Why is being a golddigger seen as worse then being a looksdigger?

[theonewhocantascend]

Some men like to give woman crap for demanding that their boyfriends pay shit for them, and they say men are the ones who actually love women simply because men are LOOKSdiggers.

But if the woman survives an acid attack won't the looksdigger leave, just like a golddigger would leave as soon as the guy went broke?
It's not actual love if you only love the looks
Being a golddigger is simply more intelligent, because even if the relationship fails they can be "refunded"

 

[theonewhocantascend]

No one actually cares about personality tbh, over

 

[AlexBrown84]

you know i ain’t afraid to pop pills

 

[theonewhocantascend]

Bump

 

[AlexBrown84]

please don’t wakeup them up they dreaming

 

[theonewhocantascend]

please don’t wakeup them up they dreaming

Who?

 

[AlexBrown84]

Who?

be glad youu3 even talking to a legendary user like me

you know how special that is? now you can say youve talked to me

a self realized individual

 

[InnerVoid]

because you ARE your looks. money is something extra

 

[Luffymaxxing]

be glad youu3 even talking to a legendary user like me

you know how special that is? now you can say youve talked to me

a self realized individual

>Written from: Mumbai

 

[mrdouchebag]

Exactly. Everyone is shallow. Being a golddigger or a looksdigger is equally as shallow, for both men and women.

People overestimate the importance of looks in a long term relationship. You can be a PSL god, but eventually the woman will get bored of fucking you or looking at you. At some point, an objectively less attractive guy starts looking more appealing to her, because new beats old every single time. If looks is your only leverage, you will lose it eventually and quite soon, within 6 months to 2 years usually. Same applies to Stacies dating a man. It's only a matter of time.

Then you have to also take into account the following fact: Wealth can go up or down, and usually it's more likely for a rich guy to become even richer than poorer. Looks will eventually go down with age, no matter how attractive you used to be, noone gets hotter with age.

People don't like gold diggers because of one single reason. The laws in place favor the woman always. There is no shame in spending some resources on a woman as long as she is with you and she's faithful to you. But it's humiliating that when she leaves you, she can take a significant portion of your hard earned assets, and you're also forced by the court to keep paying her through child support and alimony, only for her to spend that money on the new guy that is now fucking her. Yes she might have wasted some of her prime years on you, but you also spent resources on her. Noone can refund her prime years obviously. But not only they don't refund you the money you spent on her, they are also forcing you to pay her even more money while she's fucking some other guy. Quite ludicrous when you think about it.

 

[dreamcake1mo]

Exactly. Everyone is shallow. Being a golddigger or a looksdigger is equally as shallow, for both men and women.

People overestimate the importance of looks in a long term relationship. You can be a PSL god, but eventually the woman will get bored of fucking you or looking at you. At some point, an objectively less attractive guy starts looking more appealing to her, because new beats old every single time. If looks is your only leverage, you will lose it eventually and quite soon, within 6 months to 2 years usually. Same applies to Stacies dating a man. It's only a matter of time.

Then you have to also take into account the following fact: Wealth can go up or down, and usually it's more likely for a rich guy to become even richer than poorer. Looks will eventually go down with age, no matter how attractive you used to be, noone gets hotter with age.

People don't like gold diggers because of one single reason. The laws in place favor the woman always. There is no shame in spending some resources on a woman as long as she is with you and she's faithful to you. But it's humiliating that when she leaves you, she can take a significant portion of your hard earned assets, and you're also forced by the court to keep paying her through child support and alimony, only for her to spend that money on the new guy that is now fucking her. Yes she might have wasted some of her prime years on you, but you also spent resources on her. Noone can refund her prime years obviously. But not only they don't refund you the money you spent on her, they are also forcing you to pay her even more money while she's fucking some other guy. Quite ludicrous when you think about it.

I agree but looks is in my opinion less shallow than money. Don't get me wrong, they are both shallow and of animalistic nature. But money culture in todays society can buy everything, whereas looks are more personalized and unique. Let alone unique content of character which is superior, the uniqueness of a persons look is also thrown out the window and replaced for the lowest form of uniqueness. Because by definition, money is a universally uniform and recognized unit of value. Which makes gold-digging the most shallow and one dimensional. Choosing your partner strictly based on that unit of value is unfathomably low. And is reflection of a equally low and shallow character, more than a person who chooses their partner based on looks.

If people were to date based on their looksmatch, there would almost be no incels. Truth is, most women are not pushing past a 6. Even the models people post here are around a 6 at best. And most men arent really any lower than a 5. Guys here are autistic to think its their looks which made them this way.

Where, purchasing power in todays society has created a huge romantic injustice, where the few percent of average and even below average looking men are monopolizing the women and QOL due to their financial power and what it brings. Especially if we consider preselection, hypergamy and the female biological preposition, which money greatly influences. Such as how you can become famous based on money alone by paying celebrities to market, which would imply to others that you are in higher fraternity, which in turn will boost your SMV greatly towards women who are biologically prepositioned to be impressionable by those social factors.

 

[mrdouchebag]

I agree but looks is in my opinion less shallow than money. Dont get me wrong, they are both shallow and of animalistic nature.

But if people were to date based on their looksmatch, there would almost be no incels. Truth is, most women are not pushing past a 6. Even the models people post here are around a 5-6 at best. And most men arent really any lower than a 5. Guys here are autistic to think its their looks which made them this way.

Where, money in todays society has created a huge romantic injustice, where the few percent of average and even below average looking men are monopolizing the women and QOL due to their financial power and what it brings. Especially if we consider preselection, hypergamy and the female biological preposition, where its money which greatly influences those variables.

True, but dating is half perception half reality. And you certainly can't line up everyone and force them to date their looksmatch in order to solve the problem. It's impossible. Even if 99% adhered by that standard, the 1% who doesn't can ruin things for the rest of them given some time. It might take some time, but their actions will trickle down, poison the market and start influencing everyone else's actions eventually, unless the 1% gets totally isolated and removed from the rest of the population.