More Dads Are Getting Plastic Surgery (and Hate For It)

[That Guy]

If you think that money doesn't attract women, you're not paying attention. I work in a well-compensated industry, in one of the most competitive, expensive cities on the planet. Nearly every spouse/gf of those in my peer group are very physically attractive, and quite often many numbers - on a scale of 0-10 - above their partner. You should see what some of my colleagues who look like absolute trolls (short, fat, bald, etc.) pull with not much effort. Do you think it's due to their sterling personalities (trust me, they don't have them), or the house in East Hampton? Can the same be said of, say, a cohort of cab drivers or waiters?

Men like attractive women. Women like men who can provide. There's nothing wrong with either of those two established, biologically-driven realities.

Women like attractive men who can also provide. Your peer group is again, not representative of society at large; it is unlikely that cute waitress is married to a millionaire.

Tons of these rich dudes with trophy wives are in sexless marriages or get cheated on; Tommy & Gina were both in sh*t situations, but stuck it out and worked together to build a better life — it's a trope in movies and songs for a reason.

Again, none of this explains why the world's wealthiest men seem to settle for so much less (physically, which is supposed to be our motivation) and why movie stars date and marry other movie stars. In the former, could it possibly be because they possess the awareness to know that some hot girl half his age has ulterior motives?

 

[That Guy]

some are some aren't.

Some are genuinely hot for their husbands.

"Some"

as I've said on here many times, exceptions to the rule are not what we should base our expectations on.

 

[hairblues]

"Some"

as I've said on here many times, exceptions to the rule are not what we should base our expectations on.

They are also not marrying Hooter waitresses. They are marrying quality women usually. Some exceptions of course

 

[That Guy]

They are also not marrying Hooter waitresses. They are marrying quality women usually. Some exceptions of course

My overarching point and response to MGTOW is go ahead, get all that money and status you can all while looking like Danny DeVito and get yourself a smoking hot 9 who is ten years younger than you.

But if you wind up in a sexless marriage and/or she cheats on you, the rest of us will be right here to say we told you so.

 

[That Guy]

Physical appearance is heritable. If my example wasn't true, why isn't everyone a 10? If women rarely considered men who weren't physically attractive, there wouldn't be a lot of unattractive people. Of course we know the exact opposite is true - most people are not that attractive.



An anecdote of two examples out of hundreds of thousands of HNWIs proves your theory? Do you know for a fact that all billionaires/hundred millionaires marry down physically? Because I am quite certain that I personally know many, many times more HNWI than you do, and I can tell you that has not been my observation.

And again - there is nothing wrong with it. It is a product of biology, and it works very well. Men want women who are physically attractive, because it's a sign of healthy genes. Women want men who can provide, because - generally - they want to raise children, and a wealthy man provides a massive advantage in today's society. Do women care about physicality? Of course they do, but it's just not going to be as important as his productivity (which, btw, is a proxy for intelligence - another major selection criterion when choosing a mate).

Yeah dude, I don't care how many rich guys you know — I'm not impressed.

The cold hard truth, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, is that the overwhelming majority of the populace are dating and marrying people they want to f*** and within their social class. No anecdote is going to change that; there's no epidemic of women leaving their current guys for richer men. Attractive women are not as rare as unicorns and the majority of them aren't with rich slugs.

You talk about "biology", well it's a fact (one based on actual science not sociology) that women generally have the biological workings responsible for a sense of aesthetics and again, that's why they are trusted in their opinions on hair, makeup, colour, etc. No doubt you'd agree with this, but when it comes to you, all that goes out the window and she primarily cares about the thickness of your wallet? Get real.

The MGTOW crowd can go on in their delusions, the rest of us will be here in reality where you can't be an ugly POS with a bank account and expect that hot women who agree to date or even marry you are giving you anything real — especially not the orgasms.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

She's not attracted to you, but to the money and the advantages it provides.

She's still going to lie like a dead fish when she lets you have your monthly pity f***.

"Gotta keep f*****g this ugly bald freak to enjoy his money."

Glorified prostitutes.

Donald Trump and Melania Trump are a decent example of this.

Is Trump an alpha male or a beta provider?

Melania clearly doesn't love him.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

The study, by its own conclusions, demonstrates that females (in the study) had a more positive response to a sexually-charged watch ad when the watch was more expensive than when it was a cheap watch. Also, there were just 47 women in this study; a far cry from the MILLIONS who DON'T date and marry rich guys.

You were doing well up until that point.

- 47 can actually be a perfectly good simple if the effect measured is large.
- There are not millions of rich guys available for women to marry. The average women will not end up with a millionaire, or a guy with a six pack, or a guy who is 6'3, etc etc etc because such men are scarce. However, the converse holds. Men who have those attributes do better with women than men who don't.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yeah dude, I don't care how many rich guys you know — I'm not impressed.

The cold hard truth, whether anyone wants to accept it or not, is that the overwhelming majority of the populace are dating and marrying people they want to f*** and within their social class. No anecdote is going to change that; there's no epidemic of women leaving their current guys for richer men. Attractive women are not as rare as unicorns and the majority of them aren't with rich slugs.

You talk about "biology", well it's a fact (one based on actual science not sociology) that women generally have the biological workings responsible for a sense of aesthetics and again, that's why they are trusted in their opinions on hair, makeup, colour, etc. No doubt you'd agree with this, but when it comes to you, all that goes out the window and she primarily cares about the thickness of your wallet? Get real.

The MGTOW crowd can go on in their delusions, the rest of us will be here in reality where you can't be an ugly POS with a bank account and expect that hot women who agree to date or even marry you are giving you anything real — especially not the orgasms.

General matching within social class doesn't preclude the prioritization of other variables as well. It is possible for things in this world to be multivariable, which includes relationship formation.

The caste system in India was a good example. People generally married within their caste. But sometimes a beautiful woman from a lower caste married a man from a higher caste. @pjhair , with his knowledge of South Asian history, can confirm.

 

[That Guy]

You were doing well up until that point.

- 47 can actually be a perfectly good simple if the effect measured is large.
- There are not millions of rich guys available for women to marry. The average women will not end up with a millionaire, or a guy with a six pack, or a guy who is 6'3, etc etc etc because such men are scarce. However, the converse holds. Men who have those attributes do better with women than men who don't.

Regardless, the study that he posted does not prove the point he thinks it does.

As for point 2, that is true, but I still do not buy the MGTOW general standpoint of money > all the other attributes.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Regardless, the study that he posted does not prove the point he thinks it does.

As for point 2, that is true, but I still do not buy the MGTOW general standpoint of money > all the other attributes.

I don't read their literature, I didn't realize that they believe that money comes first.

Anyway I think money is very valuable but not for the stupid reason some think. It buys opportunity. More money means better health physical and mental, more opportunities to meet people, more ways to have fun. It even makes you look better -- for example I'm spending $6000 on invisalign. And if I was richer I'd be doing other things too.

 

[hairblues]

Regardless, the study that he posted does not prove the point he thinks it does.

As for point 2, that is true, but I still do not buy the MGTOW general standpoint of money > all the other attributes.

No, it does not trump everything but I think environment and social environment plays a role in this as well..

NYC it is very normal to see wealthy men who are 4 5 or 6 with women who are like 9 and 10s.

I would not classify all these women as gold diggers. These men are mostly very dynamic men.

It's not going to work for 99.9% of posters here so it really does not matter what they want to think.

 

[pjhair]

General matching within social class doesn't preclude the prioritization of other variables as well. It is possible for things in this world to be multivariable, which includes relationship formation.

The caste system in India was a good example. People generally married within their caste. But sometimes a beautiful woman from a lower caste married a man from a higher caste. @pjhair , with his knowledge of South Asian history, can confirm.

People in India do generally marry within their social class. However, it's very easy for Indian women to marry up(within their own caste) given they possess certain traits such as beauty. However, this is not true for men. They have harder time marrying up.

Social class (wealth) is different from caste(religion ordained stratification of labor) in Indian context. In older generations a man or a women would exceedingly rarely marry some one of a different caste no matter how good looking or wealthy potential bride/groom were. This has changed substantially in modern times and inter caste marriage is getting more common.

 

[pjhair]

The reason Indian women have easier time marrying up is primarily because of arranged marriages. Parents do look for men who can provide for their daughters.

 

[H]

Any of you guys see that Ms. Pretty and J.P. Morgan CEO article?

 

[That Guy]

I don't read their literature, I didn't realize that they believe that money comes first.

Anyway I think money is very valuable but not for the stupid reason some think. It buys opportunity. More money means better health physical and mental, more opportunities to meet people, more ways to have fun. It even makes you look better -- for example I'm spending $6000 on invisalign. And if I was richer I'd be doing other things too.

As my grandad (on mom's side), a guy who's now worth a fair amount of money himself would say: "Having money is never a bad thing" and "I don't know if there's such a thing as bad money"

and lastly...

No, it does not trump everything but I think environment and social environment plays a role in this as well..

NYC it is very normal to see wealthy men who are 4 5 or 6 with women who are like 9 and 10s.

I would not classify all these women as gold diggers. These men are mostly very dynamic men.

It's not going to work for 99.9% of posters here so it really does not matter what they want to think.

If I was a complete Quasimodo and going to use money for the purposes of trying to attract and impress women, my first order of business would be to fix my sh*t with plastic surgery before buying a Ferrari or a Yacht.

If you can say "I wish I was born rich instead of so good looking", the good news is that life has still dealt you an excellent hand.

 

[GiveMeAccessToMyAccount]

• men pay most of the taxes
• most homeless people are men
• men get divorce-raped in courts
• men commit the most suicides

Men are more likely to go through with suicide because the manner in which they do it is actually to kill themselves. Like throwing themselves out of a building, shooting themselves, jumping off a bridge. Women would kill themselves at the same rate, but they would do something like overdose on Advil and just get sick the next day with a stomach ache and be fine and put into a mental hospital or given psychiatric help for the attempt at killing themselves. There's a study that shows basically men commit more suicides because they're actually more likely to try to kill themselves in a manner that actually works. Women are actually twice as likely to be depressed and have suicidal thoughts than men, their suicide attempts are just weak.

 

[H]

Men are more likely to go through with suicide because the manner in which they do it is actually to kill themselves. Like throwing themselves out of a building, shooting themselves, jumping off a bridge. Women would kill themselves at the same rate, but they would do something like overdose on Advil and just get sick the next day with a stomach ache and be fine and put into a mental hospital or given psychiatric help for the attempt at killing themselves. There's a study that shows basically men commit more suicides because they're actually more likely to try to kill themselves in a manner that actually works. Women are actually twice as likely to be depressed and have suicidal thoughts than men, their suicide attempts are just weak.

Women are also more likely to reach out for help and seek treatment a lot more. Men compartmentalize more often.

 

[hairblues]

A

If I was a complete Quasimodo and going to use money for the purposes of trying to attract and impress women, my first order of business would be to fix my sh*t with plastic surgery before buying a Ferrari or a Yacht.

If you can say "I wish I was born rich instead of so good looking", the good news is that life has still dealt you an excellent hand.

No money does not replace looks you are being extreme with quasi modo and danny devito.

I think you are also misunderstanding as if is just the money.

There is something about men who make it here in NYC on that top tier level that is powerful to people..NOT every guy like this of course not.

power attracts some women from days of Gangus Kahn...it's not a new concept.

Again its a moot point because these guys who are mgtow bullshit are probably mostly basement dwellers and are worried about picking up the check at red lobster.

It's not going to apply to the average guy making 100 grand a year (In NY this is not a lot of money).

 

[hairblues]

Ah, I'm not sure Genghis Kahn was seducing those women with his power and status.

He kind of... forced them. Which you can do when you have a lot of power.

A very rich guy could just dangle a hundred thousand dollars in front of any woman, and few would turn him down.

Or they think "maybe if I f*** this ugly baldo, there will be something big in it for me!"

Looks and being matched, that's all there is to it on a primal level.

Power attracts people who are attracted to power.

People like money and prestige, shocker.

Power, money, status don't make a vagina that would be try if you were poor and powerless suddenly wet.

Does that make sense?

It is not about dangling money in front of people

Its about the level of success and what it says about a person and to some women that level of success is appealing

You have to have certain personality traits to make that level of sucess--your average guy is not going to get there.

It signifies something about a person.

And YES women can be aroused by stuff--so can men...Ever see a man with a new sports car? or a woman with anew pari of shoes? they are on endorphin highs.

Stuff pleasures our reward center of our brain.

Its not going to make an 'ugly' guy look good NOT what I said.

It will make an average or below average guy LOOK better for sure.

And take that average looking guy who now is making $20 million a year in a cut-throat ruthless shark infested industry?---You don't think that is a turn on????

pff.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Most likely since some women love psychopaths.

You don't make it in a shark-invested industry without being a sociopath.

You usually don't go from low or average income to rich without making huge sacrifices that will most likely leave you damaged and unstable.

Nothing's free in life. Maybe that's my way of coping, but not many women seem to understand this when they say they want an ambitious man.

And then complain that he's never available, damaged, psychopathic, stubborn, etc.

That's why the best bet would be a rich guy who got where he is thanks to daddy, but that wouldn't make you vagina very wet.

Some people get lucky course. But that won't give you the tingles either.

I think it's safe to say that huge amount of money and status are variables you can take out of the equation.

You don't become rich from talent and hard work.

Look at Emmanuel Macron, from employee crunching numbers on Excel to partner overnight.

"OMG how did he do that?! So smart! So sexy!"

People gave him the position on a silver platter because that's where they wanted him to be. He's a lucky pawn.

No, you become rich and powerful mostly from luck. Being the right person at the right place at the right time.

I don't know what's sexy about that.

We had some wall Street people come speak to us recently about careers in wall Street, they worked at Goldman Sachs and I forget where else. They said that how cutthroat is it is is one of the big differences with academia, people on wall Street largely look out for themselves and won't hesitate to crush you if it gives them advantages. So if you work there you need to be constantly paranoid about everybody else.