainly be the best you can be, but unless you’ve won the genetic lottery (or have oodles of cash to spend on surgery), you’re not going to look like Beyoncé.

All very true!

@Cherchezlaspice

We got together at 16 😂. Feels like a long time.

I guess for me it was important at the time. Before he asked me out I nearly went out with someone else who was 19 so 3 years older. He was from a rich family and he’s still minted now (I have a mutual friend who married him). He was okay looking but the spark was not there.

Husband was a lot poorer 😂. Never mind.

Firstly, yes of of course it is. People's identities are formed by all parts of themselves, from their body to their talents to their creations and likes. But their actual body is by far more 'them' than their acquisitions.

But more importantly, it's because if you're into someone for their looks, you actually enjoy being physically close to them. There's no chance of you having to hide your repulsion just to touch and kiss them. Whereas if you're just with them for the benefits, you might be utterly disgusted by them.

Could you be with a partner if you knew your touch made their skin crawl, even if they liked your money? I know I couldn't. In fact it would be worse if I knew they were hoping to leech off me financially.

Awww! That’s really sweet! 😁

@Cherchezlaspice

Of course now if we divorced my “criteria” would include someone who was financially doing okay. My mind is not that of a 16 year old anymore but quite honestly I would need to be attracted to them or else they would give me the ick and probably disgust me deep down. Harsh but true.

But more importantly, it's because if you're into someone for their looks, you actually enjoy being physically close to them. There's no chance of you having to hide your repulsion just to touch and kiss them. Whereas if you're just with them for the benefits, you might be utterly disgusted by them.

if their behaviour doesn’t match their looks they will start to repulse you anyway. Or do some women stay with good looking men who abuse them because they are still physically attracted?

No, there is no ‘of course it is’. You think a person’s physical form is intrinsically ‘them’ and I don’t really agree. There is no right or wrong binary with this, we just have different views.

I don’t think most people would makes one’s skin crawl, to be honest. You’ve said it several times, but I think it’s a fairly extreme leap to go straight from valuing financial success to tolerating physical repulsion.

Old rich man, young pretty woman in a relationship.
If she's in it for the money, what's he in it for?
Do you assume she must be funny, smart, interesting or is it possible he's thinking hot young body to screw me?

Not everyone is as affected by looks, for me it's a chemistry which isn't easily written into a picture of someone, although I'll concede I'd cheat on my husband for a night with Chris Hemsworth lol.
But it's bizarre to think NOONE cares about looks in a society obsessed with them

I think a some women do, actually. ‘I’m addicted to him’, ‘the sex is amazing’, ‘I can’t stay away’, etc. But I suppose lots of women stay for financial reasons, as well.

Which is an entirely different thread, I guess, but still super depressing. ☹️

@Faseeshes

Because if you're with someone for their looks you actually adore them and enjoy being intimate with them

Plenty of very beautiful people are in relationships that fail and don't "adore" each other.

I think you’ve completely misunderstood me and the thread. Of course people care about looks!

The question is why caring about looks is seen as valid/positive/understandable and caring about money isn’t.