Very few of the young women who marry considerably older, rich men are genuine gold-diggers, because the term implies that a woman does not actually find the man attractive yet is willing to subject herself to intrusions from wrinkly, Pfizer-fueled wood in order to enjoy an opulent lifestyle. The reality, however, is that wealth makes a man sexually appealing to a woman. It is not usually women’s pragmatism that drives such choices, it is their lust. This is difficult for men to grasp because money does not make a woman sexier. While the occasional young man may marry a moribund billionaire heiress, feign sexual interest in her for a few years while awaiting her demise and the prize that follows and in the meantime diligently suppress the nausea arising from the sight of saggy prune mammaries, women in the same situation do not actually make a corresponding sacrifice because they really do find the man sexually attractive. Wealth, in this sense, has the same function on a man’s looks as makeup has to that of the woman. Evolutionary biology easily explains this: Men who were turned on by fertile women were selected for because men who preferred primarily barren ones did not reproduce and, likewise, women who were turned on by men of excess resources enjoyed momentous reproductive advantages.
It follows, then, that women are genetically predisposed to find wealthy men, even old and unfit ones, arousing. Throughout human history, with a few notable exceptions such as during periods of communist rule (and to some degree even then), affluence has been one of the surest ways to ensure the survival of the offspring, as well as promote a great volume of that offspring.
Mating with rich men gave women procreative protection, which is why they prefer it to this day. The wealthier the man, the more children he could father and the more secure and well-fed those children would be. This, regrettably, is in stark contrast to the current era of Western world dysgenics where intelligent, responsible and financially successful people have very few children because they are heavily taxed, worry about the national debt, the environment, overpopulation or other Malthusian problems, while cretins and unemployed layabouts, devoid of such abstract concerns for the future of humanity, have plenty of children because their breeding is subsidized by, ironically, the aforementioned national debt. Wealth is a form of power, which, for reasons explained in the previous section, is inherently sexy. It also raises a man’s sexual mastery because, beyond the reproductive advantages they reap, women who mate with rich men also enjoy a greater level of physical comfort, exciting lifestyles and the peer group admiration (and envy) on which many women thrive. Remember that the age-old exchange in the sexual market is fertility (beauty) for resources. Women measure themselves by their relationships, men by their achievements. Why do women have their men buy them $10,000 Prada bags? It is a way of telling other women, “look how much my vagina is worth” in terms of male achievement. Wealthy men, similarly, show off their sexy wives, as a way of saying, “look at what my achievements are worth” in terms of vagina.