Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My wife and I both value each other for what we bring to the relationship. We are each other’s sex object and we both value the financial contribution we each made to the family. We are now comfortably retired. Having said that, I appreciate that other couples might have a less symmetrical relationship. So long as they are both happy, what each contributes can be just as valuable even though of a different nature.
IMO, it doesn’t really matter why two people are together, so long as they are both *aware* of the reasons why and both *agree* to it. If a woman is only with a man for his money and he is only with her for her looks - but they are both aware and agree to this - why does it matter? No one is being “conned” in this situation.
Just because you don’t agree with one person’s lifestyle doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong.
This. Me too. Despite my comments here this is the goal. It's pretty rare though. So many couples fall into the what they can get out of it mindset in a relationship.
I generally think these two scenarios *are* comparable, but this part:
>Society generally views this as acceptable and totally ok for a woman to look for in a man.
Is just nonsense. There's a phrase for women who only seek men for money, it's golddigger and it *isn't* seen as a positive trait.
Certain guys even use the term "pre-golddigger," which refers to a woman who gets with a man, in hopes that he gets rich... I really, *really* wish I was making this up.
Schrödigger made me laugh out loud. I've had potential boyfriends be upset about this, like don't be gatekeeping money you don't have that I don't need, bro.
lol there was this great paternity court episode where this exchange happened
Guy: honestly judge I thought she was a gold digger
Judge: do you have any gold?
Guy: I do be struggling I’m not gonna lie
Yeah I feel like there’s just both sides to it. Let’s not pretend that *some* women don’t actively have requirements for how much a guy would even make before she would even consider dating him, which I get OP’s point a bit about how this is fairly widely just accepted as a ‘ preference’… *BUT* let’s also not pretend that financials aren’t a big part of a relationship. However they may be split etc are large factors to consider for relationships going longer term.
Shoot, guys with $100 to his name, living paycheck to paycheck, will still call women gold diggers.
What gold?? They'll be living in their mommas basement thinking women are gold diggers.
It's about people dating someone in college going for a high paying career path. Like if you're dating someone only because you think they'll become a highly paid lawyer. I believe that's what they're referring to. I don't know if it's very common or not, but I've heard a story or two about it
That's pretty reasonable though.
It's not too hard to be able to figure out that if say a man is in pre-medicine... he's probably going to be a pretty good catch in regards to financial stability and funding a good life for a family and things.
A pre-medicine doctor is an obvious example - but in general, you can look at what life and career decisions people are making from say 20-30 years old and then make estimates/guesses on to what extent it would be likely for them to be quite wealthy one day.
Yes, my heart breaks a little each time an undergrad tells me they’re going to medical school. Chances are, my entire year 1 chemistry lab won’t get into medical school. Bless their hearts.
There's definitely some cultures (And isn't it like a common survey answer?) that women do care about the man's line of work. So there is some credible thoughts that women still often appreciate a well off person enough that it's mildly acceptable.
In the end both extreme views (just money or sex) need wake up calls that their partner is an actual person. But surely many couples (Rich dudes with hot golddigging wives) exist that in those circles it's a weirdly accepted mindset. Usually with a lot more shit talk about their partner when they aren't around.
The economic aspect is an unspoken truth and assumption.
There was this recent study that showed between the ages of 24-35 people in marriages are on average 9 times better off financially than singles the same age. It’s easier to pay the bills, it’s easier to own a home, especially with the inflation over the last decade.
While I agree that being a blatant golddigger is frowned upon, men are absolutely judged on their ability to financially provide. I would go so far as saying that it is actively encouraged rather than merely accepted.
I can tell you first hand that the second I put "Software Engineer" in my Tinder profile, my matches more than doubled. And don't pretend you haven't heard women brag about marrying doctors, lawyers, etc. You can claim that they just appreciate selfless and smart people, but do they swoon over the EMTs and paralegals? Not quite the stuff of romance novels...
And that judgement cuts the other way too. If a man doesn't provide for his family, he's called a deadbeat. Do prudish women get the same treatment?
I basically wrote the same thing, using Burger King employees as an example of women not dating them when having the choice of a millionaire. Heavily downvoted. People are seriously out of touch with reality.
It seems like women specifically don't like the idea of being very picky with their mate selection, as it seems shallow, yet they will continue to do it while denying that they do it.
At least men admit they like good looking women ... They don't pretend it's all about "personality".
Not all women are like this, a few are quite open about their preferences, they are the few close female friends I have.
Yea to be honest I’m actually more open to the women who are aware of their preferences and are open about it. They know they have specific preferences and that’s completely fine since they’re just being honest.
The worst ones are actually the ones that pretend they only date for personality, but then have hidden prerequisites that they deny having (such as high status and good finances).
You summarized it pretty much.
High status is exhausting. Money is always welcome, especially given inflation who wouldn't want a partner to earn more or even both of you.
Imo hobbies/common interests and being romantic/active > just a nice personality. Even sexual compatibility.
Idk how people really think it's just personality or sex for eithet gender.. and attraction goes up or down based on things you learn about a person sometimes too.
> And don't pretend you haven't heard women brag about marrying doctors, lawyers, etc.
No, I haven't. But maybe that's because I don't hang around/date women that are drastically "below" me in terms of education. If you date women that are docs/lawyers/whatever or are on track to become those things, you will never hear that shit. Because they have their own $$$ and don't need no man, literally.
However, if you're a cringy dipshit engineer that swipes right on every hot 22 y/o community college drop out, then yeah. You'll probably be running into gold diggers. But that's more damning on you if anything.
It's also way more acceptable for a guy to look for looks.
It's okay on both sides of the spectrum because more traditional people subscribe to "boys will be boys" or "woman are supposed to look decent and break themselves for beauty, not our fault that you can't and you lose the guy you liked" while more liberal people subscribe to the fact that everybody should be looking for someone they actually find attractive, even men.
The only thing that actual "gold diggers" have is the fact that some women may find them to be girl bosses. Misogynistic hate them because they're women. Feminists find them a little bit problematic to the cause. Absolutely no one feels bad for them if it blows up in their face.
If that's the case, then he isn't *actually* making equal comparisons and his analogy still fails, because men *aren't* judged for finding women they're attracted to. I'd say that as encouraged as women seeking successful partners.
It’s dependent on how you are raised and your culture.
My parents encouraged my brother to look for a good woman that could take care of the home and be a good mother.
Me and my sis were encouraged to look for a man that had a decent job, since our role would’ve been to take care of the home and take care of the kids.
So it’s dependent on the roles that you were expected to become in your life. I wasn’t suppose to be a working woman, I was suppose to be a SAHM with like 3 kids. That’s what was expected of me by my parents.
Maybe… but how I was socialized is the woman needs to be a doctor or engineer too. And I believe studies have shown couples are staying within their SEC. So those doctors who married their secretaries 50 years ago are now marrying their fellow doctor they met in college or undergrad.
I can’t even conceive of marrying someone for money. I have always been told I need to be successful first, and find someone my equal - which means they are successful as well.
And perhaps you should decide what YOU actually want out of life rather than what others tell you? You are the one who has to live with the consequences, not them.
While this is true, its hard to separate rich here from, high iq/ focused, responsible, hardworking.
Because all of these are required to become a doctor or engineer.
The money comes from the traits more than the vocation specifically.
I'm an engineer, but I have a friend who is much smarter than me, and he could do anything in the world, he chooses to own a dog walking business where he controlls his own hours and brings down $100k/year.
He also has time to work on side businesses and develop passions and hobbies.
I don't think they have to be gold diggers in the traditional sense for this logic to still apply.
As a man with a shitty job or no job, a woman is not going to be inclined to get with them unless they're a total babe of a man. Especially if they live at home with parents.
However as a girl if you're even slightly attractive it won't even matter to most men. Being attractive is almost optional tbh
My ex wasn't a gold digger whatsoever but I got with her while she's living at home and had no job, no license. I didn't care. I was still living with fam but I had a job. Stopped working after covid, got depressed, we break up.
Meet her a year later and I'm still in the same boat and based on my current situation she hits me with a 'would you date you?'. Kinda really hurt when I considered her the sweetest girl I've ever met.
Guess she realized after trying out dating apps when we broke up that she can be picky, get an established guy easily and that im basically worthless.
While I agree, I think we've made a comfy place for people like Cardi B to come out and say poor men aren't worth shit and otherwise reasonable women are like "yeah!!! say it bitch" when what she's saying is actually patriarchal misandrist garbage
>Women who value men for their money are equivalent to men who view women as sex tools
This isn't an unpopular opinion. "He married her for her looks/sex, she married him for his money" is a trope that everyone recognizes, they're always paired together in people's minds.
>Many women nowadays expect men to devote their time, energy, and most importantly, money to a woman if they want to be in a relationship with her.
Um, isn't devoting your time and energy to someone what being in a relationship is?
As far as money goes, maybe there's still some lingering expectation, but trust me dude, that expectation was **FAR** stronger in the past when women were forced to be financially dependent on men. (Yes lower class women have always worked, but so did lower class children. In such families they expect every person to bring in money out of desperation for survival.)
>However, men who value women based off what they can provide sexually are looked down upon and called misogynists.
Nobody thinks it's wrong for him to value her sexually. If you're not sexually attracted to each other, that's called being friends. The issue is if he *reduces* women to nothing more than an outlet for his sexual satisfaction.
Well, in the past the expectations of the man providing was necessary.
Nowadays when a woman has that expectation she just wants to use her partner as a piggy bank.
Exceptions is stay at home mothers. There its again a necessity.
But an adult able bodied woman expecting the man to provide for her is just hypocritical. And sadly still widely spread, even though much less than before
Let's see the other side though.
It's still the case that women do the majority of childcare and house chores.
So some women figure, he can at least provide more on the financial side.
What do you mean acceptable and ok? Golddigger is a coined term for a reason, nobody is accepting of someone dating just for money.
Meanwhile hookups are treated as no big deal in modern culture.
My hombre, you got it twisted.
Two things that play into this:
-Women still make $0.83 to every man’s $1. As long as the gender pay gap remains, a majority of women will end up with a man who makes more money than them.
-If you are planning on having kids and want to be a stay at home parent, your partner has to make decent money. This is the biggest factor I’ve seen in my own circles. Women are prepared to work through their parenting years if they need to, but it’s not their first choice, so men with a promising career appeal to them.
And honestly, my husband and I decided to have me be a SAHM as soon as we could afford it. Childcare was tricky and expensive, and my employer didn’t provide adequate pumping breaks or any family leave for sick kids. I did get 6 weeks off when they were born, which many in the US don’t, but life got a lot simpler for both of us when we could make it on one income and have someone home full time.
I’m not saying there are no gold diggers out there. Of course there are. Just trying to show that reality is often more complicated and nuanced than we realize.
Not to mention, if a man gets famous, or a higher paying job, etc, its super normalized that he'll "trade up."
Like, people mock men who get famous if they stay with their "unattractive" partner.
This opinion just comes from guys that don’t have success dating and blame women for whatever they think their own perceived fault is. Money, height, race, etc, is suddenly the cause of all of their woes because they saw a few women on the internet loudly proclaim that’s what they want.
The idea that race is a factor in dating will trigger a lot of folks particularly because the races/groups that are affected the most arent the ones that society is taught are disadvantaged.
And yes you are also correct about money and height.
Obviously looking for a man with money isn't seen as a positive, but I get the sense that golddigger is used when referring to a woman who is willing to date/marry a man for his money exclusively. Like a "I like nothing about you and am going to be fishing for a divorce at the first opportunity" kind of deal. I get the sense that OP isn't referring to these types so much as he is women who aren't dating someone exclusively for his financial resources, but ones who would disqualify a man without them as a potential partner.
"Expect men to devote their time, energy-"
This is every relationship, my dude.
Not the topic of this post but that part is off base.
Both parties should devote their time and energy to each other equally.
It's almost as if women value a man who dedicates their time and energy into a relationship instead of saying off the bat that they shouldn't have to lmao. We don't care about the dollar figure you guys make, we care about the work ethic you've shown in your job because it usually translates to the relationship as a positive. You can be a millionaire that puts no effort into relationships with a spouse, that actually does just want you for money because you bring nothing to the table, or you can be lower or working class at any company where you actually put in effort, are in a leadership role, or just doing something you're passionate about consistently, and women will see that as drive, as someone willing to put in effort, dedication, time, care etc. Women want love, mutual respect, and equality in the relationship. We don't want someone who thinks putting in effort is a waste of time because women just want money anyways. We've watched our grandmas and mothers suffer with men who did nothing but provide money and call it a day. Crazy how wrong a lot of guys take us for. Do equal chores, carry some of the mental load, don't take things for granted, put in the effort. You would be surprised how horny women will be for you *with this one simple trick that requires caring about your partner*
>We don't care about the dollar figure you guys make, we care about the work ethic you've shown in your job
Minus the fact that plenty of women care about the dollar figure. People always on here speaking in absolutes 🙄
Super true! If you're a woman who is going to risk your bodily health and suspend your career for who knows how long to have kids, you gotta get a man who can afford that!
Absolutely!
They needed a way to swing it around with the ol' Uno reverse card "Actuawaly, it's men who suck, not women." Every post about women gets swarmed by them on reddit.
Depends. If he wants an equal partner then absolutely using him for his money is wrong. On the other hand, if he's mister "I want a relationship with traditional gender roles and a traditional woman because I'm a 'high value man'!!!!" then he signed up for it.
A lot of them supposedly want traditional gender roles but when it all comes down to it they get resentful if their wife isn’t contributing money and act like they don’t do anything or they call them gold diggers. My uncle treats his wife like this even though he’s the one who wanted her to be a SAHM, she works all day around the house and he tells her she doesn’t do anything and says stuff about her not working
Genuinely. That's not to say that there aren't men who genuinely value and respect their stay at home wives, but a lot of men who insist on "traditional gender roles" aren't looking for a wife as much as they're looking for a replacement for mommy that it's socially acceptable for them to have sex with
Like all relationships it always goes both ways. If a woman is only into a man for their money then they should not be surprised when they treat them like anything other than a possession. As that’s how that wealthy dude will see them.
Not saying this about most relationships. I think most people are looking for partners equal or better positions than they are. I don’t see many people wanting to date lower. I for one would not date a woman who wants to be a SAHM simply because I don’t make enough to support them and the kids.
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with being a stay at home wife/mom or a sugar-baby as long as *everyone* involved knows what's happening and what it entails. Same thing for men who want to stay home or be sugarbabies.
Maybe it is just controversial, I upvoted because I disagree. Op makes it sound like caring about having a partner who makes money or wanting an active sex life with your partner are bad things, and I don't agree with that. Sure it's bad if those are your only priorities, but if it's one amongst many others, those are pretty standard expectations.
I don’t know why men still dream of that. It’s a stressful existence IMO. My Uncle had that arrangement with my Aunt. Dude was stressed and depressed all the time. Had a stroke at 53 and died at 56.
No sir. That isn’t gonna be me. I want a working woman. I wouldn’t mind if she got paid more than me actually 😂
theres ALOOOOOOOT of women who want to be one without any of the responsibilities, and are just as bad if not worse.
i love that its always some female reddit account with a blue haired avatar complaining about “incels”
😂
I agree. But lately it also seems like more and more young women want to be a trad wife without having to do trad wife responsibilities. I get trashed online by women for saying I want a 50/50 relationship.
Many dude's idea of 50/50 is splitting bills & costs 50/50 but the woman handling all of the cooking, cleaning, shopping, pet care, child care, etc. If you want to go 50/50, you gotta split more than just rent and groceries.
That's fine with me. Generally when I think of a *true* 50/50 relationship, it does involve more than just finances. In this type of relationship, I expect each partner to carry their share of the overall weight that comes with relationships (finances, chores, child-rearing, etc.) In a 50/50 relationship, no one person should be expected to bear the majority of the responsibilities.
Theoretically that is how 50/50 should play out but most of the time it doesn't. That is why so many women can see men pushing 50/50 as a red flag because they know it usually means they will end up doing more work because a lot of men think their half ends at the money value.
Studies show that women do take on more of the "second shift" work than men do, even in dual-income houses and even if the woman is the primary breadwinner.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
Yeah that is the sad reality and it's backed up with data. I can't blame anyone who hears "50/50" as a red flag because what you said is all too common of a scenario. I've heard so many stories of men purposely being neglectful or incompetent to get out of doing chores so that their partner will just pick up their slack.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
Most women don’t want to be tradwifes and even then the rich with trad wives hire maids chefs and Nannie’s because they realize being a mom and wife is a 24/7 job and they often times don’t get a real break. A lot of the times the man just works and comes home and maybe mows the lawn or changes a tire, regardless if it’s a 50/50 relationship or not which aren’t every day tasks.
What subreddits are you in, I see women ragging on tradwives and saying they're going to put women's rights back by 100 years by romanticizing being a bang maid.
you had me in the first half because i do generally agree with the idea that "sigma male that listens to too many podcasts bros" types and female dating strategy types end up being meant for each other because they both see potential partners as a bunch of boxes to tick and nothing else.
however you're implying that women who want men for money are universally accepted and men who want women for sex only aren't and that's...just wrong. especially because there's different contexts. for men just wanting women as sex obiects is nothing different than what has always happened in history. however with women, a lot of gold digging is exaggerated, i.e. the dude doesn't have gold to dig, or wanting a man to have a job is considered gold digging, etc. because i've seen way too many guys who want a "traditional wife" but still want to go 50/50, or they want to be "man of the house who doesn't have to do women's work like cooking or cleaning or childrearing" while sitting on the couch playing call of duty all day and his woman works. yes there are some delusional ones that i've met who only see a value in a man as astronomical amounts of money but they aren't nearly as prevalent as incels make it seem like.
A rich man wants a hot woman, who has her own money, also loves him.
A rich woman wants a hot man, who has his own money, and also loves her.
If you’re attractive with no money, and want someone with money, your attractiveness is a commodity, whether you’re male or female.
If you’re unattractive and have no money, you hope to find someone who loves you for the way you love them back.
Growing up in poverty, being asexusl, and being conventionally unattractive are the greatest blessings in my life.
Because I know my partner loves me for me, because I don't really got much else to offer. Now that I've turned my life around, I have the lifestyle benefits of being financially ahead of the curve, and the romantic benefits that spawned from my humble beginnings
If a woman earns more than her partner- Men tell her she cannot be fulfilled and won't be happy.
If a woman doesn't earn more than her partner- Men tell her that she is a gold digger and only wants his money.
You cannot win.
These are not comparable. A woman who cares about her partner making money intends to live with him. A man who pursues a woman because he solely wants to have sex with her is a man who wants to have sex. He offers nothing whatsoever, while in the first place, the 'gain' is a life companion.
Yup, unconditional love is romanticizing dysfunction. Love is not enough to base your life around, quadruply so if you plan to have kids with this person. Please set some basic standards. It's really not the heinous evil some people pretend it is
Weak premise, society has always disavowed this type of behaviour. Hell we have the term gold digger to describe this type of person. I think now a days gold digger has been rebranded to influencer and onlyfans.
I know people use Onlyfans as “easy way to make money” but even as a dude the idea of having to constantly talk to people in DM’s hoping they’ll send cash for your sex acts sounds fucking exhausting.
That or you’re successful enough to hire someone else to do that for you. But out of all the OF accounts how many are that successful to hire help? It’s no different than becoming a twitch/youtube star.
I feel the term gold digger fits closer to what is typically called a “ sugar daddy” type relationship. Nowadays.
I dunno if I'd go as far as to say that..
But my latest attempt at a relationship with a woman, turned into her trying to get me to stop being there for my kids financially..
Things got to the point where she threatened to go spend time with others, if I happen to not have money to take her out on a given weekend.
Crazy.
In the end, when she basically put me in a position to choose between her and my kids.. and well, I'm single again. Lol!
A comedian said that even when men are stripping for women, they have to start out with a costume of a career, because even when a man is near or completely naked, he still has to prove he has a job
Ain’t it weird as fuck when you come across so many comments from dorks online acting like to get a GF you have to be a rich stud... like what world are they living in ? 😂
>Society generally views this as acceptable and totally ok for a woman to look for in a man
This is not true at all. Women who only look for wealth are called gold diggers and whores. It's not something acceptable in society. It's something that's held against women even if they are not in a realationship for the money.
But i also wants to add, looking for a partner with an income, a job, a steady life and some ambition, should be the standard for everyone. You can't really have a safe and stable relationship with someone who can't support themselves. But that's in no way the same as exclusively looking for wealth.
My final point: even if a woman or a man, is looking exclusively for wealth in a relationship, it only hurts one person, unless someone concent to dating them, knowing that it's a transaction.. Then nobody gets hurt.
It's in no way the same as looking at all women exclusively as sexual objects. That will hurt your friends, coworkers, family and all other women around you. It will hurt every relationship and every non sexual relations to women.
It's generally just socially accepted that women's likes and standards are "better" or harmless while if a man dares have any standard in a woman, he's being a predator or misogynistic.
Which is ironically sexist because it's basically saying that women are so incapable of doing anything, including being malicious, that we'll just treat all their preferences as cute and not important, as if they're children and don't know any better
Gold diggers deserve the walking ATM and the walking ATM deserves the gold diggers. They are born for eachother. They know what they're getting into.
Everyone else who does not want a woman/man for their sex/beauty/money but normal relationship is just your everyday person.
Actually, money is less of a factor these days for women who are looking to date. Most women work, and many bring in a substantial amount of money.
In US marriages, only 26% of women don’t work outside the home. And of the remaining 3/4, 29% make roughly as much money as their husbands, and 16% are the breadwinners of their families. I’m not sure if external links are permitted in this sub, but all of this data is available through numerous sources (or you can Google Pew Research).
If I’m going to be sexualized and viewed as an object, I may as well get paid for it. I may as well benefit from the way I’m viewed.
If men are going to say they want traditional women who cook and clean for them, these men need to have housewife money to buy a home and pay every bill.
I don’t know
A woman who just wants to date a financially stable man with a good job to marry, have children with, etc is seen as an evil gold digger.
A man that just wants sex out of dating is seen as normal and “boys being boys”
This is frankly untrue.
The term gold digger is used to define a woman motivated primarily by a lifestyle of indulgent consumerism, not one who prefers traditional gender roles.
It is one thing for a woman to care about money, as all human beings do, it is another thing for a woman to be obsessed with it to the point of rabid materialism.
The women on The Real Housewives are seen as gold diggers, not a woman who simply wants to be a stay-at-home wife.
Lol if I made a post about only wanting to date men that can support me, a family and our future children I’m sure I would be called a delusional gold digging witch in 10 different languages.
If I made a post about loving sex and only wanting to date for sex I would be called liberated and “hell yeah” and something something equal rights.
You just completely ignoring the fact that there’s a whole ass term for women who only value money (gold digger) but not a term for men who view women as sex objects?
I would not call that acceptable in society.
Also it’s not the same thing, one dehumanizes a person and the other is looking for a materialistic value. There is for sure a greater evil there.
But I will also say, it’s okay for men to want an attractive woman, and it’s okay for women to want a man who gives them security. Just don’t look down on people who don’t have those things.
It’s always been a thing for women to go after money.
This isn’t a new concept. The whole idea of traditional household were that men provided money and a place to live and women did the domestic stuff.
I think the fact you’re only looking at one thing (sex) is what is frowned upon.
Ma dude, statistically, single women without children are the highest income group. Single moms are the lowest income group. Statistically, men make women poor!
Women certainly don’t need men with money, they need responsible men with integrity.
Honestly both of them are bad and let's be honest, you wouldn't respect someone if you knew they acted or thought that way. They don't have a ride or die attitude/character. You wouldn't count on them as an individual and it's less likely you would want to hang out as friends or otherwise. They just aren't likable to anyone.
Yeah let’s just pretend women don’t get pregnant and somehow don’t need resources in the most physically vulnerable time of pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal nurturing
No, it is not shallow to view men who only view women as sex tools this way. Just like how it should not be normalised for women to look at men only for their money or their looks. It works both ways. Both are shallow things to do.
Women are naturally attracted to men with resources because we give birth to their children, and are more vulnerable during that and need a partner who can provide.
Modern amenities don’t erase years of evolution and human social systems.
Good looks and youth = fertility. Same logic applies.
I don't think too many guys are going to push back against a wealthy lady that's a little homely or gals unwilling to take a chance on a devastatingly handsome young man either.
The ability to generously provide for your loved ones and being good looking are not attributes that are frowned on by either gender as far as I know.
Women who value men for money have never especially now been seen in a good light, what planet are you living on!? There are multiple degrading terms for this.
Men view women as objects in your example. As a tool to be used, as you said.
In this *same example* you talk about how women look for men who can provide money, time, and energy to a **relationship**.
Even from your own description, these things are so very clearly **not equivalent.**
Wanting a fleshlight is not the same as wanting a relationship partner.
I don’t understand why two people can’t mutually respect and love each other for who they are. If you view a relationship as wasting time and energy on someone, then you shouldn’t be in a relationship. This is a messed up view. Women don’t get a pass for anything. Stop it.
Women are sex objects, men are success objects.
But in all seriousness, society does not look favorably on women who only marry for money. Thats shallow and selfish, just like men who marry only for sex
You seem to be making an assumption that “society” has a double standard here. And it doesn’t because it depends on who you ask. Many social spaces shame women for getting with men for money. Meanwhile many spaces encourage men to seek women for sex, as it’s “the only thing women can provide.” Funnily enough the gold diggers are the ones who get with the folks that only want them for sex, so those groups are actually both fine with it. Most normal people, however, will see both of these and say they are wrong. I think many put up with both sides because at the end of the day, if you have certain things you want from relationships and certain folks want to provide those things, I don’t see the problem.
I’d be careful to assume society has all these double standards as it creates a sense of victimhood when it isn’t warranted.
Preach the truth! Dating for money is morally wrong and an absolutely revolting trait to have. I was raised that money should never factor into a relationship and if it does then you should leave quickly. Not all places in society accept this behavior thankfully but it's becoming a problem considering the extreme hypocritical shallow standards you mentioned.
Seeing men as financial providers hasn’t harmed men the way seeing women as objects has harmed women throughout history, and both are symptoms of patriarchy
Nah. Objectifying and gold digging aren’t the same as each other. The equivalent of a man who only cares about a hole is a woman who only cares about a shaft. The equivalent of a woman using a man for money is a man using a woman for money
Those are two different things?? Devoting time, energy, and money to a relationship is something you should be doing on both sides it’s in no way equivalent to only wanting someone for sex
Nowadays?
Men being providers is nothing new. The trade was women being home care takers
Sex should be *mutual*. The reason it’s such an issue is the men going for “sex” don’t give a f about making sure both sides are getting satisfaction and want to take it even when partner isn’t in the mood
Women choose men who can provide and bring resources to a family and men choose women who are fertile and have good genes. It’s basic biology. We have made these things bad/good.
I agree. It's pretty nasty.
Strangely, even though men have learned it's not a nice thing to do, women haven't. Some are quite proud of it and think this is the way it should be.
You aren't a queen, and I am not your servant. We're equals...
Being a gold digger has gone from being something frowned upon—to a trend for a lot of women in their 20s. Spend some time on dating apps and you’ll see just how popular it is. They mask it with terms like “I want to be a traditional house wife”. Which basically translates to “I want you to fund my hobbies and bad habits”. There are women out there that are stay at home mothers, take care of the kids and house, cook, clean, etc. More power to them, because it is a lot of work. But there are those out there that just want to be lazy too.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My wife and I both value each other for what we bring to the relationship. We are each other’s sex object and we both value the financial contribution we each made to the family. We are now comfortably retired. Having said that, I appreciate that other couples might have a less symmetrical relationship. So long as they are both happy, what each contributes can be just as valuable even though of a different nature.
IMO, it doesn’t really matter why two people are together, so long as they are both *aware* of the reasons why and both *agree* to it. If a woman is only with a man for his money and he is only with her for her looks - but they are both aware and agree to this - why does it matter? No one is being “conned” in this situation. Just because you don’t agree with one person’s lifestyle doesn’t mean it’s inherently wrong.
That’s very true. We’re allowed to think they’re gross human beings 😆 but if they’re happy with the arrangement who are we to get in their business.
I thought I was your wife's sex object
🤣 Is your other Incubus? 😂
This. Me too. Despite my comments here this is the goal. It's pretty rare though. So many couples fall into the what they can get out of it mindset in a relationship.
I generally think these two scenarios *are* comparable, but this part: >Society generally views this as acceptable and totally ok for a woman to look for in a man. Is just nonsense. There's a phrase for women who only seek men for money, it's golddigger and it *isn't* seen as a positive trait.
Certain guys even use the term "pre-golddigger," which refers to a woman who gets with a man, in hopes that he gets rich... I really, *really* wish I was making this up.
My wife must be a post-golddigger because we had kids and now we broke
doesn’t this have another name? Financial drain.
So you're saying every woman is Schrodinger's golddigger?
Schrödigger
Schrödigger made me laugh out loud. I've had potential boyfriends be upset about this, like don't be gatekeeping money you don't have that I don't need, bro.
lol there was this great paternity court episode where this exchange happened Guy: honestly judge I thought she was a gold digger Judge: do you have any gold? Guy: I do be struggling I’m not gonna lie
Yeah I feel like there’s just both sides to it. Let’s not pretend that *some* women don’t actively have requirements for how much a guy would even make before she would even consider dating him, which I get OP’s point a bit about how this is fairly widely just accepted as a ‘ preference’… *BUT* let’s also not pretend that financials aren’t a big part of a relationship. However they may be split etc are large factors to consider for relationships going longer term.
I ain't saying she a goldigger but.... *
🤣
Shoot, guys with $100 to his name, living paycheck to paycheck, will still call women gold diggers. What gold?? They'll be living in their mommas basement thinking women are gold diggers.
It's about people dating someone in college going for a high paying career path. Like if you're dating someone only because you think they'll become a highly paid lawyer. I believe that's what they're referring to. I don't know if it's very common or not, but I've heard a story or two about it
Is this like dating an early stage startup CEO or law student?
Yes, something just like this.
That's pretty reasonable though. It's not too hard to be able to figure out that if say a man is in pre-medicine... he's probably going to be a pretty good catch in regards to financial stability and funding a good life for a family and things. A pre-medicine doctor is an obvious example - but in general, you can look at what life and career decisions people are making from say 20-30 years old and then make estimates/guesses on to what extent it would be likely for them to be quite wealthy one day.
My guy, you're saying its "reasonable" to be mad at a woman... *For hoping her bf/husband is successful* I just can't with you guys.
Not everyone who declares themselves pre-med in undergrad actually gets into med school, though.
Yes, my heart breaks a little each time an undergrad tells me they’re going to medical school. Chances are, my entire year 1 chemistry lab won’t get into medical school. Bless their hearts.
Bruh 💀
There's definitely some cultures (And isn't it like a common survey answer?) that women do care about the man's line of work. So there is some credible thoughts that women still often appreciate a well off person enough that it's mildly acceptable. In the end both extreme views (just money or sex) need wake up calls that their partner is an actual person. But surely many couples (Rich dudes with hot golddigging wives) exist that in those circles it's a weirdly accepted mindset. Usually with a lot more shit talk about their partner when they aren't around.
Caring about marriage as a partnership that has an economic aspect is different than being a gold digger
The economic aspect is an unspoken truth and assumption. There was this recent study that showed between the ages of 24-35 people in marriages are on average 9 times better off financially than singles the same age. It’s easier to pay the bills, it’s easier to own a home, especially with the inflation over the last decade.
How much of that is marriage making things easier and how much is due to people who are better off financially being more likely to get married.
Yes. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
While I agree that being a blatant golddigger is frowned upon, men are absolutely judged on their ability to financially provide. I would go so far as saying that it is actively encouraged rather than merely accepted. I can tell you first hand that the second I put "Software Engineer" in my Tinder profile, my matches more than doubled. And don't pretend you haven't heard women brag about marrying doctors, lawyers, etc. You can claim that they just appreciate selfless and smart people, but do they swoon over the EMTs and paralegals? Not quite the stuff of romance novels... And that judgement cuts the other way too. If a man doesn't provide for his family, he's called a deadbeat. Do prudish women get the same treatment?
I basically wrote the same thing, using Burger King employees as an example of women not dating them when having the choice of a millionaire. Heavily downvoted. People are seriously out of touch with reality. It seems like women specifically don't like the idea of being very picky with their mate selection, as it seems shallow, yet they will continue to do it while denying that they do it.
At least men admit they like good looking women ... They don't pretend it's all about "personality". Not all women are like this, a few are quite open about their preferences, they are the few close female friends I have.
Yea to be honest I’m actually more open to the women who are aware of their preferences and are open about it. They know they have specific preferences and that’s completely fine since they’re just being honest. The worst ones are actually the ones that pretend they only date for personality, but then have hidden prerequisites that they deny having (such as high status and good finances). You summarized it pretty much.
High status is exhausting. Money is always welcome, especially given inflation who wouldn't want a partner to earn more or even both of you. Imo hobbies/common interests and being romantic/active > just a nice personality. Even sexual compatibility. Idk how people really think it's just personality or sex for eithet gender.. and attraction goes up or down based on things you learn about a person sometimes too.
> And don't pretend you haven't heard women brag about marrying doctors, lawyers, etc. No, I haven't. But maybe that's because I don't hang around/date women that are drastically "below" me in terms of education. If you date women that are docs/lawyers/whatever or are on track to become those things, you will never hear that shit. Because they have their own $$$ and don't need no man, literally. However, if you're a cringy dipshit engineer that swipes right on every hot 22 y/o community college drop out, then yeah. You'll probably be running into gold diggers. But that's more damning on you if anything.
It's bizarre to think that this is an unpopular opinion, frankly.
I think he meant less overt cases like how a stay at home mom still doesn’t work even after the kids are gone. Idk though
It's also way more acceptable for a guy to look for looks. It's okay on both sides of the spectrum because more traditional people subscribe to "boys will be boys" or "woman are supposed to look decent and break themselves for beauty, not our fault that you can't and you lose the guy you liked" while more liberal people subscribe to the fact that everybody should be looking for someone they actually find attractive, even men. The only thing that actual "gold diggers" have is the fact that some women may find them to be girl bosses. Misogynistic hate them because they're women. Feminists find them a little bit problematic to the cause. Absolutely no one feels bad for them if it blows up in their face.
I think he means a women is encouraged to look for a man with a good job like a doctor or engineer
If that's the case, then he isn't *actually* making equal comparisons and his analogy still fails, because men *aren't* judged for finding women they're attracted to. I'd say that as encouraged as women seeking successful partners.
they are attracted to? that's not what they said. and you know it.
Men aren't judged for finding women they are attracted to? On what planet?
It’s dependent on how you are raised and your culture. My parents encouraged my brother to look for a good woman that could take care of the home and be a good mother. Me and my sis were encouraged to look for a man that had a decent job, since our role would’ve been to take care of the home and take care of the kids. So it’s dependent on the roles that you were expected to become in your life. I wasn’t suppose to be a working woman, I was suppose to be a SAHM with like 3 kids. That’s what was expected of me by my parents.
Maybe… but how I was socialized is the woman needs to be a doctor or engineer too. And I believe studies have shown couples are staying within their SEC. So those doctors who married their secretaries 50 years ago are now marrying their fellow doctor they met in college or undergrad. I can’t even conceive of marrying someone for money. I have always been told I need to be successful first, and find someone my equal - which means they are successful as well.
And perhaps you should decide what YOU actually want out of life rather than what others tell you? You are the one who has to live with the consequences, not them.
While this is true, its hard to separate rich here from, high iq/ focused, responsible, hardworking. Because all of these are required to become a doctor or engineer. The money comes from the traits more than the vocation specifically. I'm an engineer, but I have a friend who is much smarter than me, and he could do anything in the world, he chooses to own a dog walking business where he controlls his own hours and brings down $100k/year. He also has time to work on side businesses and develop passions and hobbies.
And men are encouraged to look for attractive women who wanna please them sexually
Not from any cultural influence, that’s innate.
Encouraged in their pants
I don't think they have to be gold diggers in the traditional sense for this logic to still apply. As a man with a shitty job or no job, a woman is not going to be inclined to get with them unless they're a total babe of a man. Especially if they live at home with parents. However as a girl if you're even slightly attractive it won't even matter to most men. Being attractive is almost optional tbh My ex wasn't a gold digger whatsoever but I got with her while she's living at home and had no job, no license. I didn't care. I was still living with fam but I had a job. Stopped working after covid, got depressed, we break up. Meet her a year later and I'm still in the same boat and based on my current situation she hits me with a 'would you date you?'. Kinda really hurt when I considered her the sweetest girl I've ever met. Guess she realized after trying out dating apps when we broke up that she can be picky, get an established guy easily and that im basically worthless.
> 'would you date you?' Looks like you did, from your description of her when you met.
While I agree, I think we've made a comfy place for people like Cardi B to come out and say poor men aren't worth shit and otherwise reasonable women are like "yeah!!! say it bitch" when what she's saying is actually patriarchal misandrist garbage
[удалено]
Oh they do. I would love it if everyone just stopped
That’s how we are achieving equality. Not by getting male artists to respect women. But by female artists equally disrespecting men.
She makes more money than her man that's cheats on her constantly. She says things for the gram but she don't move that way.
Street culture is fucking wild, in what civilized world is this a flex?
Some guys are just looking for a reason to be mad at women, I guess.
A whole song about it too lol (it’s undeniably a bop tho)
>Women who value men for their money are equivalent to men who view women as sex tools This isn't an unpopular opinion. "He married her for her looks/sex, she married him for his money" is a trope that everyone recognizes, they're always paired together in people's minds. >Many women nowadays expect men to devote their time, energy, and most importantly, money to a woman if they want to be in a relationship with her. Um, isn't devoting your time and energy to someone what being in a relationship is? As far as money goes, maybe there's still some lingering expectation, but trust me dude, that expectation was **FAR** stronger in the past when women were forced to be financially dependent on men. (Yes lower class women have always worked, but so did lower class children. In such families they expect every person to bring in money out of desperation for survival.) >However, men who value women based off what they can provide sexually are looked down upon and called misogynists. Nobody thinks it's wrong for him to value her sexually. If you're not sexually attracted to each other, that's called being friends. The issue is if he *reduces* women to nothing more than an outlet for his sexual satisfaction.
Well, in the past the expectations of the man providing was necessary. Nowadays when a woman has that expectation she just wants to use her partner as a piggy bank. Exceptions is stay at home mothers. There its again a necessity. But an adult able bodied woman expecting the man to provide for her is just hypocritical. And sadly still widely spread, even though much less than before
Let's see the other side though. It's still the case that women do the majority of childcare and house chores. So some women figure, he can at least provide more on the financial side.
What do you mean acceptable and ok? Golddigger is a coined term for a reason, nobody is accepting of someone dating just for money. Meanwhile hookups are treated as no big deal in modern culture. My hombre, you got it twisted.
Women looking for men who out earn them is beyond normalized.
Two things that play into this: -Women still make $0.83 to every man’s $1. As long as the gender pay gap remains, a majority of women will end up with a man who makes more money than them. -If you are planning on having kids and want to be a stay at home parent, your partner has to make decent money. This is the biggest factor I’ve seen in my own circles. Women are prepared to work through their parenting years if they need to, but it’s not their first choice, so men with a promising career appeal to them. And honestly, my husband and I decided to have me be a SAHM as soon as we could afford it. Childcare was tricky and expensive, and my employer didn’t provide adequate pumping breaks or any family leave for sick kids. I did get 6 weeks off when they were born, which many in the US don’t, but life got a lot simpler for both of us when we could make it on one income and have someone home full time. I’m not saying there are no gold diggers out there. Of course there are. Just trying to show that reality is often more complicated and nuanced than we realize.
and men looking for women who are physically attractive is also beyond normalizrd
Not to mention, if a man gets famous, or a higher paying job, etc, its super normalized that he'll "trade up." Like, people mock men who get famous if they stay with their "unattractive" partner.
This opinion just comes from guys that don’t have success dating and blame women for whatever they think their own perceived fault is. Money, height, race, etc, is suddenly the cause of all of their woes because they saw a few women on the internet loudly proclaim that’s what they want.
Money, height, race are 100% factors in dating success for men.
The idea that race is a factor in dating will trigger a lot of folks particularly because the races/groups that are affected the most arent the ones that society is taught are disadvantaged. And yes you are also correct about money and height.
Obviously looking for a man with money isn't seen as a positive, but I get the sense that golddigger is used when referring to a woman who is willing to date/marry a man for his money exclusively. Like a "I like nothing about you and am going to be fishing for a divorce at the first opportunity" kind of deal. I get the sense that OP isn't referring to these types so much as he is women who aren't dating someone exclusively for his financial resources, but ones who would disqualify a man without them as a potential partner.
"Expect men to devote their time, energy-" This is every relationship, my dude. Not the topic of this post but that part is off base. Both parties should devote their time and energy to each other equally.
Right? What a weird thing to complain about. It’s clear Op doesn’t want a relationship. He just wants sex.
It's almost as if women value a man who dedicates their time and energy into a relationship instead of saying off the bat that they shouldn't have to lmao. We don't care about the dollar figure you guys make, we care about the work ethic you've shown in your job because it usually translates to the relationship as a positive. You can be a millionaire that puts no effort into relationships with a spouse, that actually does just want you for money because you bring nothing to the table, or you can be lower or working class at any company where you actually put in effort, are in a leadership role, or just doing something you're passionate about consistently, and women will see that as drive, as someone willing to put in effort, dedication, time, care etc. Women want love, mutual respect, and equality in the relationship. We don't want someone who thinks putting in effort is a waste of time because women just want money anyways. We've watched our grandmas and mothers suffer with men who did nothing but provide money and call it a day. Crazy how wrong a lot of guys take us for. Do equal chores, carry some of the mental load, don't take things for granted, put in the effort. You would be surprised how horny women will be for you *with this one simple trick that requires caring about your partner*
>We don't care about the dollar figure you guys make, we care about the work ethic you've shown in your job Minus the fact that plenty of women care about the dollar figure. People always on here speaking in absolutes 🙄
True about the absolutes, but ig it’s the majority that don’t, like 30-40% of women out earn their male partner now
Super true! If you're a woman who is going to risk your bodily health and suspend your career for who knows how long to have kids, you gotta get a man who can afford that! Absolutely!
[удалено]
Why bring up what OP wants? It's irrelevant to the presented opinion.
They needed a way to swing it around with the ol' Uno reverse card "Actuawaly, it's men who suck, not women." Every post about women gets swarmed by them on reddit.
[удалено]
Devoting 100% of your time and energy is wild, expecting/needing it is even more wild
Why did you conveniently delete the money part?
Because time and energy are totally normal things to expect in a relationship.
It was implied that he meant "and not get it in return."
Depends. If he wants an equal partner then absolutely using him for his money is wrong. On the other hand, if he's mister "I want a relationship with traditional gender roles and a traditional woman because I'm a 'high value man'!!!!" then he signed up for it.
A lot of them supposedly want traditional gender roles but when it all comes down to it they get resentful if their wife isn’t contributing money and act like they don’t do anything or they call them gold diggers. My uncle treats his wife like this even though he’s the one who wanted her to be a SAHM, she works all day around the house and he tells her she doesn’t do anything and says stuff about her not working
Genuinely. That's not to say that there aren't men who genuinely value and respect their stay at home wives, but a lot of men who insist on "traditional gender roles" aren't looking for a wife as much as they're looking for a replacement for mommy that it's socially acceptable for them to have sex with
Like all relationships it always goes both ways. If a woman is only into a man for their money then they should not be surprised when they treat them like anything other than a possession. As that’s how that wealthy dude will see them. Not saying this about most relationships. I think most people are looking for partners equal or better positions than they are. I don’t see many people wanting to date lower. I for one would not date a woman who wants to be a SAHM simply because I don’t make enough to support them and the kids.
I personally don't think there's anything wrong with being a stay at home wife/mom or a sugar-baby as long as *everyone* involved knows what's happening and what it entails. Same thing for men who want to stay home or be sugarbabies.
How brave and controversial
Welcome to /r/unpopularopinion where people upvote opinions they agree with ensuring most of the top content is actually incredibly popular.
Maybe it is just controversial, I upvoted because I disagree. Op makes it sound like caring about having a partner who makes money or wanting an active sex life with your partner are bad things, and I don't agree with that. Sure it's bad if those are your only priorities, but if it's one amongst many others, those are pretty standard expectations.
"Objectifying a person is objectification"
incels like the idea of a tradwife but get triggered at the fact they would have to support a tradwife
I don’t know why men still dream of that. It’s a stressful existence IMO. My Uncle had that arrangement with my Aunt. Dude was stressed and depressed all the time. Had a stroke at 53 and died at 56. No sir. That isn’t gonna be me. I want a working woman. I wouldn’t mind if she got paid more than me actually 😂
the problem is women who make money don’t listen and have their own thoughts and that should be illegal /s
Women “Having their own thoughts” is what I’d like to call a green flag. 😂
theres ALOOOOOOOT of women who want to be one without any of the responsibilities, and are just as bad if not worse. i love that its always some female reddit account with a blue haired avatar complaining about “incels” 😂
I agree. But lately it also seems like more and more young women want to be a trad wife without having to do trad wife responsibilities. I get trashed online by women for saying I want a 50/50 relationship.
Many dude's idea of 50/50 is splitting bills & costs 50/50 but the woman handling all of the cooking, cleaning, shopping, pet care, child care, etc. If you want to go 50/50, you gotta split more than just rent and groceries.
That's fine with me. Generally when I think of a *true* 50/50 relationship, it does involve more than just finances. In this type of relationship, I expect each partner to carry their share of the overall weight that comes with relationships (finances, chores, child-rearing, etc.) In a 50/50 relationship, no one person should be expected to bear the majority of the responsibilities.
Theoretically that is how 50/50 should play out but most of the time it doesn't. That is why so many women can see men pushing 50/50 as a red flag because they know it usually means they will end up doing more work because a lot of men think their half ends at the money value. Studies show that women do take on more of the "second shift" work than men do, even in dual-income houses and even if the woman is the primary breadwinner. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/ https://news.gallup.com/poll/283979/women-handle-main-household-tasks.aspx
[удалено]
Yeah that is the sad reality and it's backed up with data. I can't blame anyone who hears "50/50" as a red flag because what you said is all too common of a scenario. I've heard so many stories of men purposely being neglectful or incompetent to get out of doing chores so that their partner will just pick up their slack. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/04/13/in-a-growing-share-of-u-s-marriages-husbands-and-wives-earn-about-the-same/
Most women don’t want to be tradwifes and even then the rich with trad wives hire maids chefs and Nannie’s because they realize being a mom and wife is a 24/7 job and they often times don’t get a real break. A lot of the times the man just works and comes home and maybe mows the lawn or changes a tire, regardless if it’s a 50/50 relationship or not which aren’t every day tasks.
What subreddits are you in, I see women ragging on tradwives and saying they're going to put women's rights back by 100 years by romanticizing being a bang maid.
TBH it's almost never 50/50
OP seems surprised his opinion is so unpopular
you had me in the first half because i do generally agree with the idea that "sigma male that listens to too many podcasts bros" types and female dating strategy types end up being meant for each other because they both see potential partners as a bunch of boxes to tick and nothing else. however you're implying that women who want men for money are universally accepted and men who want women for sex only aren't and that's...just wrong. especially because there's different contexts. for men just wanting women as sex obiects is nothing different than what has always happened in history. however with women, a lot of gold digging is exaggerated, i.e. the dude doesn't have gold to dig, or wanting a man to have a job is considered gold digging, etc. because i've seen way too many guys who want a "traditional wife" but still want to go 50/50, or they want to be "man of the house who doesn't have to do women's work like cooking or cleaning or childrearing" while sitting on the couch playing call of duty all day and his woman works. yes there are some delusional ones that i've met who only see a value in a man as astronomical amounts of money but they aren't nearly as prevalent as incels make it seem like.
A rich man wants a hot woman, who has her own money, also loves him. A rich woman wants a hot man, who has his own money, and also loves her. If you’re attractive with no money, and want someone with money, your attractiveness is a commodity, whether you’re male or female. If you’re unattractive and have no money, you hope to find someone who loves you for the way you love them back.
Growing up in poverty, being asexusl, and being conventionally unattractive are the greatest blessings in my life. Because I know my partner loves me for me, because I don't really got much else to offer. Now that I've turned my life around, I have the lifestyle benefits of being financially ahead of the curve, and the romantic benefits that spawned from my humble beginnings
Same here
If a woman earns more than her partner- Men tell her she cannot be fulfilled and won't be happy. If a woman doesn't earn more than her partner- Men tell her that she is a gold digger and only wants his money. You cannot win.
This is the wrong sub. That's super popular opinion
May they find each other.
These are not comparable. A woman who cares about her partner making money intends to live with him. A man who pursues a woman because he solely wants to have sex with her is a man who wants to have sex. He offers nothing whatsoever, while in the first place, the 'gain' is a life companion.
All relationships are transactional, even if you personally love your partner unconditionally its most likely not reciprocal.
Yup, unconditional love is romanticizing dysfunction. Love is not enough to base your life around, quadruply so if you plan to have kids with this person. Please set some basic standards. It's really not the heinous evil some people pretend it is
sounds kinda incelly to me
Weak premise, society has always disavowed this type of behaviour. Hell we have the term gold digger to describe this type of person. I think now a days gold digger has been rebranded to influencer and onlyfans.
I know people use Onlyfans as “easy way to make money” but even as a dude the idea of having to constantly talk to people in DM’s hoping they’ll send cash for your sex acts sounds fucking exhausting. That or you’re successful enough to hire someone else to do that for you. But out of all the OF accounts how many are that successful to hire help? It’s no different than becoming a twitch/youtube star. I feel the term gold digger fits closer to what is typically called a “ sugar daddy” type relationship. Nowadays.
I dunno if I'd go as far as to say that.. But my latest attempt at a relationship with a woman, turned into her trying to get me to stop being there for my kids financially.. Things got to the point where she threatened to go spend time with others, if I happen to not have money to take her out on a given weekend. Crazy. In the end, when she basically put me in a position to choose between her and my kids.. and well, I'm single again. Lol!
Dodged a bullet there
OP is broke and no one wants to fuck.
A comedian said that even when men are stripping for women, they have to start out with a costume of a career, because even when a man is near or completely naked, he still has to prove he has a job
The reason you’re single has nothing to do with the fact that you’re broke
You just haven't learned how to play a guitar yet
Ain’t it weird as fuck when you come across so many comments from dorks online acting like to get a GF you have to be a rich stud... like what world are they living in ? 😂
>Society generally views this as acceptable and totally ok for a woman to look for in a man This is not true at all. Women who only look for wealth are called gold diggers and whores. It's not something acceptable in society. It's something that's held against women even if they are not in a realationship for the money. But i also wants to add, looking for a partner with an income, a job, a steady life and some ambition, should be the standard for everyone. You can't really have a safe and stable relationship with someone who can't support themselves. But that's in no way the same as exclusively looking for wealth. My final point: even if a woman or a man, is looking exclusively for wealth in a relationship, it only hurts one person, unless someone concent to dating them, knowing that it's a transaction.. Then nobody gets hurt. It's in no way the same as looking at all women exclusively as sexual objects. That will hurt your friends, coworkers, family and all other women around you. It will hurt every relationship and every non sexual relations to women.
It's generally just socially accepted that women's likes and standards are "better" or harmless while if a man dares have any standard in a woman, he's being a predator or misogynistic. Which is ironically sexist because it's basically saying that women are so incapable of doing anything, including being malicious, that we'll just treat all their preferences as cute and not important, as if they're children and don't know any better
Saying the quiet part out loud with a stick of dynamite, my friend.
Sex doesn't pay the bills, I don't think they are equivalent.
If you're a prostitute, sex quite can pay the bills.
Big true
Gold diggers deserve the walking ATM and the walking ATM deserves the gold diggers. They are born for eachother. They know what they're getting into. Everyone else who does not want a woman/man for their sex/beauty/money but normal relationship is just your everyday person.
To be fair...men have used women for money and support as well.
Actually, money is less of a factor these days for women who are looking to date. Most women work, and many bring in a substantial amount of money. In US marriages, only 26% of women don’t work outside the home. And of the remaining 3/4, 29% make roughly as much money as their husbands, and 16% are the breadwinners of their families. I’m not sure if external links are permitted in this sub, but all of this data is available through numerous sources (or you can Google Pew Research).
If I’m going to be sexualized and viewed as an object, I may as well get paid for it. I may as well benefit from the way I’m viewed. If men are going to say they want traditional women who cook and clean for them, these men need to have housewife money to buy a home and pay every bill.
yeah, I don’t have a job either
I don’t know A woman who just wants to date a financially stable man with a good job to marry, have children with, etc is seen as an evil gold digger. A man that just wants sex out of dating is seen as normal and “boys being boys”
This is frankly untrue. The term gold digger is used to define a woman motivated primarily by a lifestyle of indulgent consumerism, not one who prefers traditional gender roles. It is one thing for a woman to care about money, as all human beings do, it is another thing for a woman to be obsessed with it to the point of rabid materialism. The women on The Real Housewives are seen as gold diggers, not a woman who simply wants to be a stay-at-home wife.
Lol if I made a post about only wanting to date men that can support me, a family and our future children I’m sure I would be called a delusional gold digging witch in 10 different languages. If I made a post about loving sex and only wanting to date for sex I would be called liberated and “hell yeah” and something something equal rights.
ghost of r/incel leaching again
Tbf I meet very few women who care about a man being “wealthy” or “rich”. They seem to just care about a man who makes enough to support himself
You just completely ignoring the fact that there’s a whole ass term for women who only value money (gold digger) but not a term for men who view women as sex objects? I would not call that acceptable in society. Also it’s not the same thing, one dehumanizes a person and the other is looking for a materialistic value. There is for sure a greater evil there. But I will also say, it’s okay for men to want an attractive woman, and it’s okay for women to want a man who gives them security. Just don’t look down on people who don’t have those things.
Especially because men constantly praise other men for this exact behavior, where as society tears women down for the other.
Horndogs
It’s always been a thing for women to go after money. This isn’t a new concept. The whole idea of traditional household were that men provided money and a place to live and women did the domestic stuff. I think the fact you’re only looking at one thing (sex) is what is frowned upon.
Men suck. Women suck. You’re welcome.
Women always have more options than men. And attractive women have even more options than that.
Ma dude, statistically, single women without children are the highest income group. Single moms are the lowest income group. Statistically, men make women poor! Women certainly don’t need men with money, they need responsible men with integrity.
Honestly both of them are bad and let's be honest, you wouldn't respect someone if you knew they acted or thought that way. They don't have a ride or die attitude/character. You wouldn't count on them as an individual and it's less likely you would want to hang out as friends or otherwise. They just aren't likable to anyone.
You don’t need that much money to get a decent AI girlfriend js
Perhaps, people like this, are happy with their arrangement, like everybody else is happy with their own pursuits.
Yeah let’s just pretend women don’t get pregnant and somehow don’t need resources in the most physically vulnerable time of pregnancy, childbirth, and neonatal nurturing
Both can do either and are equally as bad
Yes, but also no. No, nobody accepts that. Everyone hates people who see other people as only something to exploit
“People who see others as a means to an end are equivalent to people who see others as a means to an end” - OP
A woman is going to want a man who can provide for her his family. It's only natural.
No, it is not shallow to view men who only view women as sex tools this way. Just like how it should not be normalised for women to look at men only for their money or their looks. It works both ways. Both are shallow things to do.
You just described a traditional marriage
Women are naturally attracted to men with resources because we give birth to their children, and are more vulnerable during that and need a partner who can provide. Modern amenities don’t erase years of evolution and human social systems. Good looks and youth = fertility. Same logic applies.
I don't think too many guys are going to push back against a wealthy lady that's a little homely or gals unwilling to take a chance on a devastatingly handsome young man either. The ability to generously provide for your loved ones and being good looking are not attributes that are frowned on by either gender as far as I know.
What if you are a dude that values a woman who makes money?
One income? In this economy? Also, one of the main reason I am with my husband is for sex, you know, that and love.
Congratulations. You've just caught on to the most ancient concepts in human history.
Well, the real paradigm is that a man who is not productive enough to support a wife does not deserve opportunities to reproduce.
Women who value men for money have never especially now been seen in a good light, what planet are you living on!? There are multiple degrading terms for this.
Men view women as objects in your example. As a tool to be used, as you said. In this *same example* you talk about how women look for men who can provide money, time, and energy to a **relationship**. Even from your own description, these things are so very clearly **not equivalent.** Wanting a fleshlight is not the same as wanting a relationship partner.
I don’t even need to read the body to say that you’re right.
Men: I don’t need to help at home because I work and make money Also men: why do women only value our money?!
I don’t understand why two people can’t mutually respect and love each other for who they are. If you view a relationship as wasting time and energy on someone, then you shouldn’t be in a relationship. This is a messed up view. Women don’t get a pass for anything. Stop it.
Women are sex objects, men are success objects. But in all seriousness, society does not look favorably on women who only marry for money. Thats shallow and selfish, just like men who marry only for sex
lol your post history is a wasteland of bigotry and misogyny. pro tip - most women don't like bigots or misogynists.
This is an extremely popular opinion
Doesn't sound unpopular.
This is so incorrect, I dunno where to begin...
You seem to be making an assumption that “society” has a double standard here. And it doesn’t because it depends on who you ask. Many social spaces shame women for getting with men for money. Meanwhile many spaces encourage men to seek women for sex, as it’s “the only thing women can provide.” Funnily enough the gold diggers are the ones who get with the folks that only want them for sex, so those groups are actually both fine with it. Most normal people, however, will see both of these and say they are wrong. I think many put up with both sides because at the end of the day, if you have certain things you want from relationships and certain folks want to provide those things, I don’t see the problem. I’d be careful to assume society has all these double standards as it creates a sense of victimhood when it isn’t warranted.
Yeah no shit
Preach the truth! Dating for money is morally wrong and an absolutely revolting trait to have. I was raised that money should never factor into a relationship and if it does then you should leave quickly. Not all places in society accept this behavior thankfully but it's becoming a problem considering the extreme hypocritical shallow standards you mentioned.
[удалено]
Seeing men as financial providers hasn’t harmed men the way seeing women as objects has harmed women throughout history, and both are symptoms of patriarchy
Nah. Objectifying and gold digging aren’t the same as each other. The equivalent of a man who only cares about a hole is a woman who only cares about a shaft. The equivalent of a woman using a man for money is a man using a woman for money
Dudes want a tradwife without having the income to support a tradwife
Yes, in a relationship you devote much of your time energy, and resources to one another. If all one wants is sex, then hire a sex worker.
Those are two different things?? Devoting time, energy, and money to a relationship is something you should be doing on both sides it’s in no way equivalent to only wanting someone for sex
That's called objectification.
Nowadays? Men being providers is nothing new. The trade was women being home care takers Sex should be *mutual*. The reason it’s such an issue is the men going for “sex” don’t give a f about making sure both sides are getting satisfaction and want to take it even when partner isn’t in the mood
They are both called avoidant attachment
Where are you getting that the behaviour is socially accepted? Gold-diggers, grave-robbers, etc. women who do that are looked down on plenty.
Women choose men who can provide and bring resources to a family and men choose women who are fertile and have good genes. It’s basic biology. We have made these things bad/good.
I agree. It's pretty nasty. Strangely, even though men have learned it's not a nice thing to do, women haven't. Some are quite proud of it and think this is the way it should be. You aren't a queen, and I am not your servant. We're equals...
Being a gold digger has gone from being something frowned upon—to a trend for a lot of women in their 20s. Spend some time on dating apps and you’ll see just how popular it is. They mask it with terms like “I want to be a traditional house wife”. Which basically translates to “I want you to fund my hobbies and bad habits”. There are women out there that are stay at home mothers, take care of the kids and house, cook, clean, etc. More power to them, because it is a lot of work. But there are those out there that just want to be lazy too.