How accurate do you believe the idea that more money can make a toad more of a prince?

Women want providers. Rich men can provide better than less wealthy men. Therefore, I feel wealth plays a significant role.

If you are working on a scale of trade yes. I mean what is on the scale, what makes her a 10? If she has big boobs and is great looking and that makes her a 10, I firmly believe that an increase such as you describe makes him a 10 too. On that scale anyway.Oddly this scale still works, I see more and more young girls going after older men. Is it because they have bigger salaries I ask myself. When I was 18 I thought men of 40 were “Just Ew1”.

Today my scale is very different. I find swaps better than trades. I mean trait swaps. He might be a sensitive, loving listener, in return perhaps I make great spaghetti. That type of thing.

I find a gentle kind man, a generous man, no matter how little he has, generous of heart and soul an 11 on my scale. My scale though is pretty abstract!

Not at all accurate.

I’m not sure I’d say money makes a toad more of a prince so much as it shifts the observers focus.

I believe that some women really care about money more than anything in a man. These women will have been brought up to value money by their mothers. They may come from underprivileged backgrounds or backgrounds where women have little power.

But there are plenty of women who don’t give a shit about money. They care more about character and brains and love. I found myself one of those to marry. She’s wonderful. A good provider. She didn’t care what my income was, nor did it ever bother her that she always made a good deal more than I did. And what do you know? Now it’s her turn to work for no income (at home), and I am the sole wage earner in the family.

But the women who choose men for their money get the relationship they have chosen. If they want to complain about the man being a workaholic, or never being home to be with the kids or never helping her out, I have no sympathy. She made her bed. That’s the one she should sleep in.

This is an issue of values. People have all different kinds of values. Women who value money are not women I like to hang with. And I would never get into a close relationship with one. Not on purpose, anyway.

I seriously doubt that there is any accuracy to this statement. How is anyone to know though unless some type of independent study is done in order to find out? What about same sex couples? What about arranged marriages? The list goes on.

Personally, I don’t care. Each relationship is a private matter. The financial goals and responsibilities should be worked out between them on the front end and be reassessed along the way.

I always liked the saying A woman that marries for money earns it.

it’s neither accurate nor valid nor a clear question, although I do get your drift.

And I disagree with it (Can one disagree with a drift?).

Net worth, good looks and values are not dependent on each other.

Trying to quantify that premise is nonsensical.

One of my aunts told me once “It’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man.” Fortunately or unfortunately, I never heeded that advice. In fact, with my salary, I am usually the bigger wage earner.

Another person in my family had a goal to marry a rich man, and she did. They’ve been married for over 25 years, have a nice house, take nice vacations, drive nice cars (paid for by the company). She is the rich man’s wife, and she has to look the part with how she dresses, wears her hair, keeps her body. I know that when he is mad at her, he might not talk to her for a few weeks, but that’s the price she pays.

Mitt Romney – I rest my case.

I agree with @janbb , no amount of money can make a ‘Prince’ out of Romney or Ryan !! I think that if a person marries for ‘Money’, they will pay for their choice at some point in time. Far too many rich people think that just because they have money, that they are better than the person who struggles to get by. Science has shown that ‘rich people’ are frequently prone to cheating & to lying, & to thinking that they are ‘above the law’ & our so-called Justice System appears to support them in this way of thinking.

If appearances are all that counts, the answer is yes, money counts. The difference between less attractive and more attractive can be purchased – however, for the person who is shallow enough for this to make the difference, who needs them?

Donald Trump – I place my luggage on the floor.

@wundayatta But there are plenty of women who don’t give a shit about money. They care more about character and brains and love. The woman that chooses a man because of his brains and character would choose a destitute, homely man with a great attitude and smarts over a homely man who in spite of his attitude had a MBA (Massive Bank Account)? Would she choose a man just slightly more handsome if he could barely rub two nickles together but has a bubbly personality and a great smile?

@jca Another person in my family had a goal to marry a rich man, and she did. They’ve been married for over 25 years, have a nice house, take nice vacations, drive nice cars (paid for by the company). Would they have survived better if they were fighting over where to place the thermostat, if they can still gas the car up because he got an extra 6 pack of beer, or that she replaced a purse so the cable is in danger?

I believe this is true, but not exactly in the manner you have expressed it.

If a man is not great looking, but smart, with good people skills and ambition, he might end up in a higher paying job then better looking, dumb jerks.

If I was a girl, I might use a man’s profession as shorthand when first meeting, or give him bonus points for being really successful in a field that did not pay well.

But I don’t think this is a gender thing. If I had to pick between the hot ditzy young secretary and the slightly less attractive boss of the secretaries who was a little older and wicked smart, I might be attracted to the hotness, but the older lady would probably win if I had a gun to my head.

Maybe it can make a toad seem more princely, but a toad remains a toad. I suppose many people who would ally themselves with a toad because he has a huge pouch of gold probably already know this as well, but they just don’t care. Maybe those women aren’t princesses themselves, but rather witches, who don’t mind using or being used.

If a person can hold down a decent paying job, that does say a few good things about their character. For example, that person is smart enough to get the job, ambitious enough to advance to that level, and dependable enough to keep the position. Obviously someone can have all those qualities without being successful, or they can be born into wealth or power with no work of their own. A person’s job and finances are just part of a larger picture of who they are.

There are jerks and nice guys at every income level. I once dated a- warm, sincere, passionate- starving artist type who was also totally fucking immature and couldn’t hold down a job for more than a few months. Really nice guy, but all he wanted to do was get high all the time, and he couldn’t handle it when anyone wanted him to work hard or when things didn’t go his way. I’ve never had a guy provide for me- or wanted it- but still, watching this guy be so helpless at adult life was really fucking frustrating. There needs to be a basic threshold of responsibility and taking care of yourself once you’re on your own.

There are women who date rich jerks for their money, and that’s not a relationship; it’s a very unpleasant job. (Imagine having to play with Donald Trump’s weenie. No thank you, not for any amount of money.) I’ve dated people in every tax bracket, and I think this question creates a false dichotomy. Not all assholes are rich, and not all nice guys are poor. This is a leading question that tries to paint women as shallow gold diggers.

@wundayatta I wish I had listened to my mother!!

Yes. And the data exists to prove it. I have discussed this in a previous post but it applies here.
There is a great example in the book “Freakonomics” by Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt. They data mine massively large databases and extract information using statistical methods. One of the case studies looks at online dating and what people want in a partner.
Dubner and Levitt looked at large, established dating sites (Match.com, Cupid. etc.) and collected data on ~75,000,000 matches (it might be 90 million) and whether they were “successful” or not. Did the participants rate the date successful? Did they go back to the fish pond for another try? Did they go on a second date?

In their profile, women said things like: “the most important characteristics in a man were things like: personality, sense of humor, likes walks in the park, etc.” Men said similar things. But when the data from 75 million dates were reviewed and correlated, the results were surprising. Answer this: For women, which factor had by far the strongest correlation for a successful match? The man’s income! Yep! Income. It was, by far, more important than weight, height, age, education, race…anything! “Walks in the park” were not even on the list.
For men, which factor do you think had the highest correlation to a successful date? The woman’s body weight. Next was income. They even figured out how much 10 pounds was worth in the woman’s income. (I think it was ~$20,000. Meaning the heavier woman had to earn $20K (It might be $10K, I don’t remember. If someone has the book please let us all know.) a year more than her thinner counterpart to get the same success rate. Hey, at least guys weren’t totally one dimensional!)
You might not like the answers but with data from ~75 million matches it is hard to argue against it. They present the data, list the sources, explain the analysis. You are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

Maybe income somewhat correlates to education, willingness to travel, wit, generosity, etc but those factors alone were not important. A man who was witty, generous, and educated, but with no income, would be hard pressed to get a date and have it be rated “successful”.

Does anyone believe Anna Nicole Smith married J. Howard Marshall for his sexual prowess?

@Hypocrisy_Central: I miss your point. I added after what you quoted that the marriage is not perfect just because he is rich.

Money and power are very attractive to most women. I won’t demean my fellow sisters by saying it’s what all of us want or choose, but then again, it’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as a poor man.

When it came to choosing my husband, I personally chose the person that made me laugh and that I would change diapers for because in the end, it’s about who you want to be with during all of life’s up’s and down’s.

That rich guy you marry could be bankrupt the next year, and the poor guy could be a millionaire, so it’s not as important as you’d think.

@Haleth I’ve dated people in every tax bracket, and I think this question creates a false dichotomy. Not all assholes are rich, and not all nice guys are poor. If there is a false dichotomy it was the responders who created it. The question was never about the attitude, character, or personality but about if a less attractive man could equalize the dating success rate if he had more bank to rely on. Personality can trump money, vehicles, etc, handsome guys that are jerks or gorgeous babes who are pit bulls can be taken down by their personality, but not knowing their personality less the one they put up front when you 1st meet them, looks is the lynch pin that gets you conversation.

@LuckyGuy Thank you, I don’t think I could have said that better myself

@jca I miss your point. I added after what you quoted that the marriage is not perfect just because he is rich. Off face value it would appear that she married just for money but there was no real love there; though her creature comforts were met. That if she married for love, the laughter, the compassion, etc., no matter if he was poor or struggling that it would be better. It might at the beginning but what I ask was how well would it (the relationship) survive if her creature comforts were a struggle just to get much less maintain. Would their love keep them from being frustrated because they can’t afford new shoes without risking the electric bill or having to think about dumping the life insurance to keep gas in the car?

@Hypocrisy_Central: Good point. Nobody will ever know the answer however. It’s a “what if” question.

No finance, no romance.

@emilianate They say finance without romance, and inconvenience; romance without finance a catastrophe.

in the fairy tale, the toad was (had already been) a prince…it was his “lack of character” that relegated him to his fate; the same applies to beauty and the beast…these tales are meant for the males of the culture, not the females…evolutionarily speaking, a female carrying offspring or one who is carring for them can not fight or hunt in quite the same way as she could before b/c then she risks the next generation…females will seek a mate strong enough to provide (and protect) her and “her” offspring…money is the convoluted example of these provisions when it comes to humans, meaning woman readily mistake money for prowess, mistake those who have money as alpha males (natures understanding of the ultimate provider). so can money make a toad seem like a prince? absolutely. can it make him what a Women ultimately seeks? no, F*cking way