41
42

DISCUSSIONHow class affects male preferences (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor

I've always believed class is the third rail in TRP/RPW, or at least the big under-addressed issue that affects commitment.

I believe male attraction (in other words, his desire to hook up with you and spend time with you) is almost entirely dependent on interpersonal skills and your looks. Criteria doesn't vary that much across classes and follows conventional RPW wisdom. In other words:

  • Your appearance
  • Disposition
  • Do you make him laugh
  • Do you make him feel positive/ boosted up/ masculine?

Not practical skills - neither your MBA nor your mean pot roast.

However, male commitment is dependent on BOTH his attraction, AND a set of very practical concerns - potentially both your MBA, and your mean pot roast.

In other words:

  • Do you make him look good to his friends, family and acquaintances? Do you serve as evidence for his social value?
  • Does your relationship/marriage increase his odds of achieving the economic outcome he wants for his life?
  • Does your relationship/marriage increase his odds of achieving the social outcome he wants for his life?
  • Do you increase his quality of life, either by increasing family income and/or by making the same income go further?

Lower-income men generally have pretty low cost-of-living (may not expect to send children to private 4 year colleges, for instance) and no ability to consistently outsource household tasks. In my opinion that generally means that a practical wife choice is a woman with a strong work ethic, great household management skills, who isn't spoiled and who can ensure their family has lots of fun on a budget. As extremely bad outcomes (drug addiction, children out of wedlock, etc.) are a great risk for this economic bracket, it's especially important to find a woman who will be hands-on, strong mother - super high-quality childcare, private schools, etc. may not be an option. Some men in this bracket, for instance, may specifically look for a woman who is open to homeschooling to ensure their kids have a good outcome.

Middle-income men (skilled trades, middle management and below white collar) in the U.S., as far as I've seen, generally prefer to marry a woman with low to moderate earning potential (a sort of safety net or occasional supplement for the family), strong household management skills (can you make a beautiful home out of discount furniture and DIYs), and a similar level of desired upward mobility. I find middle-class white-collar guys generally prefer to marry women with jobs they consider "respectable" but feminine - nurse, teacher, assistant, etc.

Upper-middle income "creative class" types (think consultants, analysts, guys in tech and media, etc., generally coastal or big city locations). This is where expectations of your career, education and earning potential really ratchet up. I find guys in this bracket either like women with extremely "interesting" careers with high social value in their social group (i.e. artists, inner-city school teacher, non-profit jobs), or women who have straightforwardly high-earning potential (banker, etc.). These guys are going to expect you have the right "taste" for their bracket and compatible ambitions and life plans -- I find this is a socio-economic group that reeeeeally wants to advance.

Top 1% guys is where you see the greatest variance in tastes, simply because income volatility is very high. You've got guys who came into a lot of money in their own lifetime or even very, very quickly (imagine an NFL player, etc.) whose tastes have become, therefore, a weird mix or almost even a caricature. You often see these men dating Instagram model types. You also have guys who have had money for 2-3 generations - usually a lot more interested in deepening their class membership by finding a woman already embedded in the "scene" they're trying to cement themselves in.

These are obviously quite big generalizations and there are so many niches and sub-sub groups to discuss, but I wanted to bring up the seeming contradictions people have noticed - statistically it's becoming undeniable that "assortative mating" in the U.S. is leading most men to select similar-earning-potential mates, even though we often de-emphasize career here!


[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Men, the OP begins by stating the criteria that are related to attraction and consistent across the board. There is a lot of argument about attraction when the topic at hand is commitment and class.

I am cleaning up this post for all the comments that veer too far into the "men need you to be pretty" territory. It's off topic. It's also stated in the OP and this is RPW we already know this.

[–][deleted]  (48 children)

[removed]

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

    I don't disagree, that's why I differentiate right up front between attraction and the decision to commit.

    [–]engy-throwaway 9 points10 points  (21 children)

    Men's preferences don't change as their class changes, the only thing that changes is the women they can attract and keep. Every man would date the instagram model looking girl

    sure, but there are LOTS of different instagram model looks. There's the skinny heroin chic look, the skinny hipster look, the moderately curvy look, the VERY curvy look, the broad chest with less waist accentuation look, the adorable kawaii look, etc.

    And there's no consensus on which type is the most appealing, because men have huge variance in their tastes. There is evidence that lower class men prefer curvier types than middle class men. Men prefer curvier, more estrogenic body types when stressed.

    There's a lot of male consensus on what's unattractive (hairy, android fat, lean face), but there's not on what's attractive. If every man had unlimited choice, you'd still see a ton of variance.

    If every man had his way, they wouldn't date the "instagram model girl", unless you're thinking of a plethora of different "attractive" looks. A common thing men say is "I'm not attracted to her, but I can see how she is attractive".

    [–]NewMindRedPill1 Star 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I know which study you're talking about concerning stressed men prefer curvier women. It was actually, stressed men prefer women with a higher weight. Most men prefer curvier women - the hourglass or the pear shape. But stressed men prefer at a slightly higher weight of the same shape. But what's funny was that the study showed that the women they chose were simply closer to a healthier weight and not fat by any means. The nonstressed group picked underweight girls as the most attractive.

    I know that even the article's title mentions, "curvier" women but its a misuse of the word. So many people are using curvier in place of a women with more weight but thats incorrect. https://www.lehmiller.com/blog/2012/8/22/fact-check-do-stressed-out-men-really-prefer-curvier-women.html

    [–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    sure, but there are LOTS of different instagram model looks. There's the skinny heroin chic look, the skinny hipster look, the moderately curvy look, the VERY curvy look, the broad chest with less waist accentuation look, the adorable kawaii look, etc.

    Wow! I really must be living under a rock. I know only a few of those terms.

    [–][deleted]  (18 children)

    [removed]

      [–]md8716 5 points6 points  (3 children)

      Your entire premise is "i've decided this is universally beautiful and if you don't agree you're probably just a low class loser with no chance." Which is misguided at best.

      Also, you're erroneously painting a plurality's preference as the majority's preference.

      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

      [removed]

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [removed]

          [–]bloobird08 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Although I see what you’re saying, I think there is a little more variance than “all men would prefer THIS exact woman”. Key word-little more. I’m mostly agreeing. So this girl’s photo you provided, never heard of her, but let’s use her as an example: what about if a man prefers a similar body to her, but he likes blondes with blue eyes and bigger boobs (assuming she has brown eyes, I can’t see her eye color). Most high paid actresses have blue eyes, which suggest that blue eye color is pretty universally attractive and preferred. Blonde hair has also been shown to be preferred by many. Then when sex comes into play, some men care about the way a woman’s private area looks. Some v’s are more beautiful than others. This is an example of how there is more variance in people’s preferences than you think.

          [–][deleted]  (10 children)

          [removed]

            [–][deleted]  (9 children)

            [removed]

              [–][deleted]  (8 children)

              [removed]

                [–][deleted]  (7 children)

                [deleted]

                  [–][deleted]  (6 children)

                  [removed]

                    [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                      [removed]

                        [–]ragnarockette4 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        Very true! I also think there was a study here posted recently (I can’t find as I’m at the airport) that showed high school dropouts cared much less about their partner’s weight than men with advanced degrees. I think obviously all men would prefer a slim woman, but men with low earning potential have lower odds of attracting and retaining one, so they lower their standards.

                        [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 8 points9 points  (23 children)

                        Options definitely change even more drastically than preferences, yes.

                        But WITHIN a man's actual options, who does he decide to commit to? I'm positing that men do not always commit to the woman they are most attracted to, and that furthermore, they make that commitment decision based on different criteria depending on the unique problems and difficulties of their socio-economic status.

                        In other words, for a guy with the world at his feet, where there are many different beautiful women to choose from - he's going to commit based on additional, different criteria, he's not going to be parsing the microscopic visual differences between one gorgeous girl and another.

                        For a guy who's merely average, who's dating women who range from slightly below average to slightly above average in looks, I'm claiming he is NOT always going to marry the hottest girl he can find. He may instead choose to marry a girl who's in the top quarter of attractiveness that he can land, because she's, say, a dependable and practical person and that's important to him.

                        [–][deleted]  (20 children)

                        [removed]

                          [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (19 children)

                          I'm not trying to debate the primacy of looks versus other factors - I'm actually trying to discuss other factors BESIDES looks and femininity specifically, because I think they get addressed less. I'm not really sure where you disagree with me TBH.

                          I agree any man would probably prefer the best looking possible mate, sure - and I don't disagree that physical attraction is a near universally codified set of criteria, with much less variance than personality preference. I also certainly agree there are plenty of beautiful people with amazing personalities, and I certainly agree most people would choose that if it were an option.

                          But I'm saying ASIDE from attraction, what makes people choose the mates they do WITHIN their real life options? What explains the statistical trend towards partners with similar incomes? What motivates commitment and partner choice, BESIDES attractiveness?

                          [–][deleted]  (18 children)

                          [removed]

                            [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 16 points17 points  (2 children)

                            I'm going to opt out of this exchange because I feel like we're not quite connecting - you keep using the word "attraction" and "attracting", but I'm interested in discussing the choice to commit -- move in, marry, have kids, co-sign mortgages, etc. :)

                            Perhaps we simply travel in different circles. I don't hang around anyone mean-spirited enough to make overt negative remarks but to use my own life as an example, I don't know any guys with a college degree and desirable job willing to commit to someone without the same. I know plenty of guys who are even pickier than that - I know a guy who stopped seeing a girl simply because he felt her tastes in clothes and TV were embarrassingly tacky.

                            Class means next to nothing

                            Is simply not true. The vast, vast majority of modern American marriages are intra-class, even those that take place in quite small towns (where presumably the best-looking option you can attract is not also conveniently in your income bracket).

                            [–]NewMindRedPill1 Star 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                            I definitely agree with you here. This is definitely not new. In fact in the 50s-60s high class educated men going to Ivy Leagues liked women who went to a prestigious college for women (example Wellesley College). Their ability to go to a high level college showed that the woman was prestigious herself, was intelligent, and came from the "right" family. The women usually never used their degrees after marriage.

                            Every guy I know has a college degree and when they list their ideal woman she is always, "college educated."

                            I've noticed the men who aren't very ambitious or aren't doing well in their career will say they want a girl who is, "trying to get her degree" more often.

                            College is becoming the new defining factor for "class" because the old rules are being thrown out. Getting a college degree is the new way to move up in the social hierarchy.

                            [–]WhatIsThisAccountFor3 Star -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

                            you keep using the word "attraction" and "attracting", but I'm interested in discussing the choice to commit -- move in, marry, have kids, co-sign mortgages, etc. :)

                            So you're asking about maintaining and progressing an existing relationship, not beginning a new one?

                            I know a guy who stopped seeing a girl simply because he felt her tastes in clothes and TV were embarrassingly tacky.

                            This is personality. Sense of style and what you enjoy watching are personality traits. Also this sounds like an issue with attraction, not a sense of different values or classes.

                            I don't know any guys with a college degree and desirable job willing to commit to someone without the same

                            Is this a truthful statement in the sense that they would turn a woman down who didn't have a degree just because of that, or is this in the sense that they wouldn't date a woman who is unable to be independent, or someone who was not smart? Most people only date people they would meet organically though friend groups or social activities. Usually your friend groups consist of people among your own class because people of the same class usually partake in the same activities. It goes along with the "you meet more of X class if you are X class, so you're more likely to date X class".

                            I cant understand not wanting to commit to a lazy woman who lives with her parents and works a part time dead end job at 25 with no degree or motivation to do anything. But if someone is just working at a bank without a degree, or a waitress, or whatever else, I doubt these men would turn her down if she were beautiful and personable.

                            Is simply not true. The vast, vast majority of modern American marriages are intra-class, even those that take place in quite small towns (where presumably the best-looking option you can attract is not also conveniently in your income bracket).

                            Class means something in the sense that you will meet more people who are in your class because of the reasons I stated up there. If you are a middle class person, you will never meet women who frequent yatch clubs, or shop at Louis Vuitton Because where would you ever be that allows you to interact with them? If you are a lower class woman you will never meet men who go to wineries because you won't go there yourself. You perform activities within your respective class because you can afford better than classes below you, but you can't afford as much as classes above you. So naturally you marry within the people you see the most, it's simply the highest probability to happen.

                            [–][deleted]  (14 children)

                            [removed]

                              [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                              [removed]

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                                This isn't a first-person field guide, I'm interested in studying the behavior of the average person simply because most people are in the middle of the bell curve! :) It's the most relevant demographic.

                                [–]lespetiteschoses 12 points13 points  (4 children)

                                This is an excellent post, and definitely something that should be discussed more openly.

                                The only point I would add is to be careful not to conflate pure net worth with social class too strictly. A working class man who suddenly comes into a large amount of money may be a 1%er, but culturally will still like a lot of the same things that working class men like. This is why you see sports stars or DJs pairing off with porn stars, when a man from old money would not.

                                In other direction, my husband's brother is a perfect example. My husband's family comes from old money and are firmly in the upper class. They have been for many generations. His brother chose to follow a different path and rejected money, but his culture, mannerisms and choice in women is still very upper class.

                                [–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

                                I agree. My brother's wife makes six figures because she's a dentist, but in terms of her cultural knowledge or mannerisms, she's middle class. Doesn't have sophisticated tastes or worldly knowledge (which to me is a mark of upper class culture - well-traveled, well-connected, good conversationalist). She's intelligent in a practical manner for sure but in no way does she have upper class manners.

                                [–]md8716 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                                I think it was a good attempt, but trying to pin down class in America is a fool's errand, especially when you tie it to income.

                                I myself earn in the top 2-3% but my mannerisms are a mix of middle/working class. I probably could "level up" and climb the class ladder a couple rungs, but life is enjoyable and stress free so why throw that away?

                                [–]lespetiteschoses 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                                That's right. Even if you did "level up" you would still maintain a lot of middle class tells and would always appear a bit of an outsider in UC circles.

                                Class usually correlates with income/net worth but is ultimately a culture.

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                Yes I agree! This was perfunctory and brief, I was trying to ignore a discussion where people would delve into greater detail and open up on how money/class (I agree they are quite different) has affected their choices and options and preferences :)

                                [–]zymbosa 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                                Hm. I'd just keep in mind that your career goals and aspirations are personal and unique to you, and shouldn't be shorted or overextended by the prospect of getting a certain type of guy. Find something you are passionate about and stick to it and advance yourself in it.

                                additionally, as somebody surrounded by "creative class" types, these type of men are sometimes brutally stringent with their requirements for a woman. They need somebody that can carry on an intelligent conversation and more importantly, not be supremely offended by sarcasm or hot button jokes or even worse, have sarcasm/jokes totally lost on them. Can't tell you how many of my male friends have dumped a girl immediately upon recognizing they weren't going to make that cut. Intelligence in this way isn't compartmentalized but super general. You have to be a person that enjoys learning about a great many things to really be a good fit for this type of guy. He wants to learn from you and also teach you a thing or two, or have you two learn new things together. That social intelligence doesn't come from a college degree, it comes from a diverse background that's pretty independently driven. (well traveled, well spoken, open to admitting not knowing something/mistakes but eager to learn why, not easily offended, cultured, etc.) In that group beauty is also pretty vague. Take care of yourself and make it obvious and you're pretty much good. That's the general jist. Take care of yourself. That goes for weight management, appearance, etc. I've seen some of my friends go out with women I thought were very unattractive but their outgoing personalities and the clean way they were dressed/carried their appearance changed my mind. Pretty simple stuff.

                                [–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                That social intelligence doesn't come from a college degree, it comes from a diverse background that's pretty independently driven. (well traveled, well spoken, open to admitting not knowing something/mistakes but eager to learn why, not easily offended, cultured, etc.) In that group beauty is also pretty vague. Take care of yourself and make it obvious and you're pretty much good.

                                their outgoing personalities and the clean way they were dressed/carried their appearance changed my mind. Pretty simple stuff.

                                And that comes down to RMV. Keeping the mind healthy and stimulated can go a long way.

                                [–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor 10 points11 points  (3 children)

                                Interesting post! Good for discussion and musing.

                                Depends on the kind of top 1% men...NFL players or actors typically date/marry models (party lifestyle) but say, royalty will marry a woman with an education (looks AND brains). I work directly with a royal family member in the Middle East and many of the royal wives have postgraduate degrees. Mark Zuckerberg married a doctor, and Reddit co-founder married Serena Williams (both career women). A lot of elite political families will also choose women who have the same social class or even a woman with political connections (so think a woman who went to private school, not the hot model). So I would say unless a rich man just wants a hedonistic life, he will still take into consideration the education of a woman.

                                I agree with your observation regarding UMC couples but I would argue it might not solely be because of socioeconomic advancement. It's simply that these men (tech, medicine, consultant) have most likely been surrounded by educated women in high school/university. He simply CANNOT relate to a woman who doesn't have brains or interests (and sometimes those interesting women come in the form of a lower-earning artistic type).

                                Something to think about is the MINDSET in terms of social class, not just income brackets. A tech analyst making 60-90k creating apps or software for his business partner wouldn't have a job unless the partner had the creative idea and a business model. In that case the tech analyst would be in a white collar LABOR position that puts his income high but his brain is in a lower class "mindset" (strong at problem solving, or designing systems, weak at creating new ideas). Someone who has a managerial job that takes planning, strategy, vision, flexibility, initiative, would typically exhibit more alpha behaviors or upper class behaviors of being proactive. (And that managerial job may pay less than a tech job, depending on the company)

                                I just say this because I know plenty of men AND women who have high incomes but have absolutely no social skills at all (again, white collar labor positions). And when I say social skills, it's not just having fun with each other as a couple but the ability to converse with a variety of people and have social grace (basically - how's your general knowledge?)

                                Lastly, while I agree that it's important to make him look good via your social standing, but I disagree that a woman's income is crucial to increasing his quality of life. Personality, quality time together and interests are more important (if one had to choose). Extra income can certainly help because he won't have to worry about being the sole provider and can relax a bit on finances, for sure!

                                But yeah, if a girl isn't super interesting ("basic") definitely a man could take her earning potential (and looks) into consideration.

                                [–]ragnarockette4 Stars 14 points15 points  (0 children)

                                Your first paragraphs are spot on, and something I always bring up when ladies on here ask “should I bother going to college?” Unless you’re attractive enough to be a model, getting a degree is pretty much a pre-req for high value men. You don’t see a lot of CEO’s or politicians married to hairdressers.

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                                Something to think about is the MINDSET in terms of social class, not just income brackets. A tech analyst making 60-90k creating apps or software for his business partner wouldn't have a job unless the partner had the creative idea and a business model. In that case the tech analyst would be in a white collar LABOR position that puts his income high but his brain is in a lower class "mindset" (strong at problem solving, or designing systems, weak at creating new ideas). Someone who has a managerial job that takes planning, strategy, vision, flexibility, initiative, would typically exhibit more alpha behaviors or upper class behaviors of being proactive. (And that managerial job may pay less than a tech job, depending on the company)

                                YES - this is such a good point. One thing I've noticed among the upper class or very upwardly mobile: they have very curious, optimistic, exploratory mindsets. It's sort of the opposite of a scarcity mindset. This is, in my experience, a common trait of many charming young women who have grown up in relative privilege in Western nations - they have a very positive, proactive mindset and believe almost anything can be tackled. I know a lot of guys in my circles love women with this kind of thinking.

                                [–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                They tend to have good relationships with people as well - it's actually a difficult skill to problem solve, be proactive AND maintain agreeable relationships (interpersonal skills). I have a female boss that is the epitome of this - she will do her best to help her employees and her clients, she maintains her outward "business" appearance. However as strong as a woman as she is, she's the breadwinner of her marriage (she's got an artistically talented husband that is extremely poor financially but has that "alpha" mindset). So take what you will. I knew another couple where the woman was a high powered businesswoman (and incredibly beautiful) but her boyfriend was extremely poor and lower class, but he made her feel admired and beautiful and made her laugh.

                                The only precarious aspect of being a WOMAN with this mindset is that she might place too much influence on her poise/intellect/work ethic - which are all RESPECTABLE traits - but again we come back to what you had mentioned in the first place: biological sexual attraction being placed on demeanor and appearance. An upwardly mobile man could very well RESPECT a woman like this (I knew men who respected both the above mentioned examples of powerful women) but in no way would they want to take her out for a night of fun or take her as a companion. The women above were simply respected, not DESIRED. You can't debate sexual attraction, unfortunately.

                                Overall very good discussion!

                                [–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 9 points10 points  (5 children)

                                Physical attraction is definitely a key factor but it isn't everything, and neither is femininity. Personality traits (often tied to the kind of job a woman holds) are incredibly important as well. And while no man is going to be turned on by a woman's career choice, to assume that it's absolutely meaningless in 100% of cases is more than a little myopic.

                                I would posit that the majority of men want a woman who is, all things considered, approximately equal to him. This doesn't mean they need to be making the same amount of money, of course. But it does mean that most men don't want to be with someone vastly better or vastly worse than they are, in terms of both SMV and RMV. And part of a woman's RMV is, whether you like it or not, her career. A woman with an intense, high-earning, long-hour career has low RMV, no matter how hot she is, for a man who wants a stable family life with children who spend a lot of time with their mother. Conversely, that same hot, high-income, long-hour woman has much higher RMV for a man who wants to live a rich, childfree life.

                                To bring things out of the theoretical -- my cousin works in finance and is quite solidly in the top 1% income bracket. When he got married, it was to a woman who is as highly educated and as high-earning as he is. She's quite beautiful and feminine, but I highly doubt that they would be together if she were in a lower-income field, because being beautiful and feminine simply isn't enough when you have (pretty much) all the choice in the world. There are hundreds of thousands of beautiful and feminine women, and as you say, a man with a lot of choice isn't going to be judging the minute details of which woman is more beautiful and feminine than the others -- he will pick the one whose education, career, personality, values, and/or interests align most closely with his own.

                                Similarly, highly intelligent people like to have partners they can talk to without needing to explain things. I've said this a few times, but within academic circles, it's very rare to find long-term couples who aren't at approximately equal levels of education/intellect. Generally speaking, academics marry other academics. When you make the majority of your life focus the pursuit of education, it's hard to be intellectually satisfied by someone without a similar drive towards knowledge. And while, yes, an academic might want the hot but less intellectually driven girl for one or two nights, in the majority of cases, he's not going to pick her as a life partner.

                                This is the key point about a woman's career -- a woman bringing up her master's degree, or her partnership at a law firm, or her surgical experience, as if it were the most important reason a man should date her, is fundamentally misunderstanding the way attraction works. A man can't fuck your law degree, and your 400K a year income can't provide feminine comfort, and these are the things that initially attract a man -- physical attractiveness and femininity. But that doesn't mean the law degree or 400K a year income are completely meaningless, either. They're just the kind of secondary qualities that heighten a woman's RMV (not SMV, which accounts for inital attraction), similar to personality, values, and hobbies, that make a woman "wife material" instead of just "fuck material".

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

                                Agree 100%, yes.

                                "wife material" instead of just "fuck material".

                                Yup. I think of looks and femininity as necessary but not sufficient - in terms of attracting a, say, high-earning and professionally accomplished man, they're mandatory, but not all it takes.

                                I get a little frustrated because the conversation on RP message boards sometimes seems to imply that every 35 year old, good-looking, "alpha" corporate guy is going to commit to any his super hot cocktail waitress as long as she's virginal, super feminine, and plays her cards right, and while that sometimes happens, that's increasingly rare. In the 50's a male lawyer was likely to marry a paralegal, and last time I checked the census these days a male lawyer is mostly likely to marry a fellow lawyer.

                                [–]KittenLoves_Endorsed Contributor 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                                I get a little frustrated because the conversation on RP message boards sometimes seems to imply that every 35 year old, good-looking, "alpha" corporate guy is going to commit to any his super hot cocktail waitress as long as she's virginal, super feminine, and plays her cards right

                                If we take the "corporate" part out of this, it's probably right. If we're just talking about a relatively good looking alpha male in a low-to-middle income bracket, this virginal, beautiful, feminine cocktail waitress is probably a decent contender. But once you move past these income brackets, a man has the ability to be more picky. And at that point, just being beautiful and feminine isn't enough. Anyone who genuinely thinks that being a beautiful virgin waitress is enough to secure commitment from a genuinely high-value man is either misled about the nature of who this kind of man would commit to, or is intentionally ignoring the overall facts to focus on outliers (and make themselves feel better by consequence).

                                [–]bloobird08 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                Yes, and the lifestyle of a young cocktail waitress and a 35 year old corporate guy is likely to be very different too. He works 40 hrs/week and the waitress works nights and weekends? How are they going see each other and build a bond? Then you bring in the natural differences between a younger and older person, and it’s pretty much doomed.

                                [–]bloobird08 6 points7 points  (0 children)

                                I agree. There are (reasonably) attractive women with good careers. Maybe if a woman is a 9, her career won’t be relevant, but for average and slightly above women? Career matters. Also, the older a woman is, as her looks decline, the more her career matters. A 45 yr old man likes two women- both 38, one works as a waitress vs. one with a wealthy, high earning career? As long as wealthy one has kept up her looks, she will be more desirable to most men in their 40s+. Also with wealth, attractive older women have access to plastic surgery, nice clothing, and other stuff to make them look younger. Waitressing isn’t classy beyond a certain age. It’s not a respectable career path for women 30 and up, I would say.

                                Single women should be mindful and choose a more respectable career to have access to the best quality men they can get. Rp talks a lot about really young women, but what about when you get past that age? We should keep the older women in mind, too. It isn’t fair to only talk about women under 25, as if those are the only women who exist and go on dates.

                                [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                                Similarly, highly intelligent people like to have partners they can talk to without needing to explain things. I've said this a few times, but within academic circles, it's very rare to find long-term couples who aren't at approximately equal levels of education/intellect. Generally speaking, academics marry other academics. When you make the majority of your life focus the pursuit of education, it's hard to be intellectually satisfied by someone without a similar drive towards knowledge. And while, yes, an academic might want the hot but less intellectually driven girl for one or two nights, in the majority of cases, he's not going to pick her as a life partner.

                                I won't say I am highly intelligent, but I'm intelligent, and this has been my experience. There's been a couple female scientists I've talked to, I found both of them attractive, one lived nearby and I could've more reasonably dated had there been mutual attraction. My job doesn't require a college degree, but I plan on investing when the time is right, and sticking with it for the long haul, and I would love to get good at it so that I could not only retire, but change the world in one or more ways. So even though I'd love to be rich, with both of these women the last thing on my mind was money or using their money to further my goals in any way; I thought they were both physically attractive, they both looked feminine for example having long hair, one acted more feminine which was a plus, and they were both intelligent, and thus could understand me more, and we could teach each other things.

                                So what made them stand out most in comparison to other pretty, feminine women for me was their intelligence, but not any money attached to it. If I was dating a woman who had a college degree I would be proud of her, but her appearance and mannerisms would be more on my mind than her status or income, and I think if I was in any income bracket I would remain more concerned knowledge than the job a woman is working. To me there are many forms of knowledge or intelligence, and money and knowledge is not always connected, so a woman's college degree is also meaningless in that, if they still expressed knowledge and curiosity, and worked in a low-paying entry-level job, I would've still been attracted to them. I'm also trying to remain childfree though. It might just come down to each individual's values. =)

                                [–]carrotriver 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                My understanding is that marriage and LTR are becoming less and less common for folks with low SES. Check out the book, "Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that makes the Underclass" by Dr. Theodore Dalrymple if you are interested.

                                [–]bob13bob 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                                can't agree more about socio-economic class being under-considered in these subs. I'm a man who frequents the red pill subs. It's easy to see in trp how young the posting base is. IMO doing 10 hrs of gym / week when you don't own your house is a bad strategy for men.

                                I live in the bay area and have lived in SF for many years. Earning power for women definitely changes the kind of men she will typically marry. a 4b/2.5bath house renting is 5k/month within 20min of the high paying jobs here. I'm regularly around power couples. Men AND Women are selected on "respectability". If you want to buy a house with a decent school district here, 1.5m for 3bed/2bath easy. Thats around 300k household income just to qualify for the loan. Those who bought earlier grew much richer on their homes than even their high paying jobs.

                                Also, pro nfl players are vast majority bankrupt within 10 years; i wouldn't use them as a representative sample of high earners.

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                                Yes, the minimum incomes necessary to have an upper middle class life in these big cities is totally crazy, and it affects partner selection and dating strategy SO MUCH. It brings its own challenges, which I wrestle with often. How do you function as one half of a "power couple", being intense and competitive at work all day (if necessary), while still switching it off as soon as you get home?

                                I agree NFL players are a terrible example haha. I've only posted in TRP once, and it was on this topic, and people immediately responded talking about sports stars.... that's the only reason I included that :p

                                [–]bob13bob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                the fact that trp looks up to pro athletes while not following their success stats shows how young that sub tends to lean and it's lack of grasp on stats.

                                I can say my wife and I talk about work and attaining more money all the time even at home. this includes what working on, job jumping strategy, what others are doing and how successful they are. I don't know if it's healthy or not, but it is what it is. We run our household like a business, we each have our specialties and what we are responsible for. She would probably be happier just being stay at home and me handling things, but I don't make enough for that.

                                We chose each other when we were both young and poor over 15 years ago, but we were both academically inclined. I can't really speak to higher earners choosing each other since that wasn't us. I can see her co-workers and the type of mates they are marrying (two of them married through coffee meets bagel). They are typically all high achievers. Let me just say around here looks aren't everything for women or men. I'm surprised at how attractive and higher earning men her female co-workers are landing, while not being so physically attractive themselves. It's a small data pool, but there arent' a lot of stats on how the top 5% choose each other. Higher earners may seem like we're rich, but many of us have 300k in higher education debt and struggle to buy a decent 1m house. We don't leave the bay area because it would mean a significant pay cut, the good comes with the bad here. Many of us get 300k+ gifts from our parents for house downpayments eventhough our households annual income are 300k+.

                                the best of the best software engineers (the kind facebook hires) get a 325/year package with 5 years experience. I'm not even talking about startup hopping which is a whole nother strategy.

                                [–]VeeGeeTea 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                Class ranking is relative to the city you live in. Afterall, the standard of living differs from city to city. With that, this is not the number one priority when male seeks companionship from a female. Generally, men look for women with more subtle feminine features (ie. values family, caretaker, and are conservative pth spending). Men don't mind you making more money or having a higher education than he does. All he cares most for is that you'll be there for him as he will for you.

                                [–]WeCaredALot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                                Just want to say that this is an excellent post, and I've greatly enjoyed reading the comments. It's frustrating to read so many Red Pill opinion pieces (not just here but online in general) that discount the importance of career, family background, and class when men decide who to partner with.

                                [–]EliteBodSquad 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                I think you've defined the reasoning behind the issue I'm having right now. I'm currently building my career, and in a couple of years should be able to earn more than triple my current income.

                                However, currently I work a job the requires very little qualifications (despite having an MSc) just to get experience. I attract very physically attractive men who are within the middle-income bracket knowing that in the future I'd be more suited to a upper middle income man. I come from household that is well qualified (very upper middle income parents and a prestigious family line in our home country, not in the UK). My friends are going to become very high qualified well connected individuals not sure if that's what you mean by a good social circle. I'm mid 20's, in the best shape of my life and know how to take care of myself, but the financial side of me is lagging behind. Don't know how to wait this out quietly while thinking about my age and being slightly frustrated about the fact I don't meet men I can consider seriously in the long term. By that, I mean our life spans are always incompatible and I dream much bigger.

                                [–]glitterchild 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                                Thank you for calling my career interesting and high social value! 😊 In other news, awesome post, I agree completely! I remember we’ve talked about this a bit in another thread a few months ago. Take all my upvotes

                                [–]justtenofusinhere 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                                "If her daddy's rich take her out for a meal, if her daddy's poor just do what you feel." --Mungo Jerry.

                                [–][deleted]  (5 children)

                                [deleted]

                                [–]tempintheeastbayEndorsed Contributor[S] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

                                Interesting! In what way?

                                Every thing I espouse this theory someone starts telling me about how NFL players, celebrities etc. marry random hot strangers and waitresses and cheerleaders hence the only thing that matters is looks and those choices (“with unlimited choice”) are some universal convergence point.

                                In my experience the VAST majority of me worth $10m+ marry a nice, college-educated, pretty friend of a friend, who has great bone structure and not a body so luscious as to be unseemly. I’m just highlighting the uncommon example to try to ward off the anecdotal “rebuttal”.

                                [–]aftertheafter-party2 Star 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                                I totally agree with you & feel unclear what people are disagreeing with here, as you stated, "Top 1% guys is where you see the greatest variance in tastes." To me, it sounds like the people who are "disagreeing" are actually making a similar point.

                                To speak to your second paragraph, the "1%" men I know would be mortified to bring home a woman who was overly-sexy, age-inappropriate, uneducated -- or, more importantly, uncultured or with poor etiquette skills -- regardless of how beautiful or kind-hearted or feminine.

                                [–]vanBeethovenLudwigEndorsed Contributor 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                                I've actually seen more lower class men marry IG model types - at least the ones that are TOO sexual and too flamboyant. I could see sports stars marry them though. But probably not CEOs.

                                [–]cryptohobo -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

                                I agree, it’s totally wrong.