Just playing devil's advocate here...

I think if one enters into a relationship dishonestly, that's one thing, but if both parties are aware that one is there for the money and lifestyle and the other gets a hot partner and whatnot, what does anyone else care?

I don't



you knew I was gonna say that though

I have no problem with it, but it just looks like it would be sort of dangerous.

i dunno why anyone else should care, unless they are jealous. It was the standard, the norm to try to get with someone well off not so long ago. and there was no shame or dishonesty involved about it. it was just a fact of the equation.
no hidden agenda.
just kind of like in europe, france in particular isnt it the norm for people married to have other fuck buddies? its like, expected.

horatio said:

Up until about 50 years ago it was virtually the only way for a woman to amass any kind of wealth if she hadn't inherited it.

CarrieMpls said:

Not a problem if both parties know what the deal is.....

Whap!!

Any relationship that is not based on love is hollow.

RodeoSchro said:

But we're not all going to find the perfect love relationship. And if you're not, why not at least be well taken care of?

I am not a gold-digger hell most men I have dated don't have a dime to there name,The few that did had money had so meny bills they was broke.

I don't like not having my own money.I don't like taking there money it make me
feel I have to pay them back.

CarrieMpls said:

i like the realist approach too

CarrieMpls said:

I agree with Rodeoschro.

If one can't find true love, then one should take care of onesself. Being with someone for money is always bad news.

I'd rather be alone.


It does seem very shallow and a waste of time to be honest.


But whatever floats that persons boat.

CarrieMpls said:

You found some 60 year old rich guy who has the hots for you, and you're tempted, right? lol ...

Seriously, though, taking care of yourself is the way to go. The same guy who only wants you as eye candy and a plaything in exchange for being "taken care of" can (and will) find another eye candy/plaything to take your place in a heartbeat, and cut off the funds like that *snaps fingers*...unless you hook up with a guy who's 80 and doesn't have the stamina to go looking anymore lol...

Byron said:

Actually, no.

I'm fiercely independent and have only in recent years been able to accept having a man pay for my half on a first date even.
This isn't something I'm contemplating, nor is it something I think I could do. It's simply not me. I've already accepted I'll live out my life single, and mostly happily so. I just don't see that that means I don't think anyone else should do it either...

In general I think it's an empty existence - shopping, primping & working out all day sounds good (for a minute) but when you gotta fuck an old geezer (or some mf you're just NOT attracted to) @ the end of the night??? I'm not wit' it... I seem to always have more resources than my past bf's I'd just like a somewhat even playing field myself

CarrieMpls said:

Maybe because while someone is fucking for money, they are missing the opportunity to meet that perfect love.

CalhounSq said:

Quit your job and start working at McDonalds...that would take care of that!

I give SUCH good advice...

There was a great foreign film I watched about the Nazi occupied Czech Republic with this sort of scenario, a lady spy who had to hide with a farm guy in the czech. People do what they got to do to survive the way they see fit to survive. I think most people it just ends up being about the standard of living or what was acceptable means of living when you were growing up.
Even if you didn't live up to the accepted means when you were young, you drew lines, limits, standards of what you wanted to be when you made the decisions in your life.

Byron said:

I think I'll try upgrading my dating pool, thank you very much

it makes you no different from a whore
[Edited 3/11/08 9:15am]

There is nothing wrong with it. What two adults choose to do is their business.

JustErin said:

Do you think it will make them happy?

RodeoSchro said:

does love always make one happy?

RodeoSchro said:

I cam from a country were being 'happy' actually might not mean the same thing as it does to you I guess.

You see, in Thailand, when you're faced with a hard life of sustenance farming, t to toil away until your final days as an old hag who may have been lucky enough to have born enough children to carry on the tradition, the idea of happiness doesn't equate to "self-actualization" of any type whatsoever.
Happiness to them is being taken cared of. Ensuring that they have a future. Dare I say it, marrying out of that lifestyle.

I resented my mom for so long for marrying the wretched old man my dad was, and putting me and my sister through a loveless, dysfunctional marriage and upbringing.
But now as I'm older I look back, and think to myself, what choices did she have? Would I have wanted it any other way?

Sometimes, self-actualization and finding 'true happiness' in a relationship just aren't options for sooooo much of the world's population, that settling for comfort and being taken cared of is all they have. So I can't fault it--that being said, I feel doubly lucky for being afforded to opportunity to hold out for true love.

horatio said:

Sure.

Imago said:

You make a good point. I tend to look at things from a United States perspective only. However, I think the question asked in this thread was asked from that perspective, too.
[Edited 3/11/08 9:43am]

RodeoSchro said:

I do concede that a few months ago, if you had asked me to marry you and it were legal, I would probably have jumped at the opportunity.

Imago said:

You're talking about that six-day period in which I was your "boo", aren't you?

RodeoSchro said:

I don't think Carrie was asking it necessarily from an American perspective.
Though I'm pretty sure the nature of her 'gold digging' question was different from the scenerio I painted.

I think Carrie was pointing out that defining a relationship strictly on 'love' or the idealized values we set forth for ourselves and others is ok, but what if someone wants to use other criteria for what a relationship is to them? In other words, regardless of where someone falls in the Maslows hierarchy of needs--indeed, they may be at the top of that self-actualization model in her scenerio--what if they simply reject that notion that a relationship 'has' to be based on what we normally say it should be based on?

What if two people love to travel? And they like companionship, and sex, etc.? If they decide to marry for those purposes, but arent necessarily 'in love', is that less of a relationship than what others who do marry for love enjoy?

I think that was what she was getting at.

RodeoSchro said:

I'm talking about how my heart felt after hearing your sweet sweet voice.