comment: >
  
  /u/MDofReddit (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards
context: /u/MDofReddit (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  i think the problem with loving someone for their looks or money is that people can lose their money, or find someone else who is richer. we can lose our looks or our partner can eventually become bored with our bodies/style. ideally, we should seek a more permanent connection or have multiple (3+) points of attraction. we should, if we can, wait until we have found a person to whom we can become securely connected. >
  
  There's no such thing as a permanent connection in an adult romantic relationship.  There a few fixed characteristics about a person worth betting a relationship on. Everything from personality, intelligence, and preferences are subject to change over one's lifetime. All it takes it one serious brain injury or economic depression. I think the best we can hope for is our partners not changing too much for our liking or us growing to love (at least accept) the changes they undergo. >
  
  there is a difference between "more permanent" and absolutely permanent. >
  
  I don't think personality or values are more permanent, assuming these are the qualities you are using as reference. The person you fell in love with typically changes over the years in more ways than one. Say they were a shy homebody when you got together. 10 years later they blossomed into a outspoken traveler you barely see anymore. Say they were once an avid liberal but sometime later they grew more conservative in their values. 
  With kids and other responsibilities thrown in the mix, you and your partner are bound to be different people at some point. More often than not they change into something you no longer like-- into something that isn't secure anymore. Not that anything ever was definite from the start, especially if you got together in your 20's. 
  I suppose the only constant a couple can be sure of is change. Whether they choose to break up or grow from it is probably up to how much of the change detracts from their overall satisfaction with the relationship.  
  So yeah money, looks, personality, values are all mutable qualities. They are things that attract you initially but I wouldn't bet on them to have a lasting relationship. Love is a choice and choosing to love and adapt in spite of the changes is probably the best route for long term satisfaction. >
  
  
  Love is a choice and choosing to love and adapt in spite of the changes is probably the best route for long term satisfaction.
  
  commitment is not synonymous with love. commitment is the choice regardless of love, love is a feeling and like all other feelings, it is largely involuntary. at best you could try to repress your feelings or avoid certain thoughts. you can certainly avoid contact which could help reduce a feeling of love. >
  
  Okay let's swap love with commitment then.  My point still stands regardless of word choice unless you actually have something to refute. >
  
  no i have nothing to refute. my initial statement seems perfectly compatible with yours after that word change. >
  
  Depending on who you're talking to, both are pretty looked down upon, are you under the assumption that one is viewed as worse than the other? Because generally in a relationship where one is dating for money, the person with the money is dating the other for their looks, so both generally happen at the same time. >
  
  but dont you think it is human nature? Both of these options are chasing different kind of successes. >
  
  
  but dont you think it is human nature?
  
  Not at all. Being sexually attracted to someone is a biological thing. You wouldn't even understand what money is without extensive socialization, let alone value it as a factor to attraction >
  
  I want to push back against this. A lot of sexual selection in nature is based on the male’s ability to survive, which in turn is often based on the male’s ability to acquire resources. At its core, money really about resources. Better food, better shelter, better ability to provide for and protect offspring. This isn’t a universal rule, but it’s prevalent enough to argue that the ability to acquire resources is a ‘biological thing’ and perhaps even more fundamental than ‘first-order’ sexual attraction. >
  
  But that's heuristics on ability to acquire resources, i.e bigger muscles, taller frame, etc.
  Their biology wouldn't understand that a guy has a lot of money, just as it wouldn't understand that a guy had a huge pile of wood beside his cave for the winter back in those days. >
  
  Yeah thinking through this a bit more, you are right. >
  
  In a divorce/break up you can sometimes keep some of that money, but you can't keep the good looks.
  Money benefits more all round, looks benefit the individual, and fade over time. >
  
  In a divorce/break up, you can sometimes maintain access to the good-looking children your beautiful spouse helped you to produce. 
  Attractiveness benefits more all round by being passed down to the next generation. Money just helps you until it's spent. >
  
  
  you can sometimes maintain access to the good-looking children 
  
  r/nocontext >
  
  
  I would like to put the emphasis on the fact that we are talking about a girl who DOES NOT plan on taking advantage of all your money. We are talking about a decent girl who probably would not agree for a date had it not been for your money.
  
  Then that's isn't really "marrying someone for their money". As you said, it's normal to look for security or any other kind of personal gain in relationships. Marrying someone with their finance in mind or starting a relationship with someone based on their looks is a long shot from marrying someone specifically for their money or good looks. 
  Also, I've never seen someone argue against what you said anyway. Even at its most extremes, being a gold digger or only get into relationship with people for their looks are both frowned upon. >
  
  Someone's looks are superficial. Marrying someone for looks doesn't mean that I get a safe, stable life. They're not at all the same thing.
  
  Imagine if you asked out a girl today and she said "sorry no", but in 5 years when you make a lot of money and decide to ask her out again, she agrees. Maybe you did not have the looks it took for you to reach the date milestone, but now the money and your success makes up for it.
  
  There's nothing especially wrong with wanting stability. >
  
  No but there's something wrong with faking emotions for the person when what you're really attached to is the stability. 
  Same with toxic relationships where someone's made to take care of the other person. They aren't loved as a person but just for their labor. >
  
  Sure - my point is just that they're not the same thing. >
  
  Im.sorry what aren't the same thing? >
  
  Marrying someone for looks versus marrying someone for money. Money is often (not always) indicative of some other characteristics: ambition, success, etc. that leads to a comfortable life and stability. Good looks are just good looks; physical desire with nothing else necessarily attached. I acknowledge that both aren't necessarily "the right thing", but I feel that it's a lot more rational to marry someone who represents more stability over someone you just might be more physically attracted to. >
  
  marriage isn't a business. 
  I don't even want to use the argument that "looks generally means good genes, which means healthier offspring who have a higher chance of mating and continuing the family line" to argue about "rationality".
  Because marriage and relationships aren't a business. It's sad people look at it so pragmatically. >
  
  Sure - I agree with you and I never stated otherwise. >
  
  I mean beauty is a factor for almost everyone when dating.  
  marrying a rich husband is a great way to gain wealth so seems desirable, why not.  
  As far as comparing the two factors morally, who knows.
  Don't think your come back in five years line will go over that well though. >
  
  
  marrying a rich husband is a great way to gain wealth so seems desirable, why not.
  
  The way I see this is... The person marrying the rich husband isnt rich, they are just married to someone who is... Just like the rich husband does not become pretty by marrying the pretty girl. >
  
  united states divorce laws are rather favorable to the women.  your networth for sure goes up. 
  unsure about other parts of the world >
  
  Imagine spending more than 1 hour with any human………….now don’t judge any marriage. >
  
  There is always a reason behind wanting to date the person for money where as that isn't true with attraction. Attraction is a natural and healthy thing to seek in a relationship.  If you are committed to someone because you find them attractive,  you are doing it for a healthy reason. 
  You can never say the same thing about money.  A person can contribute in ways other than salary. They can raise a kid,  grow and cook food,  repair clothes,  develop community relationships that provide needs,  etc. 
  You are adding a level of cynicism to a person that is unreasonable when talking about a committed relationship.  Now if it's a person that is emotionally abusive and unsupported about their partners, it looks as they fade its different.  That's unhealthy.  Obviously an over emphasis on looks can be unhealthy. 
  Hopefully this distinction is clear.  Caring about looks can be a natural thing.  Caring about money necessitates greed. A couple can be dirt poor, and be happy in a committed relationship. You can be genuine in a relationship because of attraction. If you are dating someone for money its because you want nice cars, or a nice house,  or vacations, or status.  It's a means to get something else you want and have someone else provide it for you >
  
  I disagree with OP, but your point is null. Someone can be attractive to another person because of their money. >
  
  I am talking about physical attraction here.  You can't see a naked body out of context and be attracted to its wealth.  Because of this,  a person will always be authentic in their attraction to a person for their looks but the same can't be said for wealth. 
  In this way they aren't the same. One is inherently more open to suspicion. The intentions are questionable with one and not the other >
  
  Lol, so you’d be more ok with someone only being attracted to you for your looks than if they were attracted you for your money? To me they both feel shallow and undesirable in a partner >
  
  
  Lol, so you’d be more ok with someone only being attracted to you for your looks than if they were attracted you for your money? 
  
  Absolutely. Being "attracted to your looks" is pretty much how sexual attraction works. It's about desirability of a body, to you know, touch their body to your body? Where does the string of numbers representing some bank account appear in that scenario? >
  
  A better title for this post would be attracting rather than marrying/dating. Nobody marries or dated someone exclusively for their looks. 
  There’s a conversation to be made that attracting a partner with your financial status and/or ability to provide in society is no different than looks which is a mark of genetic capability. Both just show you would be good to reproduce with. >
  
  Jordan Peterson has some excellent YouTube videos on this topic (sorry no link) where he describes the “mate selection process” (my words).  In short, he cites hard data from hundreds of years and describes most if not all mate selection behaviors as what I consider “lizard brain” driven.  If true we shouldn’t be judging anyone for their mate selection priorities. >
  
  If someone who is ONLY with their partners because of looks, then I think many/most people would agree that they are shallow. Just like gold diggers are shallow.
  Looks are like the keys to a house; if you don't have the key, you don't have access to the inside to see what its like.
  If I think someone is horribly ugly, I wouldn't want to consider them as a romantic partner, so I don't get to learn of their other traits. Looks are the first thing you see.
  But it shouldn't be the only or even main factor. Or else you're shallow.
  If a girl likes a guy who she would have liked anyway but coincidentally he's rich, there's no problem with that. If she's specifically with him for the money (and of course, genders reversed works too), and would not be with him if he wasn't rich...
  then she's just a long term, exclusive prostitute.
  
  We all love successful people don't we?
  
  Not me. I couldn't care less how successful someone is materially. I do care about looks, but the most important thing is whether they have strong values that align with mine or not. >
  
  Yes, both are incredibly stupid and lead to a fucked relationship. >
  
  Yeah, both of those are fucked up.
  Who marries for looks? >
  
  the assumption is that its wrong, fundamentally its not , its just not as fulfilling as doing it for love , so the person doesnt feel special , and usually most of the people doing it lie about their reasons for marrying someone , if both parties are upfront and admit they were shallows its not inherently wrong >
  
  Well looks makes younactually attracted to them as as a person albeit physically only. 
  Their money isn't them. >
  
  Yes it is.  One is driven by financial desires, the other is driven by sexual desires. >
  
  Marrying for looks is shallow.  Marrying for money is predatory (unless the person who has the money is OK with it). >
  
  looks/beauty is subjective , Money isn't. 
  Money can be comparative , beauty is purely subjective. >
  
  Neither (marrying for looks or money) are bad, per se, right. And money and looks are both somewhat versatile features. Looks will get you good treatment and attention. Money gets you entry into lots of experiences.
  The problem with both is that neither keeps you married or makes your marriage happy. 
  Dr. John Gottman has researched marriage for 40 years. He honestly can tell you in 15 minutes whether a couple will stay married. It's all based on how they talk to each other and treat each other.
  His biggest predictor of the success of a marriage is whether the couple "lean in" toward one another - do they recognize small gestures one makes to the other? Do they acknowledge each other's feelings? Do they lean in to treat each other well.
  Many couples don't. And their marriages fail (what is it, about 50% or so of marriages now?)
  And I would bet that having looks and money don't predict having a personality that actively cares for your partner, year after year. 
  So, yeah, marry for looks or money. Just be OK with needing to look again in a few years and keep the number of a good attorney in your back pocket in the meantime. >
  
  I think that Marrying someone for their money or their looks is essentially the same (frivolous reasons at the end). For most people its not because it all comes to the expectations they have. Someone marrying anybody just for their money comes with an all around security from the benefits what they where looking for, and usually is believed that those people have a manipulative behavior towards their partner. but with the other way around people usually hope this good looking person to be nice because we wrongly thend to associate those things. The term "gold digger" comes from this mistake, where someone was thinking they got the jackpot when they where the slot machine. >
  
  If you marry someone for money you’ll end up having to earn every penny. >
  
  Nobody's in a serious relationship just for looks. Looks are what sparks the conversation. They make you interested in that person. This makes you go up to them and start a dialog. And then you're with them cause you like they're personality. Even tho looks where the opener, you're with them cause you like them.
  Also "looks" are usually a reflexion of someone's personality cause lots of it is customizable. Hair, clothes, shoes, accessories, makeup, hygiene, gestures, facial expressions they all tell you stuff about their personality. I mean, yeah, you can't change everything. Some of it is genetic, but much of it ain't. So, in a way, looks are still about personality.
  Money on the other hand, is just money. Doesn't say 1 single thing about someone. And money, for gold diggers, is not just a starter (like looks are). They don't even care for the other's personality. They just want the money. >
  
  I mean I think it depends. If it is a situation where you are only dating or marrying for money that's fine as long as both people are aware >
  
  If I'd knew that a girl is with me for my money and my success I'd feel super insignificant and small as a male, esp if it was like u pictured in ur example.
  I'd always ask myself if she like anything I have to offer aswell. Is my humor shitty for her, does she even like my view to life, does she find me attractive in any way or maybe even the opposite...
  Dunno, I'd feel super uncomfortable in such a relationship. Maybe if I'd identifiy myself over my success and my money, maybe then... >
  
  
  We all love successful people don't we?
  
  No. I don't care a single bit whether my girlfriendnis "successful". Capitalism doesn't define my feelings for her.
  Do you think being someone's friend for their money is worse than being one for their great sense of humor? Why? >
  
  It literally is different though, isn't it? >
  
  Looks to an extent are subjective (ignoring extreme examples). As such if indiviudal A is with individual B due to their looks it may be true that out of all the people  around they found B the most attractive and are more than happy to be with them even if someone else apporaches A as B to them is still the most beautiful. 
  Wealth at least how is traditionally defined is not subjective at all. You have more net worth that someone else or you don't . Now how stable can a relationship born from something so objective be. All it takes is a wealtheir prospect to come along for one of the two individuals involved and the realtionship crashes and burns. Now at least to me that isn't a fun and happy relationship its a headache waiting to happen. 
  Hence there is a difference for at the end the little details (the kind of details that may make a look subjective) is an aspect of the individuality of someone. That guy who is always distracted may have his hair a mess and that may make someone else find him cute that otherwise wouldn't. That confident girl that always walks with her head up may catch someone's eye due to that. That positive guy who always dresses with vivid colour and has appealing mannerisms may perhaps make someone interested that wouldn't had otherwise.  And so on and so forth. Apsects that make looks subjective. With money you don't have that it is either something that you have or you don't.  
  Furthermore at the end I think that most if not all want a partner that stands with us through fire and deluge as life is hard and full of setbacks. Not someone that will jump to a bigger ship as soon as ours gets a little flooded. 
  (Note: this is for average people as with people that are naturally extremley attractive  there is no space for subjectivity and hence your point stands.) >
  
  Well, firstly, I don't agree that having a lot of money say anything good about the person. Yes, you could say it means that they are hard working, intelligent etc. But you could equally assume it means they are greedy, selfish, sleazy businessman. Donald Trump is rich but he would not have a character that I would hold up as a role model. But as I say, rich people can be good or bad.
  So if you were to be with a person because they were rich you could not say that you are ALSO with them because they are likely a brilliant person. You just don't know. So ithis would mean that the ONLY reason you are with them is because of the money.
  Now, I honestly think this is fine IF you are honest with the person that this is the main reason you are attracted to them. If you are just dating then it doesn't matter too much. But if the man falls in love and you still only love him for his money I think you need to be upfront. Very difficult but the only fair thing to do in my opinion. >
  
  I mean, I think being very rich almost automatically makes you a bad person. Because it means you've decided that you should have large amounts of wealth that doesn't change your lifestyle much at all, instead of giving it to people who seriously need it. Just a personal view. >
  
  It honestly isn't.
  Men usually only want one thing anyways so why is it wrong for a woman???
  I make my own money but sometimes I wish I could have been one of those girls who didn't mind spending men's money. I couldn't ever do it. I felt bad. >
  
  One distinction I think needs to be made is between gold digging and a more normal appreciation of financial security. If you got a choice between a few guys, all of whom are decent guys but one has money? That's just sensible. A woman has to consider the consequences to more people than just herself, after all.
  To me, "gold digging" is when a woman pursues a man she does not like simply to gain access to his money. You've ruled out the woman with the intention/opportunity to take his money in the divorce, so how about the one who marries for the house and the car and the clothes and the servants and such, fully intending to seek romance from someone else? >
  
  Why should be this transactional way? It's very short- minded to think only beauty or resources support a relationship. Those are things that biologically happen because of our  survival needs as species, but not support a relationship in a long term. The things that base a healthy relationship are shared values, expectations and complementarity. Choosing a couple because for His/Her beauty/resources is superficial. >
  
  true. Of course you will get called a whore if you are a woman because we live in a mysoginistic society fueled by the patriarchy >
  
  Both are superficial markers and will be good to make superficial bets on happiness with. No more, No less of a guarantee for your personal version of success to be achieved without Heavily Relying on the attributes of another remain unchanged. Without knowing what you'd bring to the table to make you a Worthy companion. Hopefully you've created an a-game style of companionship that makes you untradable to the meal ticket providing you with the accomodations you've come to expect from others as a lifetime commitment from them to you. A prenup in this case is more like an employment contract for a hooker who's trying to provide a retirement package and can fake it till the nonrefundable checks have been sent for their"coming up from under the streets" party complete with a new identify and name on the way.... It's trashy and dumb (decidedly numb) to the idea you're not just Owed instead of Owned by your self imposed superficial ideals. I see it working just like the old anti-feminists hoped going to college to land a man would..... Super high divorce rates and degradation of the family structure.... But who couldn't see that coming.... Some people made out really good by today's spoken of standards by marrying "right" in this manner..... They should have their pictures and strategies posted for public education purposes and we'll see how quickly the male population declines and people shun healthy relationships to get cosmetic changes and live a life of lazy arm candy that requires payment to rid yourself of way beyond the divorce agreement. 
  If it's all or nothing.... You better be worth it or you've decided to wage an underhanded war to be provided with what you've provided your imagination as a real life bar for Against that partner you chose to engage with.... Not many can realistically pull it off while being completely honest about who they are and why they chose you... because it takes two very specific types of detached personalities to find the mutual benefit from it and deceit is inherent in the relationship.... There aren't even any good business deals produced with that type of lopsided thinking where one doesn't even announce anything's more valuable than what they are provided.... It's a sign of a broken brain, completely severed connections >
  
  
  I would like to put the emphasis on the fact that we are talking about a girl who DOES NOT plan on taking advantage of all your money.
  
  Doesn’t “gold digger” usually mean someone who is dating primarily for financial gain? If someone doesn’t plan on taking your money and benefitting financially, how can you call them a gold digger? >
  
  It's different in the sense that a prostitute is different from a john. They are not the same thing, but opposites that sometimes attract.
  It is not uncommon for a fat bald headed 50+ wealthy man to have a broke but beautiful 20+ years younger swimsuit model looking wife / girlfriend if he wants one.
  In the sort of relationship I am describing both parties are using each other.
  What does she put on the table?
  She has her youthful beauty and energy, and a fertile womb that most women his own age no longer have.
  What does he put on the table?
  He has the wisdom of his years, and financial security for her and any future children they may have together that most men her own age can not provide.
  There is a mutual imbalance here and both parties involved should understand this and be fully aware of it.
  A lot of people especially on reddit will attack an age gap relationship. They think "That's icky!" There is a strong prejudice against it and most redditors view the man as "predatory". Some even view the woman as a "Gold Digger".
  These sorts of relationships are "symbiotic" when both parties understand the situation and treat one another with love and respect, but can be "parasitic" if one or more party is abusive or is unaware of the nature of the imbalance.
  Age gap couples will face similar prejudices and discrimination that homosexual couples, and interracial couple face.
  When it comes to an age gap relationship it is much more often an older man with a younger woman, but the opposite do exist as well. >
  
  Well no for starters if you date for looks it must mean that you're attracted to attractive people even if you have no plans to commit to a marriage hence why it can't be perceived as materialistic like money as we humans as animals generally can't help but seek out the best mating partner there is (usually attractive mates). You typically won't necessarily look at someone who looks physically and mentally retarded and think oh man yeah I'm gonna tap that. >
  
  Money can be gained by anyone. Everyone has the ability to get money. Not everyone has the ability to be beautiful or attractive, because it’s subjective and plastic surgery isn’t that advanced (you can usually tell when someone has had face surgery).
  But the big difference is, money isn’t extremely important in a relationship. Making some sort of money is important to survive, which everyone can do, literally warehouse jobs and retail pay at least the bare minimum to live (kinda). But looks, and being attracted to your partner, is important. If you’re with someone you’re not attracted to, you’ll be miserable. You have to be with this person everyday, see them everyday, be intimate with them, maybe have kids, and live together forever. I think attractiveness is more important in a relationship than money. Not to say you have to be universally beautiful to be in a relationship, but again, it’s subjective. There’s usually at least a few people that find you attractive even if you aren’t “conventionally” attractive. >
  
  It seems pretty silly to say that -seeing a person everyday- will inevitably have a much larger effect on your happiness than -whatever level of financial security you have over the absolute minimum-. It might be a personal preference that you like one or the other. But someone else isn't unreasonable if they consider living the rest of their life with the standard of living you can get on warehouse worker salary to be a relatively worse fate than spending the rest of their life seeing a person who isn't that attractive.