Why is it wrong to be a gold-digger?

I think there’s a difference between wanting a mate who can provide adequate resources for future children, and a real gold-digger, as I know the term.
From my understanding, a gold-digger is a person (usually female) who puts her potential mate’s money above all else. A gold digger is looking for money, not for a whole person.
Of course it makes a lot of sense to look for someone who can provide financially. But most people also put a lot, if not more, importance on intellect, sex appeal, compatibility, sense of humor, kindness, etc. Gold diggers don’t.

@shilolo – “someone to seek a mate who can provide adequate resources for (future) children.”

I am right behind ya.

But usually they want a free ride.

If you know any rich, single guys I’d be happy to collect some data.

Since when do gold-diggers want children?They’re not children-diggers,they’re not security-diggers or evolutionarily conscious.They are self-centered predators.

@Likeradar took the words out of my mouth.

Here is a good example: the father of a friend of mine died. three children. two daughters and one son. after the burial, their mother took all personal belongings of her husband and gave them to one daughter and their son. she did not give the caretaker daughter anything that belonged to her dad. you have to ask yourself why this happened and i do not know. i know the caretaker daughter and she is a lovely, devoted daughter. its funny, that now the other two siblings are cutting the grass and cannot do enough for their remaining mother. this is gold-digging at its best. this happens many times in families, when there is a sizeable estate to be had, at the end. the caretaker daughter is the angel of the family, yet her mother ignores her completely.

Everyone hates gold-diggers. they are selfish, greedy and self-centered.

Little do the other siblings know that all their gold-digging is in vain. the caretaker daughter has her mother’s will and the estate goes to her and her alone. i love a good ending.

(Side note: if something makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, that doesn’t mean it’s not wrong. For example, theft, rape and murdering rivals would also be very good for propagating your genes. Fortunately, we have other priorities.)

I told my daughter that it’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich person as it is with a poor person.

@zenele Glad to hear it. My grandmother told me and her other two granddaughters when we were very young that we should marry for money, not for love. Also, when I came out to her as a lesbian, her first response was a hysterical “Now you’ll never marry a doctor or a lawyer!”

I think it’s wrong to pretend to be in a relationship for purposes other than the true ones. If everything is in the open, then there’s nothing wrong. Put another way, there’s nothing wrong in being someone’s sugar daddy (or sugar momma), if you’re aware of it.

@stemnyjones That’s cute. There are female doctors, right?

It’s no more wrong I guess than being in a relationship with someone for any reason other than feelings.

Personally I don’t see a thing wrong with it. You’ll never convince the targets of gold diggers are unaware they are being sought after because of their money.

Anyone think Anna Nicole really married Marshall for love? Anyone think Marshall was unaware she was after his money?

You seem to be using the term incorrectly. A gold digger has no love for the person why are preying on. If it is a mutual arrangement, then it is not gold digging, it is prostitution.

Damage to the native landscape…oh wait,

I mean, if God gave you a shovel and a sifting pan, perhaps thats your gig…

I just had a funny thought. If you have a mouth full of gold, someone really could pick your teeth….

Evolutionarily, it only partly makes sense, because there are two male evolutionary strategies for passing on their genes. Either have sex with as many healthy (and wealthy) women as possible being always on the move or have sex with one healthy (and wealthy) woman and make sure that as many children as possible from this relationship grow up to have sex themselves.

Let’s say about 30,000 years ago a male gold digger chasing a healthy and wealthy woman he doesn’t like and with whom a relationship doesn’t work won’t offer good support for his offspring to grow up and have sex themselves. The bears and tigers will get them first. Or the group of hunters and gatherers cannot rely on a critical mass of reliable people finding food and shelter. Social relations matter very much. Greed can be a serious danger.

A good monogamous relationship is about good support for the offspring. The grandmother effect and menopause supports this model, because some point during evolution, it became advantageous for females to stop dividing their declining faculties between the care of extant offspring and the production of new ones. Since a female’s dependent offspring would die as soon as she did, he argued, older mothers should stop producing new babies and focus on the offspring they already had. In so doing, they would avoid the risk of dying during childbirth and thereby eliminate a potential threat to the continued survival of current offspring. In addition, postmenopausal women can contribute knowledge and skills to other group members to enhance group fitness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandmother_hypothesis