It's not us (the men) who wrote this!

Post Reply New Topic

I'm not saying that you do, all I'm saying is that believing that women in general marry for money is sexist.

The last girl I dated told me all women are gold diggers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU13MRtS ... re=related

I'm wondering if a women that is with you for your money will genuinely love you. You could make that arguent about looks. If you are physically attracted to someone isn't it the same thing in a way.

Interestingly, I don't know if I could marry someone who was "loose" with money and also has little of it (1+1 = me supporting their lifestyle). In the same extent, I could never take and live off someone elses money because it would be completely wrong.

A.k.a. I just want to live off my own money, and keep money out of the equation in relationships.

I also don't get weddings. Much of them seem a ridiculous and extravagant waste of money to me. You could have a beautiful wedding in the botanical gardens, and craft most of your own decorations etc (you could even make your own wedding cake!), and get your friends and family involved in the singing and speeches.

As for big gaudy diamond rings - ergh! How could anyone stand to wear one of those monstrosities for the rest of their life? Give me any day a fine delicate tasteful very thin ring with a very *small* jewel in it. Not only are they comfortable and pleasant to wear, but they are tasteful too.

I so don't get weddings... and rings. And I don't get the hype about the wedding being the brides "special day". Isn't it equally the grooms "special day"? And after all, it's only one day, there shouldn't be that insane amount of money and focus spent on it that people do.

And yes, I intend to pay 50/50 for my own wedding (there's no way in HELL I'd beggar my intended making him pay for it all, yikes!). However, if my parents wanted to pay for my wedding as a gift to me I would accept that. I would offer the same for my children so long as I could afford it.

I don't get why some people (and yes Anna-banana, they are a minority, I thoroughly agree in that) marry for money. In my opinion they should get off their lazy but and go out there and earn their *own* money! If they take responsibility for supporting themselves, then they're free to marry someone who they feel they are well suited to down the long run personality and values wise.

I do agree with the author in one thing though; people do seem to marry too hastily, and too much based on looks and initial attraction these days. That's why I have a problem with many of the courtship rituals of society. I personally prefer to be friends with the guy first for at least a few months so I can get to know him better as a person before considering dating romantically. It's so important your personalities are well-suited - you can't just pick someone up off the street and ask them out, because you don't even know them!

MR_BOGAN you are still very naive.

I'd like to point out the very large difference between marrying for money and marrying for stability. I don't think it makes a woman a gold-digger to want to marry a man with a man who is capable of supporting himself and his family, and who is on a fairly even keel. If a man can't hold a fairly stable job, how can she know he will be a stable, dependable partner? I mean, are we talking about a woman wanting to marry a man who's a multimillionaire, or are we talking about a woman wanting to marry a man who is able to support a family?
It'd be less important if she had a good career, I guess, but some women want a more traditional marriage. What if she wants to be home to raise children? Certainly she'd need a husband who could support her and their children. Male dominated workplaces also make it necessary for women to become more aggressive.. that can be problematic in a relationship, as well. Plenty of men, also, get insecure about not being able to provide for their families, something else that causes tension. Sometimes the "good match on paper" thing that doesn't start as love becomes love. It certainly makes life easier for the entire family.
Maybe that's not what this thread was about.. I mean, I'm really not advocating marrying for money.
I'm just advocating marriages that will last, based on stability, similar values, things like that. Usually love comes along with that. I've heard success stories of arranged marriages as well, though. I remember a Pakistani girl in my class in college making a comment about hoping her mom found her a husband soon. This was something that met with quite a lot of skepticism when said in a class at an all girls catholic college. (Particularly with questions like "What if you hate him?") She responded that if she hated him, she didn't HAVE to marry him.. but that her mom knew her quite well and she thought she had good enough judgment that she wouldn't set her up with someone she'd hate. She said she was lonely, she wanted a husband. Hearing a girl faced with an arranged marriage in the future excited about the prospect kinda changed some of my views about marriage.
"Love at first sight" is more likely to be infatuation that will fade.. Compatibility and stability between two people are things that are more likely to last, and more likely to be more loving over a lifetime.

I hope I phrased that correctly..

The bride's family pay for the wedding in western countries. Just move to a western country if you don't want to get stuck with the wedding costs, LPP.

It's not that wierd people if women marry for financial security, it's only 40ish years since they even had a choice about it and traditions going back millenia don't fade out that quickly. Women currently earn less than men too.

I can see why it's a worry for aspies who are less likely to find acceptance in the work sphere, but if the less well off never found partners it would be a different world, so clearly they do.

Financial conditions between people are their business, and financial status is a thing to consider like any other. It's certainly much more viable than looks, in any case, which is what your so-called "love" is really based on.

Gold digging is another issue. I believe this is not possible without lies. And I despise lies. Yet, if the man agrees to it, it is mutual, no one is hurt, and I see nothing to criticise.

I plan to not have much of a wedding. I am not religious, and it's really just a waste of resources. So is jewelry. I plan to support myself. Additional income is welcomed but not required...

I've thought poorly of men who married richer women to use them. Probably not as common, but still happens, my conclusions remain the same.



I wouldn't mind if a woman married me primarily for attraction/looks, even if it is a superficial thing. I would find it flattering, unlike the money thing. Being valued for looks would give me even more reason to take good care of myself, and I put a lot of effort into keeping myself in good condition, which so far seems to go unappreciated. I'll still keep doing it, with or without anybody, because I like it.

Even if I were rich, being valued mostly for money would remain unappealing to me because it is not part of my identity. Money is just something I need to use to get by.

Well I have to say, I don't necessarily disagree since there are girls who do marry for money and are far more open about than boys...I knew a girl who did nothing but brag about how much her men made. She was in one relationship after another. It was like listening to a prostitute brag about her clientel.

My family's odd history is a different story. My great grandma use to tell me how both her family and her husband's family disagreed about her working outside the home. She told me the common attitude back in her day was that a woman's place was at home raising her family. If a woman wanted to make a living on her own, she was expected not to have kids or marry.

My dad was a jobless college student when he married my mom who was already making a living. When he did work, he spent most of "his" money on alcohol and gambling. I thought him to be very gifted and intellectually smart in many subjects. It use to puzzle me that he never got a good paying job or a job he wanted. After getting fired from his last job he didn't work for the remaining years of the relationship. His drinking and stealing large sums of money resulted into a divorce. My mom has not married since then.

My sister is working two jobs and my brother in law is a stay at home dad. My brother seems to take after my dad in aspects such as addiction and joblessness. He has a son whom I've only gotten to see twice. My other sister is doing well for herself, she's got a degree and is with a really nice guy...who works at a pawn shop. My aunt is working but my uncle recently got laid off. She's still with him and he's still searching for jobs. Both of them have been my only role models. They both have worked hard and struggled financially. I've never seen them fight over finances like I've seen in most relationships. They've always seem to get by and be there for eachother.

I don't deny that there are plenty of women that go after men for their money. But the women are also faced with the same statuses attributed to wealth such as looks. The time and cost put into a woman's look For instance, shows a sign in her status. Fair skin and pluckiness use to be favored among men and women of noble wealth. The status behind the perception was attributed to lifestyles. Malnurishment and sun tainted skin was common among peasants who spent their days physically laboring under the sun. The less a woman worked, the higher her social status in society thus the better her chances at finding a man of close her rank. Many cultured have exhibited certain tendencies to women of wealth. In China, foot binding was popular at one time among young girls. It made their feet look smaller and suggested that they were free of labor. The lotus feet were commonly sought by elite men of the Tang Dynasty. It became so popular that it was no longer excluded to the upper classes. The custom became a common trade among families who wished to marry their daughters to men of high society.

Most of today's lifestyles have changed dramatically. Fat is no longer a sign of wealth or healthy lifestyle. Physical labor is no longer attributed to low inc

Since the invention and progression of cameras and televisions...the people on screen convey and communicate the trends and aspects of our society. We buy into the images displayed on screen so much so we give actors and models the the fame and nobility. We buy and are sold to what we seen on our screen. We might differ in the attitude and identities displayed by each gender but regardless, they all share something in common.

Something I notice in TV is women are more highly praised for their looks and fashion then their abilities and talents.

Her clothes, hairstyles, and makeup set the trend for girls who want to look like her. Her roles in society, relationships, jobs, and friendships in TV and media reflect society and its people. But one thing that hasn't changed is her where she sits in her social status. It is no surprise that many female celebrities and singers have had a cosmetic surgery of some kind. The traits such as pouty lips, slender bodies, youthful looking faces, shiny vibrate skin, perky sized *hooters*, large eyes, may be universal traits but they're traits women of wealth can afford. Most women in the media look younger than their average given age. So most , men of high nobility aren't just going to settle for any dame. They're usually going to cater to a gal who looks as if she's been pampered and taken care of...a girl who appears to fit close to his rank.

Anyway, I'm not sure about the consensus behind this article. Scientists are still inconclusive in what causes gender specific traits, sexuality, and attraction. Meanwhile it never gets old to hear theories.

I don't think money has the same neurochemical buzz as sexual attraction.



TV is a visual form of entertainment, so it makes sense that looks carry more weight in that medium.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA[/youtube]

As long as he supplies her in $$$$....

Yes and like I said, good looks and youth are more prominent in ladies on screen than men.

I do not see as many women ranging in age and looks as I do men in the media.

On a positive note at least that one was easy to spot on right away and she did you a favor by walking away and not leading you on..

however you can become so cynical that you start confirming "you are your money' in a sense and think about it beyound what the other person does...

making you overly leary.. yes attraction comes first and financial security, well that's just a bonus..

maybe that's why the long courting without sex can seem the ideal to see what exactly the other person is "really" interested in..

if you marry for love you can inspire one another in every day life and making an earning together is enjoyable and rewarding and every day your both inspired

marrying for money makes the two ppl slaves in the relationship and it wont last and the higher earner will be indebted to the other for a long time.. how sad..

yeah I'm not saying what is wrong and what isn't, only that I think it's human nature that eventually the person who "sponsors" the other person somehow would want to use this as an argument to make them do something they wouldn't want to do. so I imagine that such a situation would be extremely uncomfortable for someone independent. I guess I haven't met many females who wouldn't mind a situation where they are not equals.

I think that depends largely on whether you're talking about a woman wanting to marry someone who is rich or someone who is stable, and whether or not you consider the latter to be "marrying for money" or not. I think that for a woman, a man who is able to take care of her and himself has a lot of the same implications as looks have for a man... Like general fitness as a partner. Female attraction is not nearly as visually based as male attraction is. On a biological/evolutionary basis, males are looking for women who would be able to bear healthy children. From that standpoint, what women are looking for is a man who will not only be able to sire children, but also protect and provide for them.
A woman is less likely to fall in love based on what she sees than what she feels, and safety and security are large parts of that.

But if this thread is a reference to women who want to marry rich men rather than women who want to marry financially stable men, my whole little rant is kinda pointless anyways..

My point was just that for a woman, stability does have a "neurochemical buzz."