6 ms·

I have been in NYC for the last two and a half months. Granted, that is not a long time, but I have met a lot of girls - even around the financial district - an

I have been in NYC for the last two and a half months. Granted, that is not a long time, but I have met a lot of girls - even around the financial district - and I have not had similar experiences. No doubt these girls exist but I everywhere I have been there has always been plenty of sweet and genuine girls.

mattmaroon 16y ago
There's this sort of black-and-white distinction between "good girls" and "gold diggers" and it's entirely imaginary. I'll spare you the evolutionary psychology behind it (which is easy to find if you're interested) but all women care about a man's success (of which money is merely the most frequent, but not only, indicator) to a large degree. Saying a girl doesn't care about money is like saying a guy doesn't care about looks. Society has come to view both genders' preferences as shallow, but for whatever reason makes a much bigger deal about it when it comes to women, which is really not fair. They can't help being attracted to a successful guy anymore than we can to a hot girl. My guess is that in NYC, due to the financial industry guys are more sensitive to it, and as such women respond by being a bit more circumspect.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The difference between the two is honesty. A guy will tell a girl "I thought you were beautiful, and wanted to meet you". A girl will rarely say "I thought you were rich, and wanted to meet you." For whatever reason, the vast majority of golddiggers are utterly dishonest about what they are really seeking. This leads men to get into bad relationships (which they would have avoided if the woman were honest), and they often lose big when their career doesn't turn out the way they hoped or when they want to downsize their job (e.g., quit the $300k/year corporate law job for an $85k/year public defender job). I've got no problem with that rare girl who openly admits her desire to trade sex for money. I don't want a relationship with her, but I won't condemn her. [edit: I'll similarly condemn a guy who lies to honest women to get them into bed. I'll giggle when a guy lies about money to sleep with dishonest golddiggers.]
  - bdr 16y ago
    That's because people don't know why they feel things. The feeling comes first (e.g., being attracted to someone) and then we make up a satisfying rational explanation for it.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - acgourley 16y ago
    It's not for money, it's for security. It's really no worse than what guys do.
    - mattmaroon 16y ago
      It's really not worse at all, both are just people doing what they evolved to do. Society frowns upon it more so many of them feel they have to be coy about it.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        Dishonesty is not worse than honesty, simply because it's evolved? By that logic, rape is also not worse than consensual sex (assuming it's evolved behavior). As rational and moral beings, aren't we supposed to transcend some of our evolutionary instincts?
        mattmaroon 16y ago
        It's not dishonesty per se because it's not a conscious behavior. Most women don't know they give a rich guy bonus points, just as men consciously underrate the importance of their spouse's appearance. It's one of many areas where humanity's conscious thoughts and actions radically diverge. It's a subtle subconscious leaning. A similar example: doctors routinely prescribe things that get them paid more (for instance neurologists whose practices own their own MRI machines prescribe 4x more MRIs than ones who do not) however when examined under a polygraph, both groups say that the money is not an influencing factor. The money clearly is the difference, they just don't know it. (FWIW, rape is not believed by most in the field of evolutionary psychology to be a behavior that has evolved into "normal". It's gotten a lot of coverage in the field due to the controversial nature of the idea of rape as an adaptation, but there is no clear evidence for it in anthropology or studies of closely related primates.) The argument you pose about morality is dangerous. Who defines which of our genetic attributes are ok and which are not? Why is it perfectly fine to have brown hair, but immoral to want a rich husband (if only subconsciously) when you can't help either of them? If anything the latter is universal, the former occasional.

mattmaroon 16y ago

There's this sort of black-and-white distinction between "good girls" and "gold diggers" and it's entirely imaginary. I'll spare you the evolutionary psychology behind it (which is easy to find if you're interested) but all women care about a man's success (of which money is merely the most frequent, but not only, indicator) to a large degree. Saying a girl doesn't care about money is like saying a guy doesn't care about looks. Society has come to view both genders' preferences as shallow, but for whatever reason makes a much bigger deal about it when it comes to women, which is really not fair. They can't help being attracted to a successful guy anymore than we can to a hot girl. My guess is that in NYC, due to the financial industry guys are more sensitive to it, and as such women respond by being a bit more circumspect.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
The difference between the two is honesty. A guy will tell a girl "I thought you were beautiful, and wanted to meet you". A girl will rarely say "I thought you were rich, and wanted to meet you." For whatever reason, the vast majority of golddiggers are utterly dishonest about what they are really seeking. This leads men to get into bad relationships (which they would have avoided if the woman were honest), and they often lose big when their career doesn't turn out the way they hoped or when they want to downsize their job (e.g., quit the $300k/year corporate law job for an $85k/year public defender job). I've got no problem with that rare girl who openly admits her desire to trade sex for money. I don't want a relationship with her, but I won't condemn her. [edit: I'll similarly condemn a guy who lies to honest women to get them into bed. I'll giggle when a guy lies about money to sleep with dishonest golddiggers.]
- bdr 16y ago
  That's because people don't know why they feel things. The feeling comes first (e.g., being attracted to someone) and then we make up a satisfying rational explanation for it.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- acgourley 16y ago
  It's not for money, it's for security. It's really no worse than what guys do.
  - mattmaroon 16y ago
    It's really not worse at all, both are just people doing what they evolved to do. Society frowns upon it more so many of them feel they have to be coy about it.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      Dishonesty is not worse than honesty, simply because it's evolved? By that logic, rape is also not worse than consensual sex (assuming it's evolved behavior). As rational and moral beings, aren't we supposed to transcend some of our evolutionary instincts?
      - mattmaroon 16y ago
        It's not dishonesty per se because it's not a conscious behavior. Most women don't know they give a rich guy bonus points, just as men consciously underrate the importance of their spouse's appearance. It's one of many areas where humanity's conscious thoughts and actions radically diverge. It's a subtle subconscious leaning. A similar example: doctors routinely prescribe things that get them paid more (for instance neurologists whose practices own their own MRI machines prescribe 4x more MRIs than ones who do not) however when examined under a polygraph, both groups say that the money is not an influencing factor. The money clearly is the difference, they just don't know it. (FWIW, rape is not believed by most in the field of evolutionary psychology to be a behavior that has evolved into "normal". It's gotten a lot of coverage in the field due to the controversial nature of the idea of rape as an adaptation, but there is no clear evidence for it in anthropology or studies of closely related primates.) The argument you pose about morality is dangerous. Who defines which of our genetic attributes are ok and which are not? Why is it perfectly fine to have brown hair, but immoral to want a rich husband (if only subconsciously) when you can't help either of them? If anything the latter is universal, the former occasional.