Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Golddigger alert!

Good. Better than the usual "let's date jerks who look cool and have the coolest friends". Amazing how recessions change what young women want to date.

Boom times, they'll go back to dating the unemployed skinny guy in the band.

r
 
I have a feeling "Dumping your fat, miserable, incubator of a wife for something you'd actually like to look at" wouldn't go over as well.
 
jnevin said:
I have a feeling "Dumping your fat, miserable, incubator of a wife for something you'd actually like to look at" wouldn't go over as well.
Click to expand...

As long as the author's attitude was the same towards the fat, miserable, X-box playing husband... why wouldn't it?
 
jnevin said:
You didn't say all day. I know a number of people that play x-box when they get home.
Click to expand...

Next time I will be more specific.

Or you could surmise that I would be ill-matched with any man who would be fascinated by such *amusement*.
Either way, works for me. :whatever:
 
Last edited:
nefertiti said:
gah...terrible.
Click to expand...

What is so terrible?

"I realize that's just one anecdotal story, but I'm sharing it to demonstrate a larger point: there is nothing feminist about assuming your partner's debt. And it goes both ways -- I wouldn't blame a man for not wanting to marry a woman who spent money irresponsibly."

^^^ That's just one point, true but the story only illustrates that we are all free to choose. As Jnevin said, "He should be free to love a fat, miserable, incubator or a woman who is attractive, cheerful and never wants children if he so chooses."
 
BIKINIMOM said:
What is so terrible?

"I realize that's just one anecdotal story, but I'm sharing it to demonstrate a larger point: there is nothing feminist about assuming your partner's debt. And it goes both ways -- I wouldn't blame a man for not wanting to marry a woman who spent money irresponsibly."

^^^ That's just one point, true but the story only illustrates that we are all free to choose. As Jnevin said, "He should be free to love a fat, miserable, incubator or a woman who is attractive, cheerful and never wants children if he so chooses."
Click to expand...


There's a huge difference between taking fiscal responsibility into the equation (smart) and "marrying for money" or as the author eluded, marrying so that you can maintain a lifestyle beyond your current means. Sorry BM, I know things worked out well for you...but the general idea of it makes me ill.
 
nefertiti said:
There's a huge difference between taking fiscal responsibility into the equation (smart) and "marrying for money" or as the author eluded, marrying so that you can maintain a lifestyle beyond your current means. Sorry BM, I know things worked out well for you...but the general idea of it makes me ill.
Click to expand...

I would suggest marrying someone that you like with money.

By the way, not all people with money are assholes, just a myth promulgated by poor dudes. OK, some are, but then again I have encountered a passle of assholes as of late that are broke.

Usually they don't mix as they have nothing in common.

I can't shed light on any of this anyway...
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
I would suggest marrying someone that you like with money.

By the way, not all people with money are assholes, just a myth promulgated by poor dudes. OK, some are, but then again I have encountered a passle of assholes as of late that are broke.

Usually they don't mix as they have nothing in common.

I can't shed light on any of this anyway...
Click to expand...

(shrug) If you find someone who is your best friend and they happen to have money, great.

What's the saying? If you marry for money you work for every penny?

You and BM are the exception, not the rule (and as she has pointed out, she married you when you had lost almost everything). Everyone else I know who had paycheck criteria is stuck in a miserable situation. but hey, at least they can buy lots of nice things, right?
 
BIKINIMOM said:
I see not one thing wrong with that article. I believe that it is spot on 100%. :whatever:
Click to expand...



yea, i mean the only difference in a prostitute and a married woman is the long term contract right???

I don't believe this, but it is what is being said..
 
SpyWizard said:
yea, i mean the only difference in a prostitute and a married woman is the long term contract right???

I don't believe this, but it is what is being said..
Click to expand...

Not at all. That is what is being read into it by some.

Would you have married your wife if she was not physically appealing to you? How about a woman that is irresponible with money?

I am thinking that MOST MEN WOULD marry a woman that is irresponsible with money if she had a nice set of tits. LOL Ok, maybe she would have to give good head too.

Gross exaggeration but my point is that when one does not take into consideration something other than aesthetics (as many men make the mistake of doing because of their biology), well that relationship don't go too far, does it? You end with the scenario that Jnev quoted... don't you?

The article is saying, "Marry a man that is SMART." Now smart oould equal a buddhist monk, true but I don't know very man buddhist monks who marry. So I am thinking they are out.

I don't see what is so offensive about the practicality of this author's point of view. She makes her own money, pays her own bills but if she is going to marry - have a family - she wants a man who can properly take care of her and her children. It is a given that he will love her too which is the whole point of the article that people are missing.

Money may not make the world go round, but love don't pay the rent.

I married my husband when he had LESS than nothing, but would I have did he not have the ability to generate a tremendous income and mentor me along the way? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL. Just as he would never have given me the time of day were he not to find me physically appealing and mentally engaging. Interestingly enough as he had less than no money in the beginning, neither did he know what I looked like when we first began talking. Lucky for us it both worked out... eh? Or could be that luck had NOTHING to do with it?

And I give him his walking papers whenever he has a mental lapse and "forgets" why I married him. I didn't marry him for money because he had none. I dated him because I liked and respected him and we had common life goals. I married him for ONE REASON: the way he treated me. Why he married me, that is for him to explain if he chooses to engage further in this conversation.

Now were any of those factors to change, speaking for myself, I would dissolve the marriage without a second thought and I would expect no less from him: money and sex have NOTHING to do with it.
 
BIKINIMOM said:
Not at all. That is what is being read into it by some.

Would you have married your wife if she was not physically appealing to you? How about a woman that is irresponible with money?

I am thinking that MOST MEN WOULD marry a woman that is irresponsible with money if she had a nice set of tits. LOL Ok, maybe she would have to give good head too.

Gross exaggeration but my point is that when one does not take into consideration something other than aesthetics (as many men make the mistake of doing because of their biology), well that relationship don't go too far, does it? You end with the scenario that Jnev quoted... don't you?

The article is saying, "Marry a man that is SMART." Now smart oould equal a buddhist monk, true but I don't know very man buddhist monks who marry. So I am thinking they are out.

I don't see what is so offensive about the practicality of this author's point of view. She makes her own money, pays her own bills but if she is going to marry - have a family - she wants a man who can properly take care of her and her children. It is a given that he will love her too which is the whole point of the article that people are missing.

Money may not make the world go round, but love don't pay the rent.

I married my husband when he had LESS than nothing, but would I have did he not have the ability to generate a tremendous income and mentor me along the way? NOT A CHANCE IN HELL. Just as he would never have given me the time of day were he not to find me physically appealing and mentally engaging. Interestingly enough as he had less than no money in the beginning, neither did he know what I looked like when we first began talking. Lucky for us it both worked out... eh? Or could be that luck had NOTHING to do with it?

And I give him his walking papers whenever he has a mental lapse and "forgets" why I married him. I didn't marry him for money because he had none. I dated him because I liked and respected him and we had common life goals. I married him for ONE REASON: the way he treated me. Why he married me, that is for him to explain if he chooses to engage further in this conversation.

Now were any of those factors to change, speaking for myself, I would dissolve the marriage without a second thought and I would expect no less from him: money and sex have NOTHING to do with it.
Click to expand...

I'll respond... for me (this is my 2nd marriage) sex and Love have everything to do with it.

My wife has her masters degree, I have 2 associates degree's (different fields), she carried a 4.0 in her masters program as well as her BA.. she worked full time and was married..

She makes very good money now on top of putting up with my shit she gave me a baby boy 19 months old..

Physical abuse would probably be the only reason I would dissolve this marriage, and or pending physical injury to my son, mental disabilities would be the only thing that would cause such action, or i'd just kill her in self defense, not that it is a real option, but staying in the moment.

It comes to expectations of the relationship, i expect her to let me be myself, with my ups and downs, she gets the same considerations.

Life is a journey, not a destination, we grow, we change. Sex is not love, but it is acceptance. Empowering others to control a person is one thing, allowing them to influence you is another.

I tend to surround myself with people like me, encouraging and supportive, I give as much as i take, even more. I do not allow people who are acidic or not supportive to be around myself or my family, life is just too short, so i that i suppose we agree, i kick them to the curb in a heartbeat and without any consideration as to their needs/wants..
 
BIKINIMOM said:
I don't see what is so offensive about the practicality of this author's point of view. She makes her own money, pays her own bills but if she is going to marry - have a family - she wants a man who can properly take care of her and her children. It is a given that he will love her too which is the whole point of the article that people are missing.
Click to expand...

No, she wants a man who can support a lifestyle. The lifestyle she is accustomed to and pays for now, but only just barely. You can happily support a family on much less than what she is seeking.

As I told GOM, you guys are the exception, not the rule. Your formula usually doesn't work out so well from what I've observed.
 
nefertiti said:
No, she wants a man who can support a lifestyle. The lifestyle she is accustomed to and pays for now, but only just barely. You can happily support a family on much less than what she is seeking.

As I told GOM, you guys are the exception, not the rule. Your formula usually doesn't work out so well from what I've observed.
Click to expand...

My formula? What precisely is "my formula"? If you think that it is that a woman should cast aside all superficial criteria and scrutinize the practical ones before she decides whether or not to invest her feelings then you are spot on. Actually, for the man it should be the same but realistically speaking, how many men are REALLY capable of such a thing? (What does that say about women who are willing to accept such a relationship?)

And if the author is going to stay home with her children (which I am assuming she wants to, otherwise why would she care so much about her future spouse's income potential greatly outweighing her own?) then I don't think there is any harm in her standard whatsoever.

I stayed home with 4 children and my sister stayed home with her 3 and because WE were raised VERY POOR believe it or not, we actually afforded our children a lot that our parents could not afford us, doesn't say much, just that we were able to give more.

What I am saying is that I understand the author's point of view and I don't think it is so terrible.

I also understand your point of view and don't think that is so terrible either, just saying that it wouldn't work for me anymore. It worked the first time 'round. Having been a single mother forced to ask for welfare while busting my butt at a job where I had to be there at 5AM with four kids in tow only having a family court turn around and take them from me (that time) for working those hours sorta got stuck in my craw. Let's not even discuss some of the other jobs I took that I am not so proud of, but I had to work far less hours and welfare wasn't involved. Didn't get my kids taken from me for those jobs, but it didn't earn me a wholelotta respect either in real life or online. Did it? Either way, I got screwed for a whole host of reasons. So second time around I chose differently.

You only need to live through a situation like that ONCE to know that it isn't such a great way to raise kids. If you don't want kids ever then the playing field is leveled, isn't it?

Just my life experience, not the experience of others by any stretch.

My ultimate point of view is that we should all be free to chose whomever it is that we want based on the criteria that suits us without being judged by others. :)
 
Your formula: Seeking a guy on a sugar daddy website, marrying after a short time, etc. I think it's great that you found real love there. I'm just saying most don't. Most end up miserable.

Please don't get so defensive, it's not an attack on you nor do I think you are a gold digger. I know you wouldn't have married dale if he wasn't good to you, and all the other important stuff. I'm just saying looking for a lifestyle enhancer really doesn't pay for most people (except in a strictly monetary sense).

The problem is that the author didn't say, "I want someone who can allow me to be a stay at home mom." She made it clear that she wants a certain standerd of life she can't afford on her own. That's completely different.
 
nefertiti said:
Your formula: Seeking a guy on a sugar daddy website, marrying after a short time, etc. I think it's great that you found real love there. I'm just saying most don't. Most end up miserable.

Please don't get so defensive, it's not an attack on you nor do I think you are a gold digger. I know you wouldn't have married dale if he wasn't good to you, and all the other important stuff. I'm just saying looking for a lifestyle enhancer really doesn't pay for most people (except in a strictly monetary sense).

The problem is that the author didn't say, "I want someone who can allow me to be a stay at home mom." She made it clear that she wants a certain standerd of life she can't afford on her own. That's completely different.
Click to expand...

Did I misread the part about where she said that she wants to afford her children a similar lifestyle to what she had? I very well could have, but that is what I read.

"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. The Frisky: Why you should marry for money --

I'm not ashamed 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."


I didn't feel attacked in the least, Nef. I was just expressing my point of view.

I wasn't looking for a husband on a sugardaddy site. I was looking for a sugardaddy. :) My husband was looking for anything BUT a wife. We both wanted a limited but symbiotic relationship; one of companionship, mentorship and a wholelotta laughs. We found a wonderful match that was one we wanted to take beyond that of merely sugar dating.

You speak of a sugardating as if it is a bad thing. It being "all about the money" is a common misconception so I can understand why you think that, but that just isn't true. :whatever:

I began a thread a year or so ago which brought out all of the misconceptions that people have about sugardating. It was very enlightening. :) Interestingly enough NOT ONE PERSON that posted on the thread could give me a single legitimate *problem* with this type of dating once the myths were disspelled. Not saying that this type of dating is for everyone. IT IS NOT. Just saying that the negative stereotypes just aren't true.

I still stand by my original comments about the author's article. We should all be free to choose our mates based upon whatever criteria we deem proper without being judged by others. :rose:

What I find terrible/appalling/disgusting is that it is perfectly ok for men to judge women's value based on purely superificial qualities but it is NOT ok for women to judge men based on practical qualities.
 
BM, once again you are reading too much into my words. I don't have the energy right now to explain myself better. but for the record I think it's just as stupid to marry a girl because she's hot. i've seen that end in misery too.
 
nefertiti said:
BM, once again you are reading too much into my words. I don't have the energy right now to explain myself better. but for the record I think it's just as stupid to marry a girl because she's hot. i've seen that end in misery too.
Click to expand...

Dunno, they seemed pretty clear to me. It seems that we are actually on the same side. :)

I've said it myself a gazillion times, any man who marries a woman based purely on her "hotness" gets what he deserves just as any woman who marries based purely on the size of a man's portfolio gets what she deserves as well - and neither of them deserves anything more than a relationship that is SUPERFICIAL.
 
nefertiti said:
(shrug) If you find someone who is your best friend and they happen to have money, great.

What's the saying? If you marry for money you work for every penny?

You and BM are the exception, not the rule (and as she has pointed out, she married you when you had lost almost everything). Everyone else I know who had paycheck criteria is stuck in a miserable situation. but hey, at least they can buy lots of nice things, right?
Click to expand...

The misconception that everyone has is when a beautiful woman is with an old guy with money somehow she gave up something because he "bought" her.

Since I know many men that have good looking wife's/GF's they treat their ladies with respect, don't talk badly about them to their "bros", and they get along well.

People that think women give up something just by meeting and spending time with successful people have a couple things in common. I have too much to do right now to spend time dealing with this issue so I'll revisit it as time allows. Besides this topic has been discussed with out end and there is never going to be any resolve.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The misconception that everyone has is when a beautiful woman is with an old guy with money somehow she gave up something because he "bought" her.

Since I know many men that have good looking wife's/GF's they treat their ladies with respect, don't talk badly about them to their "bros", and they get along well.

People that think women give up something just by meeting and spending time with successful people have a couple things in common. I have too much to do right now to spend time dealing with this issue so I'll revisit it as time allows. Besides this topic has been discussed with out end and there is never going to be any resolve.
Click to expand...

You mean that I was *cheap*?!?! :worried:

Well I just raised the price. Get back to work! :velvett:
 
BIKINIMOM said:
Dunno, they seemed pretty clear to me. It seems that we are actually on the same side. :)

I've said it myself a gazillion times, any man who marries a woman based purely on her "hotness" gets what he deserves just as any woman who marries based purely on the size of a man's portfolio gets what she deserves as well - and neither of them deserves anything
Click to expand...

Then maybe it's me who is having a hard time filtering through your posts...I love ya to death BM, but you have a tendency to be a lil long winded when you're passionate about something ;)
 
I had a "criteria" when it came to money

But I married for love more importantly

I wouldnt marry a guy who couldnt or wouldnt pay his bills and couldnt support me if I decided to stay home and raise his children
 
cindylou said:
I had a "criteria" when it came to money

But I married for love more importantly

I wouldnt marry a guy who couldnt or wouldnt pay his bills and couldnt support me if I decided to stay home and raise his children
Click to expand...

Love is something people find over time. You married for like and respect, which has matured into mutual love. Ask any couple that has been married for 50 years, they have so much to tell.
As far as having a mate that can't afford to support you and future/existing children, that was what this entire Thread is about.

The only people that protest are broke dick dogs and women that date losers out of habit. There are few exceptions, not many.

Why do women take more time selecting a pair of undies at VS's than selecting a man?
 
nefertiti said:
Then maybe it's me who is having a hard time filtering through your posts...I love ya to death BM, but you have a tendency to be a lil long winded when you're passionate about something ;)
Click to expand...

Yup, agreed. :) See, I am not defensive at all and am usually fairly self-aware.

CindyLou, I loved my first husband to death (and thought he loved me too - but at that age I had a very skewed perception of what love was supposed to be). When I married my Old Grump I did NOT love him.

1. LIKE
2. RESPECT
3. COMMON LIFE GOALS

IMHO if any one of these criteria is missing the relationship will fail, just a matter of time.

Now the decision about marriage, for me (not saying that this is necessarily applicable to anyone else), I married my husband for ONE REASON: THE WAY HE TREATED ME.

The second he does something that would violate 1 - 3, the relationship is over. If he EVER changed the way he treats me, likewise, I am gone.

And I would expect the same treatment from him. :supercool
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Love is something people find over time. You married for like and respect, which has matured into mutual love. Ask any couple that has been married for 50 years, they have so much to tell.
As far as having a mate that can't afford to support you and future/existing children, that was what this entire Thread is about.

The only people that protest are broke dick dogs and women that date losers out of habit. There are few exceptions, not many.

Why do women take more time selecting a pair of undies at VS's than selecting a man?
Click to expand...

My parents married for love. My dad was poor and trying to make it as an opera singer. In fact, he proposed to my mom and left her for Austria to perform there for a while (more than six months). My my was the breadwinner then, she was the breadwinner till she retired.

They just celebrated thirty years.

Cindy, nothing wrong with what you wanted. I said that a few times. If you want to have the choice of being a stay at home mom, that's one thing. this author, IMO, is talking about something else.
 
nefertiti said:
My parents married for love. My dad was poor and trying to make it as an opera singer. In fact, he proposed to my mom and left her for Austria to perform there for a while (more than six months). My my was the breadwinner then, she was the breadwinner till she retired.

They just celebrated thirty years.

Cindy, nothing wrong with what you wanted. I said that a few times. If you want to have the choice of being a stay at home mom, that's one thing. this author, IMO, is talking about something else.
Click to expand...

If that is a model that you want to reproduce then who are we to say that it is wrong? We aren't.

What some of us are saying is that this is NOT a model that WE want to follow.

Believe it or not there was a time when I brought in more money than my old grump. He had to take some of his fine watches and his leathers (some were limited edition articles) to a pawn shop just so we could pay the electric. With my first check I insisted that we go to the pawn shop and retrieve his things. That made me feel ten feet tall. But were my children living with us and I would be the one to have to travel and bring in the money while he was the one home with the kids, I won't lie, I would be very angry and resentfull that I couldn't be the one home with the kids. But that is JUST ME.

The author specifically stated that she is concerned about a man providing for her AND her children and NOT that a man should support a woman. I quoted it from the article.

Bottom line is that we should all be free to choose for ourselves without judgment from others.
 
nefertiti said:
My parents married for love. My dad was poor and trying to make it as an opera singer. In fact, he proposed to my mom and left her for Austria to perform there for a while (more than six months). My my was the breadwinner then, she was the breadwinner till she retired.

They just celebrated thirty years.

Cindy, nothing wrong with what you wanted. I said that a few times. If you want to have the choice of being a stay at home mom, that's one thing. this author, IMO, is talking about something else.
Click to expand...

As I said, love is soemthing you find over time, the first thing you probably call "love" is the lust part. Love is a lot different.

This is where most people are confused, they take the new feeling and the excitement of a fresh relationship for "love".

As I said before, after over half a century and many relationships, tons of education and experience on the subject I can still say relationships are difficult and take work. Find someone willing to do what is necessary to accommodate that and be able to afford the ablity to have freedom and enjoy life.

Plus, all the words and letters I put together will make no difference, people have their own viewpoints.

By the way, my parents were married 54 years before my fatrher died. My mother told me in a conversation a couple years agom that she married my father because he was nice to her and was respectful. She didn't fall in love until much later in their marriage. She is 85 so I guess her experience trumps mine and yours.
 
We're going in circles. I never said I wanted to follow my parents footsteps. I was disputing that marrying for love is the wrong path, something dale did indeed imply. I never said wanting a man to be able to provide for children is bad. You're putting words into my mouth.

Lets just agree to disagree and stop there, k?

Soooo, I'm gonna step away now.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
As I said, love is soemthing you find over time, the first thing you probably call "love" is the lust part. Love is a lot different.

This is where most people are confused, they take the new feeling and the excitement of a fresh relationship for "love".

As I said before, after over half a century and many relationships, tons of education and experience on the subject I can still say relationships are difficult and take work. Find someone willing to do what is necessary to accommodate that and be able to afford the ablity to have freedom and enjoy life.

Plus, all the words and letters I put together will make no difference, people have their own viewpoints.

By the way, my parents were married 54 years before my fatrher died. My mother told me in a conversation a couple years agom that she married my father because he was nice to her and was respectful. She didn't fall in love until much later in their marriage. She is 85 so I guess her experience trumps mine and yours.
Click to expand...

Nothing trumps anything. Anectdotal evidence is useless. But you can't generalize. What didn't work for you can work for others and what worked for you won't work for others. That's all I'm trying to say with regards to that. Done here.
 
OK...

I just quoted passages from the article that was MISREAD (if read at all - I skim A LOT of posts and end up misunderstanding what is really being stated, othertimes I read with MY filter - as is human and nearly impossible to avoid) by many based on SuperDave's thread title. :) Interesting thing is, there really was no arguement between any women, yet there seemed to be a lot of misunderstanding.

Everyone should be free to choose what they want without judgment from others.
 
nefertiti said:
Nothing trumps anything. Anectdotal evidence is useless. But you can't generalize. What didn't work for you can work for others and what worked for you won't work for others. That's all I'm trying to say with regards to that. Done here.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
cindylou said:
I had a "criteria" when it came to money

But I married for love more importantly

I wouldnt marry a guy who couldnt or wouldnt pay his bills and couldnt support me if I decided to stay home and raise his children
Click to expand...

really??? that's your decision to make?? that's a whole new thread now isn't it??
 
SpyWizard said:
really??? that's your decision to make?? that's a whole new thread now isn't it??
Click to expand...

I would hope that a decision like this would be made long before marriage.

Falls under:

3. common life goals.

'Of course, life has a way of handing us *little surprises* when we least expect it, doesn't it? Say in the case where a couple wants desperately to have a child of their own and can't. Lot of marriages like this end up in divorce. Other times they get married without ever wanting children and then *surprise*. Now what? Every couple will have to make their own choice as to what comes next, regardless.

After a coupla decades of all sortsa surprises (some pleasant and some anything BUT pleasant) if a couple still LIKES and RESPECTS one another and are genuinely kind to one another then love will surely follow.
 
I read the artice and I actually agree with it

Life will get pretty sticky down the road if you both dont come to terms with the fact that one of you will either leave the workforce for awhile ; or you get the have the glamour and guilt of placing a newborn in daycare...

I know my husband would be embarassed if I HAD to send a 3month old newborn into daycare

He would never tell me that I couldnt go back to work either
 
Razorguns said:
Funny what women want in a guy changes as they get older :)

r
Click to expand...

Yea well, when life kicks yer ass a time er two you find that the fairytale that a lot of little girls were sold growing up is really a nightmare.

Oddly enough, I wasn't told about the fairytale as a little girl, was cautioned agaisnt being in a hurry to wear that ornate headpiece as then would follow the nightmare, one from whence there was no escape but for the grave. But I was smarter and I knew more than my parents did. LOL

^^^That was from the time and day when a woman had ZERO control over her own destiny.

I pulled my head out of my arse and learned to think for myself and had the balls to make choices that suited ME, regardless of what "popular folklore of the day" was touting.

So this time 'round I will settle for no less than a happy reality. :)
 
superdave said:
I guess this is the CNN companion piece from the male side
CNN conclusion: women are cold and calculating, marry for money. men are dopes who marry because a light goes on or off lol
Do men really want to get married? - CNN.com
Click to expand...

I read that article and was somewhat perplexed by it. Do men REALLY choose a life-partner based on such irrational thoughts? Although I am still not sure what prompted my husband to initiate marriage to me other than he said he'd never met another woman like me. I guess that based on his vast experience around the world (he has lived on nearly every continent) was a good thing... for him? :whatever:

"Real men" are perceived as committing "till death do us part" for the wrong reasons -- they marry out of convenience or under duress, and they acquiesce, kicking and screaming all the way to the altar. Watch the author talk about his research »

Somewhere along the way, marriage and masculinity became mutually exclusive."

I think that American men would find it shocking that men in nearly every other culture in the world do NOT view marriage and masculinity as mutually exclusive properties, actually quite the opposite. Men in the majority of the rest of the world look at it as a happy eventuality of the adult portion of life. Matter of fact, if a man doesn't desire marriage then he is viewed as somewhat of a misfit.

Dunno if these men make more practical decisions, just stating a major difference in American men and men from other cultures is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Macedog24
PSL Sale Sales that haunt your dreams
Replies
11
Views
757
PhillDragon
PhillDragon
Richard Brown
Napsgear How Bodybuilders Can LEGALLY Pay Less Taxes
Replies
10
Views
1K
ceo
ceo
Richard Brown
Napsgear How Bodybuilders Can LEGALLY Pay Less Taxes
Replies
10
Views
909
ceo
ceo
Richard Brown
Napsgear AAS Diaries From Napsgear - All or Nothing
Replies
10
Views
929
Ulter
Ulter
Richard Brown
Napsgear AAS Diaries From Napsgear - All or Nothing
Replies
10
Views
1K
Ulter
Ulter
Top Bottom