3 ms·

The 2nd part of the description. Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? That's not hard to unde

The 2nd part of the description. Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? That's not hard to understand. I think it's more about bitterness than logic in most cases.

thunky 3y ago
The real problem here is the idea that it's somehow wrong to prefer to marry someone with money. And because that is seen as a morally bankrupt position, we then need to jump through hoops to justify their preference with a "generous" interpretation.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Perhaps the real problem is that people don't find it enough of a "morally bankrupt position".
  - thunky 3y ago
    Perhaps. But like it or not, money (or the absence of it) has a huge effect on lifestyle, health, safety, procreation, etc. So pretending that the only purpose of marriage is to enter into an oath of true love, even though marriage itself is largely a financial contract, is maybe just a bit detached from reality.
coldtea 3y ago
>Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? For the same reason men don't look at money and money signals when picking female profiles (as verified by several studies). How come it works for them, but when it comes to women picking men suddenly it's a matter of not "fishing in the shallow end"? There is indeed a logic in "all other things being equal, prefer the person with money". It's a calculating logic, not a logic of love and appreciating the other person as a person. In the end, I take offense in the very notion of "all other things being equal", as if people are replacable cogs, and money can be use for the differentiaton and sorting the best out. In any case, the record numbers of lonely, partner-less men and women (to the point of the US surgen general calling out an "epidemic"), speaks to the success of this logic... >I think it's more about bitterness than logic Yes, in the sense that it iss bitterness to the fact that the selection is based on pure calculation. That's more something associated with the "oldest profession" than a basis for marriage.
archagon 3y ago
Because people are not fungible?

thunky 3y ago

The real problem here is the idea that it's somehow wrong to prefer to marry someone with money. And because that is seen as a morally bankrupt position, we then need to jump through hoops to justify their preference with a "generous" interpretation.

coldtea 3y ago
Perhaps the real problem is that people don't find it enough of a "morally bankrupt position".
- thunky 3y ago
  Perhaps. But like it or not, money (or the absence of it) has a huge effect on lifestyle, health, safety, procreation, etc. So pretending that the only purpose of marriage is to enter into an oath of true love, even though marriage itself is largely a financial contract, is maybe just a bit detached from reality.

coldtea 3y ago

>Why go fishing in the shallow end, catch a small fish? Why not just as good a partner, but with money? For the same reason men don't look at money and money signals when picking female profiles (as verified by several studies). How come it works for them, but when it comes to women picking men suddenly it's a matter of not "fishing in the shallow end"? There is indeed a logic in "all other things being equal, prefer the person with money". It's a calculating logic, not a logic of love and appreciating the other person as a person. In the end, I take offense in the very notion of "all other things being equal", as if people are replacable cogs, and money can be use for the differentiaton and sorting the best out. In any case, the record numbers of lonely, partner-less men and women (to the point of the US surgen general calling out an "epidemic"), speaks to the success of this logic... >I think it's more about bitterness than logic Yes, in the sense that it iss bitterness to the fact that the selection is based on pure calculation. That's more something associated with the "oldest profession" than a basis for marriage.

archagon 3y ago

Because people are not fungible?