I always love arguments that equate a guy’s attraction to a slim, beautiful girl to a girl’s attraction to a guy’s full, brimming wallet.
Okay that’s a hyperbole.
But the following equation is often assumed when discussing the subject of attraction:
Guy’s attraction to girl’s physical looks = Girl’s attraction to guy’s financial status
In Part One of this two part blog post mini series I introduced you to Anna Maria Jorgensen’s argument where she accepts this equivalency and guides you girls to it’s inevitable desired goal:
You are justified in being overweight if you want to be. Because you can always find a guy who will love all of you as you are.
I finished that post with Anna’s claim that guys don’t have this luxury.
There aren’t women who are attracted to broke, unemployed guys.
So “tough luck” on you.
You’ll need to get your financial act together.
But this conclusion is too quick.
In actual fact there are LOTS of girls who are attracted to broke, unemployed guys.
Because what attracts girls to guys is not their wallets at all, but their confidence, charm and willingness to take the lead.
And a guy can have all of these traits irrespective of his financial status.
You may say, “Yes but how a girl knows a guy is confident is based on his visible successes.”
I don’t deny that financial success can be an indicator of his confidence.
But as I’ve pointed out before, it is a weak indicator at best.
Guys can “fake you out” by the appearance or even the achievement of wealth.
As any pickup artist can tell you, guys without wealth or even real confidence attract girls all the time.
You see girls, you don’t know the size of a guy’s wallet when you meet him.
You can’t be sure whether he has a job or anything else of that nature.
Your initial attraction is based solely on how he comes across in his personality.
In the way he carries himself.
The way he makes you feel.
It has nothing at all to do with his finances.
This is totally different when it comes to your appearance. Most guys can know if they find you physically attractive at a glance.
Yes you can mask that a bit with makeup and clothing, but that only goes so far.
Your situation is simply not the same.
If you don’t maintain your looks throughout your relationship, it is completely possible for your guy to lose attraction.
But of course Anna is not fixated primarily on initial attraction.
Her concern is for the long run too.
While your girl doesn’t know your financial status initially, she becomes very aware of it as the relationship evolves.
As she spends time with you and eventually moves in with you, the equation of looks to finances seems to hold much more true.
But here we’ve crossed a very important line.
Because the only reason your confidence is now being equated with your finances, is because she is living with you.
You have allowed your girl’s perception of her own financial well being to be explicitly tied to yours.
At least psychologically.
This dynamic of girls worrying how much their guys make, even when the girl could support both partners, is well known.
And it is true that this stems from the biological desire for safety and security in a girl.
But does this mean like Anna claims, that you have no option but to get your financial act together, or lose your girl if you can’t?
Not necessarily.
Anna pointed out that girls can let their weight go because there are guys who are into overweight girls.
She says there are no girls who will equivalently not care about your finances.
But that’s not true.
You can be with a girl without your financial status mattering to her. Just don’t cohabit with her.
Yes just as there are a minor number of guys who are into overweight girls, there are indeed a minor number of girls who are obsessed with your financial status too.
But they are the minority.
Just don’t date them.
Other than those exceptions, it is only when you live with a girl that this irrational equation of your finances with her safety really kicks in.
Because now how you’re doing financially starts to “feel” like it affects her directly.
Even if she can afford to take care of both of you.
Anna is completely right that in a traditional, monogamous, cohabiting relationship, this dynamic is likely to get in the way.
This is one of the reasons I don’t recommend you live with a girl, even if you choose to be monogamous with her.
If you live with her, a change in your financial status could indeed impact her attraction for you.
But if she takes care of her own financial needs independently of you, this is much less likely to happen.
I know you girls probably think I just did a bait and switch here.
You have to stay slim but he can go broke.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Actually my recommendation here is in you girls’ best interest too.
In todays modern world your safety and security is not actually tied to his financial status anymore.
That is a biological and societal hold over from days gone by.
You don’t need a guy to take care of you financially anymore.
Why would you want your romantic love for your guy tied to the highly volatile nature of modern economies?
And let’s face it, eating right and keeping your weight down is healthy and doable with just a little discipline.
A lost job or failing business can level a guy (or girl) for months and even years.
Do you really want your love life dependent on anybody’s financial status or fortunes?
Now guys I haven’t said all this to justify you being a bum and not getting your financial act together.
Of course you (just like her) should be able to pay your own way in life.
That’s nobody’s responsibility but yours.
I’m just recommending that as best you can, you should disconnect your financial achievement from whether or not your girl thinks you’re attractive.
Anna’s “tough luck” about all this, is not really the case at all.
What do you think? Do looks and finances really equate when it comes to romantic love?
Like what you’re reading? Sign up!
