... to find the idea that women choose men for their money insulting?

[goodnightmoon]

a new study says women's orgasms are linked to the size of their partners' bank balances.

I am so fed up with reading all the time about how women select their mates solely for financial reasons. I never considered marrying a man for money. I was brought up to have my own career and make my own money.

I know there are obvious examples of young, beautiful women and hideous older rich men. I'm not saying some women don't do this.

But on a broader basis, isn't more true that men capable of making money are simply more attractive partners for many reasons, such as intelligence, confidence, attractiveness, etc.?

Did you choose your partner because of his bank balance?

According to research in to our Neanderthal ancestors, that's untrue Abetadad.

Apparently it was in fact the women who procreated a wider gene pool, by moving on to another partner after each baby.

I didn't marry for money but I wouldn't have found a man without any attractive, I earnt well myself and they was no way I would end up with a man with less earning capacity than me.
I also knew I didn't want to work once I had children so threw that into the conversation fairly early on to see what the reaction was and looked at his family to see if his mother worked etc.
As it was I found an old fashioned man who shares the same values and happened to have a big bank balance and willy so everyone is happy

Lol Sorrento - good for you!

I chose my husband for a number of reasons, but the fact that he was responsible and employed figured pretty highly on the list, and I'm not remotely sorry about that.

Orgasm-schmorgasm, that's just cobblers. I give myself the best orgasms, and I don't have a penny

Ah dittany's here. Now where's Monkeytrousers?

There is undoubtedly some evidence to support this notion. "Resources" in a wider sense does seem to have an influence in women's choices - there is little attractive in a man per se who is broke and rubbish with money.

reminds one of the Mrs Merton question to Debbie McGee " So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?"

It is as insulting as saying that men choose their partners on looks alone.

Why is it sexist?

abetadad - my whole point is that we have been led to believe all this nonsense about what is "hard wired" into us.

anthropological research is hardly conclusive, and this latest survey is just short of ridiculous.

There is probably an age thing going on - suspect younger women will not put much emphasis on resources, for lots of reasons, compared with older women who may have a better notion of the security she desires.

Evidence that it is "burned into our genes" Pan?

My DP is shorter than me, was earning less and is younger than me so all those trends past me by.
However I don't think I would have any respect for, or fancy a man who was lazy and would not work.

Nah, nothing so conclusive as that, Madonna - whatever it means.

Just anecdotal evidence and observation and life experience - nothing scientific!!

Quite.

Would this be an evolutionary psychology kind of thing? Where is MT?

lol
MT has started a thread on this very subject!

Women make all the financial sacrifices when they have a family - their career (often) suffers, they work part time which affects their pension contributions etc etc. I think it is quite sensible to ensure that the man's income or pension is big enough to compensate for this tbh. Not romantic tho, I agree.

I agree with dittany, it is sexist bullshit

Where do they get there statistics?

I don't see how its in our genes to be attracted to rich men, unless it is the money you covet. It is a conscious decision to only date rich men, nothing to do with genetics.

I think that when you talk about needing a man to provide then you have to define providing. For me, there are lots of things I realised that DH could provide that would enrich my life, none of them to do with money

On reflection I am taller, better off financially, smarter in some ways than the current MsPan. Having said that she is a damned sight smarter than me in other ways..and is a good deal sexier than me. She wears her clothes better than I wear mine, snd has a very artistic bent which I admire enormously. I didn't "choose" her I don't think. She just emerged in my consciousness as deeply loveable, sans consideration of money/height/intelligence and all of that.

tattycoram - though i agree there is truth in what you say, this is the line of thinking that supports men being paid higher wages than women for the same work - or even being given a job instead of a woman because they "need it more."

unfortunately society also plays a role in the education and careers that women seek, while a lack of childcare means that women are encouraged and/or forced into work considered more conducive to raising children.

Would the considerations (re the current MsPan's fecundity rather than intelligence if we going along these lines) need to be conscious? She might well emerge as lovable in your consciousness once your unconscious mind had measured her symmetry or whatever it is.

I don't think the argument is that we make overt choices. Or is it? Must read MT's link.

when my DH proposed to me he was just 20 and he had not a penny. I was earning waaayyy more than him and the sale of my first house paid for our wedding and the deposit on our first home.
within a few years he was earning way more than me and has continued to do very well.
but i would still be with him if he/we were poor. I am with him because he is lovely and I love him
The article is bollocks

Take your point, M. re consciousness thing. Though it was more her fabulous bottom than her symmetry, speaking as an unevolved male of the species.