Why Marrying For Money Isn’t A Totally Bad Idea

Fast Eddie
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:09 am: [report]

Thank god I never meet you.

Keesh Mia
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:19 am: [report]

I married a poor a-hole for love. I ended up supporting him for 5 years in a 6.5 year marriage. He decided to not work and stay at home to get drunk all day long. Then finding out that he was sleeping with our nanny whom he moved in with after the divorce.  Paid him 1.5 years of allimony and paid him a hefty lump sum for the divorce. 

I loved him before we got married.  But at the same time, there was another guy I really like that was stinking rich.  I picked the poor a-hole.  He stopped being nice to me after I said “I do”.  Not only did I support him during the 5 years.  I went home, cooked, cleaned, took care of our child and did laundry on the weekends. When I asked for help, he said I should hire weekend help. He did nothing.  After he got the lump sum, he decided to pay nothing for our child.  Not his school, his medical… nothing.  If you ask our boy, he will tell you his father never bought him a baseball or even a pair of socks.

I don’t say one should only marry for money but make sure you LIKE him and will learn to love him and he will at least be there for you financially.  But make sure he is generous. He can be rich but a miser which will make you miserable.

#&@$% can be rich, poor, ugly and gorgeous.  They are not exclusive to any look and financial class. 

I think this advice is sound!

@FastEddie Jessica is smart.  Don’t be mean to her.

DancerNinja
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:28 am: [report]

I’m all about not shacking up with someone who is irresponsible with money or had lots of debt. That’s a sign of immaturity. But, personally, I would be much more attracted to someone who, regardless of wage, is enamored with his profession and dedicated to it. Someone who makes tons of money tends to have to work hard and long hours for that, and if he doesn’t like it, the misery will be contagious.

Then again, I’m not set on having kids, so my salary and benefits are perfect for me.

Riley
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:43 am: [report]

I see where you are coming from, comments and Jessica.  I suppose for the right girl I could forgo the money part; but I really have a rough time dating someone that skims by on the bare-minimum every month.  Not counting college or some other similar situation.

Definitely want someone that will be making a comparable wage in the future.

joyy
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:59 am: [report]

Please don’t try to pair a smart move (being realistic, honest and smart about finances when looking to merge your life with someone) with a shallow move (planning to achieve your desired quality of life by combining your modest? salary with someone else’s big salary) to make an argument of defending “marrying for money”.  Marrying for money is marrying someone you don’t love because you want to upgrade your lifestyle via someone else’s salary. 

You do what makes you happy, but don’t write about how your plan to achieve your goals leans on finding a man with money and not expect to get called out on it.  Wanting financial stability to be a constant in your life is a great goal, but putting the responsibility of that on someone else just make me laugh.

sadie
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:04 am: [report]

Jessica, do what you want, but arguing that women on the whole should limit their romantic options to men with money IS sexist. Should men limit their options to women with money? Personally, almost every woman I know earns at least 2x her husband’s salary (myself included), if not more. Several of them have kids, the dads gave up their careers to be stay home parents. The dads are wonderful, well-educated, good guys who take good care of their babies while their lawyer wives get to enjoy their careers. These couples have been happily married for many years and they are very well-off.

Kids are expensive and if you want to give them all the luxuries in life you do need a good household income, but I disagree with the assumption that it has to be the man that earns the money and the woman that gives up her career and independence and freedom. Things are changing and the more this old fashioned, misogynist philosophy is shoved down people’s throats, the longer the wage gap and female oppression will continue.

I worked hard to get where I am professionally so I don’t have to whore myself out to a man with money. I earned the option to pick the guy I want, regardless of his bank account, just like rich men enjoy the privilege of marrying girls they like rather than girls they can afford to be with. A lot of other women are making this same choice and are very happy with it. Perpetuating the story that we can marry rich so there’s no need to pay us more is a problem.

I am not begrudging your choice to marry a guy with money, no more than I would if you were a man saying this exact same stuff. I’d think it was a shame anyone would want to limit their options like that, but beyond that I think people should do what they want. But I don’t think you can assume all women are “paying” for their breadwinner roles, any more than men have “paid” for it since the dawn of time.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:08 am: [report]

@DancerNinja Maybe I wasn’t clear about my career aspirations — I love writing, am 110% passionate about my career, and I am positive that I will always be a print/online journalist.

It is just highly unrealistic that I will ever make a lot of money doing this, even if I rose to be the editor-in-chief someplace. That’s just the nature of the field, unfortunately.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:11 am: [report]

@Sadie You said “Kids are expensive and if you want to give them all the luxuries in life you do need a good household income, but I disagree with the assumption that it has to be the man that earns the money and the woman that gives up her career and independence and freedom.”

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I never said that it has to be the man who earns the money! I didn’t say that at all. In fact, I actually said in the 5th paragraph:

“I don’t fundamentally believe it is the “man’s role” to provide for women. ”

Symian
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:21 am: [report]

The guy I’m seeing asked me if I was ready to be “taken care of”.  I asked him, “do you mean like cement shoes?”

Now that I’m an adult (and not a daydreaming teen) I can’t imagine having someone care for me like my parents did, paying my bills and such.  I find comfort in knowing that I can provide the type of life I want for myself without relying on someone else to finance it.

However, I understand that not everyone is willing to put forth the effort to achieve their dreams and so it’s only natural to rely on a man to help out (I guess).  Not surprising though, apparently some women can’t even change a lightbulb or open a jar.

sadie
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]

@Jessica I am glad you don’t think it’s a mans role to provide for women, I just find perpetuating the mentality that has kept women in a role of submission offensive in this day and age. I usually like your columns, and like I said I am not against you choosing to marry a guy with money. Hell, I am not against you straight up having sex with men for cash. I am against the premise that “smart women marry rich”. I am against doling this advice out to women on the whole because I think women deserve options. They aren’t stupid if they make their own money and marry the guy that adores them and cleans the house and raises the kid.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:34 am: [report]

@Sadie Thanks, I’m glad we’re on the same page now. I’m just saying no guy should hitch his wagon to me if he wants to have beh-behs, because I’m probably going to be broke my whole life.

Unless I write a bestseller.

joyy
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 08:43 am: [report]

I think the real issue here is that you want it all, but you can’t really have it all - at least not with just you. 

You want 1) an expensive lifestyle ... I hear nyc ain’t cheap, 2) kidlets and a husband ... cool & also not cheap, 3) to spend your life in a career you love that is known for not paying well, 4) financial stability. 

You don’t want to compromise on any of those things (which is fine, shoot for the moon), so you’re compromising your love life instead.  I inadvertantly ended up with a guy who will perpetually out-earn me by quite a bit (even though I earn a fair amount more than what journalists in my town do and could live fairly comfortably on my own.  also, I thought he was dirt poor when I fell for him, no lie), so I’m here to say that yes, it can happen.  But you could be in for a world of painful man-hunting if you’re excluding such a large group of men based on salary. 

That’s the compromise you choose, but you don’t seem to be acknowledging it as such.  Good luck!

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 09:30 am: [report]

@ BadLeaper

I really love this advice you gave:

“If you marry for anything, you better marry for character.  Money comes and goes.  Looks just go.  At the end of the day, you have to have someone you can rely on, and you have to be someone your spouse can rely on.”

flatline
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]

I think it would be silly to not consider the financial sense and prospects of someone you are potentially going to live with for the rest of your life. Would you be happy if your husband made $10/hr moving tables and chairs for a living, with very little chance of advancement? If you would, great. If not, you should probably reconsider that long term relationship.

I ended a two year relationship partially because the guy I was with could never seem to grasp the concept that when he spent money, it was gone. GONE. After having several bill-paying issues and discussions about saving and finances, he asked to borrow money from me for a guitar, which was a completely unecessary purchase - it was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Queen Frostine
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 11:26 am: [report]

I can understand having goals and wanting a certain level of lifestyle. But from my point of view, like Joyy, I can’t see anything positive coming out of compromising your marriage for that.

Sure, you might have a perfect NYC condo, beautiful children and luxury lifestyle, but if your relationship was built on a monetary requirement and you’re not willing to sacrifice anything on your part in return for his providing for you, then it sounds like you’re just using the man. Putting that sort of expectation and pressure on a man sounds like a one-sided, one giving everything up and the other taking it all without giving an inch.

Being with my husband for nearly nine years, I’ve learned the key to being happy is MUTUAL compromise and balance. Each of us have had to make certain sacrifices for the other. I agreed to take a longer commute to work so my husband wouldn’t have to work three jobs. He agreed to make dinner on weeknights because of my longer commute. We’ve both had to make sacrifices in life. Not just one of us.

Bottom line: How could I respect someone who isn’t willing to sacrifice some part of their life for me in return, to make me happy too?

EastCoastMale
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 11:38 am: [report]

@Jessica Wakeman
I agree with you that the advice that BadLeaper gave is a perspective that I share and I believe rings true in relationships. If you are marrying someone just for financial stability and so they can provide for you while not thinking more about them as a person and partner, in my opinion that relationship is bound to fail. Placing emphasis or importance on anything other than the person themselves is setting yourself up for disaster.

@Queen

I agree that the whole marrying for money does seem a bit one sided and that one person is basically taking on a financial burden without having some compromise. I think that those who do only marry for money and are more worried about bank accounts than a personal connection to one another show their true colors when things go south. Ever notice how usually, super rich couples have pretty nasty divorces or separations when it comes to money? not saying that middle or lower class couples don’t have the same, just pointing out that basing marriage or a relationship on having money does not sound like the best of ideas.

Queen Frostine
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 11:42 am: [report]

@EastCoastMale

LOL, YES! I work in the financial sector, mainly with high net worth families. From my experience, money definitely makes things worse. My husband and I are not wealthy at all, but then, we’ve never once fought about finances.

writergirl
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 03:13 pm: [report]

@Jessica Wakeman—

I get what you are saying here.  If it makes you feel better—I married for money.

There I said it.

It wasn’t the ONLY reason I married.  I love my husband.  He is wonderful and caring and a terrific father.

Would I have married if he was an a-hole?  No.  Definately not. 

Was his income potential definately something I found attractive about him?  Absolutely.

And I think that is the essence of what you are stating in your article.

We all have a set of criteria that we want in a mate.  That criteria is different for everybody, obviously, and some of that criteria is negotiable.

Some people—men and women—include in their list of criteria the financial aspects of their future mate.  To say that not considering money when chosing a mate is just absurd.  Everybody does.  Be it dumping the girl who comes with $50K of credit card debt or marrying the one with a trust fund.  A potential spouse’s finances is considered at all levels.

The only difference between us and everybody else is we’re saying that should it be necessary we want the man who is in a position to take care of us.  Not that we are going to slack on our end—just that we recognize the fact that our income potential is limited and therefor, having the security we can’t provide for ourself is something we put in his “pro” column when evaluating our prospective mates.

Does that mean we eschew the rest of the package to get at his high salary and all that entails?  No.  To do that is the very definition of Gold Digger.  As I said, my husband’s earning potential was just something else I found attractive about him, like his sea-blue eyes and killer sense of humor.  But if he hadn’t been kind and caring, hadn’t been able to make me laugh and if he didn’t love me for me—and all the flaws I possess—then I wouldn’t have married him.

One of the previous posters is right—money comes and goes, so it can not be the basis of your marriage.  Can it be an element you find attractive about him?  Absolutely.

Good luck.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 03:19 pm: [report]

@WriterGirl Thanks!

Tarvold
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 05:59 pm: [report]

Jessica…

I get your point. I just want to point out that it seems a little self centered… there’s a lot of, I want this, and I want that but I also can only do so much with my career…

I hope you realize that relationships are not single sided, and that for you to get what you want, he will also deserve to get what he wants… whatever that may be..

T

Elena
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:18 pm: [report]

Jessica,

In my opinion, if you wanted the type of lifestyle you were raised with, you should have considered that when choosing a career. It’s wonderful to have a job you’re passionate about, but you have to consider the lifestyle your career will afford you when deciding on a profession. It’s part of being a grown-up. I think it’s immature to expect that you can pursue your passion, modestly-paid as it is, but someone else with more means must come along to satisfy your sense of entitlement and ensure that you and your children will have a lifestyle to which you were accustomed as a child. And obviously, since you are willing to publish your views, it must not bother you to hand down this legacy to your own children. Although perhaps, in the name of fostering more personal responsibility and less entitlement in the next generation, it would be wise to keep it a secret that the size of their father’s bank account was your make-or-break consideration when deciding to marry him.

landesign
wrote on June 18 2009 @ 07:25 pm: [report]

If a person marries for money, guaranteed the wealthy one will realize it sooner or later. Over time, the wealthy one will meet someone they bond with emotionally and not just financially. If they can afford to keep you in the lifestyle your accustomed to, they can afford to divorce you.

brandyalexander
wrote on June 19 2009 @ 01:26 pm: [report]

Hey Jessica, I understand.  And to everyone else, practicality is just that.  I don’t think she was saying to marry JUST for money.  But if you have the opportunity to marry for money, well, then, go for it.  I wouldn’t snub someone who was poor, but after supporting my sometime-employed boyfriend for SEVEN years, I am happy to be finally dating someone who can take care of himself, and who likes to take care of me too.  I didn’t pick him for that reason, and I certainly do pay my own bills, but its a nice perk that he can take me out to expensive dinners, can dress well, and that, should it ever come to marriage and kids, I wouldn’t have to worry about feeding them on my own bohemian paycheck.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 19 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]

@brandyalexander Thanks! Yes, my boyfriend read this post and he completely agreed with what I was arguing, too.

brandyalexander
wrote on June 19 2009 @ 02:18 pm: [report]

Anytime.

Helixbill
wrote on June 19 2009 @ 02:54 pm: [report]

No one has mentioned anything about how he (or she) SPENDS their money. It doesn’t matter how much you make it is how you manage your money that shows common sense or childish nonsense.

If money is what you marry for be prepared to lay down when he tells you to and learn to give great BJ’s.

At least a whore has an honest product. Those who pretend to love someone when all they really love is his money is selling a dishonest product.

This whole thing reminds me of the old joke about the guy in a bar that asks a girl, “Would you for $500?” To which she answered, “Yes”.

Then he said, “Would you for $5?” To which she indignantly replied, “What kind of a girl do you think I am?” and he responded, “We’ve already established that, now we’re just haggling price”.

joyy
wrote on June 19 2009 @ 07:14 pm: [report]

@brandyalexander - I think the difference between you and the author is that she quite clearly states that she isn’t interested in dating someone who would be her professional/economical equal, whereas you say you wouldn’t snub someone over their salary.  Being practical is smart, using salaries as way to determine datability is a different thing.

chouette
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 08:22 am: [report]

I do see Jessica’s point.  I’m in the arts, and we don’t make much money.  It recently occurred to me that if I were to try to support a kid myself or even end up with another artist as is likely, I don’t think I could provide for my kids the same way my parents did for me.  So, I see Elena’s point about choosing a career that will provide for you, but I feel called to do what I’m doing and so I guess I’ll just cross that bridge (the one with 2.5 kids and their college tuition) when I come to it.  Although I would never go looking for someone for their money, what a load of stress off of me it would be if he had a better-paying career than mine.

SeaWorthy
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 08:59 am: [report]

Ummm first, wow, everyone is entitled to their own opinion and choices. I am almost at a loss as to where to begin. I am 41 and have been married (twice) to men who made less than me…which was not the reason for the failed relationships. I am one of those people who think that if I want a family and I want to live my life a certain way (travel, college, theater tickets, activities) then I need to choose a career that allows me to provide that for myself and my family…not marry someone who can. Now, ideally, I would marry someone who wanted the same things out of life as me, thus he too would choose a career that provided for that life…thus the reasons both of my marriages failed once the “I do’s” were said.

However, at my age and being surrounded by stay-at-home moms, I can see the strain of “marrying for financial security because I want a man to provide the majority of the income” can cause. Many of the women I know talk about their husband’s careers in the plural sense, “our boss”, “our employer”...and far worse, in my opinion, they have insert themselves into the boss/employee relationship. Out at a large gathering one night, two men were talking about the economy and the affect on their respective businesses. One said that his company had cut out bonuses…the wife chimed in saying, “that is 25% of our income, that is why we took this job. If they don’t change their minds, I am going to call so-and-so and demand that he give “Bob” his bonus.” Yikes!

SeaWorthy
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 09:08 am: [report]

Questions- what happens if you find “the guy”...smart, funny, successful, good salary…marry, have two kids, killer apartment in the City, he provides the life you want…and then, wham! another recessions hits, the market tanks, he loses his job and cannot find another one paying nearly as much…gone is the good salary, the condo, the lifestyle and you find yourself in a crackerbox of an apartment in Jersey? Do you divorce him?

I guess I am having trouble reconciling that, unless you become a well selling published author, you have chosen a career that will not provide for the lifestyle you want thus you are setting yourself up to be wholly dependent upon someone else to provide it for you…and we all know that we cannot control anyone’s choices, success or behavior but our own.

fallonthecity
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 10:46 am: [report]

I see where the author is coming from.  I’m in somewhat of a different boat… my salary as an engineer will always be enough to support me and my lifestyle and hobbies sufficiently, but not extravagantly.  It will probably also always be enough to support a family comfortably (though modestly).  However, I won’t ever marry anybody that will have to rely on me for financial stability.  I don’t think this is shallow, but I guess there’s the possibility it is… my logic is that I want someone who is just as self-reliant and driven as I am.  This is not to say that, were I married and my husband lost his job, I would be impatient with supporting him until he found another… this is only to say that I will never put up with a man lazing about the house all day every day while I worked to support his beer-drinking habits.

PinkRanger
wrote on June 20 2009 @ 03:29 pm: [report]

I just cringed so badly when I saw that you mentioned that you would never pair up with a teacher.
I live with my boyfriend who is a teacher, and he has more substance, people skills, virtues, and intelligence than any other guy I’ve ever dated. You’re missing out by dissmissing teachers like that, they are some of the unsung heroes in this country. Its a shame that they aren’t paid more, and even more of a shame that some people feel that they don’t live up to their lifestyle…....

and non-profit guys?
you should definitely hold onto them. Maybe they won’t rake in the dough, but they have amazing priorities. *I’m from a family of social workers *

pornqueen
wrote on June 23 2009 @ 07:19 am: [report]

Jessica: I love this post.  That’s a touchy subject and you mastered it like a pro.  I’m not married but I have “friends” that provide me with a lifestyle that I would not be able to provide myself on a regular basis.  I have a decent job and can support myself and kids but if I (yes I) want something then they can provide it to me, willingly.  I know it may sound selfish, self-centered but I’m not forcing anything. I just think that at this point in my life I can and will demand what I want.  Of course this is a two-way street and I’m happy to provide to them in return also willingly! Life is too short!

Happycrow
wrote on June 23 2009 @ 12:49 pm: [report]

@Pinkranger:

If she wouldn’t marry a teacher, then she’s marrying purely for money, not for personality.  Which is great—there are plenty of women out there wanting to follow the Maureen Dowd dating strategy, which is a fantastic relief to the guys who won’t have to deal with her, and can happily snark at her when she’s turned into “yet another NYC writer who are treated like the radioactive object she is by the men she desires.”

There’s only one kind of man who likes a gold-digger, and they’re busy patronizing whores like pornqueen.

Em.El.E.
wrote on June 23 2009 @ 10:12 pm: [report]

WOW WOW WOW hostility…. Sheesh people.
I am planning on being an art teacher when i graduate college. There is no way in hell that i will be able to support family on my own! i know that i will have to marry a man that makes more money than me, and i’m okay with that. My dad is a farmer and my mom is a stay at home mom. I think that that is totally cool! My dad has raised me to know how to spend money wisely and to not date anyone that doesn’t know how to budget.  I completely agree with Jessica in the fact that men who make good money tend to be more attractive.. and not in looks, but because they are usually the ones who have their acts together and know what they want in life. They have goals and know how to reach them. I find that insanely attractive.  I know that when i get married and have a family i will probably have to maintain a job unlike my mother, but i also want to know that there are two of us in the family making money so that our kids can be provided for and we don’t have to worry about bills and payments.  This doesn’t make me sexist, just realistic.

Jenoside
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 06:35 am: [report]

When I was four years old, my parents divorced.  My mom won custody and my brother and I lived with her.  She had little education and basically worked whatever jobs she could find.  Our Christmases were a one-gift parade.  There was always that one item we wanted more than anything else and that’s what we got, and nothing else because we couldn’t afford it.  I remember getting dented cans from out in back of the grocery store.  I remember living in crappy, drafty, buggy apartments and townhouses, and even a trailer or two.  I knew I didn’t want that life for me, or any kids I might have (even though that wasn’t in the plan). 

So I went to college and chose engineering as my major.  Now, 8 years out, I have a really well paying job and I support my family.  Here are the problems: (1) I hate what I do.  I despise getting up in the morning and coming to work.  (2) My husband, who has a degree, got laid off several months ago and I am currently supporting him, and I resent the hell out of it. 

What are my points?  Choose to do something you love, even if you won’t make a ton of money.  You can be financially secure on less than you think—it may just not be the life you envisioned.  If your goal in life is to BE financially secure you absolutely need to marry someone who has a similar goal or you will be miserable (and they will be miserable).  So, while marrying ONLY for money is selfish and anti-feminist, marrying someone stable and with goals similar to those you have is just plain intelligent. 

Plus to my mind, the feminist movement didn’t occur because all women wanted to work.  It occurred because we should be able to choose if we want to work.  If you are an old-fashioned gal who wants to be a stay at home mom, and you find a similarly minded husband, you should have the choice to do that.  Did you marry for money?  No.  But you also can’t marry a lazy schlub and have the option to stay at home.

writergirl
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 07:00 am: [report]

What Jessica, and I and a few others are saying is not the same thing as being a gold digger.  Gold diggers *only* see dollar signs—Jessica, myself and others are looking at the complete package—and like it or not, money, earning potential or whatever *is* part of the complete package. 

When I was single, would I date a guy who was making less than me?  No.  He had to be at least equal or more.  Why?  Because I worked in government, and while the benefits are great, the salaries are not. Regardless of what I wanted out of life, I knew I couldn’t be the one to support a family—it was never going to happen on my salary. 

Would I stay with my husband if his business went belly-up?  Yes.  Because this marriage isn’t based on money and I knew going in that while yes, his income potential was attractive, I knew he could just as easily lose it all. 

A gold digger—she would leave.

That’s the difference between marrying for money, and marrying a man who makes more than you do.

joyy
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 07:35 am: [report]

@writergirl - you’re forgetting the element in the article that refuses the idea of dating/marrying a man who is a career/economic equal.  That’s just effed up.  And I’m actually a little surprised ya’ll are feeding the “gold-digging whore” troll.

LolaGirl
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 09:48 am: [report]

Yeah, I’m note sure this really helps the image of women, especially in New York. I’m all for finding a man who’s got a good head on his shoulders and some financial sense about him, but marrying for money’s sake doesn’t sound all that great to me.

jojo32
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 10:56 am: [report]

1st time for love, second time for money.  Isnt that how the saying goes?  well the first time I married for love, and if I ever did it again it will be for love again.  I know it’s pretty hard to believe but I have very little interest in money.  Sure it makes things easier, but being poor gives you character. 
I am honestly NOT attracted to guys that make alot of money.  Maybe I havent come across the right one yet but they all seem very stuck up and I just cant relate.
Another consideration is just because he has money doesnt mean he will allow you to access it.  My ex husband had a seperate savings account that I knew about, but was not allowed to touch.  And once, I moved money from that account to our joint checking TO PAY THE MORTGAGE and he flipped the f*ck out on me.
Money can kiss my @ss.  I’d rather be broke and in love.

Happycrow
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 12:02 pm: [report]

joyy’s on it.

If you refuse to marry an economic equal, then I see no way that one can say that one isn’t marrying for money, particularly if the entire point is to maintain a lifestyle—guess what?  LOTS of teachers and writers make perfectly decent salaries where they can afford a family.  (Full disclosure, I’m a teacher, and I make great money, just not in the taxation-hell known as NYC). 

So the real thrust is looking for a guy who’ll support a family with a very pre-defined lifestyle?  How do his ideas figure into it?  In this respect, Jeno I think makes a lot of sense:  if you and your potential spouse are on the same page, then you’re golden in spite of the money.

Green_Viking
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 01:13 pm: [report]

Ditto @joyy, @jojo32, @jenoside…

Dissent @pornqueen and every other woman who refuses to work for the lifestyle they want.

This article and other books that are popping up encouraging the return to being “dependent on daddy warbucks” make me sick to my stomach. Would I like a new Mountain Hardware Canyon shirt? A Ibex Guapo coat? A 40’ foot passage capable sailboat? Hell yes. Will I ever rely on someone else, man or woman to get them for me purely via their own means? Never.

As a young white male, I was not told by society, “Go forth and do whatever you want for a career, you can always marry for money!” It was made perfectly clear to me that I would only ever have the things I want in life if I earned them with my own sweat and blood. Have I borrowed money from friends to get some things? Do I have some credit card debt? Sure, but I have always gone into those arrangements knowing that it was not money given without strings. I have never asked for, nor received a free lunch.

It seems that this is what you are really talking about, Jessica, getting a free lunch. You want to continue cavorting in your cool NYC writer’s job, while someone else provides you and possible future children with most of the good things in life.

You better be damn sure Mr. Moneybags can hack doing what he makes so much money doing over the long term, because what happens when he cannot stand it anymore? What happens if he gets fired or laid off? What happens if he decides he wants you to support him when at 45 he decides that he wants to learn how to become a wooden boat builder?

Will you be happy with Mr. Moneybags if he could not provide you with nice cars and a place in the country? How will you deal with the slow-building resentment that will likely build up in Mr. Moneybags as he watches you enjoy the life he is providing you while he is too busy working to enjoy it as well? 

It has not been all that many decades since a woman could not even open her own bank account without a husband’s permission. Now some women are making six figure salaries all on their own. Why do you expect to be handed a lifestyle you could get for yourself if you became part of the right profession? It is easy for women to get much of what they want when they are young and pretty these days, relaxed social mores and all that, but what happens when you get wrinkles? Ask yourself, if the man in question is signing up to fund your lifestyle, what are you putting on the line? What if you end up being a starter wife?

greenergoose
wrote on June 24 2009 @ 02:23 pm: [report]

if you marry a partner with the same good money management skills that you possess…then you will always be ‘rich’ no matter what you or their income is. truth be told, even people in high paying jobs can live paycheck to paycheck for many reasons. it’s not what you earn it’s what you save and how you invest that makes you rich. and having two incomes coming from two competent and money-conscious people is a GREAT start. the term ‘rich’ is not a great one because even the ‘rich’ don’t consider themselves rich. i think most of us want to have some money left over each month after we fulfill our financial obligations like rent and food. i know having just that would make ME feel rich and even to get out of living below the poverty level would also help too. wanting financial security and wanting to be “rich” are like apples and oranges. getting married is a very personal choice and people do it for all sorts of silly reasons. and more often than not, they do it for CONVENTION. yes, love plays into it. but we all know you don’t have to be married to show love or be in love. but you sure can fit into society better if you get married! Sorry if you don’t like what I just said.

So jessica, i am so happy for you that you are pursuing what you are passionate for…all the money in the world could not be as fulfilling as that. and as an artist myself, i GET why you want that financial security; so you can stop worrying about the rent and start writing that novel! 

in my experience, i rarely meet men who don’t like the idea of being the sole financial provider-ANOTHER CONVENTION! but now with the high costs of living and competing with dual income families, these guys concede they wouldn’t be able to have their dream ‘lifestyle’ if their partner didn’t work. what is this ‘lifesyle’ we are talking about? it’s the result of YEARS of advertising and training to live in a consumerist society.

Gingee
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 05:40 am: [report]

Smart people marry for money.

If you “love” someone, you can live with that person and do all the CARING things that goes with being part of a couple, all for free.

Marriage is ALL about getting money and property, and arranged marriages were common until about 100 years ago.  And of course poor people married, made a virtue out of a necessity, and told themselves it was all good.

Stephanie Coontz has written a book on the history of marriage, and how it has devolved from being about Property Right to being about Love.

You marry the first time for love, the second time for money and the third time for friendship.

“No condition in life is ever made worse by having more money,” Harold J. Klawans quoting his mother.

Little Lamb
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 06:07 am: [report]

If you say it’s smart to marry for money, and you marry up, you are saying the person you marry is an idiot. 

What happens if you meet someone, fall madly in love, but THEY won’t marry YOU, because YOU don’t make enough. 

I hope that every woman with this attitude, gets their sugar daddy, who in turn, gets hit by the recession.

Gingee
wrote on June 25 2009 @ 06:32 am: [report]

Wrong.  If and when I believe that, I will be the first one to inform myself of my opinion.

My husband married ME for the financial stability and other benefits that he receives from my employment:  Little things such as a home, vehicle, medical benefits, clean shirts and other things that make his life more pleasant.

I do not think that he is an idiot, I think he was smart.  I am the one who suggested that I support him. 

If it HYPOTHETICALLY ever happens that I meet another male, “fall Madly in Love” and he will not share his bank account with me, because I do not earn enough, I will shake his hand, tell him that he has his head together, and wish him a happy life, and oh, yes, I will ask if he will teach me some of what he has learned.

This gal is VERY good at investing and saving, but there is always someone who is better than I am, and the man with the smarts to protect his wallet is a guy I want to know better.

GinGee

pornqueen
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 02:01 pm: [report]

Green Viking and HappyCrow: Thanks?? Not sure what your point is.  If calling me a whore makes your day, than who am I to stop you? Go for it! Nobody is getting hurt.  They know exactly how this works, what to expect and what not to expect.  We’re all adults with needs to be met.  I work, I don’t sit around for them.  I call them extras.  I can live without.  Now, do I want to? NO! So there.

Happycrow
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 02:09 pm: [report]

You do intimacy for cash.  Guess what that’s called?

*shrugs*

Could care less about judging you—don’t care about you at all, frankly.  The point insofar as this thread goes being that explicitly trading favors, you’re positioned at one of the two extremes of the thread.

Green_Viking
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 02:25 pm: [report]

@Pornqueen

I did not call you a whore. I will call you a prostitute or escort if I have to define your profession. Whore I reserve for women who use sex as a weapon or carelessly, with no ethical structure guiding what or who they sleep with. (Ex. Two Girls, One Cup).

I am sure your clients do know exactly how the situation works, my question is…what happens when you can no longer sell yourself for these extras? What happens if your identity is leaked? Are you maintaining a more “legit” job history alongside your horizontal enterprise?

Personally, I think sex work should be completely legal, with health guidelines and all. The reality right now though is that it is illegal and frowned upon by society. Both of which can have heavy ramifications on your future. 

My anger comes from the fact that A) I was raised to believe that only I can make my dreams come true and that I must get what I want through concrete means. B) Women who are beautiful are mostly young and I think they can forget that they will not be young and beautiful forever, so they grow to rely on attributes that will fade instead of building a more long-lasting foundation.

Along with the unfair wage gap and the myriad other sexist aspects of American culture, this can lead to a very bitter and hard middle life and beyond.

Gingee
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 03:05 pm: [report]

Bitter much?  I am one of the supermodel types, and although men find me attractive, I studied, worked and learned how to support myself.

The fact is this: Attractive men and women have an edge over those who are not genetically blessed.  We are hard wired to like the pretty ones, the ones whose appearance screams “reproductive fitness”.

There is no unfair wage gap. Since the 1970s, women who worked in certain fields, who had comparible educations and who worked as many hours as the men worked earned One Thousand Five Dollars for every $1,000 that the men earned.

Happycrow
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]

Gingee is correct.  The so-called wage gap is an example of “Apex Fallacy” thinking at work.

Gingee
wrote on June 26 2009 @ 04:58 pm: [report]

Yes, thank you.  If I am hiring someone, I want the person who will do the best work at the lowest cost, and if a guy is the selected candidate, it has nothing to do with gender: It is about my saving money.

Some women do earn less than men earn, but this is probably because women chose to work in other fields.

Men who do the dangerous work:  High rise building construction, for example, or who are brain surgeons, and that requires at least 11 years in med school, or who are willing to travel, deserve to be paid more, because they are doing work that no one else is qualified, or willing, to do.

Gingee

pornqueen
wrote on June 27 2009 @ 10:00 am: [report]

Many things are frowed upon by society, that’s a fact.  I just refuse to live my life based on what society/people might think.  I’m not trying to defend my lifestyle to you people and I don’t think you are expecting that.  I do have a “legit” job (good one), I support my kids and family with MY hard earned income.  I have dreams and goals just like anyone.  But I’m realistic & I know that no matter how hard I work I will not be able to provide myself with some things.  I will not refuse the “extras” offered by my friends as much as they will not refuse mine. Don’t get me wrong I do not depend on the “extras”.  This is at will on both sides.  I have solid foundations (both financial and emotional) and my future is not as bleak as some of you think.  I am young now and I do think about the future and I completely understand that I will not be able to do this for long.  Life is too short to condition your present on what the future could be.  Just waht kind of life will I be living? I just want to live my present!

fxpl
wrote on July 6 2009 @ 02:15 pm: [report]

Your motives seem pretty ambiguous to me. It seems like your paramount concern is not leaving NYC, not deviating an inch from your intended career, and not altering the comforts of your lifestyle - so you want to find a guy who can supply the money to support a family so that you can preserve every other aspect of your life. Can I call it “having your kids and eating them too”?
Maybe the life of a NYC journalist, maintaining your own comfortable lifestyle, is not exactly the best position to support children in the first place. Maybe you’re only looking for a guy with money because you can’t bear to sacrifice any part of “your” life for the family you want. You don’t seem like a “bad feminist” to me - just a self-centered person who’s hoping for a partner who will pick up the slack in their ideal future life, and save them from having to change anything for someone else’s sake.

shrinkette
wrote on July 8 2009 @ 10:53 am: [report]

Well, on the surface it might look as though I had a bad deal.  I married a student who was four years younger, heavily in debt, unemployed and whose idea of money management was to put his ATM card in the machine and if money came out, he wasn’t broke.  He also had absolutely no interest in cooking, cleaning or other domestic chores.  But I knew, because of his kindness, sense of humor, moral values and the way he treated me (and every other important woman in his life, especially his mother and his sister,with love, caring and devotion) that he was a keeper.  After we married, he did get a job but I still made four times what he did, took out a loan to pay off $17,000 in personal debt he had accumulated (including my engagement ring purchase), and began making regular payments on his student loans and continued to make payments on my own. Early on in our marriage, he was reluctant to buy something because it was “my money”.  I told him that it wasn’t my money, it was our money.  That I made more money at that time but at some point in the future he could be making more than me and if he thought that meant he had greater say over how the money was spent just because he made more, he had another think coming.  I continued to manage the finances for several years until the stresses of having three kids overwhelmed me and I dumped it in his lap. 
  Since then, he has helped me care for both my parents as they became terminally ill and eventually passed away (my father lived with us part of the time).  He didn’t flinch at cleaning up an elderly man who has had an “accident” at 3 am.  We have had three children together and we have been married for 15 years.  We now own a large beautiful home, have little debt and have three fantastic kid. I work two days a week and am able to be a SAHM the rest of the time and my husband makes 6 figures (more than I do but I still do well).  He continues to be kind, patient and loving and prioritizes his family above all else.  He doesn’t drink or use drugs and every minute he isn’t at work he is with us.  His kids adore him and so do I. 
    I absolutely agree with the poster who talked about character being the key.  Money comes and goes, but a partner and lifelong friend is forever.  (BTW, he’s still a slob - can’t have everything   )

Gingee
wrote on July 8 2009 @ 11:45 pm: [report]

Yes.

What I remembered the most about my guy, after our first meeting, was his character.  He was so kind and so very considerate.

While it is true that I outearn him now, the thing is, what he gives in return is far better than rubies or any other material trinket that other, richer men could offer.

My guy offers emotional warmth.

aroth
wrote on July 12 2009 @ 11:54 pm: [report]

Terrible article, just terrible.  I pity the poor man who will ultimately be tricked into marrying you and then parted of half of his things in the messy divorce.

Gingee
wrote on July 13 2009 @ 02:01 am: [report]

Ever hear of Pre-Nuptial Agreements?

They protect both people.  Marriage is ALL about money and property.

You can live with any person, and take care of him or her, FOR FREE, by not forming that Three way contract with the state, and that is all marriage is:  A contract.

You pity “the poor man who will be tricked,”?  “parted of half of his things in the messy divorce.” 

You are a bit behind on current divorces.  The wife does not get just the assets, she also gets half of the bills.  Alimony is a thing of the past.  There is child support, but every male who sires children has a duty to care for the kids he created.

boyarsky11
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 09:04 am: [report]

Jessica:

1.  Just cause a husband or wife makes a lot of money, doesn’t mean he/she wlll furnish you with the lifestyle you want.  Either partner can be very withholding.  You can argue about money whether you make a lot or a little.

2.  I think you’re really talking about wanting to become a mature adult, and hitch your wagon with an equally mature adult.  Mature adults (unless they inherit substantial funds) work for a living, in a career (not just a job), where development in that career (and the financial rewards) accrue over a lifetime.

3.  And it’s not at all abouthow much you earn; it is about how you manage the money that you earn. And if you have credit card debt—which you say you have—it means you are not managing your money correctly.  Mature adults must live within their means and not go into debt.  If you find you can’t do that with the salary you earn, you need to increase your money coming in, or decrease expenses.  ikt’s as simple as that.  And that would go for your spouse as well.

mrbingbang
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 12:47 pm: [report]

Oh, nice…  As a guy who is probably as imperfect as you are, I have to wonder…  Isn’t marrying for money a lot like the “World’s Oldest Profession”?!  And, yeah - who wouldn’t want to win the lottery?!  And, does this go both ways?!  Can I marry some wealthy fine babe and kick back as my life’s dreams are manifested for me?  Wouldn’t it be nice not to have to worry about bills!  And, why is it so acceptable to harness menfolk (like so many oxen) to accomplish your life goals?!  What happens if the ambitious and fortunate stick exclusively to themselves?  (Talk about wealth disparity between the rich and the poor!)  I could go on - but i won’t.  Good luck with that.

Beast of Burden - and so happy about it!

Derekj123
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 02:10 pm: [report]

women want money
men want sex
doesn’t get any simpler than that

all women want is a guy to buy them stuff, pay thier bills, and to have his babies so he is more likely to keep paying stuff…
the only women that go for character are the desperate ones, who normally cant attract guys she comes across…

guys.. well…. they want sex… bottom line…

women think I have a great personality, good looking, and fun to be around….the moment they find out I am broke with no car…you know what comes next people, say it with me… “Let’s be friends”

_jsw_
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 02:20 pm: [report]

@ Derekj123: That’s a fairly simplistic view of men and women. And it’s not only wrong to assume that all women are after money, it’s also wrong to think they’re selfish to think that someone who is rounding the bend on a quarter-century of age (such as yourself) should have some sort of transportation (if not in a metropolitan area) and should have some sort of income.

Just because they want someone who is self-sufficient doesn’t mean they want his money. It just means they want someone who has shown they can be self-sufficient.

Queen Frostine
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 02:58 pm: [report]

@Derekj123,

Sounds like you’ve been hanging around the wrong women. Not all women want a materialistic lifestyle and not all women who choose quality over bank account are desperate.

I consider myself a fairly attractive, successful woman who’s attracted and dated many men, but fell in love with one which won me over with charm, wit and spontaneity. He was dead broke and unemployed at the time. But he treats me like a goddess, has respect for all those around him, helps me through the hard times and makes my life better every day by being a part of it. We’ve never argued about money, and in fact I’ve supported him when he’s been laid off.

That’s marriage, loving and supporting one another in every way, despite the ups and downs. Money comes and goes, looks wither, materialistic possessions mean nothing in the long run. All that matters is that you have someone who loves you by your side every step of the way.

Gingee
wrote on September 23 2009 @ 04:27 pm: [report]

Derekj123

Your claim is that women want money.  You are leaving out a lot. I’m going to make a guess and say that many women not only want money, we earn money, and we also want food, shelter, comfort and probably season tickets to the opera, or something else.

“Men want sex.”  That could be true, I would not know, given that I am female, but from what my female friends say, they also want good sex, companionship, respect and other things from men and women.

Not ALL women want babies. There are 44 million childfree by choice couples in the U.S. and more of us in other countries.

The gals you meet who think that you have a great personality, are good looking and fun to be around, and the moment they find out you are broke with no car, they say “Let’s be friends,” why aren’t you friends with them?

Are you looking for a date/relationship with a gal who will pick you up in her vehicle, take you to dinner, and to a concert and pay all the costs?

If so, what would she be getting from you that she won’t get by being with another person?

upstate14445
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 07:21 am: [report]

This is one of the most Disgusting articles I have ever read in my entire life. One of the many many reasons why true Feminism is Dead. And the sad part is Women are reading this and agreeing with it, thus perpetuating the shallow Loveless Marriages that produce yet more screwed up little girls who’s father Divorces there Mother once they catch on that they Married a Shallow Whore. Then the little Girls grow up and Marry the first Rich guy they meet and try to have a family to fill the emptiness in there life. Thus perpetuating the Vicous Cycle full circle.

This is why so many Women (Not all!) are becoming Whores. But maybe they were Whores all along? Yet another reason why we should Legalize prostitution in this Country. It would cut down on the number of Divorces and Screwed up kids being brought into this world. Women would be getting Married for Love instead of Money. And if Women Wanted Money so bad? They could just go out on the street and name there price instead of dragging Men through Painful Relationships and then Painful Divorces. And even Worse? Having Children and harming them, because they didn’t really want them when all this could have been avoided if the Woman had just admitted in the first place that she wanted Money instead of hurting a lot of people along the way.

Derekj123
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]

@_jsw_
yes my view is very simplistic..but whats the point of putting a mask on the ugly truth, or is it so ugly?
the rest of what you said i already fulfill, its not like i am some jobless loser living at mom’s house or somthing..although somtimes that wouldnt sound so bad, I’d get to eat everyday! LOL

@Queen Frostine
it is possible i am hanging around the wrong women… or maybe just not getting out enough..but that requires a bunch of cash…
you sound like a wonderful woman.. one in a million!!
now that i look back to my post, i was being extremely negative…this main article really struck a nerve with me, brought a weak moment remembering my last relationship… i treated her and her daughters like queens (to the best of my broke abilities)....but was NEVER good enough, always came down to how I couldnt afford all the pretty things in life…moral support, friendship, loyalty, and love only goes so far if you can’t afford anything else..DIAMONDS are the cure LOL

Derekj123
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:38 am: [report]

@Gingee
dont get me wrong, i deeply respect women..my single mother raised me right dont get me wrong! lol
i do become friends with most of these women that do not want to take the next step… at most parties or weddings you’d think i was Don Juan, hanging with all these beautiful women…and i see them all with these dimwits or stuck up fags who can buy them thier clothes, jewelry, makeup and pay thier phone bills.
I am not trying to have a woman pay for our entire date.. but at least go halves ya know.. women always give that “Are you #&@$% kidding?!” look on thier face when i require that…

@upstate14445
I agree with � of what you said.. i just don’t like to refer to women as “whores”... but i see what your saying, it does seem like most women are only a step above that when it comes to being with men…. but we must RESPECT what Jessica Wakeman has started here… she is being completely honest about her feelings on finding a man, and that is more than what � of women out there are willing to do!

upstate14445
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 12:31 pm: [report]

I don’t like to refer to Women as “Whores” either :( but so many Women are exactly that. Whores. And there are more and more of them every day.

_jsw_
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 02:45 pm: [report]

@upstate14445: Well, given that the global population is going up, I suppose that the number of whores is also increasing, unless there’s a downward trend in overall whore-age as a percentage of the population. It’s simple math.

Of course, what this all hinges on in how you define “whore”. How do you define it?

Gingee
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 03:25 pm: [report]

Derekj123:

Now it is about your perception, “friends with most of these women that do not want to take the next step”: And what would be That Next Step?

As a general rule, gals do not date guy friends.  If a gal says that she likes you as a friend, that usually means that she is not interested in anything more. 

‘at most parties or weddings you’d think I was Don Juan, hanging with all these beautiful women…and you see them with all these dimwits or stuck up fags who can buy them their clothes, jewelry, makeup and pay their phone bills.

Well, excuse me, but since when is that your concern?  Without even knowing any of these women, I say so what?

There is this thing called Freedom of Association.  If they like these guys and these guys are okay with this kind of relationship, that’s between two consenting adults and is no one else’s business.

You wrote that you are not trying to have a woman pay for the entire date but at least go halves.  But how do you approach that topic? 

I would be okay with it, as long as the guy told me he wanted what I think is called a Dutch treat, and the amount is agreed upon before we go out.

I think that you are looking at this from a male POV:  When you and a buddy have lunch, probably the two of you split the bill, or you take turns.

Women do not do this, in general.  They will sit there and say, “You had the chicken and I had a glass of water,” and argue to the penny over the amount of the tip.

‘the look on their face’ “when I require that.” No kidding.  Were any guy I’d just met to tell me that he wants to take me out AND I’m paying 50% of the tab, I’d laugh and walk away.

Wractor
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 09:14 pm: [report]

Snap out of it, Jessica, women most assuredly do NOT ‘earn less than men for a lot of sexist reasons’; that would not only be illegal, but it would make men unemployable. Men make more than women because they work more hours. That’s all.

It doesn’t “make you a bad feminist” for wanting to marry a man who’ll support both you and ‘the’ kids. It doesn’t even make you a feminist. It makes you Cinderella. The truly consistent feminist (a rare creature indeed) would pay her own way at all times.

I think both men AND women would want to marry a partner who could support them financially…Good Lord, who wouldn’t want that? But I think men would hate themselves if they grew dependent on a woman. And unlike men, women can opt for the ‘mommy track’ (and most never get off it again.)

upstate14445
wrote on September 24 2009 @ 10:51 pm: [report]

I grew up poor as Hell, but I had wonderful parents that took good care of my brothers and I. Love should have NOTHING to do with Money. If a Woman can’t look at a guy and say that they Love them “For Richer or poorer.” Then she’s a Whore. If a Woman even dates a guy without getting Married just so he can pay for her crap or buy her crap? She’s a Whore. So if the guy is comfortable paying for a Whore? fine, but hopefully she known that she is with him for the Cash. If she doesn’t make it known? Then she’s a Ruthless Whore.

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]

Some of these comments are hilarious, especially from
UPSTATE14445.

You believe that “love” whatever that is supposed to mean, should have nothing to do with money.  According to whose rules?

If a gal cannot look at a guy and say that she loves him for richer or poorer, she is being SMART.

Think on it.  If you are a female, do you WANT to form that contract with a man who has children with a former spouse and 1/3 of his/your assets will be taken from your bank account and sent to them, my guess is that you will purr with contentment, right?  ‘Cause it’s not about money, it is about LOVE.

Then flip it around:

And if a guy cannot look at a female and say “For richer or poorer,” then what are they called, according to you?

From your post, which has a tinge of bitterness, “If a Woman even dates a guy without getting married just os he can pay for her crap or buy her crap?  She’s a whore.

And the Guy who does this of his own free will?  What do you call him?

For the record, people form pair bonds for many reasons, and money is one of those reasons.  Who are you to judge others for their choices?

Oh, yes, I could, in theory, look at a guy and say that I love him, “for richer or poorer,” but there is no bloody way I’m going to marry this guy, not when he has all of that Baby Mama drama on going. 

When the guy has a price ticket attached that says that any day the kids might want to move into my home, and that, oh, yes, Baby Mama is taking me/us to court to ask for an increase in child support, ‘cause he now has more assets:  Not going to happen to this Smart Chick.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:32 am: [report]

I’m convinced that upstate14445 is luvtara’s boyfriend.

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 10:39 am: [report]

@_jsw_: oh boy! I just got here, so give me a few mins to catch up, but I’m here for the fun!!!

Derekj123
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 11:14 am: [report]

@Gingee
(excuse my crappy grammer..mix of hurriedness and spellcheck not working ;^)
The next step would consist of continue dating, possibly establishing a relationship! lol
You are right about women not dating guy friends.. you are right… think you may have missed my point on that one.. they always BECOME friends when they realize I can’t take them out every weekend to a quality resturant, out to the movies, AND pay the cab….“Let’s be Friends” echos!
The women I hang with at parties and weddings, I DO KNOW THEM VERY WELL, that is how I an able to make the statement…your response is starting to show you have the assumption stick up your ass… lol
you really are defensive! did my cynicism strike a nerve? sounds like it!
you really didnt read deeply enough into what I was saying… you blasted me for saying I require the woman pay 50 %, yet you said UUH HMM
“I would be okay with it, as long as the guy told me he wanted what I think is called a Dutch treat, and the amount is agreed upon before we go out.”
YOU ARE a hypocrite
and when taking a woman out to a decent restaurant, I HIGHLY doubt she would be getting just a glass of water LOL…
I think someone is a little defensive eh? guilty conscience?
maybe we could go out somtime and you could prove me wrong? LOFL!!
peace sista

upstate14445
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 11:49 am: [report]

I judge other people and their choices because theres this weird weird thing called “Right and Wrong” and I WILL judge someone if there choices in Relationships are based on Cash and Objects. You say I have no right to Judge? Fine, it’s a free Country. And if people want to have marriages based on shiny things? Fine. Is it right? Not one damn bit.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 11:54 am: [report]

@upstate14445: Interesting use of capitalization.

@Derekj123: When you defend yourself in the way that you’ve defended yourself, you don’t really make your case very effectively.

upstate14445
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:01 pm: [report]

I’m not looking to offend anyone. For many years Women have tried to get Equal rights. And now they are finally starting to get them. They still have a long way to go and the “Glass Ceiling” is still, sadly very much around. But the problem here is that many Women want the same rights as a Male, but they don’t want to work for them in the same way that men always have. Many Women still want everything handed to them. My Family had vineyards here in Upstate N.Y. and my Mother worked every day next to my Father just as hard as he did, and she never gave a crap about him paying her way. There are luckily many Women who do understand that Happiness has nothing to do with having a Man buy them everything.

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:08 pm: [report]

DEREKK123

Context is everything.

What would irk me, were we to ever meet in the real world:  Your own words about Beautiful women with ‘dimwits or stuck-up fags’.

How do you know that these men are Dimwits?

What proof do you have that these Beautiful women are with Stuck-up Fags, and if that is true, that is a double blessing:  The gal gets all kinds of goodies (bills paid, chocolates from Belgium) and she and her Stuck Up Fag (homosexual male) are buddies, no romantic mess to later unravel.

Such bigoted words about men who have more money than you have, to me, that is the equivalent of lights are flashing, train approaching, get out of its way.

That’s just weird, and I avoid males who make judgements and sexual slurs about other people. It sounds like Class envy, and is a poor attempt at oneupsmanship.

No, I did not “blast you” for saying that you would require the gal to pay fifty percent.

What I wrote is that if any new guy/stranger TOLD me that he wants to take me out and I’m paying half of the freight charges, I >>>>>>>>>pointing at myself<<<<<<<<
would be gone before you could finish the third word.

For one reason:  The person who issues the invitation is the one who pays.  If and when the two people get to know each other, and there is equality in the relationship, that’s the time to talk about money and the costs of dating.

That plus:  No new guy is ever going to tell me how to spend my money.

“Didn’t read deeply enough.”  Wow, just wow.

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:15 pm: [report]

Let me just start by saying: WOW. [note: this is *probably* going to be a fairly long post]

*re Jessica: Jessica, if you’re even still keeping track of this thread (which I kind of doubt), can I just say that while I may not necessarily agree with your logic, I’m not going to condemn you like others have. Honestly, what I think you’re getting at (but not have articulated properly) isn’t that you’re willing to “marry for money,” so much as you want a life-time partner that is able to ensure a life of financial stability, i.e., you don’t want to constantly be living off Ramen and struggling to make ends meet every week. Where I think you got off track is when you declared that due to your career choice, you must marry someone with a certain income above yours to achieve this, Ala, the “marrying for money.” Don’t get me wrong, I completely understand not wanting to live paycheck-to-paycheck, while still preferring a certain lifestyle (living in NYC w/ kids), BUT, where I think you’ve taken a slight misstep, is being seemingly unwilling to achieve this yourself. It’s perfectly OK to want a certain lifestyle for yourself, and it’s perfectly reasonable to accept that your career choice isn’t going to be able to achieve that, but it’s a little bratty unacceptable to demand your future partner to provide that for you. I don’t think you’re a terrible person or a whore (like other bitter jerks ppl have called you), I just think that you’re kind of young and naive. It’s like someone expecting to be able to have their cake and eat it to without having to sacrifice anything to get it. Basically, what I’m saying Jessica, is that, unless you happen to find someone you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, while also meeting your financial requirements chances are, you’re going to either end up with a husband that can support you financially but not emotionally, or a husband whose financial means requires you to sacrifice a little bit of your fairytale to be with, but gives you all the happiness in the world through love and compassion. Really, all I’m suggesting is that you look for love, and not put a financial prerequisite on any potential suitors save that of financial responsibility.—I just think you’re search will bare more fruit that way.

[note: my last comment didn’t post b/c it was too long, so I have to rewrite the rest that I didn’t originally “copy” to be on the safe side. d*mmit]

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:23 pm: [report]

@Derekj123: Look, I can understand your bitterness toward women given your perceived situation. However, I think you’re being a bit too judgmental. IDK how you’re asking these women out, but, if you’re saying to them “hey, I’d like to take you out. Would that be OK with you?” then, chances are, she’s expecting you to pay for the entire meal, since in the context of your question, you asked to take her out. However, if you’re simply asking “will you go out with me sometime?” then, perhaps you should start making it clear on the outset, that given your current financial situation, you’re unable to pay for her half as well, and would therefore prefer to split it, as well as pick a place that is within your budget. If you do all of this, and a women is still “disgusted,” then, to be completely honest, she isn’t worth your time (IMHO anyway). Your original comment about women only wanting money wasn’t only simplistic, it was misguided. What a majority of modern women want, isn’t money, it’s financial responsibility. Again, IDK your exact situation, but, if you’re just the average 20-30 something guy, fresh out of college with some student loans and managable credit card debt, just trying to make it in a sh*tty economy like the rest of us, then the good women *should* be able to overlook that with the knowledge that you’re doing your best to improve your situation. On the flip side, if they’re perceiving you as a lazy bum, looking to scrounge by on the bare minimums, without ever really trying too hard to even achieve that, then yes, they’re more than likely going to want to be “just friends.” A lack of ambition and personal responsibility is unattractive, to anyone, male or female. Again, I’m not saying that you’re the latter, I’m just trying to point out a possible different perception to your events.

upstate14445
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:27 pm: [report]

Whore: 1.    a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.

So instead of having just Sex for Money, many women will actually engage in a ‘Relationship’ for the Males Money. And if the Male looses the Money or his Job and the Woman leaves? this is ten times more damaging than if she had been upfront or was just having Sex for Money.

fallonthecity
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:31 pm: [report]

I REALLY wish I could stop getting e-mail notifications for this article.

@upstate14445, what’s up with the weird capitalization anyway?

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:31 pm: [report]

@Upstate14445: First off, wow. Your capitalization rules confound me. Just to clarify, “whore,” unless used at the beginning of a sentence, is not a proper noun. Likewise, neither are the other 95% of the words you’ve capitalized.

At any rate, by your definition, aren’t we all “whores” and pimps? Do you not “whore” your skills/time to your employer in exchange for money? Furthermore, do you not then take said finances and exchange them for a roof over your head and food in your pantry, making yourself your own pimp? To drag the metaphor out even further, do you not occasionally spend money on a significant other as a means of showing your affection for him/her, whilst receiving sexual and other pleasurable commodities in return (though, not necessarily as payment for said gifts)? Moreover, does your SO not do the same for you, thus making you the whore and s/he the pimp? Seriously, if you’re going to use that definition to classify someone as a “whore” you should at least have the decency to admit your own “whorishness.”

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:42 pm: [report]

*sam*

You are far more generous and kind than I shall ever be.

I do not “get” the bitterness about that poster’s not being more than friends with the Beautiful women who are with dimwits or Stuck Up Fags.

Beautiful people have more advantages than others, because beauty is so rare.  The fact that Beautiful women have men with money is not a surprise to moi, just as it is no surprise that men also prefer to hire good-looking, taller than average men.  There’s what, the study, that shows that the taller the male, in general, the higher the salary.

Context is everything.  No guy, in his right mind, and with a healthy respect for anyone, would tell a stranger that he wants to date her, and the demand that she pay half the tab.

That might one day be normal and acceptable, but as is:  He who does the asking does the paying.

That guy apparently wants one of the BPs:  Beautiful People.  Nothing wrong with wanting that, just as there is nothing wrong with the BPs choosing the one who has more to offer, whether it be material or otherwise.

upstate14445
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:43 pm: [report]

I encourage Women to follow this link and study it carefully. It is written with a slight Sarcastic tone, but this Link really does lay it all out in Cold hard Facts.

http://www.laddertheory.com/foundations.htm

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 12:56 pm: [report]

Yes, in general, most of us are Whores and/or Prostitutes:  Anyone who does anything in exchange for cash, food, something material is a man-whore or a woman-whore.

People who work for a paycheck are whores: They’re trading a service for goods. 

End of story.

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 01:01 pm: [report]

@Gingee: yeah, I’m a *really* understanding person, what can I say?

But, in all seriousness, I don’t really understand your “rules” for who pays. That’s fine that that’s how you live your life, I just don’t see the need in trying to let others know that that’s just how it is, and that “No guy, in his right mind, and with a healthy respect for anyone, would tell a stranger that he wants to date her, and the demand that she pay half the tab…That might one day be normal and acceptable, but as is:  He who does the asking does the paying.” Because, realistically, that’s <b>not</i> how it is for a lot of people. Just check out *any* of the “who pays for the first date” threads and you’ll find that there’s such an unbelievably wide variation in opinions on the matter, that, it’s hard to set up any sort of rules or guidelines for it. If you play certain rules and are finding plenty of love with partners you enjoy, more power to you, all I’m suggesting is that your rules don’t apply to everyone (myself included).

majicksand
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 01:03 pm: [report]

My comment didn’t post, so I’m testing it out to see if there is a problem.  Comment forthcoming, assuming this one posts.

_jsw_
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 01:12 pm: [report]

@fallonthecity: There’s an unsubscribe link in every email update. Just click it.

@upstate14445: Yup. Your link clearly explained life as it stands for every single human on Earth. Or it’s just bitter. One or the other.

bumbler
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 01:34 pm: [report]

@jsw Thank you! The Ladder Theory is pathetic and only bought into by college boys who need a justification why women don’t like them or to justify their shallowness.  Everyone I know has different standards and different things they look for in a mate.  I refuse to believe women or men are as shallow as a dubious internets theory paints them to be.

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 02:44 pm: [report]

To SAM:

These are not my rules:  It is the local custom.

I have no idea where this was begun, but it was what we, as young lasses and lads were taught: The one who issues the invitation is the one who pays.

I do believe that, in the Julian year 2009, no normal, healthy male, in the context of asking a stranger on a date, would also add, “And I demand that you pay 50%,” and expect that his offer would be accepted.

Never claimed that this applies to everyone, this is a general guideline, with which my in-group is familiar.  It is also one that I follow:  When I am the one issuing the invitation, I’m the one paying.

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 03:58 pm: [report]

@gingee: “It is the local custom…this is a general guideline, with which my in-group is familiar.”

Again, you mention your “in-group.” IDK what kind of circles you run in, but, from what I can gather, it’s not the same circle I’m running in—the one that is totally cool with paying for my 1/2 of the meal b/c it shows that you’re just as willing to share the financial burden of dating. Like I said in a previous post, if a guy poses the question in a way that is indicative that he is going to pay (i.e., he asks if he can take me out) then yes, I will be expecting him to pay. However, if he asks in a more ambiguous manner (“would you like to go out with me?”) then I would expect that I may very well be expected to pay my half.

Furthermore, your assumption that “no normal, healthy male” would ask a date to pay for their half, is pretty judgmental. Because in reality, what would really be unhealthy, would be for a guy to ask a girl out on a date, take her to a 5-star restaurant (or ANY place that was out of his budget for that matter), and then max out his credit card or use his rent money to pay for the meal, because he was too worried about not impressing the girl to ensure he could still make his financial responsibilities for that month.

It’s your prerogative to expect that whomever does the asking should also do the paying, all I’m saying is that that notion isn’t as widespread as you obviously seem to think. Again, just visit *any* of the “who should pay for the first date” threads here, and you’ll see that.

fallonthecity
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 04:31 pm: [report]

@jsw: ...well, that was simple. thanks. I never read that far.

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 04:57 pm: [report]

Oh, SAM, SAM, try reading what I wrote:

That, in my view, a normal, healthy man does NOT say to a stranger - do you understand to what I am referring - two strangers, where the guy is pursuing the female -  and This is a First Date:

“Hi, I’m Joe, I am asking you out, and I DEMAND that you pay half the costs.”

Context is everything.

On the one hand, he is asking for something and in the next sentence, he is making a demand. 

If Joe is not a stranger, and he and the gal have some kind of history, that sort of exchange is understandable. 

I am writing about the poster who was fussing over the beautiful women, the ones with ‘dimwits and Stuck up Fags’, who turned down his advances, after he apparently approached them.

It is how he worded it that is a bit off-putting, that, and those snarly remarks about the gals with the dimwitted but rich men as well as those Stuck-up Fags, who apparently have money.

Those words irritate me.  Maybe it is just me, but any strange man, whom I do not know, who approached me and said something like that about the guy I was with would find himself talking to the air.

Think on it:

No male, who wants to make a good impression upon a would-be employer, accepts an invitation to lunch and says, “You, Mr. Future Signer of my Paychecks, get to pay 50 percent of the lunch bill.”

Again, maybe that is me, or maybe the author of that post, is trying to be funny (it’s not working) but c’mon:  Asking a S t r a n g e r out, and DEMANDING that she pay, that is so far beyond anything my friends and I have experienced. 

I am not interested in visiting any of these first date threads.  What is normal or acceptable for them is not something with which I wish to become familiar.

For the record, any guy who would take me to a 5-star restaurant, in an attempt to impress me, would make an impression. Same thing for any guy who maxes out a credit card or spends his rent to impress a female:  Yes, he will make an impression, just not a good one.

Dating does not have to become a financial burden.

One of the sweetest times I’ve had was when a guy asked if I would join him and share a glass of Coca-Cola.  He spoke of his life, was a keen listener, and after we had sipped the last of the soda, he thanked me for my company and then said that he had to leave, that he was staying at a shelter for the homeless and he needed to be there before the doors closed.

There wasn’t an ounce of pity in his voice, just a quiet dignity.

Back to the topic, I still think that it is wacked for any stranger to ask out another stranger and to also say “I require you to pay for half of this.”

*sam*
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 07:18 pm: [report]

@Gingee, K, it’s become blatantly clear that we’re *never* going to find common ground. That’s fine. I’m not judging you, my whole qualm was that you were certainly making it seem as though any guy that asks a girl out *on a first date* and expects the girl to pay her half, is a total douche. My point was that while that’s your personal opinion that not everyone (myself included) agrees. Personally, I would *never* accept a date from a complete stranger as you have framed your examples, but apparently that’s something you’re OK with. Again, that’s fine. I’m not judging you. I just wish you wouldn’t go around saying that any guy that has different expectations than you regarding who should pay for a first date isn’t normal or somehow sick. If you want to continue to think like that, again, that’s your prerogative. Be my guest. Because chances are, the guys that are like that aren’t going to be your “type” anyway, so it saves them for the girls (like me) that are OK with that sort of behavior.

However, regarding Derekj123’s comments about “stuck-up fags” I agree that I would never find someone whom uses that sort of language to be datable material. I regard “fag” to be just as harmful as the n-word, and therefore refuse to let it be uttered in my presence. That alone shows his insensitivity to LGBT issues, something that I could *never in a million years* tolerate.

Gingee
wrote on September 25 2009 @ 08:08 pm: [report]

Oh, this dame wants no such animal as common ground with those who speak women instead of English.

What I have written, and maybe it will require posting at least 10 times in order for some people to “get it” but:

This was about ONE poster. 

I NEVER said any such thing remotely like “any guy that asks a girl out *on a first date* and expects the girl to pay her half, is a total douche.  That is NOT my personal opinion - I would never use language like that about any guy - and I’ve never said that anyone should agree with my views. 

I will state what I believe,in context, that when a male asks a female out and then tries to boss her around by DEMANDING that she pay for 50 percent of the cost is,
generally speaking, someone to be avoided, because the guy is trying to control you.  This is the kind of male who refuses to hear the word no.

STOP LYING.  I did not, do not, and never will “go around saying that any guy that has different expectations than you regarding who should pay for a first date isn’t normal or somehow sick. 

Given that I do NOT think like that, your approval for my continuing to think what I have never thought is a bit odd.

My sweet Swiss ‘tocks are offended by one poster’s attitude:  DEREKj123, and his words about ‘beautiful women with dimwits and Stuck-up Fags”, and if these women’s taste in men is what upsets him, one must question why he is so determined to get them to date him.

That, with the remarks that these Beautiful women reject his advances, passing him over for Dimwits and Stuck-up Fagas who can pay their bills: 

How I’d love for that to be nothing more than an attempt disguise Wallet Envy.

‘Cause, unless these women tell DEREKj123 that their guys are Dimwits and Stuck-up Fags who pay their bills, how does he know about their arrangements?

I never said that I would accept a date from a complete stranger. 

Try reading is written.  Being a stranger is not the problem.  Strangeness is. (Thank you, Gavin De Becker).

I would never go out with any guy who uses those words to describe other men, even if they are rich and gay, and who also tells me what to do with my money.

I’m the dictator when it comes to my wallet. The guy who wants me to spend my cash on him must have good manners.

upstate14445
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:10 am: [report]

I often find that the more angry a Womans reaction, is all the proof I need that I am right.In stead of a rational response, my posting has brought out strong emotional response. Why? Because the truth hurts doesn’t it Whores? Whores in modern time are very different than in the past. Instead of simply walking streets or working as call girls, now they indulge in much more sinister tactics. Such behavior only further damages Womens rights and families on the whole. The Behavior I speak of is when Whores pretend to actually care about the Male they are with. They pretend to care about his family and friends, and the Whore may even have children with the Male.

Women need to be more honest about themselves and there intentions.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:23 am: [report]

@upstate14445: Yup, that’ll convince them. I now realize that the truth is that all women are whores, and not that the first thing I suspected, namely that you are a barely literate misogynistic bigot who is bitter because he has been unable to find any women who will stay with him. I am now enlightened.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:25 am: [report]

@Upstate:  Does your comment refer to all married women, only the ones who end up divorced, or just the ones who didn’t want you? 

Personally, I’m quite happily married now, but I divorced the husband who insisted upon treating me as a whore after we mutually decided I would quit work when I got pregnant with my second child.  I never bothered to pretend to like his family or his friends once they showed their true colors.  I did have a child with him, and I did let him support us financially for a time.  Does that make me a whore in your eyes too? 

Let me make it easy for you.  Given your comments here, I would not date you if I were single.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:29 am: [report]

@majicksand: I don’t think you quite understand yet. You are a woman, and therefore you must be a whore. It doesn’t matter if you’re 12 or 85, you must be a whore. You could be a nun, someone who works with young burn victims, or a marine. You’d still have to be, by definition, a whore.

upstate14445
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:31 am: [report]

_jsw_ Yup, you have convinced me now. I now realize that your a politically correct pile of #&@$% that can not tell right from wrong. And you don’t know a damn thing about me. Barely Literate? yes, my typing is poor. But that doesnt make me “Barely Literate” and making fun of someones poor typing or spelling ability is the first option that the weak minded take. Instead of quietly trying to explain how I could be wrong or patiently explaining your opinion? You spew out insults and sarcasm. You are not enlightened. Your an Asshat.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:43 am: [report]

@upstate14445: You don’t seem like someone who would be amenable to patient explanations. You joined this site simply to comment in one thread, proceeded to call most women whores (including, by extension, your own mother, assuming she wasn’t the sole breadwinner in the house), and then got upset when I made some comments. By your own reasoning (“my posting has brought out strong emotional response. Why? Because the truth hurts”), that implies that I must have been correct.

You’ve asserted that most women are whores. Not that most women who have dated you have been materialistic… no, you asserted that most women are whores. That’s a pretty blanket statement about 3.5 billion people.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 09:47 am: [report]

@jsw: Damn.  Now you’ve wounded my self-esteem.  Not by calling me a whore, I can accept that.  The problem is, if I am indeed a whore, I should be much better off financially.  I always strive to be good at anything I do, you know.  Perhaps I need some tips.  Is there a class?  I’m a really good student and a quick learner.  If I have to be a whore, then by God, I’m gonna be a good one.  Suggestions anyone?

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:02 am: [report]

@majicksand: Unfortunately, when there are So many Whores, there is Bound to be lots of Competition. You should be Happy that you have fooled any Man into wanting you and giving you his Money. However, if you want, drive up here and I will Pay you for Sex.

Gingee
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:08 am: [report]

Hey now, I wanna be a whore times 3. Not just any whore: I want to become a slattern.  If becoming a slattern is what it takes to increase my bank account, and nets me a maid, and a butler, plus 2 Lamborghinis. one in black and one in yellow:  Me want. 

How about it upstate14445:  To whom does one apply to become The House Whore? 

Also, I want to raise a bumper crop of slatterns: As you have claimed that ALL women are whores, we may as well take over the world, as the RULERS that we are, and by my gods, men shall worship us and beg to do our bidding.

Gingee
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:12 am: [report]

Paraphrasing Tom Leykis:

A slut is any gal who has had more sex than he has had.

A bitch is any gal who will not have sex with him.

A trollop/slattern is what most men want, but can never afford.

Gingee:  Now an aspiring-to-be-Trollop.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:12 am: [report]

@Gingee: There’s room for you here, too.

But you don’t want to have too many Slatterns. There’s only so much Money, and if there are too many Triple Whores, you won’t be able to get your Fair Share.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]

@jsw:  No way.  I may be new at this, but I’m not stupid.  Why should I come to you?  A good whore wouldn’t waste the time or spend the money for travel when there are plenty of suckers close to home.  As a proud member of the LLSA, I vow to put forth as little effort as possible for the greatest personal benefit.  Do you take me for a fool?  Mere male, I am the Empress of the Universe, and I demand your obedience (and your wallet) if not your respect. 

By the way, you realize of course that your offer makes you a dimwit as you could not possibly be a “fag”, and we both know those are your only two options.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]

@majicksand: You’re right. How about if I Mail you $100 and you just call Me and tell me what the Sex would have been like? That doesn’t make me a Dimwit, does it?

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:21 am: [report]

Heeey!  I wanna be a trollop too.  I refuse to be a ‘common whore’.  And jsw, your logic is flawed.  We all know most women are stupid in addition to being whores, so there won’t be but so many who can rise to the top.  Let the competition begin!

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:23 am: [report]

@majicksand: I have great faith in you, and very much hope to see you on top.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:23 am: [report]

@jsw: It would be a short phone call.  Phone sex is expensive.  Actually a few dirty words in a text might be all you can afford on $100.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:25 am: [report]

@jsw: On top costs extra too.  I might sweat.

_jsw_
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:25 am: [report]

@majicksand: Hmmm. A text for $100 doesn’t sound too bad, but I’m not sure. What would the text say? That might help me to decide. It might only be worth $75 to me.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:31 am: [report]

@jsw: I’m thinking something along the lines of #&@$% #&@$% #&@$% #&@$%.  Oh right, you can’t see that.  Too bad, I guess you’ll have to take your chances…  By the way, that was a reeeaaaly lame attempt at a freebie.  I keep telling you I’m not a stupid trollop.

Gingee
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:40 am: [report]

I want the TITLE of Queen Trollop.  I won’t actually touch any of the subjects, my slaves. IF, if, if the men are acceptable, and worthy of the attention of my friends and of my attention, they might be allowed to polish our boots,
and they might be allowed to watch us as we glide about the castle, bestowing gifts upon Deserving Males and Deserving Females.

If the droogs have at least $20,000,000 in cash, they might be allowed to purchase one kiss, but we shall not look at them.  If they want us to have sweet smelling breath, that will be another million dollar visit to said dentist.

They travel to see us, and if they make it through the interview, they might be accepted, but they will have to find lodging elsewhere.  We’re Trollops, not free bed and breakfast sluts.

After a sufficient waiting time, say ten years, they might be allowed to hold the hand of one of these Queens among women, and they will give us gifts for being allowed to associate with us.

Heck, they may as well learn how to do our laundry and how to correctly fold pillow cases, and meanwhile:  I like my Orange Juice freshly squeezed and I want fresh grapefruit in January, and the male who can provide these - no whining shall be permitted - he will be allowed to remain at table and watch as I drink the coveted Orange Juice.

majicksand
wrote on September 26 2009 @ 10:50 am: [report]

Gingee is on the right track.  I would make a few modifications though.  Chief among them being the addition of the insistence on super-hot men.  As the Empress of the Universe, I simply refuse to have unworthy toads in my presence.