Author ComeUndone Posted January 2, 2011 Author Posted January 2, 2011 This is what you have to look forward to fella's. Live it up. You seem like the type of guy who believes a man can do anything in a relationship without there being any repercussions. What do you think the end result should be of a marriage broken apart by a man who cheated on his wife? I'm not talking about a wife who was always a b!tch and "drove" him to do it, as so many men say, but about an otherwise happy marriage that is now ending because he was weak, or because he made a bad decision, or because he was horny in the wrong place at the wrong time. You get my drift? What should happen then? He should be able to take all his money and split without any regards or responsibility to her wellbeing? I think not.
Author ComeUndone Posted January 2, 2011 Author Posted January 2, 2011 Actually I can see where she is coming from to a certain extent. If a woman stays home and truly dedicates herself to the home then half of it hers and if he decides to cheat or trade her in then yes he should pay half. Even I can see the logic in that. On the other hand if she has an affair and all of a sudden decides she does not love him anymore than he should have the upper hand in divorce court and I would say the same thing if the genders were reversed. The problem with marriage today is that faithful and loving husbands who are betrayed have no protection in divorce from being bled dry. Good for you Woggle I agree - it should be the same if the genders were reversed. Both men and women alike betray their spouses and both should be held accountable.
Author ComeUndone Posted January 2, 2011 Author Posted January 2, 2011 Woggle, let me ask you a hypothetical. Lets say you worked your ass of for years earning a living, hard work, to ultimately achieve a reward. Lets say that reward was money, lots of it. Then you met someone you know nothing of, and she knows of you for whatever reason, or dont. Answer me this. Regardless of your behavior, do you owe her at a minimum 50% of what you have worked to get all of your life? This hypothetic is a little odd, but if applied to a couple now going through divorce then no, she should not get "a minimum of 50% of what he worked to get his whole life". Are there actually states that routinely honor this? In my state (and in my experience) it's what was earned throughout their marriage, so if he enters into the marriage with 1 million in his own bank account and he keeps it separate during their marriage, he retains his interest in his bank account, and she doesn't get any of it. What was earned or owned prior to marriage is separate, as it should be. So is inheritance.
Woggle Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 You seem like the type of guy who believes a man can do anything in a relationship without there being any repercussions. What do you think the end result should be of a marriage broken apart by a man who cheated on his wife? I'm not talking about a wife who was always a b!tch and "drove" him to do it, as so many men say, but about an otherwise happy marriage that is now ending because he was weak, or because he made a bad decision, or because he was horny in the wrong place at the wrong time. You get my drift? What should happen then? He should be able to take all his money and split without any regards or responsibility to her wellbeing? I think not. This I agree with. My issues is that the good men who treat their wives well should be protected if she has an affair or has a mid life crisis or all of sudden leaves him when he has done nothing wrong. Those are the guys who too often get screwed in divorce court. Cheating men I have no sympathy for whatsoever.
dreamingoftigers Posted January 2, 2011 Posted January 2, 2011 This I agree with. My issues is that the good men who treat their wives well should be protected if she has an affair or has a mid life crisis or all of sudden leaves him when he has done nothing wrong. Those are the guys who too often get screwed in divorce court. Cheating men I have no sympathy for whatsoever. Agreed.....
Distant78 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 This I agree with. My issues is that the good men who treat their wives well should be protected if she has an affair or has a mid life crisis or all of sudden leaves him when he has done nothing wrong. Those are the guys who too often get screwed in divorce court. Cheating men I have no sympathy for whatsoever. Agreed. There's no excuse for cheating whether male or female.
Ms. Joolie Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 (edited) I don't even know that I'm ready for marriage just yet, but I do know that I want to be married again. If you want to be married, then it's about choosing to be married more than being ready for it, imo. ...she has a choice to either be with him under their current circumstances or leave him in hopes of finding a man who has the same needs as she. I think I have three choices right now: 1) Get to work with communication and actions for what I want in this relationship with him, for what is missing. This could keep me busy all year, and I can just quietly hope he'll come around for marriage. 2) Get to work with communication about what I want in our relationship (a future together, a husband, a marriage) and what he wants. This will get straight to the point and leave no room for error when it comes to deciding our future together. 3) Get to work with breaking up and free myself for what I really want. Case in point, there is this wonderful man pursuing me now and it's like he has what I want, what is missing for me right now in the relationship with my BF. This is like the universe is handing me what I want but telling me, "Oh but you're not available, you're hanging on and hoping for something else." And so I choose #2. At this point I'm more curious about how it can get to this point, what he needs in order to desire marriage rather than fear it... Thinking about this, I see how I might come across as too pushy or like I have some agenda when I start moving forward with my communications. I don't want to scare him so I'll have to be mindful of this. What I'm going to do though is really share my heart about it all. I respect my BF's thoughts on it and want to listen to what he then has to say. I deeply respect his view point and I am not trying to change him or even get him to desire what I desire. Mostly I want to find out what he desires. Actually, I think I'm the one who needs to stop being afraid and start listening to what he really desires! We are going on 5 years together. I believe it is in our best interest to look at the possible future together. All I want is our happiness, however that is going to look. Well, okay, for me being happy and fulfilled in a LTR means marriage! lol Edited January 3, 2011 by Ms. Joolie
Madgick1 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The problem is no fault divorce. The US courts don't much care if you were cheated on. There's no punishment or consideration of that. Just like the courts don't care if your spouse is alcoholic/addicted. Too bad for you. And if they physically beat you, oh well, doesn't matter and won't be factored into the settlement. I think that no fault is fine for most divorces, but when adultery, abuse, or addiction is present the offending spouse should pay a penalty in the settlement. But...that's not going to happen any time soon...
Untouchable_Fire Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 This is untrue. Government figures (based on census and IRS data) prove that after a divorce in the US, on average a woman's income is reduced by 60% and a man's increases by 30%. Frankly, it's not the wife that is so expensive to divorce; it's the children and child support that is the kicker. The smartest thing financially is to marry someone who works (whether she makes more than you or not) and never have children. Then if you divorce, she supports herself and you support yourself and you split 50/50 anything accummulated during the marriage, and move on. Or have a prenupt. There are ways to protect your finances during marriage. However, if you have kids, there's no getting out of supporting them. And that's expensive. But it's expensive to have kids if you stay married too. That is pretty much a numbers trick. If I made $0.00/yr and my spouse made 100k. Then I got divorced and recieved 40k/yr in alimony... by IRS standards my income would be down 60%. However... in fact I just went from making $0.00/yr to 40k without having to have a job. I realize there is a whole counter argument for stay at home mothers... but it's mostly just a huge pile of rationalizations. Risk vs. Reward. Nobody forces stay at home mom's to stay at home. It's a risk just like anything else in life... just like the stock market or whatever. Alimony should be done away with completely... and child support should be a flat $/month, decreasing per child, and adjustable to the cost of living in that area. I personally agree with that girl. I have dug my heels in to save my marriage because it is my family and I want my daughter to have a family, not just different points on a map where she stays on different nights. I want my family too. More then I would ever have wanted a bf. If I was just in a long term relationship, I would have walked the second I found out what my husband was about. So in conclusion....maybe everyone is different? So, you wouldn't try as hard to save your relationship if you were not married? Does not being married make your daughter less important to you? I think you would want her to have a family with her father. Marriage certificates don't make a family. It's a financial document and nothing more. That's a very interesting observation. I was a hardcore no marriage guy. After making a mistake and breaking up with someone that may prove to be the best woman in my life, who wanted marriage, I started thinking about this. I'm still against marriage, I believe a man has nothing to gain from marriage. But I do believe it's beneficial for the kids. But I also don't want kids, so I literally have no use for marriage. But my soul searching has reached this point - marriages are useful, for providing an artificial external bond, and making people try harder to reconcile their differences. Be it social or traditional pressure, sometimes, as in the case of my ex, if I had an outside pressure forcing me to work things out with her, we may have gotten over the "hump", and may still be together today. But that's a lot of maybe's. So I have this general murky feeling that marriage could be good for something, in certain specific situations, but unless you are in that specific situation, and you are observing in hindsight, you can't say it'd be helpful. I have to say U_F, this is not the first time your posts has given me food for thought. Thank you. You've brought out another point. Many people know that marriage provide a certain artificial bond. So once they get married, they relax and stop trying, hoping the bond itself would hold the marriage together, and usually to disastrous effects. Kind of like the people that stop working out once they land a relationship; just an extension of that type of personality. So in the hands of people like this, marriage actually has a detrimental effect, for providing a false sense of security. So overall, my idea of marriage has moved a tad to the no side again. If anything, this shows that marriage is NOT for everyone. And I don't mean if people want or don't want marriage. I mean marriage is suitable for only people with a certain type of personality. It is certainly not for everyone like how it was sold to us by society. I just don't think marriage is working as designed today. I don't blame feminists or the sexual revolution like some other guys do. I'd like to think that I'm pretty realistic about things. Fact is that marriage is broken and will never get fixed without an enormous and concerted social effort for 1 huge reason. Lawyers make billions off divorce. At any point in time 20-30% of our elected officials are lawyers. They wont do anything that would hurt the pocket book of other lawyers. she has dropped her career to raise them through some tough years plus domestic chores for the family (that you both have agreed on) then 50-50 is still fair. That was her choice. Pay attention! If you both choose to have children and agree that one parent should stay home and you both agree that for whatever reason (be it financial, traditional, musical, whatever) that it should be her. Then 50-50 was still fair. Not my issue personally, I didn't stay home with my daughter. In fact, in the future if we decide to have more children (which is quite likely) there is a good chance my husband will want to stay home with them. As long as he is doing the domestic duties and we can afford it, I am fine with that. I am not much of a homebody anyways. In fact even while I post on here, it is in between work correspondence etc. If we decide that he is to stay home with our children and raise them & do the domestic duties and we split up, I have no problem giving 50% of what I make. Most guys don't tell their wives that they cannot work. Typically she chooses not to work and he just goes along with it. As more and more men choose to stay at home... I'm a firm believer that it's simply a risk you take. Men almost never get alimony. Stay at home dad's pretty much get laughed out of court. My x/w made 20% more than me when I got divorced at 23. I still had to pay her money because of my Y chromosome. Is it fair? No... marriage isn't fair. The problem is no fault divorce. The US courts don't much care if you were cheated on. There's no punishment or consideration of that. Just like the courts don't care if your spouse is alcoholic/addicted. Too bad for you. And if they physically beat you, oh well, doesn't matter and won't be factored into the settlement. I think that no fault is fine for most divorces, but when adultery, abuse, or addiction is present the offending spouse should pay a penalty in the settlement. But...that's not going to happen any time soon... I think your right. No Fault divorces are bad for everyone but lawyers. However I would like to add that proof of physical abuse is considered. The abusee automatically receives nearly 100% of marital assets. It's why people use restraining orders and false abuse claims in so many divorces. Actually when I say people I mean women.... and when I say women I really mean their lawyers. A woman in a divorce is only as nasty as her attorney.
Woggle Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Lawyers encourage false accusations all the time and the shame of it is that when the backlash against this starts which it will women who actually are abused will be hurt as well. Feminists should actually be as against these false accusations as much as men are because it hurts innocent women as well in the long term.
carhill Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Unlike some of the confirmed skeptics, I was blinded by the successful marriages around me. A decade of reality caused me to gain new respect for their skepticism. The conundrum was recently exemplified by the response to an anecdote I shared with an LS'er about a friend of mine and his wife of ~30 years sharing a playful and affectionate moment in the kitchen during one of my visits. Her response, paraphrased, was that it was almost certainly 'fake', for my benefit. I could only go When I encounter such paradoxes, and I seem to encounter many these days, my reaction is to sit firmly on the sidelines and make sure my cat is happy with his diet, housing and my attentions. I liked being married and liked being a spouse, but it's a pretty harsh and cold world out there these days. I went into my M with a net worth easily 500 times that of my now exW. Things are more 'equal' now. Next time there will be a pre-nup for sure. I can only smack myself for that mistake. Not bitter, rather enlightened and aware. Like I said, harsh and cold world.
Ay Diesel T Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 After my divorce I was so glad to be out of my horrible first marriage that I never wanted to commit to a woman ever again and chances are if I did not meet my wife I would still feel that way. When I met her though she actually made me change my mind about marriage. It was like the universe sent me a priceless gem I was not expecting at all. This is what guys like me dream of lol...one day. The thought of your joy keeps me patient.
Woggle Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 This is what guys like me dream of lol...one day. The thought of your joy keeps me patient. The key is to build your life without even thinking of finding a woman and she will come into your life. A man who respects himself and values his potential will attract a woman who respects him and values those same qualities in him.
Ay Diesel T Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 The key is to build your life without even thinking of finding a woman and she will come into your life. A man who respects himself and values his potential will attract a woman who respects him and values those same qualities in him. True. Just living my life. Disciplining myself physically with the gym, and mentally with my college studies. Throw a part time job into the mix, and that's the routine
Woggle Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 True. Just living my life. Disciplining myself physically with the gym, and mentally with my college studies. Throw a part time job into the mix, and that's the routine Also learn to have some fun without a woman in your life. The right woman is a great addition but you should be able to have fun without one.
Ay Diesel T Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Also learn to have some fun without a woman in your life. The right woman is a great addition but you should be able to have fun without one. What if I'm enjoying myself just fine with the routine?
Woggle Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 What if I'm enjoying myself just fine with the routine? That's good as well.
dreamingoftigers Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 That is pretty much a numbers trick. If I made $0.00/yr and my spouse made 100k. Then I got divorced and recieved 40k/yr in alimony... by IRS standards my income would be down 60%. However... in fact I just went from making $0.00/yr to 40k without having to have a job. That is still a drop in the standard of living and the vast majority of women don't get married without having a job going into it. Most of them have the kids after the divorce, that means every time Timmy gets sick and sent home from daycare, she misses work. Combine that with the mat. leave she had to have Timmy, and she is way behind good old Dad. I realize there is a whole counter argument for stay at home mothers... but it's mostly just a huge pile of rationalizations. Risk vs. Reward. Nobody forces stay at home mom's to stay at home. It's a risk just like anything else in life... just like the stock market or whatever. In most couples that decision is made together. Most of the couples i know where there is a stay at home mom, the Dad encouraged it and in some clients that are from a different culture they enforced it. Alimony should be done away with completely... (agreed, flat settlement). and child support should be a flat $/month, decreasing per child, and adjustable to the cost of living in that area. (why decreasing?) So, you wouldn't try as hard to save your relationship if you were not married? Nope, it wouldn't be as serious. The man wouldn't be famiy to me and if he pulled the same crap that my husband did I wouldn't want to be invested with him long-term. Does not being married make your daughter less important to you? I think you would want her to have a family with her father. To clear things up, I wouldn't (and didn't) have a child out of wedlock, so automatically the argument simply doesn't apply/make sense to me. I wouldn't say the same for others, in those cases there seems to be too many shades of grey. I know a couple who have 3 kids together but don't want to get married because they enjoy "their freedom" but they seem to use it as a license to abuse each other. Also their children and living circumstance does not seem to be condusive to freedom. Marriage certificates don't make a family. It's a financial document and nothing more. Well, yes and no, it depends on what context it means to you. According to my belief system marriage lasts into eternity (depending on family choices etc.) so the financial end of things doesn't really register as much for me (unless there would happen to be a divorce in which case I would encourage an equitable split if there hadn't been adultery). Combining or splitting our finances within the marriage doesn't matter to me. If you view a marriage certificate as a mere financial document, then no it wouldn't mean much to you. To me marriage makes a family for eternity. In fact, in my belief system even if I were to get a divorce here on Earth, I may in fact be still tied to that person beyond death but by then we would be in a much more understanding place. I just don't think marriage is working as designed today. I don't blame feminists or the sexual revolution like some other guys do. I'd like to think that I'm pretty realistic about things. Fact is that marriage is broken and will never get fixed without an enormous and concerted social effort for 1 huge reason. Lawyers make billions off divorce. At any point in time 20-30% of our elected officials are lawyers. They wont do anything that would hurt the pocket book of other lawyers. Agreed....in secular circles. Most guys don't tell their wives that they cannot work. Typically she chooses not to work and he just goes along with it. (love to see the stats on this). As more and more men choose to stay at home... I'm a firm believer that it's simply a risk you take. Men almost never get alimony. Stay at home dad's pretty much get laughed out of court. (love to see the stats on this). My x/w made 20% more than me when I got divorced at 23. I still had to pay her money because of my Y chromosome. Is it fair? No... marriage isn't fair. (sounds like divorce isn't fair) I think your right. No Fault divorces are bad for everyone but lawyers. However I would like to add that proof of physical abuse is considered. The abusee automatically receives nearly 100% of marital assets. It's why people use restraining orders and false abuse claims in so many divorces. Actually when I say people I mean women.... and when I say women I really mean their lawyers. A woman in a divorce is only as nasty as her attorney. Disgusting people play disgusting games, you should see what in_pain's husband did to her. Men do tend to fare better in divorce overall. Lawyers encourage false accusations all the time and the shame of it is that when the backlash against this starts which it will women who actually are abused will be hurt as well. Feminists should actually be as against these false accusations as much as men are because it hurts innocent women as well in the long term. Agreed, more men will not want to marry (just what has happened). Unlike some of the confirmed skeptics, I was blinded by the successful marriages around me. A decade of reality caused me to gain new respect for their skepticism. The conundrum was recently exemplified by the response to an anecdote I shared with an LS'er about a friend of mine and his wife of ~30 years sharing a playful and affectionate moment in the kitchen during one of my visits. Her response, paraphrased, was that it was almost certainly 'fake', for my benefit. I could only go When I encounter such paradoxes, and I seem to encounter many these days, my reaction is to sit firmly on the sidelines and make sure my cat is happy with his diet, housing and my attentions. I liked being married and liked being a spouse, but it's a pretty harsh and cold world out there these days. I went into my M with a net worth easily 500 times that of my now exW. Things are more 'equal' now. Next time there will be a pre-nup for sure. I can only smack myself for that mistake. Not bitter, rather enlightened and aware. Like I said, harsh and cold world. I think most people these days in my generation expect their spouse to take care of them first without them having to take care of themselves, and without them having to contribute to their spouse. A lot of imbalance out there: some trying to take care of their spouse's every whim and some trying to take from their spouse on their every whim. I think the best thing a person can do for society as a whole is treat themselves with respect, give a little more and treat their partner as they treat themselves. The key is to build your life without even thinking of finding a woman and she will come into your life. A man who respects himself and values his potential will attract a woman who respects him and values those same qualities in him. I forgot that I quoted this one too before I wrote my last paragraph. Funny. So the way to get a spouse that respects you (the best odds anyways) is to respect yourself and not let them walk on you and don't give yourself permission to walk on them. Any person that truly had respect for themselves would not allow themselves to be unrightfully supported by another's work and endeavours. This goes beyond gender no matter what society's flavor of the month is.
musemaj11 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 My husband says dinner is just about trying to get laid: So basically men are saying: "Here woman, I am doing courtship thing so that you will risk reproduction/your self-respect with me so that I can feel the joy of sticking my penis into you." That seems more parasitic to me. It goes both ways. You can either look at relationships as mutual usership or as a symbiotic way to live, I have seen examples of both. Since you are choosing a form of mutual usership, that is probably what you will end up with. Trying to get the most bang for your buck, literally. Traditionally, a man offering to treat a woman is a gesture of him showing that he wants to take care of her, that he is willing to let her leech off him if she agrees to be with him. Its also the same reason that women cite as the reason why they like men to pay. Its because they want to feel taken care of. Women feel good when they are leeching off others. It makes them feel appreciated. For women, being a parasite means being loved. Women measure their self worth by how much money men are willing to give up for them. But today, many men arent as foolish as in the past. They have wisen up. They are no longer willing to give up their resources without getting anything in return. If the women expect them to spend money, then they will expect sex in return. If a man spends money on a woman and she accepts it while refusing to give him sex, then he is a fool if he stays with her because she is just a swindler, a thief. A good woman who deserves respect does not accept a man throwing money at her. And a good man who deserves respect does not push a woman to have sex with him if she does not want to. Thats my fundamental view. Alimony should be done away with completely... and child support should be a flat $/month, decreasing per child, and adjustable to the cost of living in that area. Drastic divorce laws are never going to change as long as half the population are going to vote 'no'.
dreamingoftigers Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 Traditionally, a man offering to treat a woman is a gesture of him showing that he wants to take care of her, that he is willing to let her leech off him if she agrees to be with him. So he gives her dinner and gets nothing back in return, traditionally? He doesn't get all of the domestic and child-rearing duties taken care of. But in the good old days, the pull-out form of birth control was King and therefore children were simply the after-affect of sex. So basically the guy was saying: I give you food, take care of you and then you take care of our sexual needs and sacrifice your body (and risk death in many occasions) to have a family for us so that my namesake gets passed on (Most likely I will also be hitting you, but hey, it's the dark/middle/industrial revolution ages so that's how we roll). It wasn't parasitic, it was symbiotic. He wants to get laid and have a companion who worked as hard as he did and took care of his namesake. She was secure with it, SYMBIOTIC NOT PARASITIC. Its also the same reason that women cite as the reason why they like men to pay. Its because they want to feel taken care of. Alot of those evolutionary traits still apply today, but often (especially in healthy relationship they would like to be taken care of in other ways, a back rub, a kind word. My husband bought me a Christmas present. I don't care about dollar value or the "what" that it was. I liked the fact that he put the thought into it and went out especially to get it for me. I got him some practical gifts too, he loved them. Married romance at its finest. Women feel good when they are leeching off others. Unhealthy women with something to prove, if this is who you are attracting on a routine basis, I don't think the connection is that all of these people have a vagina. I think it's that you have a certain set of expectations that you attract, retain and encourage. I wouldn't date you if you had all of the money in the world, even if you were more then willing to spend it on me. Never, ever with that attitude. It makes them feel appreciated. Having someone give you gifts or shows of gratitude is of course an evolutionary thing, showing that you can provide for a mate shows that you can provide for offspring and that you are capable of emotional/connection and sacrifice at that level. Healthy women these days look beyond the simple evolution factor and see how stable and caring a guy is, that carries far more currency then say: a fur coat or a dinner. My father uses money to connect with people, you can see right through it, nothing is real there and nothing is stable. I would NEVER date a guy that uses money as a connector. For women, being a parasite means being loved. If you have no sense of self-worth or dignity, sure. But it isn't real love, it is either co-dependency or simply as you put leeching. Women measure their self worth by how much money men are willing to give up for them. Ha Ha Ha. I measure my self-worth by knowing when I get up in the morning that I am going to give my self the respect of treating myself and my family with dignity and respect. I measure my self-worth by committing to work out and to read to my daughter and following through with those things. I measure my self-worth by my ability to remain calm when I need to enforce my personal boundaries in a kind and caring manner. My husband does not dictate my self worth. And how ever much he puts into our bank account and then spends on me doesn't either. Not since the day we met. And last time I checked, yes I have a vagina and breasts, none of this was surgically altered: I was born female. Chances are if you expect a woman to measure her self-worth by what you would do/spend on them, then you in a relationship would probably measure your self-worth by what they do and what you can spend on them. I'd be very wary if I were you. But today, many men arent as foolish as in the past. They have wisen up. They are no longer willing to give up their resources without getting anything in return. If the women expect them to spend money, then they will expect sex in return. Is that not the world's oldest profession? If a man spends money on a woman and she accepts it while refusing to give him sex, then he is a fool if he stays with her because she is just a swindler, a thief. Ha Ha Ha If a guy thought that The Outback Steakhouse cheese fries were going to get him laid in the first place, I would feel very very sorry for him. I can make my own meals and for cheaper and for less risk. There isn't a chance in Hell I would risk an STD or child because someone bought me dinner and nice tickets to a show. The real currency would be if we could bond and hold the same values. No bond = no sex. No amount of money or cheese fries can replace a solid emotional bond. Guess what? I am not a swindler or thief. I am very straight forward. If a guy wants to take me to the finest place in town just to impress me, he's missing the mark. The thought may count for something, but quite frankly a hike in one of the local parks would be a better opportunity to get to know someone, and much cheaper. Furthermore, if the guy is just willing to piss money away he probably is a little risky as far as family material goes (I know, I married a guy that pisses money away on dumb stuff like more cell phones that we don't need, only 2 of us, not 4). If a guy isn't family material, then he isn't for me. A good woman who deserves respect does not accept a man throwing money at her. (Thank goodness we finally agree, so not every woman is a parasite in a clever disguise?) And a good man who deserves respect does not push a woman to have sex with him if she does not want to. Thats my fundamental view. You know what? Forget the above stuff I wrote, according to you, I am a good woman. Too damn early in the morning. So if you think the vast majority of women are parasites, how will you go about finding a good one. Maybe pretend to be broke. Humble beginnings etc. Use some personality/kindness as opposed to anything lavish to get a girl. Tell them you have to go dutch because you are on a tight budget for now. Save the gifts for occasions. Or just give small gifts. See if she gives gifts. I give little things to my husband all of the time. Drastic divorce laws are never going to change as long as half the population are going to vote 'no'. I don't think it is half, I honestly don't know a single girl like that that I consider a friend. Check a woman's history. She what she dresses like, it is all the best and newest? That should speak volumes. See if she is supporting herself or if she is borrowing off of everyone, or gets guys to buy her drinks/dinner as often as she can.
musemaj11 Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 So if she dresses nice, it is one hint of her being a gold digger? Im so wary of self-entitled princesses, I need to know all the insider's cues as to how to identify one.
dreamingoftigers Posted January 3, 2011 Posted January 3, 2011 So if she dresses nice, it is one hint of her being a gold digger? Im so wary of self-entitled princesses, I need to know all the insider's cues as to how to identify one. I wouldn't say that I am an insider per se. Just noticing that if someone has to keep up with the latest and greatest, that that does cost money. Seriously though, most women I know wouldn't cross the street just for a guy to give them money, a lot of women my age don't have two cents to rub together and they happily stick by their man. If you can't spot an unhealthy woman who is asking and whining for stuff or favors all of the time, I wouldn't be sure I could give you advice that would help anyways.
Recommended Posts