4 ms·

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce facto

Yes, but also it's not like having maternal instinct wouldn't make this decision easier for you. And keep in mind, statistics say than one of the divorce factors is husband making less than wife. From her perspective: this isn't sexy at all.

nathan_compton 7y ago
I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.
- ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
  Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
  - nathan_compton 7y ago
    Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
    - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
      No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.
danbolt 7y ago
I think the parent comment is saying that his paternal instinct is clashing with society and culture.

nathan_compton 7y ago

I'd interpret these results with a grain of salt. They are, after all, culturally (and circumstantially) bound. If making money wasn't so important to raising kids, then women might express quite different preferences in partners. I believe there is some evidence for this if you look at mate preference in nations with more social support. Just anecdotally, women seem to be interested in men who excel in some area, not just in salary. Successful musician's, artists, scientists, etc all do pretty well, even if they aren't top earners. I guess what I'm cautioning against is reading your "studies" as suggesting that women don't find lower earners "sexy." Much simpler economic circumstances could plausibly explain the higher rate of divorce.

ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
Please keep in mind, I said socio-economic status. But, homeless looking, constantly drank, smelling of urine Charles Bukowski had plenty of young, attractive and willing lovers. My point being exactly his high socio-economic status. We're talking about one of the best American poets. How many of these you get to meet? Hey, he might even write a poem about feeling he has for you if he likes you. That's what was so damn hot about the guy. Not money. With no money at all, his status was extremely high. I'm not pushing this vulgar simplistic idea here that women are all about money. They are after men who are really, really good in their niche. Even when the niche doesn't provide any money. It's about status they're after. This usually translate into money, but not always. Bukowski was dirt poor. With high status. EDIT: grammar
- nathan_compton 7y ago
  Right, but what you are saying now borders on tautological: women like those with high socioeconomic status. But socioeconomic status is just the combination of all things which makes people like you.
  - ChaosDegenerate 7y ago
    No, socioeconomic status is not the combination of all things which makes people like you. It's combination of all things which makes people's endocrine and nervous system react to you in a way where they feel and act submissive to you in the group setting. Literally, on the basic biological level, without concious thoughts behind it. If you were to enter the meeting room full of guys who are better at work than you, your body automatically adjusts into submissivness. It's visible you're the one at the low end of the social order there. That's especially visible to the females. They don't want any of that guy. They want the one who makes them and everybody around feel and act like that.

danbolt 7y ago

I think the parent comment is saying that his paternal instinct is clashing with society and culture.