<p>the more money you have the more attractive you are?</p>
<p>I don’t think so.</p>
<p>More money, more problems. But no, not all women are gold diggers. As a male, I am against that statement. However, women can only choose 2 things. The color of their kitchen and the type of oven they want. (jkjkjkjkjkjk)</p>
<p>I think any woman would rather marry someone who was rich rather than poor all else held equal. That doesn’t necessarily mean that is the most important trait they look for, but rich is better than poor.</p>
<p>There was actually a noted absence of women amongst the prospectors of CA c. 1850, leading to such digging sites as “Woman’s crevice.”</p>
<p>= APUSH</p>
<p>I don’t think so…I just ask myself…Would you date a guy that you are not interested in for his money? my answer: no.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>disagree</p>
<p>“not necessarily.”</p>
<p>I didn’t feel like restating the “all else held equal,” but if you still disagree, can you give an example?</p>
<p>I think QwertyKey is stating that if a girl found the lover of her life, and had the option of him being rich or not, she would choose that guy to be wealthy (does this make sense?). I think that holds true for just about any human, the natural desire for power and possessions. But not obscene amounts, like not being able to walk into a Wal-Mart from being so well-known…</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Some women don’t want to be financially dependent on their husbands.</p>
<p>^Exactly. I am one of those women. I want to have my career ‘up and running’ when I meet my love…</p>
<p>^True, but I think it would be highly highly tempting. But different strokes for different folks :)</p>
<p>" Some women don’t want to be financially dependent on their husbands."</p>
<p>Her husband being rich doesn’t make her dependent on him, unless you’re pointing out some sort of tax bracket issue. Even so though, would you rather each of you make 80K/year, or you make 80K/year and him make 2M/year? Is that first one really better?</p>
<p>Big dreamer got what I was saying… Though I don’t see why that explanation is any clearer than what I said.</p>
<p>@QwertyKey: </p>
<p>Yeah I see what you mean QwertKey. Haha if the husband makes $2M a year, then no matter what the woman makes (or doesn’t make for that matter), they are still paying big taxes. That is true, having a rich husband does not mean that a woman has to take a back seat. In fact, that might let her have more opportunities to work, since they could afford adequate childcare (if they have a family) when both parents work. I think making less might be better solely from wanting to “lay low” and not be overly wealthy.</p>
<p>If he made more, that would be fine. I was looking at this from a different angle. I know what you mean. I was thinking more of…if choosing between two men</p>
<p>1) makes 80k/year
2) makes 2M/year</p>
<p>pick #2</p>
<p>This is what I thought you were saying…my bad.</p>
<p>$80k/year is quite a bit</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why not? If you’re rich, you can be poor. If you’re poor, it’s harder to become rich.</p>
<p>^^$2M/Year is even more.</p>
<p>^Truth</p>
<p>I don’t think all women like “rich” men because they want a slice of the money. Rather, I’d like to believe that successful men in their career are also more motivated, passionate, smarter, etc, and that that’s what makes them more attractive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>passion for what you do = extremely attractive in a man</p>
<p>All other things being equal, I’d choose the richer person. But that means -all- other things, including personality quirks, appearances, mannerisms, etc.</p>
<p>What Whan says is also true.</p>
<p>The term “gold-digger” is rather extreme and negative…but I understand the attention-grabbing purpose of thread titles xD</p>