When fat, unattractive men have a preference for attractive, nice bodied women it's okay. Aka " he's entitled to his preferences!!! " cause you know men love crying about being entitled to their preferences in peace.

But if a broke woman "prefers" men with money, it's a problem and the shaming ensues. What's the difference? Both prefer qualities in which they don't possess themselves...


Patriarchy?

in what reality is this a question you have?

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

I hope that's not how you really feel about the world.

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

relationships based on other elements

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

and, btw, there are plenty ppl who throw shade on fat dudes who insist they only dig fit women.

A man isn't getting back the money a woman takes from him.

You mean the things that he gives her? As in gifts ect? If I give someone something I don't expect anything in return or for them to give it back. no ones gonna "take" anything from me that I don't want them to have.

But there are a percentage of women who are gold diggers that are looking at dudes with money for the sole purpose of getting some.
So even though the man is giving her whatever willingly, she still looking to take it.

They aren't getting anything from those men that the men don't want them to have. Gifts are gifts.

And as far as the entertainers and athletes go, they know when they're sleeping with groupies and they know the risks.

Alot of men see it as a (mostly) infinitely deep and limitless well of joy and pleasure. Women often see it as something more finite - every time a woman has sex with a dude she's giving a piece of herself away to him. Which is almost exactly the same way men view spending money on women.

Sounds like a step away from slutshaming to me.

These are the classic views of sex, imo. Slutshaming was a way of saying "you, woman, should be ashamed that you give away your valuable endowment (vagina) willy nilly or to too many men." That seems to line up with what I just mentioned.

"Women often see it as something more finite - every time a woman has sex with a dude she's giving a piece of herself away to him."


and if they do, they clearly aren't sex-positive.

They aren't exclusive.

You've had the opportunity to be with women who aren't as meticulous and are more carefree about it which suits you better and that's cool too.

than feeling that you're giving something up. Sex is a shared experience. You aren't giving anything away.

giving of their bodies that way will take something from them, physically, mentally and emotionally.

^ that right there is an increasingly outdated way to think about and discuss women's sexuality.

the idea that sex for women is mostly about 'giving' anything is on the outs. ideally women are receiving pleasure (and other things) as much as they're giving it (or anything else).

Total co-sign.

Which may hold value to one person and not the other. Both are fine.

It's with whom they decide to have it, and under what circumstances. Women have tended to be way more judicious about that than men, at least in Western society in the last couple hundred years.

>Women often see it as
>something more finite - every time a woman has sex with a dude
>she's giving a piece of herself away to him.

i like to think we are shifting to a point where sex (for women) means infinite joy and pleasure

if it doesnt, we are doing something wrong

feel free to have whatever preference you want. if you're able to convince somebody to bring to the table that which you yourself don't possess then my hat's off to you...


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

At least, the ones who are bold enough to say it out loud.

A) She is effective selling herself

B) She wants what she has not earned (money)

I say, do you.

>A) She is effective selling herself

Or maybe she just likes what she likes? Liking men with money doesn't necessarily equate to selling yourself.

>B) She wants what she has not earned (money)
>

And he wants he cannot attract (usually) without the aid of money or perks. So it's about on the same level to me.

And don't act like you came in here trying to engage in a healthy discussion, which is why you got the response you got.

.

a man shallow

Fuck your fort!

That equates to promiscuity?

Fuck your fort!

unless she's a trophy wife, no man wants a woman contributing nothing to the bills

but some people are attracted to fat people

>unless she's a trophy wife, no man wants a woman contributing
>nothing to the bills
That's essentially what I'm referring too. Trophy material his physical opposite.


>but some people are attracted to fat people
I said fat and unattractive to contrast it with attractive and nice bodied. ( whatever your definition of it may be ). But I wasn't equating fat to undesirable here lol.

And to someone making hundreds of thousands of dollars, 50k a year might be "broke" to them. Where as 50k a year to someone else might not be
broke. I think they both can be subjective.

lets start there.

I'm not going to get all technical with the wording, you all get my drift.

like wearing shorts or standing indoors.

its not about getting technical but explains it (to me at least)
qualities being particular attributes that are pretty defined and hard to change
and which define what you find attractive in a person

so being fat and broke doesn't qualify
saying 'i wont date someone who is broke'
i assume means its because you attribute certain qualities to this that you would probably find unnatractive (whether or not this is even true)
but being broke is not well defined neither is it static
i could be a broke-ass student but that has nothing to do with my personality
now, if someone else thinks broke=lazy, then thats something else
and talking about shallow, materialistic people is a waste of time
(imo)

like there is a stereotype that a racist white guy will overlook his dislike of black people just to potentially get with a very attractive black woman.

So, his friends might be like: "I thought you didn't like black people?"

and he'll probably be like: "...er, she's not like the rest..." (just because she's attractive - he's ignoring all the stuff about black people he usually is wrapped up in).


So, similarly, if a broke woman is like "I hate wimpy men" and she's dating a sort of soft fellow just because he has money, her friends probably will ask: "I thought you didn't like wimpy men?"


You know, the overlooking stuff thing.

Often time these preferences are annoying because when you see the individuals that these people are actually dating it dosent add up. Nigga whose crying about how he only fucks bad bitches baby mama is a 4 and shorty whose hollering where the ballers at baby's father can't even pay child support.

am i specifically saying this? no

but maybe this is how some people view it

really at the end of the day its about the commodification of a woman's body

i.e. beauty = money, money = beauty

Living off of a well to do mommy or daddy.
They ain't earn shit, that was the luck of the draw just like beauty.
___________________________________________________________


DJTB YOMM

There are attractive, nice bodied women that are gainfully employed and like men with money.

and they're "attractive" so they do what they want.

>There are attractive, nice bodied women that are gainfully
>employed and like men with money.

I said that just to say that women of all social and economic classes can fall into the category of preferring men with money.

not just the " attractive nice bodied women " that are broke that your pointed out lol

where are they? do they exist? ive yet to meet one.

if hes fat AND ugly*? and his gal is cute? no. has literally never happened. i defy ANYONE to show me a couple that meets this criteria

* - when the man is NOT rich. Money is the great equalizer for men. hes fat, ugly and middle class or below? guaranteed his woman is grimace. @ least. if not worse.




does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

Which is why it's dumb lol

does it really matter?

wonder what bin's doing?
http://i.imgur.com/phECCMp.jpg

So many women get with the rich guys, and a good number may play them, or divorce and take half, etc. etc.

Even if a fat ugly guy gets a dime, he can't..."use her for her looks" at the same kind of level.

I mean, it's just different. And it's more of a "stupid" vs "shady" type of issue to me as well.

>So many women get with the rich guys, and a good number may
>play them, or divorce and take half, etc. etc.

I don't think "so many women" get married with the intention of playing men and getting divorced. Sometimes it happens that way not I don't think it's scheming and shady intentions from the start. At least not for a lot of women.

>Even if a fat ugly guy gets a dime, he can't..."use her for
>her looks" at the same kind of level.

He can use her for her pussy. Which to most women has value.


>I mean, it's just different. And it's more of a "stupid" vs
>"shady" type of issue to me as well.

with wastes of time.

you too old to be knocking this back and forth with even a small amount of seriousness.

Please go be above it all elsewhere.

You know since you didn't want to discuss the topic at hand, I was suggesting that you get the fuck out and explore other options that are more suited towards your personal interests. You're welcome.

think like this.

you remember me typing: 'what's it to you?'

you turned into a total spazz about that - as if asking 'why you care' is an automatic offense.

are you finding static/negative feedback when you express wanting a man with money?

people calling you a gold digger?

fat men make you made when they express they want a sexy wife?

I thought everybody just wants what they want.

I'm missing something?

And not like you wanted to engage in an honest discussion about it, which is why you got that response. I feel as though if you honestly wanted to know those things that's what you would stated to begin with. You were throwing stones and now you're hiding your hands, and I don't like it.


>think like this.
>
>you remember me typing: 'what's it to you?'
>
>you turned into a total spazz about that - as if asking 'why
>you care' is an automatic offense.
>
>are you finding static/negative feedback when you express
>wanting a man with money?
>
>people calling you a gold digger?
>
>fat men make you made when they express they want a sexy
>wife?
>
>I thought everybody just wants what they want.
>
>I'm missing something?

BUT to answer your question I think it's stems from men being cool with preferences and constantly defending their right to have these preferences( even the dumb ones) But when women have them, it's a problem.

... based on reputation'

somehow, i've been pigeon-holed into being an asshole.

and that's not okay.

i like to type about things, too.

an asshole reads like this '... this a stupid-ass question, you're crazy as a bag of cats, Hannah.'

read the difference?

anywho.

gold-diggers come in all sexes. case closed.

And it may not be outrightly aggressive, but you do it and I'm not here for it. My response to your shenanigans will not be worded as delicately as your insults disguised as an attempt to engage.

'slick shit'

you're on the cool list.

> 'slick shit'
>
>you're on the cool list.

>Patriarchy?

and jealousy, cause a woman has a higher chance finding a man with money than a fat nigga landing a nice bodied woman.

end of the day they are both things that people should be allowed to be hung up on. Eventually everybody can find somebody.

if you broke, find you someone rich. if you're unattractive, find you someone attractive. as long as you have things the other person lacks, it balances out.

unattractive men only get shamed for preferring beautiful women if they're broke. wack looking dudes with money do not get shamed at all for their taste in women. its expected they will pull a dime.

http://oi46.tinypic.com/29okef6.jpg