4 ms·

Out of curiosity: Let's say the poor person is sexualy attractive. Is sex appeal vs money always in favor of the later? I know couples where the sexy one is the

Out of curiosity: Let's say the poor person is sexualy attractive. Is sex appeal vs money always in favor of the later? I know couples where the sexy one is the controller even against a person with more financial leverage.

artursapek 3y ago
it depends on who has more of a scarcity mindset. sexy women can find a well-off man pretty easily.
- jongjong 3y ago
  Wow. That's a really good way to frame it. Scarcity mindset as a trait.
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  It's not that simple. A women who has looks, but no class, no education, is ill-mannered, etc., is not going to find much interest among men who are well off, educated, well-mannered, etc. She may attract the attention of new money, yes, but this proves the point, namely, that there exists a segmentation by SOCIOeconomic class. The nouveau riche men in question belong approximately to the same social class. He isn't offended by this lass's cursing, press-on nails, vinyl pants, and high esteem of trash TV. It's what he grew up around. And look at the wives of many of the richest men. The beauty of wives is not strongly correlated with husband earning, certainly not beyond middle/upper middle class and upward where each additional dollar earned means less. Other factors are at work. This should be obvious. And it's not as if mating takes place at some grand event where every person is a potential candidate for everyone else of the opposite sex. We're distributed, we are embedded in social and kinship networks in time and place. We are exposed to an exceedingly small number of people in life, certainly before the typical age at which we tend to marry. No idea where all these boneheaded ideas about mating comes from that defy basic reason and experience.
  - gregjor 3y ago
    Clearly you haven’t seen Pretty Woman. QED.
jongjong 3y ago
I agree with your assessment. I guess the more wealth imbalance there is, the more room there is for physical attractiveness imbalance. There is some kind of equilibrium at play. It's tempting to think that the one with money is getting the better deal (e.g. in terms of evolutionary biology) but I feel like it's a flaw in our psyche as it overlooks the power of capital and capital's ability to make itself more valuable over time. Attractiveness generally only declines over time, unlike capital which only appreciates.

artursapek 3y ago

it depends on who has more of a scarcity mindset. sexy women can find a well-off man pretty easily.

jongjong 3y ago
Wow. That's a really good way to frame it. Scarcity mindset as a trait.
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
It's not that simple. A women who has looks, but no class, no education, is ill-mannered, etc., is not going to find much interest among men who are well off, educated, well-mannered, etc. She may attract the attention of new money, yes, but this proves the point, namely, that there exists a segmentation by SOCIOeconomic class. The nouveau riche men in question belong approximately to the same social class. He isn't offended by this lass's cursing, press-on nails, vinyl pants, and high esteem of trash TV. It's what he grew up around. And look at the wives of many of the richest men. The beauty of wives is not strongly correlated with husband earning, certainly not beyond middle/upper middle class and upward where each additional dollar earned means less. Other factors are at work. This should be obvious. And it's not as if mating takes place at some grand event where every person is a potential candidate for everyone else of the opposite sex. We're distributed, we are embedded in social and kinship networks in time and place. We are exposed to an exceedingly small number of people in life, certainly before the typical age at which we tend to marry. No idea where all these boneheaded ideas about mating comes from that defy basic reason and experience.
- gregjor 3y ago
  Clearly you haven’t seen Pretty Woman. QED.

jongjong 3y ago

I agree with your assessment. I guess the more wealth imbalance there is, the more room there is for physical attractiveness imbalance. There is some kind of equilibrium at play. It's tempting to think that the one with money is getting the better deal (e.g. in terms of evolutionary biology) but I feel like it's a flaw in our psyche as it overlooks the power of capital and capital's ability to make itself more valuable over time. Attractiveness generally only declines over time, unlike capital which only appreciates.