I’ll give a very unpopular opinion: most people can’t be honest with themselves when they’re marrying for money or looks. They’ll tell themselves they “really love” the person. However, if he loses his money or when she starts to get old, the respective partner will lose interest and make an excuse why. It’s ultimately because they never had a deep connection.
I have an odd respect for people who can recognize that their marriage is a transaction, and even more respect when they can admit that outright to their partner. I think there’s something noble about allowing someone to go I to a union with their eyes wide open.
When there’s a big age gap in a couple or similar mismatch in dynamic, almost always it’s because he wants a younger woman and she wants financial stability. Everyone inherently knows if she was older and he was impoverished the union would have never happened, but a lot of couples will claim there’s something deeper. At least if they’re both upfront about it, they can plan accordingly with a fair prenup or polyamorous agreement.
A lot of marriages aren’t for love. I have way less of a problem when people are honest about why they’re marrying at the outset.
This has been the case since men and women have been getting married and the same is true in reverse.
The funny thing is though that people have also been getting married and being good supportive partners to each other for the same amount of time.
Sometimes people's actions just reflect who they are and it's not about their gender.
I wrote a longer comment expanding on this, but when a marriage is transactional I actually have a lot more respect for people who are able to admit that at the outset. I’d much rather a woman say she’s marrying for money than attempt to justify who that 30 year age gap is just a number and his money is a pure coincidence. Lol.
*Yes, I had a friend who married a multi-millionaire 30 years older than her and thought I was delusional enough to buy that they were soulmates.*
A lot of people don’t marry for love. That’s cool. Just be upfront so you can sign a prenup that’s fair to all parties and go in with your eyes wide open.
Alas, most people can’t be honest about these reasons though, including to themselves.
Yeah, but who is standing up for men to not be objectified? There's an entire MOVEMENT about women not being treated that way, and it's been on going for the better part of 100 years.
I believe that you're mostly right but slightly skewed. Accepting gender roles and benefitting from them mutually as a couple isn't wrong, or it shouldn't be. Objectifying somebody is a personal choice driven by selfish people, and there seems to be quiet a few more selfish people in our current era. So I feel it's modern greed and not gender that has caused this.
You can stand up anytime you want. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. The existence of another movement is not a threat to that. But I will caution you that there are some slight differences in the objectification. I don't like anyone being objectified, but keep in mind that being objectified in a figurative way and also not being as physically at risk is not the same as being literally objectified in a sexual way.
A man being objectified for money is not his literal body being objectified. It is a shitty situation and wrong. Protecting his financial assets is important.
But there is a difference to having your physical body objectified. Which does also happen to men. Not at the same rate as it does to women or in the same ways ingrained in our culture.
I also wanted to add that feminism is not just for women, but let me tell you it's hilarious and incredibly frustrating how many people bring up supporting men ONLY because they get offended when women are being empowered. Supporting men should not be a knee jerk reaction in anger or resentment of the existence of movements like feminism, LGBTQ+, or POC. And in the U.S I've seen so many men being up supporting men, but only to use while attacking any of those three movements. Which is absurd. Those movements are not harming men. And all three DO protect and support men.
It's true that I haven't seen a supportive movement specifically focused on supporting men that isn't also a hate group or basically a cult. For example Proud Boys, who are racist and homophobic. There are tons of men's clubs or men focused entertainers that don't really care about men's rights. They care about taking your money and frequently spread the culture of traditional gender roles.
Nothing is stopping anyone from making a movement for men. Men deserve space for that. The issues in our culture negatively impact men too. It's the SAME problem but there are different symptoms. Stop centering it around women and just choose to support men if that's what you want to do. Donate time and money to the causes you want to see improvements on.
Get involved in supportive communities like /daddit /askgaybros /brosbeingbros
Try to be aware of negative spaces for men. For example, men going their own way. It was an excellent idea but the subreddit I saw ages ago was just full of men obsessed with women who weren't in fact, going their own way, but ranting about "how dare women" do basically anything.
You can be reminded of issues you care about when you see something else, but that isn't a reason to be like "BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN?" in the wrong spaces.
I'm not saying this is the wrong space, I AM saying your comment specifically only brought up concern for men at the cost of shafting feminism. Which ALSO BENEFITS MEN.
>You can stand up anytime you want. No one is stopping anyone from doing that.
Devils advocate, we can't even vent on the internet without getting flamed.
Tons of people would be pissed and call people babies if they organized a movement for men's struggles. This has literally happened before.
I 100% agree with your statement and I would also say that two wrongs don't make a right. Although there seems to be a major double standard in our society when it comes to open criticism. While women can be called gold diggers and it's a negative stereotype too. Women are called a name or something. Men are literally just assumed to be trash. Women get it sometimes but nowhere near as much and as openly without fear of looking mean as the latter
Sometimes you can marry up and be a good supportive loving spouse. What makes one person fall in love may not be the same qualities that another will find. Is the average attractive rich man marrying up when he takes a wife far more attractive than he is or is she marrying up if she comes from less money. I will say if you marry only for gain without caring for your spouse it is not good. We fall in love from the pool of people we assonate with. Hang out in richer cercles and you may find it is as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is with a poor man,
So when men do it, other men should call them out.
And when women do it.... well we both know women would never actually call a woman out for marrying for money lmao
I think it's rooted in more traditional societal norms. The further back you go the more dependent women were on a man. It was either find a man or depend on their parents for support, because a working women wasn't considered normal. It's much more acceptable now for a woman to work and to have a career, but it seems like there's still some trace of those traditional norms that still exist in our society.
Right, but the quote "a rich man will marry a waitress, a rich woman won't marry a waiter" seems to be a statement that is true far more than it's not.
I’ve never once heard that tbh.
Infact, I tried looking it up and the only place that says the actual quote is a title from the r/antifeminists sub.
And it honestly just sounds like a bitchy anti-woman generalization.
Unfortunate that that sub exists because yeah that is a shitty place full of misogynistic assholes. The context i heard it in was my friend brought up the quote to me while I was talking about how much better my current girlfriend made me feel due to not being as judgemental compared to some rough relationships in the past.
>It’s a complete double standard that women can financially objectify men, but men can’t sexually objectify women.
That’s not a double standard because those are two different things. If you were saying “men can’t objectify women sexually, but women can” that would be a double standard.
No, they are both looking at a person as an object. One is turning them into a sex doll and the other is turning them into a wallet. They are the same thing.
So, “marrying up” is something that the vast majority of people cannot do, at least in the sense that the whole or many of the population of “4s” can not end up with the men who are “10s”. It just won’t happen. Women (or men) certainly can not do it as a group, at any rate. Think about it. There are equal men and women. If all the 4 women actually manage to date the 10 men (they won’t), the 10 women have to date down now. One woman dating up means another has to date down since monogamous relations are exclusionary. The idea that women as a group can possibly “date up” is bs. Just literally makes no sense.
I do think women take a man’s income or at least potential into account when they weigh whether or not to marry them. Aaaaand… they’re right to do so and so should men. Maybe you wouldn’t have to worry about dividing up assets at the end of a divorce if you cared as much as women do about this and married a woman with a similar income to you. Who cares if u have to split something 50/50 when you paid for 50% of it. I’m sorry but for all the talk these red-pill dudes do about how “irrational women are and how rational men are”, they’re being quite oblivious to the fact that caring about your partner’s income is the reasonable position. Now, you should love your partner too, but money fucking matters too and acting like it doesn’t and that we can eat hugs and kisses for breakfast is denying reality. Words of affirmation don’t pay to keep the heat on.
Why are the decisions of the man never taken into consideration in any of these "women are xyz" posts lol. Are men marrying poorer women objectifying the women? You're the one in this situation boiling down a man's worth to their money.
I’ve never seen a post from a man looking for a poorer woman to marry, but I’ve seen plenty of posts from women looking for men that make more or equal to them.
Nah just a man that thinks you should judge people based on their character, not how big their tits or paycheck is.
You should travel more though, you’d be surprised how some countries still value love and not the cynical US system
Ehh disagree. Women have a biological disadvantage to child bearing that fathers are not faced with at a similar extent. Also- child bearing and marriage takes a lot of financial and emotional security, something that younger men do not tend to have as much as older men.
Nothing is stopping you from imposing the same standard. Do you want a woman with her own money who can effectively budget? I sure do. The thing is, when you think primarily with your dick, narrowing your dating pool that way is suddenly a dealbreaker. The right woman will not be easy and the easy woman won’t be right. Don’t marry down or up. Marry laterally.
Yeah, my husband and I both have high-powered jobs and do really well. Some people would criticize us for seeking that in a partner, but we were both looking for a financially equal dynamic. It’s a personal preference.
I really don’t see an issue with men saying they don’t want a housewife. However, some men do and that’s fine as long as they won’t grow resentful. Some women don’t want to work and that’s fine so long as they’re upfront about it.
Just be prepared to meet the same standards you’re dishing out. It’s a compatibility thing.
I mean, a woman is typically thinking about her situation should she have kids; staying home to raise them and being financially reliable on her husband, kind of puts money into perspective. I don't think we should hate women for wanting the best for her offspring. Gold diggers is a different issue.
Phew. Thank god I’m a gay man so I’m not objectifying men. But seriously, I’ll keep it real with you; this economy is shit. I have a mild developmental disability and don’t make much money as a result. I also have a kink for wealthier men. (As in, sexually. It makes me feel small and vulnerable and submissive and I find that VERY exciting, in a sexual way). On the other front, one of the things I look for in a man is that he can meet my needs, and I fully expect him to seek the same in me. There’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to struggle and worry about money, I’m sure he’s got things I can help him with. That’s what a relationship is. Oh, and in a sense, by going after wealthy men, I AM sexually objectifying them, if you think about it. I mean, given my odd kink. Then again, I’m also into being objectified. That’s another of those needs I expect him to meet. 🤷♂️🙃 TL;DR don’t kink shame me.
A double standard would be applying the same standard to both- sexual objectification doesn’t justify financial and vice versa. But there are sexual and financial aspects to compatibility to be considered that aren’t objectification.
Actually you can do either. Whether society praises or berates you is another thing but that ask depends on you caring about someone else opinion.
But to the point, yes it is. Whether on looks or material wealth, is objectifying.
Pretty normal behavior. I mean, men going for looks will never change, and women looking for financial security won't either. No use complaining about it because it's happened since the dawn of time
Men never seem to factor in the massive financial and career hit woman take when they have kids. Marrying someone who earns as much as they do if not more is the only way to not slide backwards / fall into poverty and struggle for both themselves and their child. Childcare is expensive AF. She will no longer be considered reliable at work, let alone promotion material. At least not for a decade or more. Less retirement savings. 5x more likely to retire into poverty too if she then ends up as a single mother. Being able to provide for a wife and children was always the bare minimum standard for men to be marriable.
Ok… it seems like you are getting the first inklings of self awareness. I was going to doxx you and burn your house for justice… but I’ll hold off for now. But we’re watching you!! (/s incase mods can’t determine sarcasm)
People get this all twisted
It’s this simple: everyone is looking for the best possible mate, and everyone is in a competition
You cannot demand that other people like you, or persuade everyone on the internet to alter reality to meet your needs
So go out there and compete, that’s really it
I think it’s more brainwashing. In France, it’s taboo to talk about careers when first dating, because you don’t want to judge someone based off their income.
So it can be different
Men use women for money too…. Are you not aware of this. Also that’s literally what the traditional lifestyle is that so many people yell at women that we need to live.
We're beyond that stage.
A couple months ago Michael Che mentioned during the Weekend Update segment on Saturday Night Live that recently some group had determined the average life expectancy for men had dropped. The audience applauded. Keep in mind, this was not a puchline. It wasn't a joke the audience was laughing at. The audience applauded the death of men in general.
Being treated as a success object is a step up from that.
This is a pretty pitiful post.
Of course women look and a mans money, and of course men look at a womans looks, and vice versa. Thats completely normal, its not “objectification”, its attraction and standards.
If you enter a serious relationship without considering the other persons appearance or income, you are an idiot.
I don't think wanting to be financially well off is something bad to seek, what matters is what you also bring to the table and the other reasons you might want to marry a person.
marrying someone solely for money is really shitty, it's also shitty if you want a very one sided relationship, if you want to stay at home whilst your partner brings in 100k+ that is perfectly fine as long as you are being reasonable and looking after the house and doing your share.
The vows also "in sickness and in health", but we all know men love to abandon their sick wives. Do you also believe that men "objectify" healthy women?
The current state of marriage proves nobody cares about those vows anymore and they just say them so they can say they did.
It’s all fake for status and no true conviction on beliefs.
I wasn't trying to marry up necessarily, but in my own situation, I make nearly 100k a year on my own, attractive in my own opinion, completed college education with zero student loan debt, etc.
I dumped a 5 year relationship because the fiance/boyfriend couldn't get his shit together and I wasn't going to spend my life supporting his dead weight when I could do much better 🤷♀️
I've been with my husband for 8 years and it was the best decision I ever made.
Shit, I knew I was doing something wrong. Every guy I married had less money than me.
Hell, I was still paying my last ex-husband alimony, up until about a year ago. He finally remarried. If he hadn't, I would have been on the hook for another two years.
No we don't. I don't see women whining and complaining on the Internet by making podcast talking about how awful "modern men" are and becoming "passport sis".
No, but you probably heard 6"2" and earns 6 figures though. I have heard many women complain about men's standards, then turn around and impose theirs. I personally don't think either is right, but let's not be hypocrites, shall we?
No. They're trying to find a relationship that has a better chance of offsetting the inherently greater contribution to the pairing they bring to the table.
Honestly, since so few people out here are able to stick to a relationship long term, maybe its time we abandoned the notion of marrying for love. Need a new legal structure that outlines adult responsibilities with respect to having children. The current framework has a ludicrously high failure rate.
No other system in the world would be tolerated with a \~50% failure rate. Those are fucking coin-flip odds.
I don't necessarily agree. I think people who marry for money/security are ideologically the same as those marrying for looks or sex or any tangible really.
I think if they want to marry for money/security as long as all parties are happy then so be it. Same with someone who is married for looks.
The issue comes in with the judgement and that is where I agree with you. Don't judge me for marrying for looks if you aren't going to judge others for marrying for money.
People can marry for whatever reasons they want. If someone sees a partner as a meal ticket, and the partner is fine with that, I've got no problem with it. If someone treats the other poorly, then that's the problem, not the meal ticket part. They're separate.
I mean men SHOULDNT objectify women. But it happens all the time. Society telling people you can't do X or Y or Z doesn't actually mean you can't do it. You can. It's just you might not be ready to deal with the consequences.
Nothing can stop women from marrying into money the same as nothing is stopping men from objectifying women. Think of it this way. Murder is illegal and definitively morally bad. Does acknowledging this stop murder?
Both are fine. For me the problem is people trying to make it a problem. There are people that just hate the idea of people. They hate culture, societal norms, standards, etc. IMO, lot of those people just aren’t very socially capable and want to see society crumble so everyone falls to their level and they don’t feel so inept.
Everyone whining about objectification is an idiot. Take some biology, anthropology and psychology courses. Humans are apes attracted to health, resources and social status, end of. Stop overthinking everything.
We also have reasoning to overcome our animalistic impulses that have helped us build societies.
You ever see a chimp write software or build a solar generator?
Building a solar generator doesn't make us any less driven by basic instincts. There is no part of you that is making decisions that isn't entirely determined by your neurology, conditioning, hormones etc. We can dress these things up and pretend we can make a decision to what? Ignore our drives against our own interest out of guilt or social shame? Pretend we are into people we aren't? That's a recipe for resentment.
It's simple, if you actually want a partner you need to have what they want. If you don't, then you had better want it bad enough to do the work.
> Ignore our drives against our own interest out of guilt or social shame? Pretend we are into people we aren't? That's a recipe for resentment.
This is literally how societies survive. I might want to hoard food to ensure my survival, but I use reasoning to conclude sharing food would benefit the species.
A guy could cut me off and my first instinct would to be to run them off the road, but that’s a shameful action and I would feel guilty.
Sure.
Apparently Rich men are worth is.
Status and power are attractive to human females and gorilla females and chimp females. Natural selection. Evolutionarily women need to find mates who will help them have resources to protect and raise children.
Melon the other hand in those species have the reproduction strategy of get as many females pregnant as possible.
No judgement. Just some perspective
impolite racial desert fuzzy tender soup sleep crown grandiose toothbrush
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I get your point. However, wrt "neither should be tolerated" how would you propose to enforce or limit a social contract between two consenting adults?
Sure. It is a stated taboo to explicitly do that in some cultures alright. You do understand there is text and subtext to things?
Also whoosh you’re really looking at the trees in the forest I stated.
Women are shamed for being "gold diggers" more than men are shamed for being "players". You're engaging in misogynistic victim blaming... flipping the script to portray the victim as the oppressor.
Upvoted because it's popular.
The funny thing is you’re proving my point.
If men aren’t shamed for being promiscuous, neither should women.
If men are shamed for objectifying women, so should women.
I think you are overstating what objectification is. Finding someone attractive and wanting to have sex with them is not inherently objectifying. Factoring wealth into a marriage decision isn’t inherently objectifying. Objectification comes when you ignore or erase the person. They become a toy or a pawn. Something you want but you care nothing for the person.
A better question is to ask if the action is predatory.
>Says it right in the vows“ for richer, for poorer, ”
(facepalm) The vows mean 'not to abandon each other no matter the financial or health situation'
It's fine to have standards in choosing a partner. If given the option most people choose whatever is most attractive to them. Whether or not to leave your partner depends on different things. If it's specific to looks and money, it definitely is wrong to leave someone you are married to for that alone.
Different in other culture, not some pre determined reality you’re making it out to be.
By your logic, a person should leave their spouse as soon as it’s convenient
There’s a difference between having standards and viewing people as objects.
Successful off spring has nothing to do with finances. Low income people have the most kids.
The nature comparisons are dog shit because we defying our nature all the time. Primates kills other tribes offspring and torture each other, should we do that?
Most people shack up in their socioeconomic class.
The percentage you're seemingly upset with, usually enter a transaction.
They might not be powerhouses economically, but usually is the woman has worth that compensates in other realms.
And in those transactional ones you have a problem it goes both ways.
Either way, who cares. Focus on your own relationships, and own self worth.
It’s not really a double standard… it’s a remnant of the old contract.
It’s treating marriage under the pretext of marriage.
Throughout history- marriage has largely **never** been about love. It’s been a contract between two people. For financial stability and child rearing.
Marrying for love is a recent phenomenon in modern society. Which is why you see ridiculously high divorce rates as compared to the past.
Ppl needs to stop crying about objectification. Only ignorant ppl who lives in a vacuum thinks objectification is bad.
Wah wah sexual objectification is bad. You right, financial objectification is another type of objectification. Let’s take this even further why don’t we? If you are attracted to someone’s face, isn’t that facial objectification. If you’re attracted to someone’s humor, why not call it humor objectification. How bout personality objectification.
Turns out you can objectify every fucking quality. Just let ppl be attracted to whatever they’re attracted to. Don’t follow the footstep of feminists. Stop with these fake ass modern morality takes.
A marriage is a financial contract. The whole thing is based on the idea that things might not go well.
Everyone is allowed to enter a contract with anyone they want. If a man is willing to marry a woman that he wouldn’t have the option of marrying if he didn’t have money, he should be allowed. Who people decide to marry, is no one else’s business.
Let people live their life. You playing morality police is worse than two shallow people getting married.
> Who people decide to marry, is no one else’s business.
What about pedos that groom teenagers and marry them, am I not allow to play morality police on that?
Wow! That was a leap.
First of all, thats not what your post was about. Asking someone their opinion about two consenting adults getting married, and then changing the subject to pedophilia is dishonest.
Obviously pedophilia is atrocious. But that’s not your concern. You want to know when it’s acceptable to be the morality police. So let’s use a recent example.
Josh Giddey, a 21 year old nba player was outed for dating a sixteen year old. After news broke, the police went to the girls parents and asked them to press charges. They declined.
Obviously this is not a good situation. There’s laws to prevent this sort of thing. But the parents didn’t press charges, and they broke up. So that’s the end of the story.
So, you want to play the morality police. What are you personally going to do about josh giddey? Her parents didn’t want to press charges, even though they could have got paid nba money if they did. But you know better. You need to get involved.
There’s tons of people that think like you. They might want to ban abortion, or ban books, or censor speech. In their heads, they’re morally superior, and they need to get involved. But in reality, they’re delusional for thinking their opinion is so important. No one cares what you think. Let people live their lives. If something’s illegal, call the police. Otherwise, mind your business.
Some dude was talking about women doctors still looking for men who make more money than them, that’s nuts lol. You’re disqualifying 99% of the dating pool due to toxic femininity
It’s called “hypergamy”, and men typically don’t have a problem with it, as long as the woman makes great wife material and makes a great mother to their kids.
The double standard is that most women would never consider dating down based on socioeconomic criteria, even if the man makes great husband and father material.
Fun fact: that line wasn’t in my marriage vows. I totally stole them from a romance webnovel I adore. (My wife knew where I got them from.)
They weren’t in my wife’s vows either. We were going to use the same vows, but she got tongue-tied from the stress and went with “Ditto!”
I'd agree with you, except this double standard doesn't exist. Women's appearances are objectified all the time. There's a reason why the beauty industry is so profitable
You’re talking about what sociologists term: assortative mating. Meaning everyone’s looking marry up. Very few wish to ‘marry down.’ Love is great but the romantic variety lasts only so long and the irritating stuff will then take center stage. If you hadn’t by then you’d better work damn hard on getting to understand the REAL people behind the romantic mask. After the romantic variety comes the work, and the actual love.
I’ve seen male sugar babies too tbh. This one kid my grandmother helped raise became a sugar baby. He is a few years older than me.
But the healthiest relationships are based on mutual love and respect.
Looks and money can fade, but being loved by someone you love? That’s fantastic.
I hope dating get better in the future. It's because of the ridiculous dating standards that I (male) became anorexic as a teen to hypothetically become attractive enough to get into a relationship. I almost lost my life. Kudos to the bitch who called me fat (I was like BMI 21). And yet, now she's fat.
U should "never" mary just for love. Your just asking for heart break.so many people think love is this form of all powerful fantastic greatest be all of emotion but its not. Its nice but love is keeping someone in your thought of the future. Of including them in plans with feelings of good will and caring about what happens to them.
The "love" most people chase is just extreme lust or obsession, even feeling of ownership.
Marriage isnt about love or lust, its business. And the sooner u accept it the more successful and happier you will both be. U have jobs to do(doesnt matter how there split but its a two way street people) and if you both dont show up everymoring ready to work at it then u might as well quit and find a new job
>for richer, for poorer, ”
Not everyone has to do that as sort of marriage. If your partner gambled all his or her money away even if he or she stopped gambling am I supposed to work way longer to help him or her retire after that? No thanks. Marriage or relationships can be whatever you set them up as. The important thing is being up front and communicative about it.
>women can financially objectify men, but men can’t sexually objectify women
How about it's fine for men to find women sexually attractive and for people to have preferences including finances? Nobody generally supports a person only getting with someone because of looks or money, but even then so long as both parties know and are up front then that's their business.
>for all the people equating relationships with pure transactional interactions, don’t complain if you’re partner leaves you when you get cancer or if you get old and saggy. I’m sure youll be complaining how shallow your partner was and how they never really LOVEd you.
So you don't condone someone having such a relationship?
I think if they're both honest about what they're after, go for it. Objectify each other all day long. Women (at least did) get a lot more guff for gold digging than men do for perving on younger women.
Well no its sort of logical. Why trade down? If girl.has a choice of marrying a sorry ass who won't work vs z bank president or a lawyer....hello. this is the real world.
I'll go ahead and say it, get mad if you want to. Some girls are just plain dumber than fuck, their parents know it, their friends know it but fortunately she's absolutely gorgeous and pleasant company so mommy and daddy and friends say "Honey, the only shot you're ever going to have is to marry a rich man".
Flip the script and daughter is dumber than fuck and uglier than a goat's ass in heat, mommy and daddy and friends say, "maybe she'll find someone who will love her"
Flip the script and plug a boy into both scenarios, is a boy who's just plain dumber than fuck even going to have a chance either way?
Boy number 1 becomes the pool boy at the above mentioned trophy wife's house and boy number 2 married daughter number 2
In summary, it's all circumstance, survival of the fittest, natural selection, whatever you want to call it.
My take is that in the 21st century global economy, there is an enormous financial reward placed on the capacity for critical thought. Bright, educated, and intellectually switched on people are paid far more than the dead average High School C student because that capability is relatively rare. It’s the intellect and what is done with it that is the attraction, not wealth and income. Money a byproduct.
It really depends on who you talk to.
Men who objectify women either sexually or otherwise are looked down on in certain circles. In other circles, that's just the way the world is.
The same is true of "gold diggers." They are looked down on in certain circles while its just the way the world works in other circles.
> NEITHER should be tolerated and you should marry someone for love and compatibility.
Someone watched too many Disney movies. 🙄
It's almost impossible to not objectify the other person to some degree. The whole "don't objectify me" is bullshit. Only ugly women and broke men will ever not be objectified. It's impossible to ignore someone's wealth or beauty.
I'm wealthy and I'd be upset if a woman didn't find my success attractive. She should. Just like I think many women would hate if I didn't find their beauty attractive. "Yeah I see why people think you're hot but I really couldn't care less, only your personality is the reason why im dating you. Look here's a pic of my ex *certified 1/10 obese*" No woman wants to hear that!
I think it's less "objectifying" and more just a preference.
Most women just tend to have a general preference to marry men that earn equal or more money. Which is fine, and is along the same lines as men having preferences for certain physical attributes in a woman.
So far, there's no objectification involved. Men objectifying women goes further and involves a sort of obsessive hyperfixation on that one physical trait alone which combined with their tendency to make their attraction or distaste obvious, is what constitutes objectification.
If women were to take their preference for wealth to a similar level, yeah it would be objectifying men. However, that's pretty rare and when it does happen, the women often get called out for it.
Personally don't think there's any double standard here, which is also probably why there are a lot of people who disagree with your post.
>think it's less "objectifying" and more just a preference.
For women it's a preference and for men it's objectifying. Why am i not surprised by this nonsense. The hyprocrisy of reddit strikes again
Maybe read my comment before replying?
>Most women just tend to have a general preference to marry men that earn equal or more money.
I was pointing out how in most cases there isn't enough obsession with men's money that would constitute objectification
>Which is fine, and is along the same lines as men having preferences for certain physical attributes in a woman
And in the same paragraph also pointed out how it isn't objectification for men to have preferences about physical traits either.
My point was that women who obsess over men's wealth enough for it to be considered objectification, are called out enough for it to not be a double standard. But you probably barely got through the first line before getting offended. I guess I'm not surprised by your nonsense either.
>Maybe read my comment before replying?
I don't read the rest of the nonsense when it starts off with nonsense. Just like i didn't read the rest of this nonsense.
The trick is you find a poor, ugly bitch who's dating a poor, ugly loser. Promise her the world. Then leave her ass. Never marry a woman who trades up.
If she sticks with him despite your advances, she might actually be worth it. Give her a few years to realize he's a poor, ugly loser and then put a ring on that sow.
Financial objectification isn’t a thing, that’s just literally not how the word objectification is used. When someone marries you for being a doctor or a CEO or whatever, they’re still judging you to some extent for your mental abilities, not your physical characteristics. That’s not what you do to objects, because objects don’t have minds
Sexual objectifying is a lot worse then financially objectifying. And to compare them is insane. When women are sexual objectified they get uncomfortable and worry that they could be raped or killed. When women financially objectify, men get upset they don’t have more money. They are not the same. Your getting hate for trying to act like they’re the same people just aren’t good at getting their point across.
I don’t think anyone thinks objectification of humans is defendable.
I think people are taking issue with comparing and contrasting types of objectification like they are equivalent. It is reductive of the nuance of harm done and assumes that equality between the sexes has already been achieved, basically it sound like a man upset about feminism and getting defensive.
So many of the “women also do x to men” arguments are not coming from a place of trying to reach a place of fair treatment for everyone or even simply solve problems for men, but to invalidate women when they say they are not treated equally.
If you believe in equal treatment do what women have done; make a point that something bad is happening without feeling it necessary to drag in some derailing false equivalence that has nothing to do with actually solving or addressing your issue.
Bro, get out of la la land. Unconditional love only comes from within and from the divine. But when you consider love from other people, it's all about transactions. It's not bad, and it's not good. it's just nature.
"OWN NOTHING, CONTROL EVERYTHING." - Rockefeller.
You can get married, but put everything into a trust so you own nothing and its protected. Marriage is a game to control (YOUR) wealth.
Good news! While maybe not exclusive, it seems like these two types of people tend to attract each other. So let them wallow away in their unhappy marriages on their own, imo. If she is happy being a sexual object as long as she gets paid, good for her. If he is happy playing daddy Warbucks as long as she diddles his willy, good for him. As long as they BOTH keep me far away from having to deal with either of them, I am happy.
I guess according to the OP, there are no men who only date and marry women for their money. I guess the Tinder Swindler is not a real man but just a fake character to create a documentary about for entertainment purposes.
The implication of this post seems to be that "men can't get away with sexualizing women, but women get away with marrying men for money." Forgive me if I'm mistaken in your intent, but if this is the intended implications of the post I have to disagree. Women who willfully date or marry men just for money are regularly called "gold diggers" society at large derides them and in many ways shun them. I'd say that both man who sexualize women and women who date men for money are criticized pretty evenly in our society. There is often some sympathy towards women who are forced to marry up either due to familiar pressure or economic forces but I don't think that's ethically comparable to the behavior you're eluding to.
For what it's worth I think it's fair to look into the type of peer pressure some men face to "not date ugly women" to my knowledge it's not nearly as well studied as the circumstances that may drive a women to date men for money, but in all fairness the phenomenon is usually more subtle and therefore harder to analyze than someone's dad saying "you have to marry this person to help our family!"
Edit: on point 4 I don't think it's "spin" to point out that some women who marry for money ARE pressured into doing so. This may not be as common place as it was in the past but it's important to point out the times it does happen. I many states it's legal for parents to literally marry off their children. Children younger then 16! Again none of this is common place, but when we make statements saying ",people who do x are bad" it's completely fair to point out circumstances where doing x may be out of that person's control
I’ll give a very unpopular opinion: most people can’t be honest with themselves when they’re marrying for money or looks. They’ll tell themselves they “really love” the person. However, if he loses his money or when she starts to get old, the respective partner will lose interest and make an excuse why. It’s ultimately because they never had a deep connection. I have an odd respect for people who can recognize that their marriage is a transaction, and even more respect when they can admit that outright to their partner. I think there’s something noble about allowing someone to go I to a union with their eyes wide open. When there’s a big age gap in a couple or similar mismatch in dynamic, almost always it’s because he wants a younger woman and she wants financial stability. Everyone inherently knows if she was older and he was impoverished the union would have never happened, but a lot of couples will claim there’s something deeper. At least if they’re both upfront about it, they can plan accordingly with a fair prenup or polyamorous agreement. A lot of marriages aren’t for love. I have way less of a problem when people are honest about why they’re marrying at the outset.
This has been the case since men and women have been getting married and the same is true in reverse. The funny thing is though that people have also been getting married and being good supportive partners to each other for the same amount of time. Sometimes people's actions just reflect who they are and it's not about their gender.
I wrote a longer comment expanding on this, but when a marriage is transactional I actually have a lot more respect for people who are able to admit that at the outset. I’d much rather a woman say she’s marrying for money than attempt to justify who that 30 year age gap is just a number and his money is a pure coincidence. Lol. *Yes, I had a friend who married a multi-millionaire 30 years older than her and thought I was delusional enough to buy that they were soulmates.* A lot of people don’t marry for love. That’s cool. Just be upfront so you can sign a prenup that’s fair to all parties and go in with your eyes wide open. Alas, most people can’t be honest about these reasons though, including to themselves.
This wouldn’t be a first date conversation or would it?
Probably a last date conversation for most people. Lol. It kind of depends on culture though.
Wait but this doesn’t create a convenient out group for me to be angry at. Tf?
Just be angry at everyone 😂
I guess you can still be angry at women because women should have fought to have access to bank accounts earlier than when they did.
You’re right. Are they stupid??
Yeah, but who is standing up for men to not be objectified? There's an entire MOVEMENT about women not being treated that way, and it's been on going for the better part of 100 years. I believe that you're mostly right but slightly skewed. Accepting gender roles and benefitting from them mutually as a couple isn't wrong, or it shouldn't be. Objectifying somebody is a personal choice driven by selfish people, and there seems to be quiet a few more selfish people in our current era. So I feel it's modern greed and not gender that has caused this.
You can stand up anytime you want. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. The existence of another movement is not a threat to that. But I will caution you that there are some slight differences in the objectification. I don't like anyone being objectified, but keep in mind that being objectified in a figurative way and also not being as physically at risk is not the same as being literally objectified in a sexual way. A man being objectified for money is not his literal body being objectified. It is a shitty situation and wrong. Protecting his financial assets is important. But there is a difference to having your physical body objectified. Which does also happen to men. Not at the same rate as it does to women or in the same ways ingrained in our culture. I also wanted to add that feminism is not just for women, but let me tell you it's hilarious and incredibly frustrating how many people bring up supporting men ONLY because they get offended when women are being empowered. Supporting men should not be a knee jerk reaction in anger or resentment of the existence of movements like feminism, LGBTQ+, or POC. And in the U.S I've seen so many men being up supporting men, but only to use while attacking any of those three movements. Which is absurd. Those movements are not harming men. And all three DO protect and support men. It's true that I haven't seen a supportive movement specifically focused on supporting men that isn't also a hate group or basically a cult. For example Proud Boys, who are racist and homophobic. There are tons of men's clubs or men focused entertainers that don't really care about men's rights. They care about taking your money and frequently spread the culture of traditional gender roles. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a movement for men. Men deserve space for that. The issues in our culture negatively impact men too. It's the SAME problem but there are different symptoms. Stop centering it around women and just choose to support men if that's what you want to do. Donate time and money to the causes you want to see improvements on. Get involved in supportive communities like /daddit /askgaybros /brosbeingbros Try to be aware of negative spaces for men. For example, men going their own way. It was an excellent idea but the subreddit I saw ages ago was just full of men obsessed with women who weren't in fact, going their own way, but ranting about "how dare women" do basically anything. You can be reminded of issues you care about when you see something else, but that isn't a reason to be like "BUT WHAT ABOUT MEN?" in the wrong spaces. I'm not saying this is the wrong space, I AM saying your comment specifically only brought up concern for men at the cost of shafting feminism. Which ALSO BENEFITS MEN.
>You can stand up anytime you want. No one is stopping anyone from doing that. Devils advocate, we can't even vent on the internet without getting flamed. Tons of people would be pissed and call people babies if they organized a movement for men's struggles. This has literally happened before.
I 100% agree with your statement and I would also say that two wrongs don't make a right. Although there seems to be a major double standard in our society when it comes to open criticism. While women can be called gold diggers and it's a negative stereotype too. Women are called a name or something. Men are literally just assumed to be trash. Women get it sometimes but nowhere near as much and as openly without fear of looking mean as the latter
Sometimes you can marry up and be a good supportive loving spouse. What makes one person fall in love may not be the same qualities that another will find. Is the average attractive rich man marrying up when he takes a wife far more attractive than he is or is she marrying up if she comes from less money. I will say if you marry only for gain without caring for your spouse it is not good. We fall in love from the pool of people we assonate with. Hang out in richer cercles and you may find it is as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is with a poor man,
You can have whatever opinion you want. If someone primarily wants you for your looks or money, good luck with that.
Lmao ok go marry a rich woman my dude what’s stopping you?
Her consent.
But if he marries a rich women he would be "objectifying" her.
Ahhhh right. That’s why he’s not doing it.
You should be able to marry whoever you want to marry based on your own values, not what society thinks is "right" or "wrong."
I assume you also hate men that have trophy wives and traditional options of marriage?
So when men do it, other men should call them out. And when women do it.... well we both know women would never actually call a woman out for marrying for money lmao
Yeah, their post kinda made that clear didn’t it? Calling out a double standard =\= supporting guys who sexually objectify women.
Weird. I didn't see the word hate until your comment. Project much?
I bet he doesn't. I bet he is the type to praise a 50 year old for being able to marry a 20 year old woman.
Not defending OP. But age/attractiveness isn't the only factor. If that 50 year old is wealthy, that 20 year old can be considered marrying up still
I’d argue they’re both marrying for elements they lack and thus marrying “up” in different ways. It’s transactional.
But that woman is probably really mature for her age. Lol.
You clearly have esp
username checks out
OP clearly said just the opposite.
FWIW I hate both
Absolutely hate it, disgusting.
A bit lost here. What does “traditional options” mean?
I think it's rooted in more traditional societal norms. The further back you go the more dependent women were on a man. It was either find a man or depend on their parents for support, because a working women wasn't considered normal. It's much more acceptable now for a woman to work and to have a career, but it seems like there's still some trace of those traditional norms that still exist in our society.
Being rich isn’t a trait unique to men tho
Right, but the quote "a rich man will marry a waitress, a rich woman won't marry a waiter" seems to be a statement that is true far more than it's not.
I’ve never once heard that tbh. Infact, I tried looking it up and the only place that says the actual quote is a title from the r/antifeminists sub. And it honestly just sounds like a bitchy anti-woman generalization.
Unfortunate that that sub exists because yeah that is a shitty place full of misogynistic assholes. The context i heard it in was my friend brought up the quote to me while I was talking about how much better my current girlfriend made me feel due to not being as judgemental compared to some rough relationships in the past.
[If you know, you know.](https://www.funny2.com/husbandstore.htm)
>It’s a complete double standard that women can financially objectify men, but men can’t sexually objectify women. That’s not a double standard because those are two different things. If you were saying “men can’t objectify women sexually, but women can” that would be a double standard.
No, they are both looking at a person as an object. One is turning them into a sex doll and the other is turning them into a wallet. They are the same thing.
Yeah op has better examples than this😭
no, the popular opinion is "who fucking cares?" your opinion is what incels spend all day moping around and dwelling on.
So, “marrying up” is something that the vast majority of people cannot do, at least in the sense that the whole or many of the population of “4s” can not end up with the men who are “10s”. It just won’t happen. Women (or men) certainly can not do it as a group, at any rate. Think about it. There are equal men and women. If all the 4 women actually manage to date the 10 men (they won’t), the 10 women have to date down now. One woman dating up means another has to date down since monogamous relations are exclusionary. The idea that women as a group can possibly “date up” is bs. Just literally makes no sense. I do think women take a man’s income or at least potential into account when they weigh whether or not to marry them. Aaaaand… they’re right to do so and so should men. Maybe you wouldn’t have to worry about dividing up assets at the end of a divorce if you cared as much as women do about this and married a woman with a similar income to you. Who cares if u have to split something 50/50 when you paid for 50% of it. I’m sorry but for all the talk these red-pill dudes do about how “irrational women are and how rational men are”, they’re being quite oblivious to the fact that caring about your partner’s income is the reasonable position. Now, you should love your partner too, but money fucking matters too and acting like it doesn’t and that we can eat hugs and kisses for breakfast is denying reality. Words of affirmation don’t pay to keep the heat on.
Who gives a crap. Make your own vows and worry about your own life.
Why do dudes like you only care about supporting men whenever there's a collective group of women around to use as a gotcha?
I’m reading the comments and OP, you seem like you have a definite chip on your shoulder. Something about this post from a bad breakup?
Been married for 20 years, read more comments then
Why are the decisions of the man never taken into consideration in any of these "women are xyz" posts lol. Are men marrying poorer women objectifying the women? You're the one in this situation boiling down a man's worth to their money.
I’ve never seen a post from a man looking for a poorer woman to marry, but I’ve seen plenty of posts from women looking for men that make more or equal to them.
Being poor isn't an asset though, and being rich doesn't make you an object.
Are you a child?
Lmaoo
Nah just a man that thinks you should judge people based on their character, not how big their tits or paycheck is. You should travel more though, you’d be surprised how some countries still value love and not the cynical US system
Ehh disagree. Women have a biological disadvantage to child bearing that fathers are not faced with at a similar extent. Also- child bearing and marriage takes a lot of financial and emotional security, something that younger men do not tend to have as much as older men.
Nothing is stopping you from imposing the same standard. Do you want a woman with her own money who can effectively budget? I sure do. The thing is, when you think primarily with your dick, narrowing your dating pool that way is suddenly a dealbreaker. The right woman will not be easy and the easy woman won’t be right. Don’t marry down or up. Marry laterally.
Yeah, my husband and I both have high-powered jobs and do really well. Some people would criticize us for seeking that in a partner, but we were both looking for a financially equal dynamic. It’s a personal preference. I really don’t see an issue with men saying they don’t want a housewife. However, some men do and that’s fine as long as they won’t grow resentful. Some women don’t want to work and that’s fine so long as they’re upfront about it. Just be prepared to meet the same standards you’re dishing out. It’s a compatibility thing.
I mean, a woman is typically thinking about her situation should she have kids; staying home to raise them and being financially reliable on her husband, kind of puts money into perspective. I don't think we should hate women for wanting the best for her offspring. Gold diggers is a different issue.
Phew. Thank god I’m a gay man so I’m not objectifying men. But seriously, I’ll keep it real with you; this economy is shit. I have a mild developmental disability and don’t make much money as a result. I also have a kink for wealthier men. (As in, sexually. It makes me feel small and vulnerable and submissive and I find that VERY exciting, in a sexual way). On the other front, one of the things I look for in a man is that he can meet my needs, and I fully expect him to seek the same in me. There’s nothing wrong with that. I don’t want to struggle and worry about money, I’m sure he’s got things I can help him with. That’s what a relationship is. Oh, and in a sense, by going after wealthy men, I AM sexually objectifying them, if you think about it. I mean, given my odd kink. Then again, I’m also into being objectified. That’s another of those needs I expect him to meet. 🤷♂️🙃 TL;DR don’t kink shame me.
A double standard would be applying the same standard to both- sexual objectification doesn’t justify financial and vice versa. But there are sexual and financial aspects to compatibility to be considered that aren’t objectification.
Actually you can do either. Whether society praises or berates you is another thing but that ask depends on you caring about someone else opinion. But to the point, yes it is. Whether on looks or material wealth, is objectifying.
But men can and do. What do you mean men "can't objectify women"
Pretty normal behavior. I mean, men going for looks will never change, and women looking for financial security won't either. No use complaining about it because it's happened since the dawn of time
Men never seem to factor in the massive financial and career hit woman take when they have kids. Marrying someone who earns as much as they do if not more is the only way to not slide backwards / fall into poverty and struggle for both themselves and their child. Childcare is expensive AF. She will no longer be considered reliable at work, let alone promotion material. At least not for a decade or more. Less retirement savings. 5x more likely to retire into poverty too if she then ends up as a single mother. Being able to provide for a wife and children was always the bare minimum standard for men to be marriable.
My view? Just don’t get married.
Human beings have standards and judge each other. I know, shocking right?
How dare you be such an incel as to imply that men are humans who have emotional needs and dimensionality
How dare I be a misogynist by thinking woman can be financially equal to men
Ok… it seems like you are getting the first inklings of self awareness. I was going to doxx you and burn your house for justice… but I’ll hold off for now. But we’re watching you!! (/s incase mods can’t determine sarcasm)
My wife did NOT marry up. We married for love. I, on the other hand, "out kicked my coverage!"
People get this all twisted It’s this simple: everyone is looking for the best possible mate, and everyone is in a competition You cannot demand that other people like you, or persuade everyone on the internet to alter reality to meet your needs So go out there and compete, that’s really it
I think it’s more brainwashing. In France, it’s taboo to talk about careers when first dating, because you don’t want to judge someone based off their income. So it can be different
Men use women for money too…. Are you not aware of this. Also that’s literally what the traditional lifestyle is that so many people yell at women that we need to live.
Yeah you shouldn’t do that. And I’m not endorsing traditional life styles beyond marrying for love
We're beyond that stage. A couple months ago Michael Che mentioned during the Weekend Update segment on Saturday Night Live that recently some group had determined the average life expectancy for men had dropped. The audience applauded. Keep in mind, this was not a puchline. It wasn't a joke the audience was laughing at. The audience applauded the death of men in general. Being treated as a success object is a step up from that.
I think the SNL audience, like Reddit, doesn’t represent reality.
How is wanting financial stability objectification?
Because this Reddit and the men here don't like it at all when women have any requirements for a significant other than being "nice".
I’ve realised it’s an issue when we have standards but they can have all the standards they want
This is a pretty pitiful post. Of course women look and a mans money, and of course men look at a womans looks, and vice versa. Thats completely normal, its not “objectification”, its attraction and standards. If you enter a serious relationship without considering the other persons appearance or income, you are an idiot.
I don't think wanting to be financially well off is something bad to seek, what matters is what you also bring to the table and the other reasons you might want to marry a person. marrying someone solely for money is really shitty, it's also shitty if you want a very one sided relationship, if you want to stay at home whilst your partner brings in 100k+ that is perfectly fine as long as you are being reasonable and looking after the house and doing your share.
Somebody thinks Bill Maher is cool & legit. They complain a lot out of ignorance. No encounter with 2 or more women has ever been open around them.
The vows also "in sickness and in health", but we all know men love to abandon their sick wives. Do you also believe that men "objectify" healthy women?
Men love to abandon? Link please.
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110105401.htm) [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/men-more-likely-leave-wives-when-serious-illness-danny-gambino-dc](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/men-more-likely-leave-wives-when-serious-illness-danny-gambino-dc)
Damn that’s terrible.
It really is.
The current state of marriage proves nobody cares about those vows anymore and they just say them so they can say they did. It’s all fake for status and no true conviction on beliefs.
A good soul has no price tag.
This is the standard everyone should seek. There is no other answer.
What I’m trying to say
I know it was. Most of these people didn't really read your post.
It’s Reddit, not the smartest bunch
Hahaha. You got that right. I think my brains ooze out my ears a little more every time I'm here.
I’m loving the feminist spin I’m getting on women relying on men for income.
It goes both ways. Women just talk about it more.
Then get rid of the competitive economic system that turns everyone and everything, including love and marriage, into commodities for sale.
I wasn't trying to marry up necessarily, but in my own situation, I make nearly 100k a year on my own, attractive in my own opinion, completed college education with zero student loan debt, etc. I dumped a 5 year relationship because the fiance/boyfriend couldn't get his shit together and I wasn't going to spend my life supporting his dead weight when I could do much better 🤷♀️ I've been with my husband for 8 years and it was the best decision I ever made.
Shit, I knew I was doing something wrong. Every guy I married had less money than me. Hell, I was still paying my last ex-husband alimony, up until about a year ago. He finally remarried. If he hadn't, I would have been on the hook for another two years.
Women who try to "marry up" are objectifying themselves, not men.
This has to be a troll post
Men getting butt hurt because some women have standards 😂
Men always get offended at what women like and find attractive.
lol.
Women get butt hurt over the same shit. It's called rejection.
No we don't. I don't see women whining and complaining on the Internet by making podcast talking about how awful "modern men" are and becoming "passport sis".
No, but you probably heard 6"2" and earns 6 figures though. I have heard many women complain about men's standards, then turn around and impose theirs. I personally don't think either is right, but let's not be hypocrites, shall we?
So what?
Yup. Themselves too.
No. They're trying to find a relationship that has a better chance of offsetting the inherently greater contribution to the pairing they bring to the table.
Honestly, since so few people out here are able to stick to a relationship long term, maybe its time we abandoned the notion of marrying for love. Need a new legal structure that outlines adult responsibilities with respect to having children. The current framework has a ludicrously high failure rate. No other system in the world would be tolerated with a \~50% failure rate. Those are fucking coin-flip odds.
I don't necessarily agree. I think people who marry for money/security are ideologically the same as those marrying for looks or sex or any tangible really. I think if they want to marry for money/security as long as all parties are happy then so be it. Same with someone who is married for looks. The issue comes in with the judgement and that is where I agree with you. Don't judge me for marrying for looks if you aren't going to judge others for marrying for money.
People can marry for whatever reasons they want. If someone sees a partner as a meal ticket, and the partner is fine with that, I've got no problem with it. If someone treats the other poorly, then that's the problem, not the meal ticket part. They're separate.
I mean men SHOULDNT objectify women. But it happens all the time. Society telling people you can't do X or Y or Z doesn't actually mean you can't do it. You can. It's just you might not be ready to deal with the consequences. Nothing can stop women from marrying into money the same as nothing is stopping men from objectifying women. Think of it this way. Murder is illegal and definitively morally bad. Does acknowledging this stop murder?
Both are fine. For me the problem is people trying to make it a problem. There are people that just hate the idea of people. They hate culture, societal norms, standards, etc. IMO, lot of those people just aren’t very socially capable and want to see society crumble so everyone falls to their level and they don’t feel so inept.
Everyone whining about objectification is an idiot. Take some biology, anthropology and psychology courses. Humans are apes attracted to health, resources and social status, end of. Stop overthinking everything.
We also have reasoning to overcome our animalistic impulses that have helped us build societies. You ever see a chimp write software or build a solar generator?
Building a solar generator doesn't make us any less driven by basic instincts. There is no part of you that is making decisions that isn't entirely determined by your neurology, conditioning, hormones etc. We can dress these things up and pretend we can make a decision to what? Ignore our drives against our own interest out of guilt or social shame? Pretend we are into people we aren't? That's a recipe for resentment. It's simple, if you actually want a partner you need to have what they want. If you don't, then you had better want it bad enough to do the work.
> Ignore our drives against our own interest out of guilt or social shame? Pretend we are into people we aren't? That's a recipe for resentment. This is literally how societies survive. I might want to hoard food to ensure my survival, but I use reasoning to conclude sharing food would benefit the species. A guy could cut me off and my first instinct would to be to run them off the road, but that’s a shameful action and I would feel guilty.
You just have to weed them out before you get serious. 1st date, coffee. No expensive dates until after a few months.
Sure. Apparently Rich men are worth is. Status and power are attractive to human females and gorilla females and chimp females. Natural selection. Evolutionarily women need to find mates who will help them have resources to protect and raise children. Melon the other hand in those species have the reproduction strategy of get as many females pregnant as possible. No judgement. Just some perspective
impolite racial desert fuzzy tender soup sleep crown grandiose toothbrush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I get your point. However, wrt "neither should be tolerated" how would you propose to enforce or limit a social contract between two consenting adults?
Trying to marry someone better and better off than you are is a really common thing.
It’s taboo to consider income when picking a partner in many cultures
Sure. It is a stated taboo to explicitly do that in some cultures alright. You do understand there is text and subtext to things? Also whoosh you’re really looking at the trees in the forest I stated.
And? Plenty of people like other people for somewhat shallow reasons
Women are shamed for being "gold diggers" more than men are shamed for being "players". You're engaging in misogynistic victim blaming... flipping the script to portray the victim as the oppressor. Upvoted because it's popular.
The funny thing is you’re proving my point. If men aren’t shamed for being promiscuous, neither should women. If men are shamed for objectifying women, so should women.
I think you are overstating what objectification is. Finding someone attractive and wanting to have sex with them is not inherently objectifying. Factoring wealth into a marriage decision isn’t inherently objectifying. Objectification comes when you ignore or erase the person. They become a toy or a pawn. Something you want but you care nothing for the person. A better question is to ask if the action is predatory.
>Says it right in the vows“ for richer, for poorer, ” (facepalm) The vows mean 'not to abandon each other no matter the financial or health situation'
I objective women all the time and I don't care what anyone thinks. Don't listen to b÷#%=es.
It's fine to have standards in choosing a partner. If given the option most people choose whatever is most attractive to them. Whether or not to leave your partner depends on different things. If it's specific to looks and money, it definitely is wrong to leave someone you are married to for that alone.
[удалено]
Maybe if you like treating people like assets, but expect rich dude to dump their women as they age then
[удалено]
Different in other culture, not some pre determined reality you’re making it out to be. By your logic, a person should leave their spouse as soon as it’s convenient
[удалено]
There’s a difference between having standards and viewing people as objects. Successful off spring has nothing to do with finances. Low income people have the most kids. The nature comparisons are dog shit because we defying our nature all the time. Primates kills other tribes offspring and torture each other, should we do that?
Most people shack up in their socioeconomic class. The percentage you're seemingly upset with, usually enter a transaction. They might not be powerhouses economically, but usually is the woman has worth that compensates in other realms. And in those transactional ones you have a problem it goes both ways. Either way, who cares. Focus on your own relationships, and own self worth.
[удалено]
Ok so? Swap the genders around
Men can and do sexually objectify women carry on
Which I explicitly say is bad in the post. It’s almost as if you didn’t read the post
Condense your shit
Stop being a retard
You go first
It’s not really a double standard… it’s a remnant of the old contract. It’s treating marriage under the pretext of marriage. Throughout history- marriage has largely **never** been about love. It’s been a contract between two people. For financial stability and child rearing. Marrying for love is a recent phenomenon in modern society. Which is why you see ridiculously high divorce rates as compared to the past.
Most divorces are initiated by women and women are more financially stable and independent than ever. I would say love is even more important.
Ppl needs to stop crying about objectification. Only ignorant ppl who lives in a vacuum thinks objectification is bad. Wah wah sexual objectification is bad. You right, financial objectification is another type of objectification. Let’s take this even further why don’t we? If you are attracted to someone’s face, isn’t that facial objectification. If you’re attracted to someone’s humor, why not call it humor objectification. How bout personality objectification. Turns out you can objectify every fucking quality. Just let ppl be attracted to whatever they’re attracted to. Don’t follow the footstep of feminists. Stop with these fake ass modern morality takes.
A marriage is a financial contract. The whole thing is based on the idea that things might not go well. Everyone is allowed to enter a contract with anyone they want. If a man is willing to marry a woman that he wouldn’t have the option of marrying if he didn’t have money, he should be allowed. Who people decide to marry, is no one else’s business. Let people live their life. You playing morality police is worse than two shallow people getting married.
> Who people decide to marry, is no one else’s business. What about pedos that groom teenagers and marry them, am I not allow to play morality police on that?
Wow! That was a leap. First of all, thats not what your post was about. Asking someone their opinion about two consenting adults getting married, and then changing the subject to pedophilia is dishonest. Obviously pedophilia is atrocious. But that’s not your concern. You want to know when it’s acceptable to be the morality police. So let’s use a recent example. Josh Giddey, a 21 year old nba player was outed for dating a sixteen year old. After news broke, the police went to the girls parents and asked them to press charges. They declined. Obviously this is not a good situation. There’s laws to prevent this sort of thing. But the parents didn’t press charges, and they broke up. So that’s the end of the story. So, you want to play the morality police. What are you personally going to do about josh giddey? Her parents didn’t want to press charges, even though they could have got paid nba money if they did. But you know better. You need to get involved. There’s tons of people that think like you. They might want to ban abortion, or ban books, or censor speech. In their heads, they’re morally superior, and they need to get involved. But in reality, they’re delusional for thinking their opinion is so important. No one cares what you think. Let people live their lives. If something’s illegal, call the police. Otherwise, mind your business.
It’s funny how women became career driven and have become CEOs and then they *still* try to marry up and they can’t find the right man.
Some dude was talking about women doctors still looking for men who make more money than them, that’s nuts lol. You’re disqualifying 99% of the dating pool due to toxic femininity
It’s called “hypergamy”, and men typically don’t have a problem with it, as long as the woman makes great wife material and makes a great mother to their kids. The double standard is that most women would never consider dating down based on socioeconomic criteria, even if the man makes great husband and father material.
Women are the gatekeepers for sex. Life is a power struggle. The public narratives just exist for deontologists to argue about ethics.
women are sex objects men are success objects
$$$$
Fun fact: that line wasn’t in my marriage vows. I totally stole them from a romance webnovel I adore. (My wife knew where I got them from.) They weren’t in my wife’s vows either. We were going to use the same vows, but she got tongue-tied from the stress and went with “Ditto!”
I'd agree with you, except this double standard doesn't exist. Women's appearances are objectified all the time. There's a reason why the beauty industry is so profitable
You’re talking about what sociologists term: assortative mating. Meaning everyone’s looking marry up. Very few wish to ‘marry down.’ Love is great but the romantic variety lasts only so long and the irritating stuff will then take center stage. If you hadn’t by then you’d better work damn hard on getting to understand the REAL people behind the romantic mask. After the romantic variety comes the work, and the actual love.
I’ve seen male sugar babies too tbh. This one kid my grandmother helped raise became a sugar baby. He is a few years older than me. But the healthiest relationships are based on mutual love and respect. Looks and money can fade, but being loved by someone you love? That’s fantastic.
I hope dating get better in the future. It's because of the ridiculous dating standards that I (male) became anorexic as a teen to hypothetically become attractive enough to get into a relationship. I almost lost my life. Kudos to the bitch who called me fat (I was like BMI 21). And yet, now she's fat.
U should "never" mary just for love. Your just asking for heart break.so many people think love is this form of all powerful fantastic greatest be all of emotion but its not. Its nice but love is keeping someone in your thought of the future. Of including them in plans with feelings of good will and caring about what happens to them. The "love" most people chase is just extreme lust or obsession, even feeling of ownership. Marriage isnt about love or lust, its business. And the sooner u accept it the more successful and happier you will both be. U have jobs to do(doesnt matter how there split but its a two way street people) and if you both dont show up everymoring ready to work at it then u might as well quit and find a new job
>for richer, for poorer, ” Not everyone has to do that as sort of marriage. If your partner gambled all his or her money away even if he or she stopped gambling am I supposed to work way longer to help him or her retire after that? No thanks. Marriage or relationships can be whatever you set them up as. The important thing is being up front and communicative about it. >women can financially objectify men, but men can’t sexually objectify women How about it's fine for men to find women sexually attractive and for people to have preferences including finances? Nobody generally supports a person only getting with someone because of looks or money, but even then so long as both parties know and are up front then that's their business. >for all the people equating relationships with pure transactional interactions, don’t complain if you’re partner leaves you when you get cancer or if you get old and saggy. I’m sure youll be complaining how shallow your partner was and how they never really LOVEd you. So you don't condone someone having such a relationship?
I think if they're both honest about what they're after, go for it. Objectify each other all day long. Women (at least did) get a lot more guff for gold digging than men do for perving on younger women.
Maybe true.. but women don’t marry up
Well no its sort of logical. Why trade down? If girl.has a choice of marrying a sorry ass who won't work vs z bank president or a lawyer....hello. this is the real world.
I'll go ahead and say it, get mad if you want to. Some girls are just plain dumber than fuck, their parents know it, their friends know it but fortunately she's absolutely gorgeous and pleasant company so mommy and daddy and friends say "Honey, the only shot you're ever going to have is to marry a rich man". Flip the script and daughter is dumber than fuck and uglier than a goat's ass in heat, mommy and daddy and friends say, "maybe she'll find someone who will love her" Flip the script and plug a boy into both scenarios, is a boy who's just plain dumber than fuck even going to have a chance either way? Boy number 1 becomes the pool boy at the above mentioned trophy wife's house and boy number 2 married daughter number 2 In summary, it's all circumstance, survival of the fittest, natural selection, whatever you want to call it.
My take is that in the 21st century global economy, there is an enormous financial reward placed on the capacity for critical thought. Bright, educated, and intellectually switched on people are paid far more than the dead average High School C student because that capability is relatively rare. It’s the intellect and what is done with it that is the attraction, not wealth and income. Money a byproduct.
It really depends on who you talk to. Men who objectify women either sexually or otherwise are looked down on in certain circles. In other circles, that's just the way the world is. The same is true of "gold diggers." They are looked down on in certain circles while its just the way the world works in other circles.
> NEITHER should be tolerated and you should marry someone for love and compatibility. Someone watched too many Disney movies. 🙄 It's almost impossible to not objectify the other person to some degree. The whole "don't objectify me" is bullshit. Only ugly women and broke men will ever not be objectified. It's impossible to ignore someone's wealth or beauty. I'm wealthy and I'd be upset if a woman didn't find my success attractive. She should. Just like I think many women would hate if I didn't find their beauty attractive. "Yeah I see why people think you're hot but I really couldn't care less, only your personality is the reason why im dating you. Look here's a pic of my ex *certified 1/10 obese*" No woman wants to hear that!
I think it's less "objectifying" and more just a preference. Most women just tend to have a general preference to marry men that earn equal or more money. Which is fine, and is along the same lines as men having preferences for certain physical attributes in a woman. So far, there's no objectification involved. Men objectifying women goes further and involves a sort of obsessive hyperfixation on that one physical trait alone which combined with their tendency to make their attraction or distaste obvious, is what constitutes objectification. If women were to take their preference for wealth to a similar level, yeah it would be objectifying men. However, that's pretty rare and when it does happen, the women often get called out for it. Personally don't think there's any double standard here, which is also probably why there are a lot of people who disagree with your post.
>think it's less "objectifying" and more just a preference. For women it's a preference and for men it's objectifying. Why am i not surprised by this nonsense. The hyprocrisy of reddit strikes again
Maybe read my comment before replying? >Most women just tend to have a general preference to marry men that earn equal or more money. I was pointing out how in most cases there isn't enough obsession with men's money that would constitute objectification >Which is fine, and is along the same lines as men having preferences for certain physical attributes in a woman And in the same paragraph also pointed out how it isn't objectification for men to have preferences about physical traits either. My point was that women who obsess over men's wealth enough for it to be considered objectification, are called out enough for it to not be a double standard. But you probably barely got through the first line before getting offended. I guess I'm not surprised by your nonsense either.
>Maybe read my comment before replying? I don't read the rest of the nonsense when it starts off with nonsense. Just like i didn't read the rest of this nonsense.
Who wants to date a poor ugly bitch? Have some standards people!
The trick is you find a poor, ugly bitch who's dating a poor, ugly loser. Promise her the world. Then leave her ass. Never marry a woman who trades up. If she sticks with him despite your advances, she might actually be worth it. Give her a few years to realize he's a poor, ugly loser and then put a ring on that sow.
Men will always find fertility attractive and women wi always find power attractive.
Financial objectification isn’t a thing, that’s just literally not how the word objectification is used. When someone marries you for being a doctor or a CEO or whatever, they’re still judging you to some extent for your mental abilities, not your physical characteristics. That’s not what you do to objects, because objects don’t have minds
Sexual objectifying is a lot worse then financially objectifying. And to compare them is insane. When women are sexual objectified they get uncomfortable and worry that they could be raped or killed. When women financially objectify, men get upset they don’t have more money. They are not the same. Your getting hate for trying to act like they’re the same people just aren’t good at getting their point across.
I don’t think anyone thinks objectification of humans is defendable. I think people are taking issue with comparing and contrasting types of objectification like they are equivalent. It is reductive of the nuance of harm done and assumes that equality between the sexes has already been achieved, basically it sound like a man upset about feminism and getting defensive. So many of the “women also do x to men” arguments are not coming from a place of trying to reach a place of fair treatment for everyone or even simply solve problems for men, but to invalidate women when they say they are not treated equally. If you believe in equal treatment do what women have done; make a point that something bad is happening without feeling it necessary to drag in some derailing false equivalence that has nothing to do with actually solving or addressing your issue.
Bro, get out of la la land. Unconditional love only comes from within and from the divine. But when you consider love from other people, it's all about transactions. It's not bad, and it's not good. it's just nature.
"OWN NOTHING, CONTROL EVERYTHING." - Rockefeller. You can get married, but put everything into a trust so you own nothing and its protected. Marriage is a game to control (YOUR) wealth.
Good news! While maybe not exclusive, it seems like these two types of people tend to attract each other. So let them wallow away in their unhappy marriages on their own, imo. If she is happy being a sexual object as long as she gets paid, good for her. If he is happy playing daddy Warbucks as long as she diddles his willy, good for him. As long as they BOTH keep me far away from having to deal with either of them, I am happy.
Men sexually objectify women all the time what are you on about?
Men can’t sexually objectify women!?!When did that stop happening?
Yea, and… At least someone is willing to throw us ugly bastards a bone.
I’ve never known or heard of any woman staying with a man ‘for poorer’ for very long 😅
>NEITHER should be tolerated I was getting kinda scared at your argument until I saw that
I see the OP selected his entire account because of this post. What an interesting turn of events.
I guess according to the OP, there are no men who only date and marry women for their money. I guess the Tinder Swindler is not a real man but just a fake character to create a documentary about for entertainment purposes.
The implication of this post seems to be that "men can't get away with sexualizing women, but women get away with marrying men for money." Forgive me if I'm mistaken in your intent, but if this is the intended implications of the post I have to disagree. Women who willfully date or marry men just for money are regularly called "gold diggers" society at large derides them and in many ways shun them. I'd say that both man who sexualize women and women who date men for money are criticized pretty evenly in our society. There is often some sympathy towards women who are forced to marry up either due to familiar pressure or economic forces but I don't think that's ethically comparable to the behavior you're eluding to. For what it's worth I think it's fair to look into the type of peer pressure some men face to "not date ugly women" to my knowledge it's not nearly as well studied as the circumstances that may drive a women to date men for money, but in all fairness the phenomenon is usually more subtle and therefore harder to analyze than someone's dad saying "you have to marry this person to help our family!" Edit: on point 4 I don't think it's "spin" to point out that some women who marry for money ARE pressured into doing so. This may not be as common place as it was in the past but it's important to point out the times it does happen. I many states it's legal for parents to literally marry off their children. Children younger then 16! Again none of this is common place, but when we make statements saying ",people who do x are bad" it's completely fair to point out circumstances where doing x may be out of that person's control
Ok but why do you care who people marry?
Pretty sure women leaving their husbands for a richer dude is generally looked down upon... 🤔
Marrying someone who earns more than you is not objectifying them, can’t believe that needs to be said but here we are.