musemaj11 Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) For every man who leaves a woman because she no longer looks a certain age, there is a woman who won't be with a man because he doesn't make a certain amount of money. In my opinion both genders are just as shallow in different ways. I dont understand why people expect unconditional devotion when they are incapable of giving the same. You shouldnt demand what you cant return. Judge and be judged. You dont want a man who doesnt make 100k? Then dont be upset if he doesnt want you when you no longer look like a 23 year old. Edited March 21, 2012 by musemaj11 1
ditzchic Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Truth. Why do you keep trying to cram this down people's throats? We know. You must be super poor.... 1
udolipixie Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 For every man who leaves a woman because she no longer looks a certain age, there is a woman who won't be with a man because he doesn't make a certain amount of money. Bit of a difference to me. In the first scenario the guy was with her than left her for shallow reasons. In the second scenario the gal just won't go out with the guy or consider him. It's for shallow reasons however it's no different than a guy who won't go out with or consider a gal he doesn't find attractive, doesn't have a specific breast size or is a certain age. She didn't leave him for shallow reasons she just didn't consider him for shallow reasons. It'd be more similar scenarios if the gal left the guy after he got a pay cut. I dont understand why people expect unconditional devotion when they are incapable of giving the same. You shouldnt demand what you cant return. Judge and be judged. You dont want a man who doesnt make 100k? Then dont be upset if he doesnt want you when you no longer look like a 23 year old. If this means he was with her than dumped her age he aged it's not similar to me other than judging others by shallow standards. As one is she doesn't want this guy because of shallow reasons while the other he is was with her & left for shallow reasons.
Author musemaj11 Posted March 26, 2012 Author Posted March 26, 2012 Bit of a difference to me. In the first scenario the guy was with her than left her for shallow reasons. In the second scenario the gal just won't go out with the guy or consider him. It's for shallow reasons however it's no different than a guy who won't go out with or consider a gal he doesn't find attractive, doesn't have a specific breast size or is a certain age. She didn't leave him for shallow reasons she just didn't consider him for shallow reasons. It'd be more similar scenarios if the gal left the guy after he got a pay cut. I was aware of that scenario. However, I dont think thats very fair either. Why? Because the majority of men have higher and higher salary as they get older while all women are only going to lose their beauty as they get older. So one party offer most likely to appreciate asset while the other party offer surely to depreciate asset. This is the reason why there are more cases of men leaving their aging wives than cases of women leaving their financially struggling husbands. Therefore, it takes a lot more commitment from a man to marry than for a woman.
udolipixie Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 (edited) This is the reason why there are more cases of men leaving their aging wives than cases of women leaving their financially struggling husbands. Therefore, it takes a lot more commitment from a man to marry than for a woman. I would think the reason would be that those wives are far more committed than those husbands or realize that's the best the can get. In both scenarios the person has lost their asset and depreciated in value. The guy loses his value but the gal doesn't have much else options & in the other the gal loses her value but the guy has other options. It's not very fair to you. Different opinions. One could say it's not very fair that you seem to make scenarios where the man can cut off when the gal loses her assest but the woman can't do the same. That the comparable scenario is when the guy doesn't have the assest in the first place. Edited March 26, 2012 by udolipixie
Els Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 One can't be a gold digger where there is no gold to dig, can they? So, seriously, chill, dude, you're perfectly safe.
Recommended Posts