"Ugh. Stop trying to justify the sexist notion that it's better for women to marry up. "
Jessica Wakeman over at the Frisky has a column about men marrying for money (via Instapundit and Vox Day). She writes it in response to a Newsweek article about the book, Smart Girls Marry Money: How Women Have Been Duped Into the Romantic Dream--And How They're Paying For It:
I have to admire some of the comments made by women such as this one:
At least the above commenter isn't a hypocrite. I can't say the same for Ms. Wakeman who appears to want to be a "feminist" with a meal ticket. I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?
Forget for a moment that they annoyingly refer to grown women as “girls” in their title and check out their thesis: because, for a variety of reasons, men earn more money than women, it’s a wise move to marry someone who can provide for you and your family....
Take me, for instance. I’m afraid I’m going to get tarred and feathered as a “bad feminist” for admitting this, but yeah, I do want to marry someone who can financially support both me and our kids.
I’m not ashamed to want to “marry for money,” if that’s what would you can even call it, because I don’t fundamentally believe it is the “man’s role” to provide for women. My actual motivations, as I see them, are pure enough. I know of great guys out there—journalists, teachers, non-profit dudes—who will probably make great dads. But I personally wouldn’t pair up with them because, realistically, our two salaries together just wouldn’t be enough to cut it for what I want out of life. But, but, but, “Bank accounts shouldn’t matter at all!” And while I agree with that in theory, sorry, a man who can provide for me and our children is just much more attractive to me.
Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too.
I have to admire some of the comments made by women such as this one:
Ugh. Stop trying to justify the sexist notion that it's better for women to marry up. Feminism gave us the opportunity to make our own money so we could control our own destinies and marry the people we love instead of being indentured servants to men we depend on for survival. If you want to put yourself in that prison, have at it, but don't act like it's a great idea for women in general.
What happens if your husband loses all his money in a lawsuit or market crash or gets injured and can no longer work? Gonna dump him for the next meal ticket? Being able to take care of yourself and family is feminist. Putting yourself in a position where you couldn't do it is what hurts women and children.
At least the above commenter isn't a hypocrite. I can't say the same for Ms. Wakeman who appears to want to be a "feminist" with a meal ticket. I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?
Labels: "feminism", men, money
posted by Helen at 3:34 PM
181 Comments:
Why is that?
Because feminism is the women's rights movement, not the women's responsibilities movement.
It's all about take, take, take.
It's one thing to take into account your partner's financial history. Marrying someone with a proven bad track record at managing money is foolhardy. It's another thing to want to marry someone who has enough money to fulfill your fantasies.
I think the key giveaway of what she really wants is this sentence:
Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too.
She doesn't care if he wants the same things as her. She only cares about having her desires met. I hope any potential boyfriends google her name, see this article, and run away before they get roped in by her.
Fortunately, not all women are like that. When my wife and I married 27 years ago (as of last Thursday), we had very, very little money. Over the years, we both worked very hard and built a comfortable life together. She may have to retire in the coming months due to some health issues (we spent our anniversary in her hospital room) and I'll gladly keep working to support us. She has worked very hard as a nurse for 25 years and her job isn't worth further ruining her health over.
It is vitally important to distinguish between the suffragette movement of the early 20th century and the feminist movement of the late 20 century.
The former was based on equality, the latter on superiority.
Why is that?
Physical prostitution and mental prostitution enjoy a john/whore affinity?
A couple issues aren't being addressed by either of these women. First, women more likely to fall in love with men who have high socioeconomic status? (One definition of emotions is that they are "the conscious result of a subconscious cost benefit analysis on issues of evolutionary importance.") Second, women are more likely to sabotage their own careers by dropping out for a while to care for their children. At best, a lot of women work really hard to ignore both biases and, at worst, they find some way to blame men for them.
Why is that?
Because that's the obvious goal of modern feminism.
Helloooooo....
"I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?"
Plain old human nature.
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Feminism is such a solipsistic movement. (For the uninitiated, solipsistic means self-absorbed or self-rationalizing.)
Wakeman is all too typical of the movement...she wants things both ways. She wants to be equally respected in the workplace, but wants a man to "take care of her" as if she were disabled. She gets to opt out, but men are expected to work until death.
Sweetie, you can have a man take care of you if you want, but the old system where men were obligated to do so was predicated on the idea that a wife also had obligations. Feminism is anathema to this concept...if your hypothetical marry-up husband were to tell you "if I'm going to bust my ass to pay the bills I expect sex more than once a month you would probably cry "THAT'S RAPE!!!"
"sorry, a man who can provide for me and our children is just much more attractive to me."
What's weird about this sentence is how she confuses attraction with lifestyle. She probably doesn't even realize she's doing it.
It's attractive for your lifestyle, dear Jessica, if he has money, but not sexually arousing. Men are not told this distinction, of course, and so much bar-scene pickup features the sad sight of men competing to spend the most money on a pretty woman.
With the unreal number of twentysomething women who are "having their fun" with a bunch of bad boys only to turn around and ask for a walking wallet at age 28,
men have even less reason to flash cash - you'll probably catch a low-quality, spent product if you do.
Athol Kay,
Great to see you here! Love your blog.
There's another thing that is messed up here...so many modern women are obsessed with "lifestyle" - meaning nice cars, luxurious resort vacations, Coach purses, jewelry and other frivolous wastes.
This idea that a roof over your head and food on the table constitutes "providing" is gone among the airheaded middle-upper class husband-hunters. They are keeping score and the stakes are high. Now that hypergamy is unleashed by feminism, neither regular guys nor regular salaries are good enough.
To add to that, I'm not sure she understands where money comes from...to make a six-figure salary in this country, you've got to work - a LOT. Very few people are raking in the dough working
Look at lawyers, doctors, entrepreneurs, upper managers.
Money and power go to those who seek them, and those who seek them are not punching the 9 to 5 clock. Not a lot of time to get home and see your kids, or suck up to your wife. (Then again, maybe that's what she wants - "leave the money and go to work.")
Didn't any of these people see Fight Club?
"Very few people are raking in the dough working 40-hour weeks."
Can anyone define feminism anymore or any of its strands? It seems to me that feminism promises a lot of things to women, which it does not deliver on, and makes men miserable in the process.
Is Sex in the City Syndrome feminism where women are promiscuous, want to be considered classy, but make endless demands on men with men getting very little in return?
So confusing...
Steve:
Feminism is defined as women doing anything that men don't like.
Cham,
"Feminism is defined as women doing anything that men don't like."
Please. An intelligent (and non-conformity oriented) woman such as yourself should be able to recognize and testify to the basic tenet of self-identified feminism - an indulgent, self-aggrandizing attitude promoting the superiority of women in any and every case.
By the way, anybody think this author is going to end up like the last Frisky writer we discussed, alone at 30 crying "how come no men want men???"
WHOA! Gotta correct that last line:
"how come no men want me???"
Wakeman is all too typical of the movement...she wants things both ways. She wants to be equally respected in the workplace, but wants a man to "take care of her" as if she were disabled. She gets to opt out, but men are expected to work until death.
It's actually worse than that. They want it both ways and then some. It's not about equality or rights any more. It's about women getting preferential treatment at ever step of the way.
Something I have found in places that reference the piece is that if you want to make some women really angry, suggest that you, too, have standards which they must meet.
In a world without faith in God, or without respect for even an objective understanding of things, it makes perfect sense. I realize no woman can cleave to me unless she first believes and subjects herself to God. Only through a mutual understand and subjection to something other than ourselves can we ever truly become whole and one, in flesh and all.
Still, I wonder if her necessary partial lobotomy will hurt her as much mine hurts me? :p Yes, we will both have to give, and give up, some of what we want. But in an objective way.
Without anything but subjective, it is all dollars and cents, power, and fame. And then, of course, death. Even if these are the people who are setting up my persecution, I do feel sorry for them.
logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too.
Let's call her what she is: a whore. There is no fundamental difference between her and a whore. Both have sex for money. What they do with the money once they've received it or whether they continue to carry on a relationship with the man who's giving them money is irrelevant. Both that woman and those who we commonly refer to as whores are the same. Like he would do with a whore, any man who comes across this woman or any like her should simply have sex with her and give her as little as humanly possible. If she wants more than the next whore, he should ignore her and move on to the next.
Bowen,
A couple adds to your analysis:
1. Her pitch is similar to a woman who picks a man who would "be a good father" - she wants a man who is a candidate for some external factor, which is secondary to the relationship of the spouses, and filters accordingly.
The pitch ignores the sadly common reality that sometimes those external factors don't happen, and
Case in point would be disability of a breadwinner, a career change brought on by passion or boredom, infertile spouses, or a Dr Helen commentor's experience of "we had a son...he died. Then what?"
2. I notice she is not really interested in supporting a young man as he grows in his profession. At least she doesn't sound like it (and she's too old already to latch onto a guy straight out of law or med school). This is the common refrain at divorce, that the wife was the secret of the man's success, an unpaid consultant, and should draw a salary off of his. Sometimes it's true, but sometimes it's baloney.
Back to the point - she just wants Mister Moneybags to pass through a membrane into her life...she's not interested in the privation of time and money it takes to work up the ladder as a young attorney, or a medical resident, or a PhD.
What was she doing while he was working in the "minor leagues" of his profession? Oh yeah, she was probably boffing some already-established guy until she got tired of him or he had had enough fun with her.
Yet another reason 30something guys aren't interested in Frisky writers - they're generally not interested in coming along for the ride until you pass "Go" and collect your $200.
I'm definitely not interested in 30-something-year old women. I like young, impressionable women who haven't figured out how to market themselves to millionaires. They're plentiful and can be traded for new models whenever they start to become too demanding (it helps that I own a home with a fabulous view, am pretty good looking, and am constantly taking classes in something at the local 13th grade).
A quibble, Bowen. She's not technically a "whore." A whore is paid to go away.
To J. Bowen:
Exactly what is wrong with prostitution? It is actually quite common in the animal kingdom. If you want the woman to "like" you there is always the question of why she likes you. A man having more resources and more willingness to give them to the woman should be more attractive to women. The important question is whether women can be trusted to keep up their end of an implicit or explicit contract between them and men. Women hide their true intentions and implicit in your choice of women is the (arrogant) assumption that you can accurately predict the woman's future behavior.
What I want in a woman is a highly developed sense of irony and self-depreciating sense of humor. She has to demonstrate it early in the relationship and keep demonstrating it for a long time. There aren't very many women like that. Most of them have fully internalized the underlying principles of American feminism: (1) Women should have options and men should have obligations. (2) When women complain about male behavior, it's men's fault and when men complain about female behavior, it's men's fault.
What amazes me is the number of women who see no problem with openly demanding to be trusted and voting for politicians who look out after women's interests, which clearly includes making sure that women are well paid and well protected when they lie. And then they wonder why men are "reluctant to commit"
Have we seen a picture of Jessica Wakeman? We don't know, she might be a supermodel. She might have some special tricks for the bedroom that the rest of us ladies don't know about.
Come on guys, if you can't smell gold-digger from 500 feet there is something wrong with you. These women stick out of the crowd. Their teeth are a little too white, their clothes are a little too tight and they laugh at jokes that aren't funny. If a woman can work a guy then most likely he wants to be worked. Leave these ladies be with their little games.
For every Jessica Wakeman there is a PUA telling guys how to get over on women.
There's another subtext to this post. Go to any bookstore self-help section, and the books marketed to women are all about "deserving." How to get the man 'you deserve.' How to get the body 'you deserve.'
You don't "deserve" something just because you want it. It's a rhetorical flourish that provides an excuse for unvarnished self-interest when you're winning, and an excuse for whining when you are not.
People like Wakeman have not accepted that some of your dreams will not come true. (Men come to accept this early in life, and if they get married, most of their dreams will not come true.)
"Come on guys, if you can't smell gold-digger from 500 feet there is something wrong with you. These women stick out of the crowd. Their teeth are a little too white, their clothes are a little too tight and they laugh at jokes that aren't funny."
And some of them post on blogs about their strategy. Only an idiot without Google would get involved with this woman from here.
"For every Jessica Wakeman there is a PUA telling guys how to get over on women."
I doubt it. The PUA community is still very small; they are all over the Internet but that is the paratrooper effect. Most men are still duped into the beta form of dating. Meanwhile 90% of women marry up, so a good portion of them have probably consciously admitted the man's money is a dealbreaker/dealmaker.
These entitlement princesses are destroying marriage opportunities for *all* women.
The marriage rate continues to decline and until attitudes (and laws) change, will continue to do so.
Girls... you better be able to fend for yourselves out there. Odds are, you'll have too.
Topher: Are you more upset that the Jessica Wakeman's of the world exist or are you upset that the Internet and book publishers give her a platform for her tripe.
Adolf Hitler got a publishing deal too. Blogger will give you an account for free. For every Jessica Wakeman scribe out there, there is a Tom Leykis writing just as furtively. There is enough server space out there for all of them.
I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?
Because it is her money. She "earned" it. The Courts have decreed that anything a woman does, including just breathing, is equal to a 50% contribution to her husband's career.
While it's not totally unacceptable to want these things, I do think it's foolish to make it into a deal breaker. As someone else pointed out, what if something unforeseen happens that causes a loss of that income? There has to be enough love and caring to get through that.
It's always a good idea to match your expectations of a potential partner with what you have to offer him/her. If two people are thinking more about what they have to offer someone else and working on that, the relationship will be more fruitful. Two people, or even just one of the two, thinking primarily of their own desires are not going to fare well in a relationship. If people do that during sex, it's called glorified masturbation. What ever happened to pleasing a partner? Two people pleasing each other makes for a better time than two people pleasing themselves.
It's hilarious how she can say that she doesn't see providing for women and children as the "man's role" and then immediately turn around and make it clear that this is the role a man *must* play in order to be marriage material for her -- hilarious that she can say both of these things with an apparent straight face and not see the contradiction.
The degree of self-absorption is mind-blowing really.
I'm looking forward to her follow-up blog posts:
'where are all potential atm/sperm donors so commitment-phobic? and
'10 reasons why having cats are better than kids'
I should never leave a comment before I've had my first cup of coffee.
Exactly what is wrong with prostitution? It is actually quite common in the animal kingdom.
Honestly, nothing. I think prostitution is a fine profession. What I have a problem with is the idea of paying a woman for the possibility of sex, then paying the woman to continue to have sex with me, and then continuing to pay the woman after I am no longer having sex with her. If I'm going to pay a woman to have sex with me, then I'm going to a professional who I know will hold up her end of the deal. If the choice were to pay a common streetwalker or some American woman to have sex with me, I'd choose the former; at least I know that she would have sex with me and that the sex would probably be as good as I wanted it (I've only ever known one prostitute and she had a graduated price system for the kinds of sex acts men wanted).
If you want the woman to "like" you there is always the question of why she likes you.
Well, I guess that's where I differ from most men. I don't want women to "like" me; I simply want them to have sex with me and go away. Most of the time, they're moody, demanding, not satisfiable, and have little, moronic, emotion-based opinions about crap that I could care less about. If gay sex weren't so horrifyingly disgusting to me, I'd be gay in a heartbeat.
The important question is whether women can be trusted to keep up their end of an implicit or explicit contract between them and men.
I think the proof is in the pudding. You know the old joke about what food causes women to gain more weight than any other, don't you? Well, I think it could be amended to include causing women to lose interest in sex faster than any other as well.
Come on guys, if you can't smell gold-digger from 500 feet there is something wrong with you. These women stick out of the crowd. Their teeth are a little too white, their clothes are a little too tight and they laugh at jokes that aren't funny.
You're living in a dreamworld if you think the vast majority of women aren't gold-diggers. The ones that you described are simply the ones who've figured out how to market themselves. The vast majority of the rest are also gold-diggers, they just haven't figured out the marketing game yet. The difference between the ones that you talk about and the vast majority of the rest is like the difference between Coca-Cola and ; Coca-Cola might not have a better product than other companies, but it sure does have better advertising.
The marriage rate continues to decline
You speak of this as if it's a bad thing...
Girls... you better be able to fend for yourselves out there. Odds are, you'll have too.
Until the younger girls figure out that they, like their older counterparts, can simply go to their elected officials and demand that they, the elected officials, force any random man to pay for their every want and need.
J Bowen;
On your opinion about prostitution I couldn't agree with your more. I really wish prostitution was legal in all 50 states. I was reading a report last week on a medical site which said sex workers who work in legal brothels have some of the lowest STD rates as compared to homosexual males and swingers.
If someone, male or female, simply wants sex they can go to a brothel, pay the given rate and get the service they desire. Condoms are mandatory and the workers are screened for STDs. What is not to love about this system? It sure has heck beats having sex in exchange for a nickle bag of crack with a street walker.
Hypergamy, folks. Hypergamy. Or, a whore by any other name...
Cham wrote, Come on guys, if you can't smell gold-digger from 500 feet there is something wrong with you. These women stick out of the crowd. Their teeth are a little too white, their clothes are a little too tight and they laugh at jokes that aren't funny. If a woman can work a guy then most likely he wants to be worked. Leave these ladies be with their little games.
Not really. Your everyday, average female cons men out of stuff all the time. Your average, everyday boy was trained by his mother to never say "no" to women.
The PUA community is simply a re-education movement among young men. Most of them were raised without fathers to teach them wily ways of women.
I read the article the other day and I think the point the author wanted to make was don't marry a man who is bad with money... and as she tried to fill a couple typed pages enough to write an article, she went off on some unfortunate tangents.
Anyway, I agree with the author. Marrying the guy who writes bad poetry while still working an entry level job at 35+ is a dumb move and probably based on some lame romantic / ideological notions of its own.
When I was dating my wife she questioned me about my credit card debt and asked me to take care of it before we moved on in the relationship. I said it was a left over from my salad days and I'm actually pretty frugal. So I paid off the debt in one year. I didn’t think it was an out of line thing to want to know. I wouldn’t want to marry a woman who lived beyond her means (ie, our means if we were together).
Wow. Why the hate, folks? Women being attracted to men with money is as ingrained in human genetics and society as men being attracted to women with nice bodies. Why is it only bad when the women act in accordance with their heredity? Yes, a certain type of feminism declares that women shouldn't care about being supported by men, but in reality, a woman who wants children is usually best advised to find a husband who can support her. That impulse, and not feminism, is likely to win out in the long run.
Wow, bunch of bitter woman haters in here.
The problem here, and with feminism in general, is that it frames any situation which INCLUDES a gender difference as being primarily ABOUT GENDER.
If a woman takes something from a woman, that's life. If a man takes something from a man, that's life too. But if a man takes something from a woman (or vice versa), suddenly it's all about women's rights!
I'm a man with a good income, and would gladly marry a woman with more. I don't look down on a woman who would do the same, just because she's a woman. It's human nature to want more for less, not a weakness in her gender politics credentials.
"I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?"
Because feminism is a phenomenon of the political left, and the political left's economic philosophy is somewhere on the socialist-communist spectrum. While correlation is not causation, it rarely has to be: it's sufficient for it to explain phenomena that impact other people.
After being married twice before, and being taken to the cleaners both times, I decided not to let that happen again. After that, I did not see anyone who did not have at least as much income potential as I did. I married an M.D. who has made more money than I did about 2/3 of the time. We have been married 25 years next month, and I expect to continue being happily married indefinitely. My stepfather used to say to me, “It’s just as easy to fall in love with a rich girl, as a poor one.” It took me awhile to learn that lesson.
SH,
"I read the article the other day and I think the point the author wanted to make was don't marry a man who is bad with money... and as she tried to fill a couple typed pages enough to write an article, she went off on some unfortunate tangents."
We all want to believe this...we are shocked someone would write such unvarnished self-absorption. We want to believe it was just a slip of the keys. Unfortunately, it was a Freudian slip:
"I know of great guys out there—journalists, teachers, non-profit dudes—who will probably make great dads. But I personally wouldn’t pair up with them because, realistically, our two salaries together just wouldn’t be enough to cut it for what I want out of life. But, but, but, “Bank accounts shouldn’t matter at all!” And while I agree with that in theory, sorry, a man who can provide for me and our children is just much more attractive to me."
She's not talking about providing food and shelter. She wants bling. If that wasn't strong enough evidence that she's counting his bills and not just his credit score, she doubles down later:
"Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too. An apartment big enough for kids, prenatal care, doctors appointments, birthday presents, vacations, summer camp, college, their own car, all that stuff. I know parents can raise children well on much less. But personally, that’s not the lifestyle I grew up with."
There's also this:
"College loan debt is fine (I’ve got it) and a reasonable balance on the credit card debt is understandable (I’ve got that, too)."
Uh, no. For an employed, able-bodied single person, a balance on your credit card is not "fine." It means you are living beyond your means, ipso facto.
Fuzzy,
"Women being attracted to men with money is as ingrained in human genetics and society as men being attracted to women with nice bodies. Why is it only bad when the women act in accordance with their heredity?"
I see this peddled a lot, buuuut...no. Money does not arouse people. Sometimes money is a proxy for character traits that are attractive. But nobody is biologically "attracted" to money. Money is SOCIALLY attractive.
Nature/heredity is programmed for survival and replication. DNA doesn't know what a bank account it.
Topher,
"Money does not arouse people...nobody is biologically 'attracted' to money. Money is SOCIALLY attractive."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been with more than one woman who had an *immediate*, biological reaction to the promise of new cashflow. If you know what I'm saying.
Andrew, I have had dates with more than one man who had an immediate biological reaction to the promise of new cash flow. Note to men: Subtlety goes a long way. It is not necessary to ask several probing questions about income potential and assets in the first few minutes of a date, this screams gold-digger.
"Nature/heredity is programmed for survival and replication. DNA doesn't know what a bank account it."
No, but it does know what ability to provide for a mother and children are. Money and bank accounts are simply a modern version of that.
Then, Andrew and Cham, you both need to begin associating with a better class of people.
Fact is, Miss Wakeman is a little golddigger, and shame on her for it.
Why is that?
Because many feminists are confused about morality. For some reason they tend to see men as enemies who are to be defeated rather than partners with whom to share one's life.
From where I stand it looks as if the superficial feminist ideology that was being pushed on young women in the 1960s and 1970s has been much better for young men looking for a good time without commitment than for the young women it was supposed to benefit. It allowed hedonistic men from growing up and gave them a steady supply of disposable sexual partners who were readily replaced with newer, younger models. As would be expected, many of the women who chose to play the feminist game wound up unhappy and bitter and could not understand why they could not be as happy with their lives as they expected.
I believe that most young women make a serious error by waiting too long to get married and have kids. They need to find someone who they are compatible with, is willing to make a commitment, and is at least as smart as they are. This may make feminists angry but in the real world there is no problem with using economic wealth or earning power as one of the factors when making a choice as long as it is not the primary driver of the decision making process.
"The degree of self-absorption is mind-blowing really."
Think of a man, and take away reason and accountability. :-)
It seems like some people don't see any difference between WANTING more for less, and taking advantage of people TO GET more for less.
It's like Roman Polansky's logic: Everybody wants to sleep with young girls, so what I did is just fine.
Fuzzy asks: "Wow. Why the hate, folks? Women being attracted to men with money is as ingrained in human genetics and society as men being attracted to women with nice bodies."
Why the hate? Because the author missed the point, and wound up looking like a greedy harridan in the process. I would say that most normal women are attracted to a guy who has his act together and projects an air of confidence. That's nature. But there's a huge difference between that and what Wakeman wrote, particularly in those last two paragraphs. Consider: If I say "I'm attracted to a woman who cares about the image she projects and takes reasonably good care of herself", I think that statement would be non-controversial. But if I go totally in the superficial direction with that, and say something like "I won't look twice at a woman who doesn't have a 38D-32-36 body and perfect skin", that would be pretty shallow, wouldn't it? That's what Wakeman did... she started out saying that she's attracted to men who have it together, which is fine. But then she ended up the "I want a guy who will pay for all the stuff I want", and she came across as a glorified prostitute. Big difference.
This article confuses the socio-economic class of your mate's family with the expected or existing earning power of the mate. "Marrying up" traditionally refers to the family you're marrying into. With that, it is definitely better for women to marry up. Better than what? Well, better than for men to marry up. I would never advise a friend to marry a woman from a wealthier family than his own or even from a wealthy family at all, unless there is a very compelling reason to believe this woman has not been spoiled rotten. Otherwise, he's signing up for hellish expectations from her and her family.
Those who marry for money, earn it.
Marrying up- in whatever sense the individual interprets up- is a reasonable aspiration for either sex. We all want the best we can get!
Of course you can't always get what you want.
Hi Dr. Helen
You may find my anecdotal experience interesting.
When I met my future wife and asked her out on a date, she told me to bring a copy of my college transcript and credit report! She said she had learned this the hard way and didn't want to waste my time or hers. I was intrigued. We've been married 28 years.
ps- she makes more money than I do.
Yeah, I can see the woman's incentive to marry a man that makes alot more money than her, but what's a man's incentive for basically marrying down?
I think this was addressed in a Craig's List posting once, wasn't it? Hilariously so.
A man could marry down but it would have to be to to an amazingly attractive woman. But that woman is a essentially a depreciating asset. Over time she wrinkles, sags and starts to nag. It would be fun for a while, but like a car, eventually he'll trade for the newer model with fewer maintanence issues.
And every guy on the planet might want to bone a supermodel same way every woman on the planet might want to marry a multimillionaire. Shit happens. Com-pro-mise, baby!
I would never advise a friend to marry a woman from a wealthier family than his own or even from a wealthy family at all, unless there is a very compelling reason to believe this woman has not been spoiled rotten. Otherwise, he's signing up for hellish expectations from her and her family.
I do not believe that the idea that individuals from well off families are any more spoiled than those from lower class families is supported by empirical evidence. From what I see, the majority of kids from well off families are pushed very hard to excel academically and to learn how to set goals that are to be followed. While they may have more access to material goods in relative terms they tend to be more careful about spending because they are taught the importance of maintaining wealth and purchasing power in real rather than nominal terms.
The trick to success in life is to always aim high. If in education and career we need to set our goals and expectations above what our peers may think is reasonable I cannot see why it is unreasonable to do so when looking for somone to marry.
Marrying up- in whatever sense the individual interprets up- is a reasonable aspiration for either sex. We all want the best we can get!
Of course you can't always get what you want.
But that is the interesting part. Value is subjective and life is not a zero sum game. That means that it is possible for the two partners to both be marrying up.
As others have noted, part of what she says is not so unreasonable, the bit about debt loads and making sure you're marrying somebody with at least a modicum of financial responsibility, since that generally reflects maturity and responsibility in other areas too. That part is good advice for both sexes.
The rest, though, is so blatant and un-self-aware that I'm _almost_ tempted to read it as some kind of satire or parody of the self-absorbed upper-middle-class feminist.
The only modicum of complement I can give Wakeman is that she will surely talk about money with her husband-to-be before they get engaged.
Unfortunately for her, most guys will probably run the other way.
I am told that many, many couples don't really talk about money issues before they get married. WTF??
Dr. Helen asked :
Why is that?
Remember that when anyone make a waaaaay off base accusation, or at outlandish request, projection is the only thing they are truly exhibiting.
The Misandry Party is peaking, and the hangover will be a very severe cost borne by women.
Read all about it.
Andrew whined :
Wow, bunch of bitter woman haters in here.
No Andrew, we don't hate women. We do, however, hate pedestalizing manginas.
You clearly have no experience with women. Putting women on pedestals will not get you laid.
For every Jessica Wakeman there is a PUA telling guys how to get over on women.
Dead wrong. For starters, PUA actually works quite well.
Secondly, PUAs are very generous about teaching other guys how to handle their woman situations, etc.
The fact that you can even compare PUAs with a leech like Wakeman shows you are just as morally inverted as a feminist.
Steve asked :
Is Sex in the City Syndrome feminism where women are promiscuous, want to be considered classy, but make endless demands on men with men getting very little in return?
Yes, that is it.
The reason this confuses you is that you still think most women have any capacity to be a) logical and b) fair.
They don't. Just because they have the legal right to vote at 18 does not mean they process information in a way that would meet your definitions of fairness or morality.
You need to learn how women think (after which, it is easy to bed dozens of them). You need to learn Game.
Andrew claimed :
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been with more than one woman who had an *immediate*, biological reaction to the promise of new cashflow. If you know what I'm saying.
You are the type of loser who pays $300 on a woman who is just a 6 in looks only to not get laid.
Not only do you know know anything about women, but you are an example of what type of man NOT to be.
You need to learn about Game, and these men bed women far hotter than you will ever get, without spending a dime.
Being a mangina is a shameful thing. Shame on you, Andrew.
I'll sort of defend Ms. Wakeman too. My sister married money, lots of it. She's sat on her butt and has had to do nothing but eat bon bons. It's been a pretty nice life for her. I guess if one can pull it off more power to you.
Topher nails it a few posts ago:
She's not talking about providing food and shelter. She wants bling. If that wasn't strong enough evidence that she's counting his bills and not just his credit score, she doubles down later:
"Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too. An apartment big enough for kids, prenatal care, doctors appointments, birthday presents, vacations, summer camp, college, their own car, all that stuff. I know parents can raise children well on much less. But personally, that’s not the lifestyle I grew up with."
I'm incredibly lucky -- I found a woman who a) values financial independence over displaying a lifestyle, and b) even more importantly, understands that achieving that goal requires a literal lifetime of work.
Too many modern 30-somethings, as evidenced by Wakeman's quote, have absolutely no interest in devoting the time, effort and energy to building the future she claims to want -- she simply wants it handed to her.
As the saying goes, "good luck with that."
Amplifying the point -- my challenge to the Jessica Wakemans is to read Tom Stanley's "The Millionaire Mind," specifically the chapter titled "Choice of Spouse." Using those metrics, would you be worthy of being chosen by the sort of man you claim to want?
Dr. Helen asks, "I've noticed that the more a woman talks about feminism, the more likely she is to screw a guy out of his money. Why is that?"
The answer is simple: feminism is not about getting equal; it's about getting even.
"My sister married money, lots of it. She's sat on her butt and has had to do nothing but eat bon bons. It's been a pretty nice life for her."
The more I see of the working world the more I am convinced there are two types of workers, with some people in between, but not that many. Those types are people who are motivated to work for money and comfort, and those who work because they are motivated to be productive and contribute to something.
The latter are the type who retire, then immediately find some other responsibility to concern themselves with. Most of these "I want to live a comfortable life" people are only working to feed their "needs," and would hang it up and go to a consume-only lifestyle given the chance.
(You can change groups, if you get disillusioned or never find a job that pays you for your passion you can switch to the "punch the clock" team. And there are those not motivated to work at all, but they don't work, ipso facto.)
I can't imagine eating bon bons and watching TV. If I could live without going to work, I'd still be expanding my mind through reading and hobbies, getting involved in charitable projects and contributing to the community through my own person.
That being said, Wakeman is sort of in the second group...sort of. She's all about doing her life's passion (in an industry that is dying), but can't accept that said passion precludes her living the high life she's become "accustomed to." So in a Solomon-like splitting of the baby, she has invented a moral universe where she is entitled to pursue her life's work, but also to live the high life by marrying a wallet, who will bust his butt while she writes bylines, has kids and otherwise exercises her "options" and feels proud of herself in the process. It's like a rehash of Boomer narcissism.
I'd feel a LOT more sympathetic if she had been with Mr Cash since the college days and supported him moving up the ladder, and said "we built this life, now we are enjoying it."
Lots of hate and calling women whores here.
I married a Fortune 500 executive specifically because of what he earns.
Frankly, a have a far better life and a far higher standard of living than anyone here will ever have. It's like you people are all in the gutter complaining about the upper class.
Grow up.
And for you people rationalizing that work is nifty and you would have to be working and all the rest, here's a message for you: Work sucks.
You realize that you face a lifetime of work, so you better start finding something good about it. What a way to live, grinding through the drudgery of work and not LIVING.
I don't watch TV and eat bon-bons, I LIVE.
So get back to your boring office jobs or your jobs at Taco Bell or wherever it is you do your important work, I don't think I'll be participating today. LOL
Lydia,
Congratulations. So you agreed to play wife for a pile of money; what word would you use to describe that, besides "freeloader" or the one used above?
Lydia,
What ticks most of us off here is the sense of entitlement to the option of living off of somebody else, a sexist entitlement a man can never claim without shouts of shame coming his way.
Women can have babies which takes them out off the job for a time, yes - nature gave you an option men don't have. But that has somehow been expanded into a privilege to stay out of the workforce, no matter how old your kids are or whether you have them at all. Some lazy people, like yourself, say "I want to marry money and be taken care of"; a man could never say that and be taken seriously.
Lydia
We've grown up. That's why we are not like you.
Well, Lydia, what is the difference between a woman who sleeps with a lot of men for $100 a pop, and one who sleeps with one man "specifically because of what he earns?"
Lydia:
If being a professional wife works for you, then more power to you. It's great not having t work, I agree, work sometimes does suck (though it doesn't suck all the time). However, my sister has chosen this route as well. She seems happy and I'm glad for her. But there are always trade-offs. My sister lives near where her husband works, they can't locate to a place where she wants to live. My sister has never gone on a vacation where she wants to go, her family goes to visit her rich mother-in-law at her boring vacation house. My sister doesn't go hiking like I do, nor has she gone sailing since she married, a sport which she loves. Her husband doesn't like the water. She spends her time shuffling her kids from one activity to another and supervising her maid. She lives an nice life but I know it isn't for me or a lot of other people. You make your choices.
Cham,
One of the things people often learn too late is that a lot of rich people are boring...workaholic, obsessive, concerned with minutiae most people don't bother themselves with. But that's why they're rich - they'll do things most other people won't do, things that need to be done and that have a lot of money flowing through them.
As I said before, I'm not sure Ms. Wakeman really understands where money comes from or the kind of soul-crushing work required to get it and keep it.
Lydia:
You realize that you face a lifetime of work, so you better start finding something good about it. What a way to live, grinding through the drudgery of work and not LIVING.
I did not object to the idea that people should try to marry up so I have no bias against those that have done so. But I think that you are confused when you say that people are miserable because they work. While that is probably true for the majority, many people find their work very meaningful and believe that it is one of the things that makes living so enjoyable.
I do not know or care where you find your meaning but suggest that ignorance of what is important to others is not exactly a virtue.
Topher
Congratulations. So you agreed to play wife for a pile of money; what word would you use to describe that, besides "freeloader" or the one used above?
You have no idea what motivated Lydia to do what she did so let us not go there. There is no need to get sucked into her story no matter how much you may wish to attack it. People should be free to pursue any voluntary social arrangement they feel is beneficial for them. That includes prostitution, marriage, or casual relationships.
Topher:
What ticks most of us off here is the sense of entitlement to the option of living off of somebody else, a sexist entitlement a man can never claim without shouts of shame coming his way.
Why should anyone be ticked off about the decisions made by someone else? We have no idea about Lydia's arrangement and have no way to evaluate it even if it was our place to do so. What part of a voluntary social arrangement do you have a problem with?
Women can have babies which takes them out off the job for a time, yes - nature gave you an option men don't have. But that has somehow been expanded into a privilege to stay out of the workforce, no matter how old your kids are or whether you have them at all. Some lazy people, like yourself, say "I want to marry money and be taken care of"; a man could never say that and be taken seriously.
I do not believe that is exactly what she said. And you have no idea what she offers to the arrangement, which her husband may find acceptable. If both parties get what they want it isn't our place to try to pass judgment.
Peter:
Well, Lydia, what is the difference between a woman who sleeps with a lot of men for $100 a pop, and one who sleeps with one man "specifically because of what he earns?"
There is no difference between voluntary social arrangements of any type. In all such arrangements both parties get exactly what they prefer over the alternatives. I think that a number of commentators are showing their totalitarian loving credentials. Instead of letting competent adults live their lives and make their choices as they should without any external interference they seem to want to impose conditions because they think that they know better.
Vange,
Expecting able-bodied people to contribute to society instead of simply consume makes me a totalitarian? This sophmoric argument is why I got away from the libertarian sect.
I object to a system where others are held to a lower standard than me. I'm not going to support their choices; it's that kind of freeloader attitude that causes Atlas to shrug.
In the realm of marriage and their supposed "responsibilities" to sit-at-homes, men have certainly begun to shrug.
If being a professional wife works for you, then more power to you. It's great not having t work, I agree, work sometimes does suck (though it doesn't suck all the time). However, my sister has chosen this route as well. She seems happy and I'm glad for her. But there are always trade-offs. My sister lives near where her husband works, they can't locate to a place where she wants to live. My sister has never gone on a vacation where she wants to go, her family goes to visit her rich mother-in-law at her boring vacation house. My sister doesn't go hiking like I do, nor has she gone sailing since she married, a sport which she loves. Her husband doesn't like the water. She spends her time shuffling her kids from one activity to another and supervising her maid. She lives an nice life but I know it isn't for me or a lot of other people. You make your choices.
It looks to me that your sister has made a choice that she feels comfortable with. If she didn't prefer her arrangement to the alternative she would not be married to her husband and would chose another path.
There is no utopia out there. The real world is messy and some of our choices are not and cannot be compatible with other possible choices. Your sister has chosen a way to optimize her happiness and the fact that there are some elements of her life that are not as good as they could be is not surprising because if they were they would interfere with the good things that she enjoys now.
Topher:
Expecting able-bodied people to contribute to society instead of simply consume makes me a totalitarian? This sophmoric argument is why I got away from the libertarian sect.
No. Telling other people that they must live as you choose to shows your totalitarian credentials. You assume that she does not contribute anything but it is clear that she must or her arrangement would not be acceptable to her husband. And as long as she does not look for a handout from your or me why should we care how she chooses to live with her husband?
I object to a system where others are held to a lower standard than me. I'm not going to support their choices; it's that kind of freeloader attitude that causes Atlas to shrug.
You are confused. She is not held to a lower standard than you are. She freely chooses to live her life as she wishes and you do the same. The fact that you may hot have the same choice or would not make the choice that she did is not relevant.
In the realm of marriage and their supposed "responsibilities" to sit-at-homes, men have certainly begun to shrug.
It is not your business or mine to tell people what arrangement they should have. If both sides of the transaction are happy with the marriage good for them for choosing happiness over the alternative.
There is no difference between voluntary social arrangements of any type. In all such arrangements both parties get exactly what they prefer over the alternatives. I think that a number of commentators are showing their totalitarian loving credentials. Instead of letting competent adults live their lives and make their choices as they should without any external interference they seem to want to impose conditions because they think that they know better.
Well, aren't we just the perfect little White Knight?
Let's go back, dippysquat, to what Lydia actually said, namely, that she married him "specifically" because of the size of his paycheck.
No mention of love, attachment, or anything else - it is a purely mercenary arrangement. That is Lydia's own words. I did not right them, and they leave no wiggle room. No fat wallet - no wife.
Now, you can call me a "totalitarian" all you want - I, on the other hand, don't hide behind such passive-agressiveness - but please show me, in my own words, where I said she should not be ALLOWED to do so?
No? I didn't think so.Sit and spin, then. I guess you're not so goddamn smart, after all.
The point is, El Stupido, is that it is morally only different than that of a common streetwalker only by a matter of degree. Legal or no, it is not worthy of respect. Hence, I implied she was no more than a whore. And now I am saying it outright. A damned expensive and exclusive whore with a private contract - but in the end, not a wife, but a mere whore with a contract.
Better or worse, et al, earns the respect of "Wife." Anything less dilutes the respect such women earn. Lydia doesn't merit that honored title.
And you, by immediately associating disapproval with an idea with some compulsion to forbid it, betray what is in your own fascist heart. She should be free to whore herself out all she wants if that is how she wants to go through life. It is my right, sirrah, to refuse to hold her choice in any measure of esteem.
F.O.A.D.
Peter Dane:
I doubt Lydia cares what you think.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I doubt Lydia cares what you think.
I never expect people of low worth to do so. It is part of why they are of low worth.
Peter (and all the other guys who got pissed at Lydia's comments),
I wouldn't worry about Lydia too much. Her kind have always existed and as long as there's humanity, it always will.
She obviously went on here specifically with the idea of pissing all of you off for the sake of just pissing you off. Just ignore her.
It's a question of accuracy, Blaga.
With an 8 figure nest egg, I can fairly well say that I am in Lydia's "league," and have seen my own fair share of gold-digging whores myself. Somehow Lydia and Miss Wakeman all seem to think they are original and clever, and they are neither.
Most of us men who have arrived in this situation have not done so without being astute judges of character. While I myself am not beneath a little arm-candy on occasion, I know it for what it is, and don't confuse it with "wife" material.
And for all the urging, preaching, and shaming some women do about men being more "picky," they sur4e seem to get bent out of shape when we are.
Wonder why that is?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not necessarily critical about women marrying strictly for money (although something deep inside me doesn't like them or their behavior), but I am just curious about why men *want* that.
At least in my life, there are examples all around me of producing men marrying dumb-shit, lazy women. I'm sure Cham will report that she has seen the exact opposite of me, no matter what I write. Cool. Take it as a given that it's exactly the opposite where Cham lives.
In any case, I have asked men around me why they want that. I just get bullshit answers. And some answers (like: "she is doing the hardest job in the world, much more hard than mine", when she has no kids and can't even pick up around the house) are simply contradicted at divorce time, when the man complains about having to write a huge check out of HIS hard-earned money to the lazy bitch.
Why do men make up these stories? Why do that want these useless pieces of crap?
I think the REAL reason is low self-esteem, thinking he has to buy a woman because no women would be with him otherwise, or a strong feeling that he has to play the Hero role and she is the atta-boy backup to his hero position in life or other similar pathological situations.
And the women snicker behind his back - sometimes even cut him down behind his back to their girlfriends - and he continues the role he developed in his mind.
Just plain weird in my book. I don't understand it.
It's kind of like a guy walking around with a real blood-sucking leech attached to him, and he just gives you bullshit answers (that don't stand up to logic or even his subsequent behavior).
You wonder: Why?
I wouldn't want a lazy sit-at-home woman if some government office PAID me to have her around. Why? I think women like that are useless scum, although society and lots of men seem to really get into them.
Let's go back, dippysquat, to what Lydia actually said, namely, that she married him "specifically" because of the size of his paycheck.
No mention of love, attachment, or anything else - it is a purely mercenary arrangement. That is Lydia's own words. I did not right them, and they leave no wiggle room. No fat wallet - no wife.
So? If she is a real person in a real relationship that is accurately described she is still providing what her husband wants and getting what she wants. If either preferred a different arrangement the marriage would not happen. Both parties to the transactions win. What is your problem with that?
Now, you can call me a "totalitarian" all you want - I, on the other hand, don't hide behind such passive-agressiveness - but please show me, in my own words, where I said she should not be ALLOWED to do so?
You didn't specifically say anything of the kind. What you implied is that her arrangement is inferior to what you would have chosen if you had the same choice, which you probably never had. Such sentiments are the excuse for regulating voluntary social activities, a process that puts us on the road to serfdom.
The point is, El Stupido, is that it is morally only different than that of a common streetwalker only by a matter of degree. Legal or no, it is not worthy of respect. Hence, I implied she was no more than a whore. And now I am saying it outright. A damned expensive and exclusive whore with a private contract - but in the end, not a wife, but a mere whore with a contract.
Sorry but I do not see it that way. Most marriages are voluntary arrangements that seemed to benefit both parties at the time that the marriage vows are taken. If you decide that you want a few hours with a call girl you are also entering in a voluntary arrangement in which you prefer her company to your money and she your money to her time. Again, both sides get what they want. The main difference between the two arrangement is the length of the contract.
Better or worse, et al, earns the respect of "Wife." Anything less dilutes the respect such women earn. Lydia doesn't merit that honored title.
Nonsense. Just because a woman pursues a man who is able to provide her with a good living does not mean that she cannot love that man as much or more than a woman who marries for love first and does not care about other factors. And just because you may choose to marry someone who is very attractive to you it does not make you shallow for not choosing an unattractive person who may have had a 'superior' character. When you try to impose your own values to question perfectly valid voluntary transactions undertaken by other people you start down a slippery slope that can lead to social engineering and loss of liberty. Like I said, just because you did not marry an ugly woman it does not make you shallow.
And you, by immediately associating disapproval with an idea with some compulsion to forbid it, betray what is in your own fascist heart. She should be free to whore herself out all she wants if that is how she wants to go through life. It is my right, sirrah, to refuse to hold her choice in any measure of esteem.
As long as you do not meddle in the affairs of others you should be free to have any opinion that you wish to have.
A lot of the guys who are rich are that way because they are workaholics. I know a bunch. And they are either perpetually single, and with a chain of arm-candy, or are just lazy about it. (Trophy Wife, one. Check that off). A woman who throws herself at such a man gets noticed.
I didn't arrive at my situation via 9-5, m-F. But having been through my starter marriage, I wasn't about to get hooked up to someone I barely knew. Now that I have the time, well, it's a hint and a half when they won't give me the time of day until they find out I'm loaded. I may date them and sleep with them after that, if they look good enough, but I'm certainly not going to marry them, for pity's sake. That would be just freaking stupid.
So? If she is a real person in a real relationship that is accurately described she is still providing what her husband wants and getting what she wants. If either preferred a different arrangement the marriage would not happen. Both parties to the transactions win. What is your problem with that?
If both parties want to trade a shit sandwich for a puke sandwich, I really don't give a fuck. I am not, however, going to call it for anything other than what it is.
You didn't specifically say anything of the kind.
Well, then. So your backhanded "Nazi" euphemism is pretty fucking stupid, then, isn't it?
What you implied is that her arrangement is inferior to what you would have chosen if you had the same choice, which you probably never had.
Well, not being a woman with the social freedom to whore myself out as a trophy wife, that's probably accurate. A staggering grasp of the obvious, to be sure, but correct.
Such sentiments are the excuse for regulating voluntary social activities, a process that puts us on the road to serfdom.
Oh, bullshit. You're just hiding a liberal "Don't you dare judge!" mommyism behind faux-libertarianism.
Sorry but I do not see it that way. Most marriages are voluntary arrangements that seemed to benefit both parties at the time that the marriage vows are taken. If you decide that you want a few hours with a call girl you are also entering in a voluntary arrangement in which you prefer her company to your money and she your money to her time. Again, both sides get what they want. The main difference between the two arrangement is the length of the contract.
IOW, like I said - "I will sleep with you for the next hour for a C-note" and "I will sleep with you for the rest of your life so long as you give me all the fine things I want" are the same thing, differing only in scope.
Nonsense. Just because a woman pursues a man who is able to provide her with a good living does not mean that she cannot love that man as much or more than a woman who marries for love first and does not care about other factors.
{whistle!} And the Bullshit Flag gets thrown! Facts not in evidence, Sparky. From Lydia's OWN FREAKING WORDS:
I married a Fortune 500 executive specifically because of what he earns.
Where, pray tell, is the mention of that "love?"
And just because you may choose to marry someone who is very attractive to you it does not make you shallow for not choosing an unattractive person who may have had a 'superior' character. ... Like I said, just because you did not marry an ugly woman it does not make you shallow.
{whistle!} And the Bullshit Flag gets thrown! Again! Once more: Facts not in evidence, Sparky. What is my marital status? How do you know this? If, I am married, what does my wife look like? How do you know whether said hypothetical wife of mine isn't fat and frumpy?
When you try to impose your own values to question perfectly valid voluntary transactions undertaken by other people you start down a slippery slope that can lead to social engineering and loss of liberty.
I repeat: Oh, Bullshit. Once again, you're confusing disapproval of something with the desire to criminalize it.
And your sentiments are contradicted - BY YOURSELF - with your closing remark.
As long as you do not meddle in the affairs of others you should be free to have any opinion that you wish to have.
So which is it? Am I free to have my own values and filter my judgment of the character of people with whom I might interact through them? Or No?
One ... or the other?
Believe you me, Chumley. In this economy, the chances of a "Fortune 500" company going through bad times, and Hubby being laid off and no longer able to provide Princess Lydia with the lifestyle she wants to live is a good chance. And if that happens, I have zero desire to interfere at all. I'll want to sit by the side, drinking beer, m unching popcorn, and watching her go through all the Drama and Angst that will go with that.
To every. Last. Measure. If such happens, it will be a consequence richly deserved, that will teach the folly of such bad decisions far more thoroughly than to criminalize it.
She's already failed as a good example. Serving as a terrible warning might even be a redemption of sorts.
Tether, consider my a glutton for punishment, I'll answer your little question about why men (or women) want a leeching spouse. I've seen enough of these couples to know they answer.
Contrary to what is said on this comment board, it isn't about having a hot wife/husband, it isn't about having a dynamo in the sack either. Oddly enough I have witnessed enough ugly leeching spouses who can't stand even entering the bedroom to know what is so attractive about these people.
There is a word out there that is very popular right now: Supportive. Let's talk about what that means in a marriage. Being supportive of your husband or wife means you pretty much agree and almost become a cheerleader for everything they say, they believe and they want, regardless of whether it is feasible, right, moral or ethical.
For example, let's say a money-earning husband hates one of the neighbors. Maybe that neighbor is better looking, or has his own business, or has lots of friends. If the spouse is supportive she'll hates the neighbor too. Not only will she hate him but she may spend her time telling the husband he's right, he's better and the neighbor needs to go. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone that tells you everything you say is the truth? Someone who "supports" you? Not only are you right 100% of the time but you have someone that is able to explain why you are right, and maybe badmouth your enemies and spread mean-spirited rumors for you in her spare time. This set-up will bolster a sagging self-esteem and instill much-needed confidence. You got money, your spouse wants money, it's a tiny price to pay for what you so desperately need in life.
An arrangement or transaction is not always completely transparent to both parties. Both parties do not always have equal knowledge about what the arrangement or transaction is about. Otherwise, I would probably agree that people should keep their nose out of other people's arrangements.
You assume that people are stupid and incapable of thinking clearly about their situations. It may be that some people are too emotional or just stupid but we cannot legislate against stupidity or immaturity. I do not assume that the world is perfect or that human beings are altruistic enlightened beings. I simply point out that as long as transactions are free of force or fraud then we have no right to meddle with them.
I am not sure that I accept our friend's story as true but that is not important because the response to it may be more instructive to us. Sadly, I am not surprised by the level of hypocrisy. We have some people calling her a whore for using wealth as a criteria but refuse to see that they use a selection process that is pretty much identical. The only difference is the order of priority for different characteristics. Why is it all right to choose a mate on the basis of education, religious affiliation, political beliefs or some other criteria but not wealth?
But there are predators, there are cheaters, there are manipulators and there are swindlers, con artists and fakers out there.
Welcome to reality. Look around and you see very beautiful women in the tabloids because their husbands were cheating on them. I suggest that in most cases the cheating has nothing to do with wealth or income. It is more likely driven by biology. Beautiful rich women can be attracted to alpha male types. But if they marry such an individual they find that alpha males have a thing about bedding lot of women to maintain their status as alpha males. Of course, they can move down the rung and marry someone at a lower level. The irony is that those types are just as likely to cheat because they see themselves as potential alpha males and use their beautiful wives as signals to other women (with whom they cheat) that they are also alpha males.
People are not saints. Some cheat. Some are violent. Many are pretenders. Most lie most of the time.
On the other side, there are gullible people, naive people and dumb people who have money for a temporary period (until they are separated from it by someone in the first category).
As my grandfather used to tell me over and over again, life is tough, particularly for the gullible. As long as people make their choices in the absence of the use of force or fraud they deserve what they get. Over a long life the random good tends to offset the random bad and we usually become what we truly are as we get what we deserve. That may not be acceptable to the naive but that is the way life tends to work out.
Think of it this way. If I was stupid enough to marry a stripper because I was gullible enough to believe a story about how she was taking off her clothes to go to school should you feel sorry for me when things do not work out? And yes, I know that some strippers somewhere may be honest, noble and nice. But that does not mean that my actions led to unexpected or undeserved outcomes. If our friend's husband wakes up and finds that she is leaving him because she is happy to get 50% of the family estate why should we feel sorry for him? Or if she wakes up to find that he is cheating with his assistant do we need to feel sorry for her? As I wrote above, my grandfather was right; in life we tend to get what we deserve because our actions have consequences.
Getting more concrete, the problem is that many men don't realize how much money can be squeezed out of them by marriage. Many men are trusting and don't think a woman could act one way, but think a totally different way, just to separate him from his money.
I tend not to feel sorry for actions that were undertaken because of bad judgment. If I marry someone just because I like the way she looks I have nobody else to blame when she takes half my money. If a woman marries a man just because he is rich she has nobody else to blame when he leaves her for a younger model.
But I suggest that most people are not as gullible as that. Their experience usually leads them to evaluate their situations accurately and to make decisions that were somewhat reasonable at the time. Sometimes the big problem is time itself because people change and drift apart from each other for a number of reasons. If we are prudent and choose wisely that drift will not take place at all or will be slow and quite manageable. If we do not choose wisely then we get what we deserve.
If you are a naive person, that is fine. But don't be coming on so heavy-handed and JUDGMENTAL with people who may have more experience with life and may be able to judge a certain person more accurately than you.
I think that you have it wrong. It is you who is naive and judgmental. I maintain that as long as transactions are voluntary both parties are getting what they want from them. It is you who keeps assuming that is not the case and that one party is being fooled and taken advantage of by the other.
Or not, if you really are an evolved, ethereal, non-earthbound being.
I simply see humanity for what it is. I state the obvious, which is that when we choose to act we do so because we prefer the action to the alternatives. If we did not prefer it, we would not have made the choice.
That brings us to our friend with the (possibly false) story to tell. You assume that because one of her criteria for choosing a husband is material well being she is taking advantage of someone who is naive and foolish. But how is that criteria different than choosing on the basis of exceptional looks or some other similar factor? You also assume that because she uses wealth as one of the criteria she may be in a relationship that does not involve love or trust. What if the primary motivation was not wealth but looks? What happens when those looks wane or simply when one gets tired of looking at the same beautiful person as many do? What if the criteria were intelligence and one eventually figured out that an intelligent person could come up with some stupid ideas or actions that did not involve good judgment.
Life is more complicated than many of the commentators seem to assume and just because they seem to be in the majority that does not make them right.
blahga:
I wouldn't worry about Lydia too much. Her kind have always existed and as long as there's humanity, it always will.
She obviously went on here specifically with the idea of pissing all of you off for the sake of just pissing you off. Just ignore her.
By all means let us ignore reality and imagine a world in which human nature does not apply. That will make everyone feel better.
Peter:
Most of us men who have arrived in this situation have not done so without being astute judges of character. While I myself am not beneath a little arm-candy on occasion, I know it for what it is, and don't confuse it with "wife" material.
That's it. It is ok for you to play with whores but not for her to use wealth as one of the criteria when she chooses whom to marry. How consistent.
I'm not necessarily critical about women marrying strictly for money (although something deep inside me doesn't like them or their behavior), but I am just curious about why men *want* that.
I imagine that those who have money expect to marry someone who is interested in money and material well being.
At least in my life, there are examples all around me of producing men marrying dumb-shit, lazy women.
Some men use looks as their primary criteria. That is not unusual or unexpected.
Why do men make up these stories? Why do that want these useless pieces of crap?
Because they preferred them to the other choices that they had. Usually because of looks.
I think the REAL reason is low self-esteem, thinking he has to buy a woman because no women would be with him otherwise, or a strong feeling that he has to play the Hero role and she is the atta-boy backup to his hero position in life or other similar pathological situations.
I think the REAL reason may be sexual attraction. Rich men don't have to buy women because they get plenty of choices as women flock to wealth for biological reasons.
Just plain weird in my book. I don't understand it.
I think that you are not trying to understand. Think about what drives human beings and you will have no trouble figuring it out.
It's kind of like a guy walking around with a real blood-sucking leech attached to him, and he just gives you bullshit answers (that don't stand up to logic or even his subsequent behavior).
What is wrong with you people. Do you really have that it is unexplainable why a lot of men tend to be with young attractive women?
I wouldn't want a lazy sit-at-home woman if some government office PAID me to have her around. Why? I think women like that are useless scum, although society and lots of men seem to really get into them.
Your personal problems do not belong in the discussion. Some men and women like the idea of having someone look after the kids that they choose to have rather than have them raised by the state or some crappy daycare. If you don't that is your preference.
What next? Will you tell us that those who prefer chocolate to vanilla ice cream have some problem that you can't understand?
Vangel,
"By all means let us ignore reality and imagine a world in which human nature does not apply. That will make everyone feel better."
Ignore what reality? I've never seen Lydia on here before. She comes in, makes a couple of snarky comments about how awesome she is, giggles, and leaves. What part of "she came in here to piss people off" did you not get?
Oh yeah, I think I addressed "reality" when I said "Her kind have always existed and as long as there's humanity, it always will." Check some history books out at the library sometime if you don't believe me. My comment was as realistic as it could be.
Otherwise, I'm not really sure where you were going with your comment. It wasn't really addressed to you, since you seem to be the mangina cheerleader for today's session.
Peter
If both parties want to trade a shit sandwich for a puke sandwich, I really don't give a fuck. I am not, however, going to call it for anything other than what it is.
The point being made was valid. Both parties in a voluntary transaction chose that transaction over the alternatives that they had. If they are satisfied with the arrangement it isn't your place to tell them that they should have made other choices.
Well, then. So your backhanded "Nazi" euphemism is pretty fucking stupid, then, isn't it?
Not at all. Your preference for meddling in private transactions is showing your authoritarian tendencies.
Oh, bullshit. You're just hiding a liberal "Don't you dare judge!" mommyism behind faux-libertarianism.
My position is entirely consistent with the libertarian philosophy that values liberty in both the social and economic sphere. I have as much of a problem with the right's meddling with social transactions as I do with the left's meddling with economic transactions. I see them as the opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin.
IOW, like I said - "I will sleep with you for the next hour for a C-note" and "I will sleep with you for the rest of your life so long as you give me all the fine things I want" are the same thing, differing only in scope.
They are both voluntary transactions. When you play with your eye candy you make similar choices as you did when you chose your starter marriage. The main difference was the duration of the transaction.
{whistle!} And the Bullshit Flag gets thrown! Facts not in evidence, Sparky. From Lydia's OWN FREAKING WORDS:
I married a Fortune 500 executive specifically because of what he earns.
Where, pray tell, is the mention of that "love?"
I do not see much of a difference between her act and your starter marriage. They were both voluntary social transactions by parties that preferred those transactions to the alternative. Do you think that women who use wealth as a criteria are incapable of loving a person who is wealthy? I don't believe that I can make that judgment in the specific case that we are arguing about. (For the record, I think that the entire story is BS and am more interested in the reaction to it.)
{whistle!} And the Bullshit Flag gets thrown! Again! Once more: Facts not in evidence, Sparky. What is my marital status? How do you know this? If, I am married, what does my wife look like? How do you know whether said hypothetical wife of mine isn't fat and frumpy?
You still don't get it. If you marry someone who is fat and frumpy you do so because you prefer fat and frumpy to the alternatives that you were given. When people act they always choose the action that they prefer to the other options. If they didn't prefer it they would not have acted the same way.
So which is it? Am I free to have my own values and filter my judgment of the character of people with whom I might interact through them? Or No?
Obviously you are free to have your own values and filter your own judgment. Of course, that does not mean that when people go off crusading in favour of those values that things are going swimmingly, particularly when such sentiment becomes popular and is used to regulate voluntary transactions.
Believe you me, Chumley. In this economy, the chances of a "Fortune 500" company going through bad times, and Hubby being laid off and no longer able to provide Princess Lydia with the lifestyle she wants to live is a good chance. And if that happens, I have zero desire to interfere at all. I'll want to sit by the side, drinking beer, m unching popcorn, and watching her go through all the Drama and Angst that will go with that.
I do not care about either Hubby or Lydia. What they do is their business. All I do is point out that hubby (if he was real) is getting something out of the relationship that he preferred over other possible relationships. Perhaps it is worth hubby's time and money to have a nice set of breasts to play with when he is not working. Or to have the type of woman that will give him the kids that he wants. Or someone to kiss his butt and tell him how great he is. My point is that it isn't my place to judge him and her when they both have chosen an act over the other possibilities that they had.
To every. Last. Measure. If such happens, it will be a consequence richly deserved, that will teach the folly of such bad decisions far more thoroughly than to criminalize it.
Here we agree. It is my position that we get what we deserve over the long run. If hubby chose badly he might get hurt. If he does, I will not feel sorry for him because those were the consequences of his actions. In a free society people should be accountable for what they do and for their judgment.
She's already failed as a good example. Serving as a terrible warning might even be a redemption of sorts.
Aren't you the divorced guy who plays with eye candy? Who are you to talk about setting examples?
Ignore what reality? I've never seen Lydia on here before. She comes in, makes a couple of snarky comments about how awesome she is, giggles, and leaves. What part of "she came in here to piss people off" did you not get?
I got it fine, thank you. My point was in response to the 'ignore her' bit.
For the record, I do not believe the story and think that it was just written to get a response. But my point is that people who put wealth high up on the list of criteria when seeking marriage are quite common and they can't be ignored because they tell us about humanity far more than many of the hypocrites who post here want to admit.
My point is that observations in the human world reality tells us that value is subjective and that what is preferred by some may not be preferred by others. If she puts material wealth as a criteria that is above physical appearance or religious belief who are we to say that her list is inferior to ours?
VangeIV,
At this point, you are getting close to simply spamming the board. You are a one-trick pony, except you have 2 or 3 tricks. Over and over and over. And the vantage point of an evolved, advanced spiritual being who is absolutely sure he is right is getting a bit boring.
I get it. No one is allowed to discern motives or criticize others. Everyone has full information when entering into arrangements and transactions, and these men who marry manipulative golddiggers know exactly what they are doing at all times. Don't judge anyone else.
And you put it all in such a ... judgmental ... way.
I really doubt that you are going to see that you are at the boring spam point, but I had to say it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I would also be curious to hear the true reasons about why men marry golddigging women (and frankly, a cynic would say that most Western women have that in them to some extent or another).
I think Cham is right that getting a yes-woman is part of it, and I think that these men were brought up to think that women are weak and stupid and you have to pay and pay and pay for them. Maybe their mothers were that way.
That's it. It is ok for you to play with whores but not for her to use wealth as one of the criteria when she chooses whom to marry. How consistent.
Why, yes it is. To take someone who is trying to play you and turn the tables on them is, I think, an actual service to society.
It is second best, but some social occasions do demand an escort. This kind of woman does suit that "placeholder" role very well.
It is party of history, reality, and human nature. Or do you somehow not value them now?
Here is how these things usually run after the provider and providee meet:
The providee is HAPPY for once in her life, because she thinks that she has met the solution to her problems. She molds herself to him - thinking the same way he does and willingly acting within his framework of ideals. She isn't going to wreck a good thing.
From his point of view, he thinks that he has found a real partner in life who thinks the same way he does. She wants sex all the time and is otherwise a good companion.
So then wedding bells ring and the providee is happy on "her" day. She is happy initially because all of that silly work and money stuff is behind her - finally - and she can now get down to the nitty-gritty of real life - namely shopping for shoes with her very best friends, tending to her Beany Baby collection of dolls, occasionally catching Oprah on lazy afternoons and talking to her Best Friend Forever on the phone for hours. And also to her mother.
At some point in this utter paradise, however, provider notices that she is no longer in line with his ideas about life at all. In fact, instead of being a partner, she is now actively opposing him. She takes his money and donates it to a charity for an issue he is opposed to. She tells him, "you can't tell me what to do" with a foot-stomp in true 15-year-old spoiled princess style.
The problem is that she has now completely taken for granted that everything is paid for. There is very little connection in her mind any more between that situation and the irritating man who for some reason is living in HER house.
Divorce doesn't necessarily come. In fact probably more rarely in these cases than among poor people - the woman has tons of leverage over the man (worst case she can just accuse him of something to the police whether it is exaggerated or completely made up) and the man may stand to lose everything in a divorce action.
There is a kind of uneasy truce. The man may work overtime to stay away from the now mouthy, demanding bitch, he may sleep in the guest room, he may start an affair with his secretary. His role is now to pay for the wife, and she has no reciprocal role whatsoever.
There were misaligned expectations from the start. The man may think that the quid pro quo for having to pay for her is getting a helpful partner who is aligned with his ideas. The woman may simply think that the man is going to pay for her because that's what men have to do. She acts like a helpful partner in the beginning because she instinctively knows it will queer the deal if she doesn't act that way. There is plenty of time to relax and be herself after the wedding.
I think it's a bit of a deceit on the part of the woman, but maybe she truly thinks that men are just there to serve her and the gullible man is at fault for making the wrong assumption.
I'm amused by people such as VangeIV, who are mightily incensed by those who "criticize the choices or motives of others" -- unless, of course, they are the ones doing the criticizing.
As Topher, Peter Dane, and numerous others have noted, the root of the back half of this comment thread are sourced in a woman who is either a blatant troll or very, very foolish:
I married a Fortune 500 executive specifically because of what he earns.
Frankly, a have a far better life and a far higher standard of living than anyone here will ever have. It's like you people are all in the gutter complaining about the upper class.
Without realizing, of course, that some of them might be stationed as highly as she is. I can practically hear the high Kensington accent as she sneers about those bloody commoners daring to complain about their betters in the upper clahss.
Sorry, dear; this ain't Europe -- yet -- and you ain't royalty. And guys aren't obligated to play the game. What has some of our distaff commenters in a snit is the fact that some of the guys are increasingly inclined to say so publicly, and to explain why.
A woman such as Lydia simply couldn't comprehend a woman like my wife; when we married 30 years ago this September, we had nothing -- other than a belief in and commitment to each other and a willingness to work to build a future together. Thirty years on, the fruits of those labors look pretty darn sweet -- and because she was in there working and sweating with me, she truly appreciates what we've built.
For my part, I regard her as the Proverbs woman, whose value is "higher than rubies." I'm unimaginably lucky to have found her.
Most of all because, unlike HRH Queen Lydia, she doesn't simply expect the world to be handed to her.
And the pity is that there are damn few such women left.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ranting further from "I think it's a bit of a deceit on the part of the woman, but maybe she truly thinks that men are just there to serve her and the gullible man is at fault for making the wrong assumption."
-------------
And the usual advice I hear, "you have to communicate these things", is not really as effective as suggested in real life.
Lots of (young) women simply won't give a straight answer. That's just not how they function. They will get mad, they will ask why you have to bring that up RIGHT NOW, they will obfuscate, cry and scream.
Really.
No matter how objectively, calmly and infrequently you ask real questions like this, it will have no effect on certain (young) women.
It's similar to the response that some men see when they ask their wives - with no kids in the house - to help out with a job. They don't say no, they just say they are looking and get off her back, or point out his faults, or start screaming. But they don't say "no" to getting a job. And they don't wind up getting a job. Problem solved.
Aren't you the divorced guy who plays with eye candy? Who are you to talk about setting examples?
It's called "Dating;" you might want to look it up. Sometimes you wind up with a peasant, and sometimes a princess. Sometimes you even know what she is beforehand.
From experience, I have certain standards on which I will not compromise. Until then, I refuse to live like a monk, or to apologize for it.
Here's what you don't get - I give twice as good as I get; God, bad, or indifferent. Not a single woman who has approached me - in good faith - has ever had a single complaint on how they were treated, even and it did not work out for the long term.
For those who approached me in bad faith - they are unable to make any civil or criminal complaint. Other than that, they get what they deserve, and I have no apologies or regrets.
Obviously you are free to have your own values and filter your own judgment. Of course, that does not mean that when people go off crusading in favour of those values that things are going swimmingly, particularly when such sentiment becomes popular and is used to regulate voluntary transactions.
Consequence != Regulation.
In regards to relationships between the sexes, there is one error men make - listening to women when they ask that whores be treated like ladies. Come to think of it, it's the greatest error women make, allowing whores to be counted among ladies.
It dilutes the value of the latter astonishingly.
Regardless of legality, what one does, and how one does business vis-a-vis that "what" does matter. While I would never ban porn, strip clubs, or prostitution, it is not what I want my daughter to aspire to. While I could fill my contracts for business with a host of weasel-speak and gotchas, I do not. Legal or no, it is not how I do, or will do, business.
I will judge people as I please, sirrah. People of honor and character deserve to be treated in kind. People who lack honor and character have forfeited that right.
And it has been my observation that those who object to that betray that they fall in the latter category. It is a good canary for the coal mine of life.
JG:
I get it. No one is allowed to discern motives or criticize others. Everyone has full information when entering into arrangements and transactions, and these men who marry manipulative golddiggers know exactly what they are doing at all times. Don't judge anyone else.
You are free to judge and gossip as much as you want. My point is that all you are doing is second guessing decisions made by other people when they entered a voluntary arrangement that was beneficial to both parties. These threads are full of commentary that tries to tell people what they must do that is written by people who have no idea what the specific facts are and who do not care about the fact that other people are happy about the decisions that they make. I think that the meddlers would be better served doing something about their own incomplete lives than trying to run the lives of others.
And you put it all in such a ... judgmental ... way.
I believe that people should be free to take part in voluntary transactions without external meddling. There is nothing inconsistent about what I have said and the way that I say it, no matter how wannabe meddlers want to spin my commentary.
I would (also) be curious to hear the true reasons about why men marry golddigging women (and frankly, a cynic would say that most Western women have that in them to some extent or another).
You seem to be a slow learner. They do it for the same reason that they do anything. When we act we choose between a number of options depending on how we rank those options. All people choose the option that they prefer the most.
It could be that some quality or qualities of the 'gold digger' elevates her above the other choices that men have when deciding whom to marry. I am pretty sure that if they had the choice of marrying someone like Mother Teresa or Elizabeth Minett 99.9% of would pick the latter. That does not make them shallow; just human.
Why, yes it is. To take someone who is trying to play you and turn the tables on them is, I think, an actual service to society.
It is second best, but some social occasions do demand an escort. This kind of woman does suit that "placeholder" role very well.
It is party of history, reality, and human nature. Or do you somehow not value them now?
I am beginning to understand your problem. You think so little of yourself that you conclude that the only reason a beautiful woman would be interested in you is because she is looking for money. That makes it OK to play with beautiful but young and stupid girls at the same time as you call someone a whore because she uses money as an important criteria when choosing a husband.
I am beginning to understand your problem. You think so little of yourself that you conclude that the only reason a beautiful woman would be interested in you is because she is looking for money. That makes it OK to play with beautiful but young and stupid girls at the same time as you call someone a whore because she uses money as an important criteria when choosing a husband.
Hey, look! It's number 2!
http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/
You can believe whatever you want if it gets you through the day.
*pats head*
Criminy, talk about a slow learner.
I'm reminded of the flashy woman who dismisses a man she deems unworthy with "don't hate the playa, hate the game."
That's what you're reading here, Vange. Guys who have seen, played (and often lost) said game -- and simply no longer desire to play it.
Consider Jessica Wakeman's original article, then consider the verbal flatulence from Lydia.
Then reread JG's post a few posts up:
And the usual advice I hear, "you have to communicate these things", is not really as effective as suggested in real life.
Lots of (young) women simply won't give a straight answer. That's just not how they function. They will get mad, they will ask why you have to bring that up RIGHT NOW, they will obfuscate, cry and scream.
Really.
No matter how objectively, calmly and infrequently you ask real questions like this, it will have no effect on certain (young) women.
These guys have been really quite consistent, honest, and quite level-headed. The message is there to be received, if one chooses to hear.
The product that the Jessicas and Lydias of the world have to sell is finding a rapidly-diminishing pool of buyers -- but they have no interest in either a) figuring out why that might be or b) offering a different product. Their assumption is that something is wrong with the buyers.
After all, that worked so well for General Motors.
VangeIV sez "I maintain that as long as transactions are voluntary both parties are getting what they want from them."
-------------
Just to be clear, do you think that all transactions are entered into with the full knowledge of all parties. In other words, do you really think that manipulation, deceit, fraud, misdirection, coercion etc. do not exist?
Looks like this thread is just about dead...it's been trolled and now people are just responding to the troll. Fun while it lasted.
One thing I still don't understand on this topic is "daddy's little girl" from the dad's perspective. Why would a guy who has worked and slaved to give his family a good life, and is generous with his harvest, want to raise a daughter to be a whiny taker? Wouldn't it be a better legacy to raise a daughter who could follow in his footsteps as a mover and shaker?
Is it simply the same cognitive dissonance and clueless delusion that causes mothers across the world to teach their sons all the wrong lessons about women, so that their boys grow up to be manginas?
My parting words are that as much as people want to deny it, or rationalize the behavior, there are an awful lot of money-first entitled American women. Most of them, as I've said before, don't understand how people make the money they desperately seek, so they don't understand that if they are going to be trophy wives, they have to have something to offer, and certain things are expected; it's a business transaction. Unfortunately, the divorce industry backs her up in this, she can abdicate her responsibilities and he still has to pay his.
So what's the difference between a prostitute and a wife who marries for money?
The prostitute has sex with the man.
From experience, I have certain standards on which I will not compromise. Until then, I refuse to live like a monk, or to apologize for it.
I do not judge 'your standards.' You should be free to play with dumb beautiful women as much as you want. You obviously benefit because you like the sexual services that they provide. They benefit because they like whatever it is that you provide. They make their choices freely and, unlike many on this board, I will not assume that they are naive or stupid when they engage in a voluntary social transaction with you.
I simply point out that your story is not all that different than Lydia's. In both cases you have voluntary transactions that are driven by preference. In your case you value young, beautiful women for their physical appearance and 'eye candy' function. In her case she values the earning power that her husband has, allowing her to have the type of life she wants.
Here's what you don't get - I give twice as good as I get; God, bad, or indifferent. Not a single woman who has approached me - in good faith - has ever had a single complaint on how they were treated, even and it did not work out for the long term.
As I said, in a voluntary arrangement both parties are winners. If one is no longer satisfied the arrangement ends. Your 'partners' are getting what they want and when they (or you) are no longer happy the arrangement is over. There is nothing 'wrong' with that, no matter what the moralists here might think.
In regards to relationships between the sexes, there is one error men make - listening to women when they ask that whores be treated like ladies. Come to think of it, it's the greatest error women make, allowing whores to be counted among ladies.
Are all the young ladies that you play with whores just because you are well off? If money is the main reason why they would go out with you what does that tell us about you?
It dilutes the value of the latter astonishingly.
Your problem is that you tend to see people as members of groups rather than individuals. I do not believe that you would disagree with the argument that each person needs to be evaluated individually while having all of the facts necessary at our disposal. And I do not believe that our friend's (likely false) story gives us enough to make any evaluation. I also do not believe that anyone who claims that monetary concerns are an issue is automatically a whore. Women with many options should be just as free to use various criteria to narrow down their choices as men are when they go through the same process.
Regardless of legality, what one does, and how one does business vis-a-vis that "what" does matter. While I would never ban porn, strip clubs, or prostitution, it is not what I want my daughter to aspire to. While I could fill my contracts for business with a host of weasel-speak and gotchas, I do not. Legal or no, it is not how I do, or will do, business.
Here is where I have a problem with your moralizing. For some women being a stripper is the preferred (and possibly best) choice. A young lady with a good body and few skills may have earning power that is significantly higher than her possible minimum wage job. If that is what she chooses I am not going to judge her and lecture her that she should be working in McDonald's instead. I will also not tell her to look for a poor man because marrying a rich one would make her a whore.
My point is that we live in the real world, not some ideal fantasy. Down here we have a range of skills, abilities, and physical attributes that have a major role on our path through life. If we do not want our kids to do the type of things that we find distasteful then it is up to us to help them obtain the skills and values that they will need to succeed over the long term. But when other people make their own choices based on their circumstances, skills and values we are in no position to impose our views, which are based on our unique conditions.
I will judge people as I please, sirrah. People of honor and character deserve to be treated in kind. People who lack honor and character have forfeited that right.
My argument is against the hypocrisy and shallow thinking that I see on this board. Our friend posted a comment designed to get everyone to respond in a particular way and most people did. The irony is that most of the people who went on the attack are of no better character than our friend. As hypocrites they do not get the benefit of doubt about their own characters.
Peter Dane says:
For those who approached me in bad faith - they are unable to make any civil or criminal complaint. Other than that, they get what they deserve, and I have no apologies or regrets.
That says everything we need to know about Peter Dane. Very very sad.
"A young lady with a good body and few skills may have earning power that is significantly higher than her possible minimum wage job. If that is what she chooses I am not going to judge her and lecture her that she should be working in McDonald's instead."
----
How about if she GETS some skills instead of making a fast buck by dancing naked and screwing men for enough money?
Are you from some kind of parallel dimension?
Cham,
You deeply, deeply disappoint me with your constant gratuitous shaming tactics.
That's what you're reading here, Vange. Guys who have seen, played (and often lost) said game -- and simply no longer desire to play it.
I agree. But it isn't just the guys that are bitter. Many of the women seem to be as well. Their lives do not seem to have worked out as well as they expected or wanted. Instead of looking inward and trying to correct what is wrong they have looked outward and want to tell others how to live as well.
Consider Jessica Wakeman's original article, then consider the verbal flatulence from Lydia.
I do not believe that Lydia's comment describes a real situation. As I wrote above, I am more interested in the response to it and have stirred the pot a bit to get a better idea of what people are thinking.
Then reread JG's post a few posts up:...
I did. JG's world tends to be somewhat narrow. It is the world of cocktail waitresses looking for the big score by finding the rich guy who they can marry. But I suggest that the real world is a lot more complex than that. Most rich men are not going to play that game at all. The women they will go for is likely to be quite educated, nice looking, of higher than average intelligence, and quite capable. They do not want simpleton 'eye candy' to embarrass them but someone who will increase their status. Such women are not going to give up a part of their career to raise kids by marrying someone who is poor and incapable of supporting the family. They have to consider wealth and earning power when making their decisions because that is what is prudent and logical. But that does not mean that those women cannot love their husbands any more than the women who use physical attractiveness as their primary screening tool.
"The women they will go for is likely to be quite educated, nice looking, of higher than average intelligence, and quite capable. They do not want simpleton 'eye candy' ..."
--
Do you mean like Donald Trump?
I would suggest that you are now simply making it up as you go along. I doubt you've done an exhaustive study on the matter; you are just saying what you think sounds right and fits your pet theory.
Ah, JG, it's the usual double standard. Women must be righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising. If they don't live up to these impossible standards, men are encouraged to screw them over as much as possible. Bad bad bad women.
No Cham, I just get sick of the constant shaming and nagging of some women.
Men learn early on that you better be able to back it up if you start haranging another man. Eventually they get the drift that it BOTHERS people to continually peck.peck.peck.peck away at them. Constant shaming just becomes background noise.
Lots of women never learn to back off with the shaming. They don't have to back anything up, and they can make constant demands and offer constant criticism.
So, in summary, your "very, very sad" crap is just that: Crap. You are not very, very sad, you are just trying to get someone's goat.
"Women must be righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising."
----
Women can do whatever they want.
It doesn't mean I have to get anywhere near them if they act like imbeciles.
Cham,
"if they don't live up to these impossible standards"
What? This thread is about the Frisky article where the author lays out her own gaping double standard that her husband will have to foot the bill for the life she "deserves" because she doesn't have the talent to go get it herself.
And get real, there is a big difference between lacking some of your list of "righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising" with your heart in the right place, and being an entitled money-grubber like Jessica Wakeman or Lydia.
VangeIV: Don't forget my question:
____________________________
VangeIV sez "I maintain that as long as transactions are voluntary both parties are getting what they want from them."
-------------
Just to be clear, do you think that all transactions are entered into with the full knowledge of all parties. In other words, do you really think that manipulation, deceit, fraud, misdirection, coercion etc. do not exist?
"if they don't live up to these impossible standards"
To be fair to Cham, I think she's specifically responding to Peter Dane's claim: "For those who approached me in bad faith - they are unable to make any civil or criminal complaint. Other than that, they get what they deserve, and I have no apologies or regrets."
But then she generalizes a bit and thinks in terms of all men, not in terms of the specific man who said that.
These guys have been really quite consistent, honest, and quite level-headed. The message is there to be received, if one chooses to hear.
The product that the Jessicas and Lydias of the world have to sell is finding a rapidly-diminishing pool of buyers -- but they have no interest in either a) figuring out why that might be or b) offering a different product. Their assumption is that something is wrong with the buyers.
I think that you are also taking a very narrow and incomplete view of this. The bad judgment of many men has clearly caused a lot of pain for them. But the fault was with their judgment, not with women in general.
If one marries some great looking woman primarily because she looks great whose fault is it when things do not work out and she winds up with half the estate? It is not the woman's fault because it was not her fault that the idiot was such a bad judge of character.
I am suggesting that when rich men marry capable and beautiful women those women are not the type that would consider marrying down and that wealth and earning power will be one of the criteria that the women use when making their choices. That is the way it should be because when a woman chooses to give up part of her own earnings power she likes the security of having access to the higher earnings power of her husband.
Of course, this would not apply to women who choose their careers over having kids that they look after themselves. As I said above, every case is unique and should be evaluated on its own merit by the people who take part in it.
JG:
Peter Dane makes assumptions about the reason people approach him, and if they don't meet his standards they get what they deserve. I'll take that to mean he does something heinous to them.
From what I know about you, JG, you don't sink that low.
Just to be clear, do you think that all transactions are entered into with the full knowledge of all parties. In other words, do you really think that manipulation, deceit, fraud, misdirection, coercion etc. do not exist?
There is no such thing as perfect knowledge. And yes, deception, manipulation, and misdirection do exist. So does fraud and coercion. I have made it clear that any transaction that involves fraud and coercion is invalid and should be nullified by the injured party without penalty.
But in the real world it is hard to argue that most people were forced to get married or that the decision was made due to fraud. Most adults should be able to evaluate their potential husband/wife objectively but choose emotion and impulse instead. What is that old joke? Women choose husbands knowing their faults but hoping that they would change while men choose wives by ignoring their faults and hoping that they will never change. Sorry but I am not into making up excuses for bad judgment. As long as the transaction is voluntary and free of fraud it is perfectly valid. (I did not mention coercion because a transaction that involves coercion is cannot be voluntary.)
"I'll take that to mean he does something heinous to them. "
I didn't read this into it. I think he just meant that he's not inclined to respect or honor said person. And by "approach" I take it he was using a figure of speech referring to women who date him or try to date him.
I doubt he was talking about doing "heinous things" to people on the street or the waiter at the Applebee's.
My parting words are that as much as people want to deny it, or rationalize the behavior, there are an awful lot of money-first entitled American women.
Welcome to the real world. Would it make you more comfortable if they were looks-first oriented?
Most of them, as I've said before, don't understand how people make the money they desperately seek, so they don't understand that if they are going to be trophy wives, they have to have something to offer, and certain things are expected; it's a business transaction.
It is a social transaction first. People make choices on the basis of their personal values.
Unfortunately, the divorce industry backs her up in this, she can abdicate her responsibilities and he still has to pay his.
I agree. The government should not have any business regulating social transactions. Social contracts are easily settled without biased judges imposing their own value systems.
So what's the difference between a prostitute and a wife who marries for money?
Most women marry for money because money is a factor for them. Does that make most women prostitutes?
"For those who approached me in bad faith - they are unable to make any civil or criminal complaint."
What exactly does that mean?
What do you think it means, Cham? I read it as "There are no complaints to be made civilly or criminally."
Sounds like they're just treated as the sluts they are to me.
What, do you think they are buried in a stadium somewhere?
"I agree. The government should not have any business regulating social transactions. Social contracts are easily settled without biased judges imposing their own value systems."
------
I'm not sure why that would matter at all under your model of the universe.
It's certainly public knowledge that men get reamed in divorce court.
Since a man will deeply consider all aspects and perform a cost/benefit analysis - according to your view - before he drives down to the chapel in Las Vegas with Lola to get married, he has already extensively thought through these issues.
Malcolm:
How would someone you would accuse of being a "slut" be treated by you? And why?
That says everything we need to know about Peter Dane. Very very sad.
Ah, JG, it's the usual double standard. Women must be righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising. If they don't live up to these impossible standards, men are encouraged to screw them over as much as possible. Bad bad bad women.
Peter Dane makes assumptions about the reason people approach him, and if they don't meet his standards they get what they deserve. I'll take that to mean he does something heinous to them.
We have here, Cham, an article written by an unrepentant gold-digger, and a Lydia who does the same.
Air and opportunity - that is all that has stood between you and the chance to back up some of your previous and pious "I would never do that ... of course, I don't support that" that you have flapped your jaws about here for a long, long time.
So what do you do? Go after the men, and distract from the women. All teh menzez fault. Bad, bad, menz. Poor, poor, wimminz.
Which I really don't expect anything different from a sexist prig such as yourself.
You seem to think nothing of a woman using a guy to get nice things, and an expensive date, followed by (maybe) a peck on the cheek as she rushes away, and have consistently forwarded the notion, with a little sniff, "Well, men should be a little more discerning and know better! It's what they get for seeking out arm candy!"
Well, right back atcha, sugar tits.
You and Commenter Who Has A Star Trek Planet for a Handle all seem to think that gold-diggers aren't as transparent to men who bother to look as the sad little nice-guys or slut-puppys that you titter about "getting what they deserve" are to women. And in this you are sadly mistaken. And far too many of them set a lot higher value on themselves then they merit.
Spotting a gold-digger is child's play. Do you think women have a monopoly on watching how men treat the hired help?
Here's the chief thing - a decent honest woman who I am not interested in approaches me, I will not lead her on or anything like that. I try to be mindful of her feelings.
For the other kind - I will waste her time. And when it comes time to brush her off, I won't spare her feelings. Especially when those feelings are not decent and gentle ones, but frustration and anger that her greed has been caught out, and her called out on it.
Peter Dane:
Why waste her time? Why "call her out"? How do you know what her motivations are? How are you so sure you know what she, or anyone, is thinking?
It's not up to you to teach the world a lesson in what you think is right, your supposed values, your insistence that people do, think and feel your way. I can see opening up a discussion with someone about their actions, and I can see walking away, but angry discourse is way over the top.
And here's the thing, Cham - I do discern. I do bother to get to know. I do bother to do due diligence. I do check up on background stories, and so on, and so forth.
I do this because I have yet to meet the woman who comes out and says, "Hi there, I'm a conniving little tramp who is out for as much of your money as I can get; and I plan to probably cheat on you several times." Best foot is always placed forward.
But even though I am what your ilk always says men "should do" you're still pissed off at me; and it really shows, Cham, that you just don't like men much.
You're just bedwetting over a man who is in charge of his life; because a real strong and independent man who doesn't look to a woman for approval of his manhood just scares you spitless.
Why waste her time?
She's trying to waste mine, so why not?
Why "call her out"?
Because that is what anyone with a speck of moral fortitude does to bad behavior.
How do you know what her motivations are? How are you so sure you know what she, or anyone, is thinking?
You seem to think all of this happens in the space of 17 minutes or something.
The woman who is all smiles and laughs for any man in an Armani suit, but gets bitchy at the guy in the JCPenny suit who tries to buy her a drink. The woman who is asking your occupation, what kind of car you drive, probing your value in short order. The list goes on, dearie. One may not indicate anything, but a whole collection of behaviors is more than a whack with the Clue-by-Four.
It's really not rocket science.
And frankly, I'e got more respect for the woman who comes up and says right out "I'd like to jump your bones" than the the gold-digger type of whore. Hell, I have more respect for a flat out whore.
At least she's honest about what she does.
It's not up to you to teach the world a lesson in what you think is right, your supposed values, your insistence that people do, think and feel your way. I can see opening up a discussion with someone about their actions, and I can see walking away, but angry discourse is way over the top.
It's up to me to teach people a lesson in how I expect to be treated, and what the consequences are for not treating me in that way.
I have zero interest in being a confessor or therapist for someone with screwed up values. It's not my job, or what I was put on this earth to do. Anyone who wants absolution may go to a priest. Anyone who wants to be better than they are can gut it up and do so.
And enabling bad behavior by walking away from it is not how I roll. If I can save some other poor schmuck from a fleecing by exposing some money-grubbing tramp for what she is, it's just a bonus.
You know, Cham, I really don't get it. I could see someone getting ticked off if I was bragging about leading virgin Christian girls down the primrose path to deflower them and cast them aside ... but what I'm talking about all kinds of women who you've said of in the past things to the effect of "Well, of course I don't defend that, nooooooobody does, but...."
And here you are, being their champion, and defending them.
Just because, I suspect, they are women. And, I might add, as a whole lot of people suspect, too.
Of course women are going to use sex as their bargaining chip. That's the most valuable bargaining chip most women have to get money.
Despite all I hear about far more women getting college degrees and the like, they are getting college degrees in stupid things (women's studies being the stupidest). Next, their jobs are mostly government-type subsidized jobs. No matter how stupid or useless the work, the government can squeeze the taxpayer for more money to fund these positions.
It's all artificial, but women could still use these mechanisms to make it appear like they do something useful and to get their own money to spend. But many women STILL have to get as much as they can out of men with sex. And men feel a compulsion to provide and protect and force other men to treat women with favoritism. It's genetic and kind of sickening when women (feminists) STILL bitch and moan that women have it so hard.
Personally, if I didn't have a heterosexual sex drive, I wouldn't have anything to do with women. And frankly, if sex weren't an issue, men would not be marrying at all except for a few oddballs.
How would someone you would accuse of being a "slut" be treated by you? And why?
But not giving them the courtesies offered a lady. As to why, I think it was best said earlier by someone (paraphrasing) that if I did so, I would be devaluing real ladies.
Most women marry for money because money is a factor for them. Does that make most women prostitutes?
VangelV - if a man met a woman who was, as Cham suggested,"righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising" and dumped her because she didn't have perfect skin, or not enough bust, or carried a few extra pounds, what would the societal "we" call him?
And why are women not held to such a similar standard regarding money? Are they intrinsically or innately unable to live up to male standards? Are they inferior that we expect less from them?
Just when I thought we were done, intelligent discussion started up again.
"Most women marry for money because money is a factor for them. Does that make most women prostitutes?"
We seem to have lost the ability to make any kind of distinction. A woman considering marriage who is concerned her fiance might not be able to support her if she was homebound/mothering the children/unable to find a job is a normal concern.
But everyone reading should know what kind of self-absorbed woman we are talking about; the kind who says "it's really important that a husband can provide a comfortable life, the lifestyle I deserve."
The kind of girls whose identities come from the designer labels, or celebrity watching, or their ZIP code.
In a bizarre smearing of situations, a lot of upper middle class women (like Wakeman) are demanding men to foot their extravagant bills regardless of whether they have kids or gainful employment, on the logic that "a man is supposed to provide for his wife." Even if she makes a lot of money, the man is supposed to make more. They have fetishized the "traditional family" scene, even in an economy that's hitting men harder than women.
To answer the question, these women basically are prostitutes, except as I said above that it is shockingly normal to expect a modern American wife to not have sex with her husband.
It floors me that people like Vange and Cham want to rhetorically dissolve the wall between decent, pragmatic women and money-grubbing whores.
Incidentally, it seems a rule of thumb for women I've met that the less a woman has to offer in a meaningful relationship, the more she wants, and the more she screams of "deserving it." And the faster I count my spoons.
How about if she GETS some skills instead of making a fast buck by dancing naked and screwing men for enough money?
Are you from some kind of parallel dimension?
You are confused. Even if she had the ability, getting necessary and marketable skills can take lots of time, money and hard work. And at the end of the process she could wind up in a low wage job unable to pay back her debts and without any prospects. It seems to me that many women who had the bodies, the temperament, and the opportunity would choose the easier way to make money.
Well, where there is not an insignificant number of women who do choose the easy money, I've observed most women don't.
Of course, I may hang out with a better class of woman than you do. Or have a higher opinion of women than you do.
We seem to have lost the ability to make any kind of distinction. A woman considering marriage who is concerned her fiance might not be able to support her if she was homebound/mothering the children/unable to find a job is a normal concern.
But everyone reading should know what kind of self-absorbed woman we are talking about; the kind who says "it's really important that a husband can provide a comfortable life, the lifestyle I deserve."
The kind of girls whose identities come from the designer labels, or celebrity watching, or their ZIP code.
Sorry but other than being more clear about money being a factor I see little difference between the woman who chooses a husband that can provide for her and her kids in a style that she would be happy with and one who makes it clear that her selection process has money as an important factor.
Is one considered a whore because she is honest and explicit about what she wants and the other noble because she is quiet about it?
In a bizarre smearing of situations, a lot of upper middle class women (like Wakeman) are demanding men to foot their extravagant bills regardless of whether they have kids or gainful employment, on the logic that "a man is supposed to provide for his wife." Even if she makes a lot of money, the man is supposed to make more. They have fetishized the "traditional family" scene, even in an economy that's hitting men harder than women.
It is not surprising that many women would prefer to marry men who make more money than they do. And it is not surprising that they find the 'traditional family' more appealing than the more common alternative. I think that it is important to have a parent home to raise the kids and teach them the values and philosophies that the parents believe in. Many other people believe the same thing.
It floors me that people like Vange and Cham want to rhetorically dissolve the wall between decent, pragmatic women and money-grubbing whores.
As I wrote above, marriages are voluntary social arrangements that are entered in by willing partners who prefer the marriage to other alternatives. You assume that a woman who does not say that she cares about how much money her husband makes is somehow more noble and better for him than one that makes it clear that money is important. I do not see the evidence for that view.
Incidentally, it seems a rule of thumb for women I've met that the less a woman has to offer in a meaningful relationship, the more she wants, and the more she screams of "deserving it." And the faster I count my spoons.
I think that many men would agree with you that women should be more modest in their desires and their articulation of those desires. They should settle for anything that they can get and should make no attempt to marry up because they are not deserving of it. I am not one of those people and think that we should all do the best we can.
For the record, I am saying that in our daily lives all of us do that. We always choose the option that is most preferable over the alternatives. That does not make us bad or greedy. It only makes us human.
VangelV - if a man met a woman who was, as Cham suggested,"righteous, pious, hard-working, submissive, kind, sweet, giving and compromising" and dumped her because she didn't have perfect skin, or not enough bust, or carried a few extra pounds, what would the societal "we" call him?
I would call him a man. Many people are like that in the real world. But that is not what we are discussing here. In this case we still have a functioning marriage in which both sides are satisfied. The problem for folks is not abandonment but the fact that a woman thought about money as being very important when choosing a husband.
And why are women not held to such a similar standard regarding money? Are they intrinsically or innately unable to live up to male standards? Are they inferior that we expect less from them?
That is my point. Women are not inferior and not all that different than men.
If it is all right for men and women to use looks as a factor when considering marriage partners why isn't it all right for them to consider earnings power? Unlike looks, which we have very little control over, earnings power and wealth is a matter of judgment, discipline, and persistence. It is far more egalitarian because it is easier for a poor person to become wealthy than it is for an ugly one to become beautiful.
Human nature is not all that complicated or mysterious. Most of us pursue a path that tries to maximize our long term enjoyment of life. When we make choices we select from a list of alternatives and pick the one that we rank the highest. When two people enter into a marriage, both sides chose that arrangement over other options and both benefit. I am shocked at the idea that all rich men who marry women that are interested in money are seen as stupid and gullible. The idea that they chose the arrangement and are happy with it (for a while at least) seems to be ignored by those that would judge what others do by their own standards without being in possession of all of the facts and (more importantly) without having the same options.
Of course women are going to use sex as their bargaining chip. That's the most valuable bargaining chip most women have to get money.
I agree. For many (if not most) women sex is an important tool for getting what they want.
Despite all I hear about far more women getting college degrees and the like, they are getting college degrees in stupid things (women's studies being the stupidest). Next, their jobs are mostly government-type subsidized jobs. No matter how stupid or useless the work, the government can squeeze the taxpayer for more money to fund these positions.
I agree again. Many programs provide an education that does not provide students with marketable skills or the ability to think logically. A lot of the graduates wind up in public sector jobs that are easy to do but paid above market rates because of the arrangement between politicians and unions.
It's all artificial, but women could still use these mechanisms to make it appear like they do something useful and to get their own money to spend. But many women STILL have to get as much as they can out of men with sex. And men feel a compulsion to provide and protect and force other men to treat women with favoritism. It's genetic and kind of sickening when women (feminists) STILL bitch and moan that women have it so hard.
Sorry but most men are very interested in sex and will try to get as much as they can from as many women as they can. Both sides are playing the same game.
Personally, if I didn't have a heterosexual sex drive, I wouldn't have anything to do with women. And frankly, if sex weren't an issue, men would not be marrying at all except for a few oddballs.
I love being married and having a family. Had I known that it was this good I would have gotten married sooner. Frankly, I do not see the problem. When I married my wife I had entirely selfish reasons. I tried to do the best I can and looked for a combination of factors or which one was attitude towards money. When she chose me it was for a number of reasons, one of which was my income and material status. I would have been very uncomfortable with a woman who was not practical and who did not consider all the relevant factors. To expect anything different would have been foolish.
I'm not sure why that would matter at all under your model of the universe.
It's certainly public knowledge that men get reamed in divorce court.
Since a man will deeply consider all aspects and perform a cost/benefit analysis - according to your view - before he drives down to the chapel in Las Vegas with Lola to get married, he has already extensively thought through these issues.
But it would matter if voluntary social arrangements were free of meddling from the government. Men would not 'get reamed' in divorce court unless they did something to violate the marriage contract. Marriage is a private matter and as such should be dealt with without government interference. (And so should all other voluntary transactions.)
When she chose me it was for a number of reasons, one of which was my income and material status.
Well now your frantic defense and demands of "not being judged" make sense.
PLONK!
Well, where there is not an insignificant number of women who do choose the easy money, I've observed most women don't.
You are generalizing here. Each individual is unique and do not have the same opportunities. It would be my guess that only 1% or less of women have the qualities that would be needed to attract a man who was very well off so you would have to look at those women, not the entire population, which does not have the same options.
Of course, I may hang out with a better class of woman than you do.
I doubt it.
Or have a higher opinion of women than you do.
I don't know about you but I try not to have a general opinion about a class of people and prefer to look at individuals instead.
And the great Fred Reed, as usual, gets it in one.
http://fredoneverything.net/HookingUp.shtml
Game. Set. Match.
You are generalizing here.
Wow, Commander Obvious, your grasp of the self-evident is absolutely staggering! Holy cow, dude! I'm referring to an entire class of people, and I am Generalizing! Who'd have thunk?
I bet in real life you're chief of detectives somewhere?
Each individual is unique and do not have the same opportunities.
The brilliance jut keeps coming...
It would be my guess that only 1% or less of women have the qualities that would be needed to attract a man who was very well off so you would have to look at those women, not the entire population, which does not have the same options.
Well ...no. You'd be wrong.
You would be assuming that only the very most attractive women would bother with it, and that they would be shooting for the very top echelon.
It's infinitely more complex, And then you'd be assuming all women who were attractive would choose the easy way. I guess that must be "in your experience" though.
Your misogyny is showing.
I doubt it.
See above.
I don't know about you but I try not to have a general opinion about a class of people and prefer to look at individuals instead.
An old, tired, and intellectually lazy dodge.
VangeIV,
After prompting, you finally acknowledged that your model breaks down when there is fraud, misdirection, coercion etc.
The next thing for you to acknowledge - if you can stop spamming your one idea for a minute - is that in the real world transactions are not completely transparent, with both parties having full knowledge and awareness of what the future consequences will be. At least in the case of marriage.
Or Paul McCartney wouldn't have married Heather Mills, for instance.
You also assume some kind of static setting in which nothing changes - nothing can change - and people just opt for the best option at the moment. Your advice about a woman becoming a stripper and prostitute - because she can make more money NOW - instead of gaining other marketable skills in some way, looking to the future - is just bizarre.
Your advice about a woman becoming a stripper and prostitute - because she can make more money NOW - instead of gaining other marketable skills in some way, looking to the future - is just bizarre.
And speaks volumes about his character.
Or rather, the lack of it.
The idea that a woman, with other options, should seek easy money .... sheesh.
After prompting, you finally acknowledged that your model breaks down when there is fraud, misdirection, coercion etc.
No it does not. I am talking about voluntary transactions free of fraud. Period, end of story.
If coercion is used you obviously do not have a voluntary transaction. If fraud is used, obviously the transaction can be voided by the harmed party without penalty. Most marriages do not involve fraud or coercion. When a rich man marries a woman who likes money he usually knows that she likes money and can't claim that he was a victim of criminal fraud or that he was forced to marry her.
The next thing for you to acknowledge - if you can stop spamming your one idea for a minute - is that in the real world transactions are not completely transparent, with both parties having full knowledge and awareness of what the future consequences will be. At least in the case of marriage.
Full knowledge is never available and can never be available. But that does not invalidate the transaction because the material information is usually known by both parties. And the full consequences of getting married are never known because people are always changing. If you expect anything different you are not dealing with human nature.
Or Paul McCartney wouldn't have married Heather Mills, for instance.
It is true that he never would have married Mills had he known that he couldn't stand her and that the marriage would end in divorce. But it was not unexpected to anyone with a brain that the marriage would end in a divorce. The fact that Mills was not very stable or sincere was obvious to anyone who cared to look because she never hid it.
You also assume some kind of static setting in which nothing changes - nothing can change - and people just opt for the best option at the moment.
Not at all. I claim that people change throughout their lives and that they can easily grow apart even if they are good, moral and well meaning.
I simply point out the obvious. When we act we choose the best options from a list of possibilities because we prefer the act to the other possibilities. In the case of a marriage the act involves two people making the same choice. Both people prefer the marriage to the alternatives. I have never claimed that the choice will always be a good one or that people can't be wrong about the long term consequences of maximizing short term pleasures.
Your advice about a woman becoming a stripper and prostitute - because she can make more money NOW - instead of gaining other marketable skills in some way, looking to the future - is just bizarre.
I have never given any woman the advice to become a prostitute or stripper. I simply said that I understand why some women would choose to become prostitutes or strippers. Obviously they prefer those jobs to the alternatives that they had.
I agree with Dr. Walter Block, who wrote in his great book, Defending the Undefendable, that the essence of prostitution was perfectly illustrated by a Norman Rockwell magazine cover. The cover showed a milkman and a pie-man standing close to their trucks, with each man eating a pie and drinking milk. Both men seemed happy with their 'voluntary transaction.'
Prostitutes and strippers offer a service that people value. That is the reason why the service exists even though it has been made illegal or has been looked down upon by societal busybodies. But in both cases the service providers voluntarily exchange their services for the money that the customers are willing to offer without the use of force or fraud.
You also assume that those that become prostitutes and strippers have no regard about their futures when compared to women who, given the same circumstances and the same opportunities, would make other choices. I do not see any theoretical justification or any empirical evidence that would support your view.
Refusing to see such evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.
We really understand you, though. Back a few posts you admitted your wife married you in a good part for your money. So now you're defensive about it.
Refusing to see such evidence is not the same as there being no evidence.
Talking about evidence without providing any is not exactly credible.
We really understand you, though. Back a few posts you admitted your wife married you in a good part for your money. So now you're defensive about it.
Wrong. My wife was a very high earner and would have had a higher standard of living had she married some of the other men who were interested in her or if she continued with her job. Knowing how hard it was to make money she was making sure that when she chose someone to marry money her husband's prospects and attitudes towards money would be one of the consideration. For the record, she made more money than I did last year.
*Yawn*
*Yawn*
When one can't support her/his beliefs with logic and empirical evidence it is best to keep generalizing and/or to pretend to be bored with the debate.
After prompting, you finally acknowledged that your model breaks down when there is fraud, misdirection, coercion etc.
No it does not. I am talking about voluntary transactions free of fraud. If coercion is used you obviously do not have a voluntary transaction. If fraud is used, obviously the transaction can be voided by the harmed party without penalty.
Most marriages do not involve fraud or coercion. And when a rich man marries a woman who likes money he knows that she likes money and he can't claim that he was a victim of criminal fraud.
The next thing for you to acknowledge - if you can stop spamming your one idea for a minute - is that in the real world transactions are not completely transparent, with both parties having full knowledge and awareness of what the future consequences will be. At least in the case of marriage.
Full knowledge can never be available. But that does not invalidate the transaction because the material information is usually known by both parties. And the full consequences of getting married are never known because people are always changing. If you expect anything different you are not dealing with human nature.
Or Paul McCartney wouldn't have married Heather Mills, for instance.
It is true that he never would have married Mills had he known that he couldn't stand her and that the marriage would end in divorce. But it was not unexpected to anyone with a brain that the marriage would end in a divorce.
You also assume some kind of static setting in which nothing changes - nothing can change - and people just opt for the best option at the moment.
Not at all. I claim that people change throughout their lives and that they can easily grow apart even if they are good, moral and well meaning.
I just point out the obvious. When we act we choose the best options from a list of possibilities because we prefer that act to the other possibilities. In the case of a marriage the act involves two people making the same choice. Both people prefer the marriage to the alternatives. I have never claimed that the choice will always be a good one or that people can't be wrong about the long term consequences of maximizing short term pleasures.
Your advice about a woman becoming a stripper and prostitute - because she can make more money NOW - instead of gaining other marketable skills in some way, looking to the future - is just bizarre.
I have never given any woman the advice to become a prostitute or stripper. I simply said that I understand why some women would choose to become prostitutes or strippers. Obviously they prefer those jobs to the alternatives that they had.
I agree with Dr. Walter Block, who wrote in his great book, Defending the Undefendable, that the essence of prostitution was perfectly illustrated by a Norman Rockwell magazine cover. The cover showed a milkman and a pie-man standing close to their trucks, with each man eating a pie and drinking milk. Both men seemed happy with their 'voluntary transaction.'
Prostitutes and strippers offer a service that people value. That is the reason why the service exists even though it has been made illegal or has been looked down upon by societal busybodies. But in both cases the service providers voluntarily exchange their services for the money that the customers are willing to offer without the use of force or fraud.
You also assume that those that become prostitutes and strippers have no regard about their futures when compared to women who, given the same circumstances and the same opportunities, would make other choices. I do not see any theoretical justification or any empirical evidence that would support your view.
I agree with Dr. Walter Block, who wrote in his great book, Defending the Undefendable, that the essence of prostitution was perfectly illustrated by a Norman Rockwell magazine cover. The cover showed a milkman and a pie-man standing close to their trucks, with each man eating a pie and drinking milk. Both men seemed happy with their 'voluntary transaction.'
It does not follow from this, sirrah, that all such transactions are of equal value.
Prostitutes and strippers offer a service that people value. That is the reason why the service exists even though it has been made illegal or has been looked down upon by societal busybodies. But in both cases the service providers voluntarily exchange their services for the money that the customers are willing to offer without the use of force or fraud.
It is looked down upon people as second best because it is. "Busybody" has nothing to do with it. Attempting to pass off what amounts to a contractual business arrangement as the equivalent of the type of marriage that vows to love, honor, et al through better or worse, and so on is a morally bankrupt position.
It may suit a man well to buy a cheap knockoff of a Rolex because that is all he can afford, or all he cares to spend. It is still not the equal of a Rolex. And insisting otherwise has done nothing but make you look silly.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It does not follow from this, sirrah, that all such transactions are of equal value.
Correct. In a voluntary transaction each side gives up something that is valued less for something that is valued more. That is why the transaction happens.
It is looked down upon people as second best because it is. "Busybody" has nothing to do with it. Attempting to pass off what amounts to a contractual business arrangement as the equivalent of the type of marriage that vows to love, honor, et al through better or worse, and so on is a morally bankrupt position.
They are all contractual arrangements. In one case the exchange is much simpler because there is less being exchanged and the goals are easier to articulate clearly. In the other the exchange is far more complex because of the passage of time and the changes that take place with time. Many good people see their marriages fall apart because time changed one or both partners to the point where the marriage could not work.
It may suit a man well to buy a cheap knockoff of a Rolex because that is all he can afford, or all he cares to spend. It is still not the equal of a Rolex. And insisting otherwise has done nothing but make you look silly.
But you are assuming that everyone wants a Rolex at all times. That is clearly not the case.
This debate began when may reacted to Lydia's inflammatory posting. While I objected to her confusion that equated working with misery and suggested that her ignorance of the fact that many people find great joy in what they do was not a sign of virtue I had no objection to her suggestion that there is nothing wrong with marrying up.
My evaluation is very simple. Her marriage is a voluntary transaction, just like yours. As such, she and her husband chose an act that they preferred to their other alternatives. And while their marriage may end as badly as your starter marriage did it does not make it 'wrong.' Who knows; perhaps she and her husband can manage what you failed to do.
And for the record, I do not claim that all transactions are of the same importance to everyone. I simply point out the obvious; that when voluntary transactions take place both parties choose what they prefer over their other choices. Given that value is subjective I do not see how your beauty oriented selection criteria is superior to her wealth oriented criteria. And no, I am not simplifying this by saying that she does not use appearance, education, accomplishments, religious beliefs, or other facts as criteria or that you do not use attitudes towards money as your criteria. I just simply point out that you may rank your selection criteria in a different order than she does and that even under the same circumstances your decision may be very different than hers. But note that because her ranking of criteria is different than yours she could still get much greater satisfaction even if she made a totally different choice than you would have made.
First, while society has degraded civil marriage to a mere contractual agreement, it does not follow that all marriages are contractual agreements.
Second, my "starter marriage" failed because my ex wife began developing schizophrenia, refused to be treated for it, and became a danger to me and our son.
Third, the woman I am currently with is about forty pounds overweight, and has extensive scarring from burns as a child. She is not by any conventional sense especially attractive, and nor do I have some fetish for fat or scars. It is personal character that matters. Likewise, while she knew me as having my own business when we met, she did not learn just how flush I was for almost 9 months, long after we had dated seriously.
Money is inferior because circumstances can change. I know this, because I built a tidy sum up, lost it all, and have rebuilt since. It is no great leap of intuitive thought to induce that a woman who marries a man specifically for his money, if he loses that money, will abandon him.
This is not a marriage. It may be a contract - more like a threat, to wit, stay rich or I'm gone - but my contract with the local paper to deliver me a copy daily is also a contract. Compared to something of lasting value, such as a marriage, both become "mere" contracts.
So in conclusion, your evaluation is not "simple," but merely simplistic.
First, while society has degraded civil marriage to a mere contractual agreement, it does not follow that all marriages are contractual agreements.
The fact that marriage is a deep personal arrangement that has a great deal of meaning to the participants does not mean that it isn't a contractual arrangement. It begins with wows that stipulate what is expected from both parties and can be ended if one or both do not live up to the expectations of the other parties.
Second, my "starter marriage" failed because my ex wife began developing schizophrenia, refused to be treated for it, and became a danger to me and our son.
Third, the woman I am currently with is about forty pounds overweight, and has extensive scarring from burns as a child. She is not by any conventional sense especially attractive, and nor do I have some fetish for fat or scars. It is personal character that matters. Likewise, while she knew me as having my own business when we met, she did not learn just how flush I was for almost 9 months, long after we had dated seriously.
First, it was you that posted about eye candy and using stupid women because they deserved what they got. Second, when you met your companion she already knew that you were not poor and that you had your own business. If you asked her if she would have considered you had you been some unemployed bum who could not afford to take her out her honest answer would probably be no. The simple fact is that while some people may not consider money to be the most important factor, it does not mean that it isn't a factor.
Money is inferior because circumstances can change. I know this, because I built a tidy sum up, lost it all, and have rebuilt since. It is no great leap of intuitive thought to induce that a woman who marries a man specifically for his money, if he loses that money, will abandon him.
I would say that a factor like looks is even more inferior because those are certain to change with time. Education is also not what it is cracked up to be because many educated people believe the wrong things and have bad judgement. The simple fact is that nobody has a single factor that determines what they will do. Most of us have a list of criteria that we apply to each one of our options before we choose. As I said, things are not as simple as you make them out.
You write "Maybe this isn’t “feminist,” but logically, I need to marry a guy who makes more money than I do—preferably a lot more money than I do—for us to be able to afford what I want and I hope he will want, too."
I'm reminded of Winston Churchill when he offered a haughy woman ten thousand dollars for one night, and she accepted; and then he offered her ten, and she asked, shocked, "what do you take me fore?"
He replied "madam, we've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price."
If you see a husband as a purchaser, then you are a woman who's for sale... and we know what that is.
Likewise, you're likely to have priced yourself out of the market, since you can't beat the competition for what you're asking, unless he's looking for an antique.
So my response to your attitude is, "be careful what you wish for: wha tgoes around, comes around."
Post a Comment
<< Home