What women really want: to marry a rich man

I envy women that they can, for years, even decades, be the equivalent of parasites, that they can be totally financially dependent on their husbands, and at the same time they have maids, nannies, and the like, and thus don't actually have to work at all. With the very rare exception (Madonna's boy toy husband perhaps?), men cannot get away with this. How is it that women can act as though they are dependent children, and get away with it? Perhaps the answer can be explained by "erotic capital"? In the paper from Oxford University, researchers claim that women have more erotic capital than men, and they use it to get special privileges:

http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/03/19/esr.jcq014.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=Erotic+Capital&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

Now, how do we level the playing field? How do we compensate for women's erotic capital? Perhaps with male intellectual capital?

Quote from the article:

"many women did not want to “admit” that they were looking for a higher earning partner. They even keep the fact secret from the men they are dating.."

Is it really a secret? Something women have to "admit" as if they should feel guilty?

Do men have to "admit" and feel guilty about being attracted to a certain look and body type when searching for a female mate?

Women want confident, smart, successful men which usually equates to higher earnings. Men want attractive women. Look at the successful men in the media and take notice of what type of women they choose. These are men that can choose any type of women they want and most DO NOT choose career or equal earning women.

The higher earnings a man has, the less likely he is interested in sharing half the household duties with his wife when he gets home from work.

Sexual attraction is biological, and it is no secret that either gender should feel shame for having. Sexual attraction is probably the biggest motivational factor to humans. The first trail ever made was probably by a man so he could get to a woman's house to get laid. Now look at all the roads we have.

Of course looking for only these qualities in a mate can lead to an unhappy relationship. Common interest and goals are just as important, but I don't think there is anything shameful about accepting our biological programming.

So, Kris, why have the feminists been telling us all these years that what women really want is to be financially independent? Are feminists as wrong about this as they are about so many of their other claims? Incidentally, we shouldn't forget that women also want physically attractive men.

Gregory, I am not a feminist and have never related to them, so I cannot answer your question. Go ask a feminist.

My guess is that they are wrong. Look at women that seek out the same financial success as men. They usually achieve this by putting off children and families. How do they feel when they hit 45?

The artificial insemination clinics are booming.

If you believe, like I do, that healthy families are the foundation to healthy societies and also vital to the survival of our species. Then putting off families and resorting to artificial procedures to create "families" cannot be a good thing.

Also, when it comes to looks or physical attractiveness of a mate.... Men are known as being far more visually stimulated compared to woman. Physical qualities of their partner are more important to men. That's why you see more ugly men with hot women compared to hot men with ugly women.

Also in response to Redwoodtwriter's post above:

I grew up in rich neighborhoods where many wives were stay at home moms married to successful men. Most of these women were college educated and/or highly capable of having their own successful careers (Most did have careers before they had children). Many of them had housecleaners and a few had nannies as well. As a teenager I babysat a lot for the families in my neighborhood and even accompanied a family on their vacation as the "nanny".

I never saw any lazy housewives. I never saw a mother sitting around and watching soap operas while maids and nannies took care of all the duties. What I saw were woman that had the time and money to take care of themselves and their family and they were busy and active throughout the whole day.

Also rich people's houses are larger than the average house, sometimes people even have a second or third house. Rich people have more possessions that require the need for hired help. If a man doesn't want to mess with household chores when he gets home, he can either have 3 wives - or one wife, a maid and a gardener. It is about paying for the upkeep of possessions and for convenience. It has nothing to do with having a lazy spouse.

Having a stay at home parent is a often considered a luxury. From what I can see, rich men are not forced into having a stay at home wife, but rather it is what they prefer and want. It takes out the expectation for husbands to share in housecleaning. It provide better and safer environment for children as the alternative would be daycare. Kids are able to participate in more activities since they have a stay at home parent to drive and facilitate everything. It also eliminates any conflict and stress that dual careers might cause. It allows the wife and kids to be available around the husband's schedule and more time for families to share in leisure activities.

Sure, staying at home and performing household and social activities are easier than a high stress career. But if this is the lifestyle that both husband and wife want, why should any outsiders complain? The happiest and most successful marriages and families I have seen are these types.

Women demand that they are equal and also demand that they are a "protected" group requiring quotas.

The fact of the matter is, women have been genetically programmed to seek the resources of a man. And as one commentor states - they are essentially parasites.

I have a wife that refuses to work. And, unfortunately, our current laws support such behavior - particularly if you divorce. If we divorce she will be rewarded for being slovenly.

oregon dad

In response to Kris's second post in this comment thread, many women don't want to work, they just want a rich man to take care of them. This socially acceptable female behavior even has a long-standing name ("gold digger"). More recently we have a new phrase for it, specifically "toxic wife syndrome." These women have no intention of doing anything, they are only after money. In case you aren't familiar with this, see the following article:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0713068120070307

I personally experienced this behavior with wife #2. While she had a profitable and successful small business as a public relations consultant before I married her, as soon as she was married to me she dropped everything related to that business. She wouldn't even bill her clients. I asked her why she wasn't working any more. She said "that's your job - you're the man." Of course she never breathed a word of this to me prior to the marriage. In retrospect I should have divorced her right then and there, for defrauding me. But I was in love... this female behavior is not all that unusual. It's another good reason never to get married.

Kris, I agree that physical appearance is probably more important to men than to women. But I suspect that a hot woman with an ugly man is with him because he has a lot of money. If he didn't, she wouldn't be with him. Your point, I guess, is that even a rich dumpy woman would have a hard time attracting a hot guy.

To make me feel like a real man I need to have a 125 plus pound dollar sucking female leech attached to my financial money flow artery. NOT!!!!!!!!!

@Kris: I think you're missing the point. If you ever find your husband staring at a luscious young lady in a sexy outfit and you get a little uneasy about it, just think back to all the rationalizing you just did to excuse women who marry rich.

In all of those wealthy households you just described, there's just one thing that's all but guaranteed in the event of the man losing his income: a divorce. We (men) live with you (women) knowing that this is how you view us. We know that 75% of divorces are initiated by women, the most likely reason being about money, and the most likely catalyst is knowing she'll get the kids and half of everything he's still got left. You don't have to look at another man to confirm our suspicions - you just have to look at our wallets.

***Gregory and all:

My point is that sexual attraction is biological and nothing to be ashamed of. It is necessary for survival of the human species.

Do you think the rich man does not know that the girl is attracted to his money? Some may say that access to hot women is motivation for men to succeed and achieve financial success.

Story: My husband's best friends was a slacker in high school. No one expected much of him and after high school he worked some menial job. His employer required him to be first-aid certified, so he went to the nearby college to sign up for a one-day first-aid class.

A hot girl was behind him in the registration line and asked him what he was signing up for. He said "pre-med" to try and impress her. When he got to the counter, she was still next to him, so he actually registered for pre-med. He is now a doctor - all because he wanted to impress a girl..

...And yes, it might be difficult for a rich dumpy woman to attract a hot guy. But more on topic it would be difficult for an ugly woman to attract a rich man no matter how good her personality is. How many multi-millionaires have ugly girlfriends?

Hopefully men and women consider the need for compatible personalities and similar goals when entering a relationship, but generally a man wants the most physically appealing girl he is able to attract and a woman wants the most successful man she is able to attract.

Think of this biological behavior in it's most exploitive form: Prostitution. A man will pay more for a hot woman, and a hot woman will charge more. This will never change.

***Redwoodwriter, Oregon Dad and all:

I hear what you guys are saying.

I don't condone anyone misrepresenting themselves. Honesty and agreement of lifestyle and priorities must all be in place before marriage. For me, it is very important that my kids have a stay at home parent. I don't want to entrust them to daycares or schools (I homeschool them). My husband and I talked about all this before marriage.

I too would be upset if after marriage his priorities changed and I felt trapped by the legal system.

BTW - One thing that stands out in my memories of working as a nanny is the baby on the verge of walking and the mother handing me a video camera and telling me to record her first steps if she should happen to take them while in my care. (she did, but I didn't have the camera within reach).

Not only did I see baby's first steps, I took the children to the zoo, watched their soccer games, etc. all stuff I thought the parents should be doing.

The wife made good money but so did the husband. They spent to their capacity, but if it were me, I would rather not have so many possessions and instead spend time with my kids - but too each his own.

***Dungone and all:

I did not miss the point. The article was on woman "admitting" to wanting to marry rich. That is what I commented on. It said nothing about divorce.

However, you do bring up a good point. Please remember that I am an MRA and am raising boys. I hope they never experience divorce, but if they do I hope the effort I put forth in supporting father's rights will pave the way for change and give them a fair deal.

BTW- I see more divorces in dual career families then I do with stay-at-home mom families.

And when my husband shows interest in sexy woman I remind myself that it is a sign of his good sexual health. It will be a sad day when he no longer gets turned on. I have no problem with my husband going to strip clubs, as long as he comes home to me.

***Everyone:

Bottom line: No shame in sexual attractions. We all know women are attracted to successful men, and men are attracted to physically appealing women.

Wether a family wants a stay at home parent or to be dual income, They should be in agreement and do what works best for them. No reason to dis stay-at-home moms if everyone is getting what they want.

:-)

From the article:

> " Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat equalities minister..."

"Liberal Democratic Equalities Minister" ???

Her title cracks me up.

Kris, you make good points, but on this one, below, let me respond:

"And yes, it might be difficult for a rich dumpy woman to attract a hot guy. But more on topic it would be difficult for an ugly woman to attract a rich man no matter how good her personality is. How many multi-millionaires have ugly girlfriends?"

On the other hand, it would be difficult for an ugly (non-rich) man to attract a good-looking woman no matter how good his personality is. How many good-looking women have ugly (non-rich) boyfriends?