I was at the dentist office the other day. While waiting a read this article, written by a woman, in Mens' Health. She said, "evolutionary speaking, a woman would rather have baby with a high status man who might bail on her, then one with a lower status man who is as loyal as a lapdog."
Is this how women feel?
Am I out of luck because I have steady, but not so high status (but not really low status either) civil service job?
I disagree. I'm not popping out babies for anyone that doesn't plan on sticking around.
░P░U░S░S░Y░ ░I░N░ ░B░I░O░
Status should have nothing to do with it, you can't help you fall in love with. Yes they do say that you can just as easily fall in love with a rich man as to a poor one, but in either case if there is nothing there, no connection, I don't care how much money one has it doesn't make them anymore appealing.
I think this relates to the primitive instinctive thing about seeking a mate who could protect and provide and therefore the more status or power the more attractive as the odds are favourable about provision etc. I feel this does still happen - politicians and policemen seem to have more groupies than rock bands (if you'll excuse the generalization as of course people do marry for love).
That's a bunch of hogwash! Why am I always ending up with low status needy pantie boys then? I also would never be popping out any children for anyone period. That article was a fine example of don't believe everything you read.
Bunny12
Bunny Rabbits cute and fuzzy they want to love you but they have razor sharp teeth - don't piss them off! What total nonsense, and don't you pay attention to it either.
I'm surprised at the unsympathetic ear this woman gets from the women who posted comments. Let's take your average woman. We will call her
Jane the receptionist. Jane has an IQ of 100. She has a choice of marrying and having children by Dan the Doctor (with an IQ of 120) or Charlie the custodian (with an IQ of 80). If she divorces Dan, she will get tax free child support of say $1200/month, not much less than $2000/mo Charlie makes before taxes.
On average the daughter she has with Don, would have an IQ of 110, with John 90. Don's daughter's grows up and becomes Nancy's the nurse. The daughter she has by Charlie becomes Wendy the waitress (no offense intended my niece is a waitress).
Nancy has a much better chance of marrying a doctor (or other high status person) than does Wendy. The grandchildren Jane has through Don, the doctor are much better off than would be through John the janitor and would be better able to help take care of Jane when she grows old. So for the sake of her daughters yet born, Jane goes for the higher status guy.
Where does this leave Charlie and Mark the mailman (with an IQ of 100)? Very frustrated.
Almost without exception, women marry at or above their status. A male doctor might marry a nurse or receptionist, but a female doctor who is she going to marry? A plumber? For the past decade or so, more women have graduated from college than men. When women complain there as so few good guys available, demographically, and from an evolutionary point of few, they are correct.
The answer to the question depends a lot on demographics asked.
I would say about 80% of the girls I know married for status. Status wasn't the only factor, but it certainly meant the guy was a good catch and came with a lot of perks that allowed them to quit their jobs and go shopping. It's not like these guys aren't attractive or good guys in all the other important ways, but I'd say it was more about financial security and future baby-making benefits than about true soulmate kismet type connections. In fact some have even told me this straight up. That's not to say that they would have been better suited to a "Charlie the Custodian" type either. Just that if you're in the market for marriage and babies, the guy's status and genetic perks are probably going to factor in (to some degree) when you're looking for potential prospects.
It matters a lot less when these aren't your immediate goals - eg. if you're divorced & dating, looking for short-term fun, are not marriage-minded or don't want kids and a white picket fence. Then you can go for the hot broke bad boy, mature soulful guys or the sensitive unemployed artist types and say status means nothing as long as it's 'true luv'.
It also depends on how desirable the female is - if she has more options, she's more likely to be choosey about what she's looking for in a guy, whether it's in the looks, status or $$ department. This may influence who she gives the time of day to as far as dating/sex.
I'm not applauding or criticizing this outlook either, by the way. People want different things in life and have different expectations - I don't think it's about grandstanding about virtuous choices. People should do what they want if it makes sense to them and keeps them happy.
Ideally, women want a man who has it all: looks, status, intelligence, loyalty, financial stability, etc.
If I was going to choose a mate solely for breeding purposes, then I would choose him based on his genetic material, namely looks and intellectual ability. For breeding alone, I would not need loyalty.
