New topic
PrintableJustErin said: To be honest, the only thing that makes me not wanna do it is that it would most likely be with someone I am not attracted to. If there was no sex involved and I was allowed to date others that would be awesome.  Exactly!
I have had 3 opportunities in my life to be kept. One of those times the man was willing to buy me a car, a house and an insane monthly allowance and we were only on a blind date! I turned down every single one because I don't want to date 400 pound men or grandfather time's great great grandfather! the guy who wanted to buy me the car and house truly was a nice guy and I'm one who really digs on personality but this was just not something I could do.
The friend who set me up on that date went cuhrazy when I declined to hook up with him and I had no idea she pimped me out  She was like
Oh my god, you could have everything! What are you doing??! Um, I HAVE TO FUCK HIM!.
Some of my male gay friends freaked out that I didn't go for it and I told them that I'd gladly do it and split the money in half if they wanted to take over the bedroom duties. They all looked at me offended and as if I was crazy. EXACTLY YOU STUPID FREAKS! 2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740 | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: CarrieMpls said: Being a wife and possibly even mother CAN be a full-time job as well. Making a home, heck even managing a social calendar IS hard work. Many so called normal marriages are exactly the way violator described. True. But the "normal" marriages that end up that way still have two partners on equal footing. The relationships I'm referring to start off with you behind the eight ball at the start. And, yes, some people are comfortable with being demeaned, devalued, cheated on and so-forth and so-on. Again, for most of these types of unions, it's the price of marrying for money. And short term, it may be doable. I just can't imagine that over the long-term, anyone would be happy in that type of situation. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Byron said: CalhounSq said: ... I seem to always have more resources than my past bf's
 I'd just like a somewhat even playing field myself  Quit your job and start working at McDonalds...that would take care of that! 
I give SUCH good advice...   | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
violator said: JustErin said: Many so called normal marriages are exactly the way violator described. True. But the "normal" marriages that end up that way still have two partners on equal footing. The relationships I'm referring to start off with you behind the eight ball at the start. And, yes, some people are comfortable with being demeaned, devalued, cheated on and so-forth and so-on. Again, for most of these types of unions, it's the price of marrying for money. And short term, it may be doable. I just can't imagine that over the long-term, anyone would be happy in that type of situation. Are they really though? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Imago said: 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. Interesting perspective. I've learned to never say never. Because, sometimes love has no rhyme or reason(live and let love). And when it happens its a beautiful thing and all that's left is encoutering mountains & valleys along the way which will be many. Nothing in life is perfect or guaranteed. But if the love is ment to be, time will be on your side.[Edited 3/12/08 7:00am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dewrede said: Stymie said: There is a little bit of whore in every woman. There is just a difference in how much she gets paid.
 ok | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: violator said: True. But the "normal" marriages that end up that way still have two partners on equal footing. The relationships I'm referring to start off with you behind the eight ball at the start. And, yes, some people are comfortable with being demeaned, devalued, cheated on and so-forth and so-on. Again, for most of these types of unions, it's the price of marrying for money. And short term, it may be doable. I just can't imagine that over the long-term, anyone would be happy in that type of situation. Are they really though? You sound like you have an idea about it. Please, elaborate. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
As Marilyn Monroe once said, "A man having money is like a girl being pretty. You may not marry a girl JUST because she's pretty but doesn't it help????" I don't think there's anything wrong for a woman to want financial security from her husband. I have my own shit and don't need a man's help financially BUT why would I want to be yoked up with someone who doesn't have as much, but hopefully/preferably, more than I do?????
Love is a wonderful thing but it is not the only factor that determines long term happiness in a relationship. I was with someone that loved me to pieces, woulda been a good husband and father, but I would have had the majority of the financial responsibility for the duration of our relationship. He just didn't have any hustle and was happy as a clam living well vicariously through me. And for ME that was just not acceptable. So if you meet a guy that you like spending time with and he wants to do for you I don't see what the big deal is as long as everyone knows the pros AND cons of what they're getting into. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: RodeoSchro said: -0- I don't know what that means. Anyway, the "better way" for me is to just keep on doing what I am doing, it has nothing to do with accepting jesus into my life. It's about working hard and doing it on my own. I sometimes just think about what taking the easy way out (money wise) would be like. One thing leads to another. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Imago 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. Agreed. However people tend to forget an essential fact that for a marriage to flourish, you have to marry someone who you thing in common with: mentally( commonalities , like dislikes etc.). Now, if this insn't in place regardless of the superficial things then, everything is down hill. This should be common logic or common place when any individual is dating someone. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
violator said: CarrieMpls said: Are they really though? You sound like you have an idea about it. Please, elaborate. I'm just being silly today.
I think couples can absolutely be on equal footing, even if only one is the breadwinner. I think it's tough to maintain, though. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: As Marilyn Monroe once said, "A man having money is like a girl being pretty. You may not marry a girl JUST because she's pretty but doesn't it help????" I don't think there's anything wrong for a woman to want financial security from her husband. I have my own shit and don't need a man's help financially BUT why would I want to be yoked up with someone who doesn't have as much, but hopefully/preferably, more than I do?????
Love is a wonderful thing but it is not the only factor that determines long term happiness in a relationship. I was with someone that loved me to pieces, woulda been a good husband and father, but I would have had the majority of the financial responsibility for the duration of our relationship. He just didn't have any hustle and was happy as a clam living well vicariously through me. And for ME that was just not acceptable. So if you meet a guy that you like spending time with and he wants to do for you I don't see what the big deal is as long as everyone knows the pros AND cons of what they're getting into. I agree with this. There should be financial considerations when choosing a mate. But, and I could be wrong, I thought Carrie's question pointed more to marrying exclusively for money. Thus the term 'gold-digging'. I have a cousin who is a lawyer, graduated from Columbia Law School. Really smart girl. Has a private practice in a Denver suburb. She always said that she would never settle for a man who was achieving less in life than she was. She wanted someone who was at least "on par" with her. I always thought that was a crazy standard to set for marrying someone. When it comes to marriage, I just feel it's insane to pledge spending the rest of your life with someone for any reason other than the fact that you were absolutely, completely in love with them and couldn't imagine your life without that person. But, having said that, I think it's a fair position to take, if not a bit hazardous. I just take exception with folks who seem to think they're entitled to be with someone with money. You aren't entitled to anything other than what you achieve for yourself. If money is that important to you, and you're fortunate enough to meet someone who has it and is willing to share it with you with no expectations or strings attached other than the basic tenets of marriage, then that's wonderful. Good for you. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: I think couples can absolutely be on equal footing, even if only one is the breadwinner. Live and let love. And the rest will follow. Case closed.  [Edited 3/11/08 11:31am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: JustErin said: I don't know what that means. Anyway, the "better way" for me is to just keep on doing what I am doing, it has nothing to do with accepting jesus into my life. It's about working hard and doing it on my own. I sometimes just think about what taking the easy way out (money wise) would be like. One thing leads to another. No, being religious (or not) has nothing to do with it what so ever. Being a Christian or believing in any faith has nothing to do with making good decisions for many, many people. You don’t get "blessed" with more in your life for simply believing in and participating in religion. I recently watched a bit of this woman giving a seminar on tv about how having God in your life makes you successful and rich. I was like, um no...making wise decisions and having common sense does. I listened to what she said and all of it made sense but really at the end of the day all her advice had nothing to do with God. It was really interesting seeing her trying to link it all (and failing in my opinion) to God. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violator said: I agree with this. There should be financial considerations when choosing a mate. But, and I could be wrong, I thought Carrie's question pointed more to marrying exclusively for money. Thus the term 'gold-digging'.
Oh, well, in that case. . .  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: violator said: I agree with this. There should be financial considerations when choosing a mate. But, and I could be wrong, I thought Carrie's question pointed more to marrying exclusively for money. Thus the term 'gold-digging'.
Oh, well, in that case. . . | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: RodeoSchro said: One thing leads to another. No, being religious (or not) has nothing to do with it what so ever. Being a Christian or believing in any faith has nothing to do with making good decisions for many, many people. You don’t get "blessed" with more in your life for simply believing in and participating in religion. I recently watched a bit of this woman giving a seminar on tv about how having God in your life makes you successful and rich. I was like, um no...making wise decisions and having common sense does. I listened to what she said and all of it made sense but really at the end of the day all her advice had nothing to do with God. It was really interesting seeing her trying to link it all (and failing in my opinion) to God. I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: JustErin said: No, being religious (or not) has nothing to do with it what so ever. Being a Christian or believing in any faith has nothing to do with making good decisions for many, many people. You don’t get "blessed" with more in your life for simply believing in and participating in religion. I recently watched a bit of this woman giving a seminar on tv about how having God in your life makes you successful and rich. I was like, um no...making wise decisions and having common sense does. I listened to what she said and all of it made sense but really at the end of the day all her advice had nothing to do with God. It was really interesting seeing her trying to link it all (and failing in my opinion) to God. I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. 
(Hell, it worked on the John Mayer thread...) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
RodeoSchro said: JustErin said: No, being religious (or not) has nothing to do with it what so ever. Being a Christian or believing in any faith has nothing to do with making good decisions for many, many people. You don’t get "blessed" with more in your life for simply believing in and participating in religion. I recently watched a bit of this woman giving a seminar on tv about how having God in your life makes you successful and rich. I was like, um no...making wise decisions and having common sense does. I listened to what she said and all of it made sense but really at the end of the day all her advice had nothing to do with God. It was really interesting seeing her trying to link it all (and failing in my opinion) to God. I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. I'm not concerned with finding love in something like religion. I'm interested in loving myself and if I am lucky being loved back by someone I love. I've got the rest of what wrong? Maybe we should discuss this in notes so as to not get on other's, who wanna talk about gold diggers, nerves.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stymie said: SCNDLS said: Oh, well, in that case. . . How so? Cuz they aren't tied down in anyway? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: RodeoSchro said: I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. I'm not concerned with finding love in something like religion. I'm interested in loving myself and if I am lucky being loved back by someone I love. I've got the rest of what wrong? Maybe we should discuss this in notes so as to not get on other's, who wanna talk about gold diggers, nerves. If there's even the slightest possibility of one of you going all '[snip-CarrieMpls]' on the other, I'd prefer you continue it here in the open... Just one man's opinion... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Stymie said: SCNDLS said: Oh, well, in that case. . . Nah,  too many different customers and you gotta fuck everyday, maybe all day long, to make rent. A gold digger may have to do it once or twice a week with only one guy, and if she's got real game, the rent's already paid. The GD is definitely smarter. . . [Edited 3/11/08 11:53am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
omg dont get me started on this one lol I will love you forever and you will never be forgotten - L.A.F.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Ex-Moderator |
RodeoSchro said: JustErin said: No, being religious (or not) has nothing to do with it what so ever. Being a Christian or believing in any faith has nothing to do with making good decisions for many, many people. You don’t get "blessed" with more in your life for simply believing in and participating in religion. I recently watched a bit of this woman giving a seminar on tv about how having God in your life makes you successful and rich. I was like, um no...making wise decisions and having common sense does. I listened to what she said and all of it made sense but really at the end of the day all her advice had nothing to do with God. It was really interesting seeing her trying to link it all (and failing in my opinion) to God. I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. Plenty find love without your particular proscribed religion... |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
-- [Edited 3/11/08 11:52am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
CarrieMpls said: RodeoSchro said: I'm not concerned with being rich. I'm concerned about finding love. The rest of it, you've just it got all wrong. Plenty find love without your particular proscribed religion... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JustErin said: Stymie said: I think hookers are smarter.
How so? Cuz they aren't tied down in anyway? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SCNDLS said: Stymie said: I think hookers are smarter.
Nah, too many different customers and you gotta fuck everyday, maybe all day long, to make rent. A gold digger may have to do it once or twice a week with only one guy, and if she's got real game, the rent's already paid. The GD is definitely smarter. . .
[Edited 3/11/08 11:53am]
I couldn't imagine having sex with someone I wasn't at least remotely attracted to just to get money. I'd feel like a hooker. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
. .
[/quote]
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
violator said: JustErin said: I'm not concerned with finding love in something like religion. I'm interested in loving myself and if I am lucky being loved back by someone I love. I've got the rest of what wrong? Maybe we should discuss this in notes so as to not get on other's, who wanna talk about gold diggers, nerves. If there's even the slightest possibility of one of you going all '[snip-CarrieMpls]' on the other, I'd prefer you continue it here in the open... Just one man's opinion... Hahaha! I think the chances of either one of us going that way are slim to none. Sorry. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |