- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Power and money are ” masculine.” It's about “I can take anything I want or do anything I want.” But “take” and “make” is well, directly about sex: an arbitrary person who does not have money or power, can not take any woman and do with her what he wants. A rich and powerful person (theoretically!) can.
I recall the memoirs of an oligarch (one of the young ones from Yukos) about how he bought a professor from Moscow State University (who has a husband, two children, and everything is fine in the family) on a bet with friends – he simply raised the price of his offer until these decent respectable women stopped “sending” him to the address and began to think: “my income for 5 years in two hours of shame…and he's young, intelligent, and doesn't offer anything nasty…once is not …!”
Previously, power and money also had sexuality, although neither the former nor the latter was accessible to a wide range of people. In addition, some 200 years ago, without the Internet and the media, all this was not presented to a wide range of people in such bright and attractive colors.�
After all, there were always those who understood the power of their attractiveness and turned the powerful of this world. Or those who were ready by any means (more power than money) to force another to go to bed with them.�
And the appeal, I think, can be explained by the fact that we all show it in TV shows/music videos/books only on one side. They say that if someone has a lot of money, it doesn't matter at all that he or she is an impudent boor with a terrible character and lack of intelligence.
The question is somewhat incorrect. Power and money have not become attractive, they have always been so.�
And the reason is quite simple and obvious: the fact is that sexuality itself has a natural basis and implies procreation. Moreover, if we talk about primates, especially humans, then it's not enough just to give birth, you still need to put a child on his feet for 10, 18, or even all 25 years. Accordingly, our sexual attractiveness is very much related to whether the male will be able to ensure the development and protection of offspring for a long time.�
Therefore, in primitive societies, the strongest individuals with developed muscles are considered sexual, they have good genetic material and are able to protect the young. But the more developed a society is, the more powerful its social counterparts — money and power-take the place of powerful muscles. After all, in social terms, the developed musculature of the father does not always guarantee something to the child.
Therefore, women tend to be with people who have a high social position. From the point of view of evolution, this is more than normal. Men, by the way, also have a desire to provide for their offspring, this is genetics, you can't get away from it. But, of course, for the male sex, these things are less attractive, because he is not so much focused on nursing the cub. So for a man, physical parameters are still more important, and he can't do anything about it. Female beauty is an indicator that a child will be born healthy.
The question is super stupid and strange in general. Well, like everything is tied to instincts and before girls wanted to be with the strongest man and all that, to give birth to a child and a man protected them. Nowadays, the strong and tall are the ones who have money, so money has become sexy (no).