link | Submitted by Whipped Honey on Mon, 10/22/2007 - 00:06.
If "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, then why can't you prove it?
"The best proof of richer men disproportionately taking up feminine beauties can be obtained by spending some time in, say, a big mall or large general social gathering and looking at the women and then looking at the women in upscale clubs. Do it and get back to me."
I've already done it. I've spent plenty of time in shopping malls and large general social gatherings and plenty of time in upscale clubs and other monied environments. Monied environments such as upscale clubs have a much HIGHER percentage of women who look like high fashion models.
"And did you miss the application of Bayes’ theorem? Apparently yes because you mentioned plain women being gold diggers, too. The application of Bayes’ theorem suggests that the most likely non-gold-digger for a rich man would be a not so attractive woman."
That a rich man is unlikely to find a woman who is decent (whatever that means), genuinely interested in him, and gorgeous, and so therefore chooses which category to give up on and gives up on gorgeous, does not prove plain women aren't gold diggers. Yes, a rich man improves his odds of finding a non-gold-digger wife by looking among non-georgeous women, but only becaus plain women outnumber gorgeous women and therefore the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst plain women is a much higher number than the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst gorgeous women, not because plain women are less likely to be gold diggers. And all this is a moot point unless you can prove that "masculinized" women are less likely to be gold diggers than "feminine" women, and considering how many high fashion models marry astronomically rich men, it appears that is not the case.
"I don’t keep up with the lifestyles of rich men and am not going to waste my time looking up rich men with feminine and attractive wives. No reasonable person should dispute that feminine beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men."
Fiat! You can't prove your claim that "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, so you declare that "no reasonable person would dispute" it. Incredible!
If you don't keep up with the lifestyles of rich men then how do know they disproportionately take up the "feminine" women? If you don't keep up with their lifestyles then how do you know who they marry?
:P
»
Reply
Note: If your comment does not appear immediately after posting, then reload/refresh the page.
If "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, then why can't you prove it?
I've already done it. I've spent plenty of time in shopping malls and large general social gatherings and plenty of time in upscale clubs and other monied environments. Monied environments such as upscale clubs have a much HIGHER percentage of women who look like high fashion models.
That a rich man is unlikely to find a woman who is decent (whatever that means), genuinely interested in him, and gorgeous, and so therefore chooses which category to give up on and gives up on gorgeous, does not prove plain women aren't gold diggers. Yes, a rich man improves his odds of finding a non-gold-digger wife by looking among non-georgeous women, but only becaus plain women outnumber gorgeous women and therefore the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst plain women is a much higher number than the same proportion of non-gold-diggers amongst gorgeous women, not because plain women are less likely to be gold diggers. And all this is a moot point unless you can prove that "masculinized" women are less likely to be gold diggers than "feminine" women, and considering how many high fashion models marry astronomically rich men, it appears that is not the case.
Fiat! You can't prove your claim that "feminine" beauties are disproportionately taken up by richer men, so you declare that "no reasonable person would dispute" it. Incredible!
If you don't keep up with the lifestyles of rich men then how do know they disproportionately take up the "feminine" women? If you don't keep up with their lifestyles then how do you know who they marry?
:P