Can A Woman's Love Be Bought?

[Sin Mari]

I wasn't trying to imply this is a women-only sort of thing. Note that I said there are just as many men willing to pay to have their way as there are women willing to acquiesce. As for poor couples, I don't think that disproves the trend. I think in general people are looking to maximize their utility in the arena in which they find themselves. Poor men and poor women have zero opportunity to improve their lot and "date up", so they try to do the best with the hand they've been dealt. What I was really trying to get at is that, even in relationships that are ostensibly genuine, there is often a sense of shared mutual exchange that both are subscribing to. I have had relationships where I wanted nothing from the woman, but those are rare, I think. Usually both members of a couple have some sort of selfish need that they are seeking to fulfill, even if that need is a need for love. It is rarely out of some selfless desire to help someone else.

Wow. Just wow. Complete and utter disrespect for people with little or no money. Their love is not valid, they just don't have a choice to date anyone better. SMH.

 

[orejon4]

Wow. Just wow. Complete and utter disrespect for people with little or no money. Their love is not valid, they just don't have a choice to date anyone better. SMH.

It wasn't meant to show disrespect for people with no money, Sin. I'm hardly rich myself. I stated it too harshly, but it was meant to convey (I think accurately) that people are largely involved in relationships with people of their own social class with little or no social mobility (at least that's generally the case in the US), and so people try to maximize their utility and outcomes (regardless of class) in whatever arena they find themselves in. I was trying to illustrate that I believe most men and women look at relationships as a sort of transaction in which they're trying to get the best deal, i.e. utility maximizers. I just haven't experienced or seen totally selfless love where the person was just loving for the sake of loving. It was usually wanting someone they found attractive (a form of utility-maximizing) that they got along with so they could be happy (another form of utility-maximizing).

 

[The Dark King]

I don't you can talk in Econ jargon and come across the way you want to. From a layman's point of you it probably sounds cold like we choose the best we can get not two people finding a connection. The data on dating supports what your saying but females generally want to believe it's kissmit.

It wasn't meant to show disrespect for people with no money, Sin. I'm hardly rich myself. I stated it too harshly, but it was meant to convey (I think accurately) that people are largely involved in relationships with people of their own social class with little or no social mobility (at least that's generally the case in the US), and so people try to maximize their utility and outcomes (regardless of class) in whatever arena they find themselves in. I was trying to illustrate that I believe most men and women look at relationships as a sort of transaction in which they're trying to get the best deal, i.e. utility maximizers. I just haven't experienced or seen totally selfless love where the person was just loving for the sake of loving. It was usually wanting someone they found attractive (a form of utility-maximizing) that they got along with so they could be happy (another form of utility-maximizing).

 

[saintaugusta]

Well I would expect if I were married we'd save the bigger share of our salaries and live of one for a year or two to save for having kids. After a year or two we could either get a nanny or have family help out(that's how it works in my family)


In my house growing up my parents worked different schedules. My mom worked either from 3 to 11 or 11 to 7 as a nurse and my dad had a normal 9 to 5 so no one actually really prepared meals for us like that. We normally fended for ourselves or when on the days when I stayed with my grandma she cooked for us. I also used to live with someone and she did her laundry and I did mine seperately. It was like that with my parents now that I think about it. I guess my dad figured it was one less thing for him to make my mom do since she did primarily take care of me and my brother growing up.

Btw when you said its normally the woman who takes care of the kid I'd like to say maybe in the past but I know for me I really want to spend as much time as I can with my kids. I want this its not something that I want to avoid. I don't get guys who are ok with never seeing their kids unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

You act like you are going to love your kids more than you love your wife. It all seems ego-driven. She is just the vehicle for you to have more mini-me's of whatever mediocre genetic material you have brought to the table. Let me tell you this - you need to be IN LOVE - and truly love and respect a woman - and help her out. Otherwise she will learn to despise you over time - I could never abide a man who loved the children that I made for him out of my own body, more than he loved ME (only because they were evidence of his genetic material)! If I had a relationship like that, I would want to kill myself.

 

[saintaugusta]

I don't you can talk in Econ jargon and come across the way you want to. From a layman's point of you it probably sounds cold like we choose the best we can get not two people finding a connection. The data on dating supports what your saying but females generally want to believe it's kissmit.

God DAMN - I can't believe you have not learned the difference between you're and your after all of this time online. And if you don't know the spelling of an exotic word like "kismet", fucking GOOGLE it.

 

[The Dark King]

God DAMN - I can't believe you have not learned the difference between you're and your after all of this time online. And if you don't know the spelling of an exotic word like "kismet", fucking GOOGLE it.

I can't believe you're still on my nuts like I'm a teen heart throb. Fucking crawl back into your little brothel and serve customer 198 tonight. I'm sure they miss your company Ms. Lonely.

 

[The Dark King]

You act like you are going to love your kids more than you love your wife. It all seems ego-driven. She is just the vehicle for you to have more mini-me's of whatever mediocre genetic material you have brought to the table. Let me tell you this - you need to be IN LOVE - and truly love and respect a woman - and help her out. Otherwise she will learn to despise you over time - I could never abide a man who loved the children that I made for him out of my own body, more than he loved ME (only because they were evidence of his genetic material)! If I had a relationship like that, I would want to kill myself.

The cool thing is I don't need to justify my motivations to you but continue get all knotted up over my personal choices its fricking hilarious.
You and I have never and will never get along. So why do you keep commenting on what I write. Does the concept of live and let live escape you?

 

[saintaugusta]

Hahaha - a couple of months ago you were dogging me because I couldn't get any (supposedly)...Now you're dogging me because I get it quite frequently from multiple sources of my own choosing?

I smell a hater. Beat you at your own game, player (if you ever had one...note my extended absence - what did you think I was doing that whole time - knitting? I leave that job to my mom. Meanwhile you've been posting like a motherfucker...

 

[The Dark King]

Hahaha - a couple of months ago you were dogging me because I couldn't get any (supposedly)...Now you're dogging me because I get it quite frequently from multiple sources of my own choosing?

I smell a hater. Beat you at your own game, player (if you ever had one...note my extended absence - what did you think I was doing that whole time - knitting? I leave that job to my mom. Meanwhile you've been posting like a motherfucker...

May peace and happiness find you. We no longer need to speak. Its only hateful and negative words.

 

[Ches]

On every woman or your shit situation??

Any decent guy will come home and cook and do laundry and other chores on weekends. My dad prepared more meals than my mom and he was the only one who kept the outside look neat and clean and shoveled all the snow during winter and raked the leaves during fall etc.
A man who comes home from work and puts his feet up and waits to be waited on is a shitty guy. Most men in my experience aren't like that.

I didn't consider it that way at all. My husband contributed when he could But he was often deployed or was in school and his free time was spent studying. He didn't have a 9-5. And when he was home, he wasn't sitting around waiting to be waited on.

I WANTED to be a homemaker, not because I'm lazy and don't want to work, but I love the domestic arts and that's where my heart lies: making a home and raising a family. Some women choose a career outside the home and juggle both homemaking/family and a job. Some do it well, others...not so much. I feel fortunate that I had the privilege to stay home with my son for 8 years. It was a decision more or less forced by my ex's career, but we both decided that it was the preferred way to divide the responsibilities.

 

[The Dark King]

this and my mom didn't work my dad did. truth be told pop cooks better than my mom. LOL

Lmao mine too. My poor mom sucks at that shit lol

 

[orejon4]

I don't you can talk in Econ jargon and come across the way you want to. From a layman's point of you it probably sounds cold like we choose the best we can get not two people finding a connection. The data on dating supports what your saying but females generally want to believe it's kissmit.

The reason I use economic jargon is two-fold: that's the way I understand these things, not in moralistic terms, and 2) that's how I was trained. And I should also add a third: people on the thread seem to deliberately misread statements that they don't agree with and attribute broad moral judgments to you when you take a position. So, I try to stay clinical and distant and try to discuss these things in as professional and polite a tone as possible to steer attention toward the comments and away from hyperbole and the personality of the speaker. Otherwise, things quickly degenerate. I'm not always successful, but I try. Hey, no one's perfect.

 

[The Dark King]

The reason I use economic jargon is two-fold: that's the way I understand these things, not in moralistic terms, and 2) that's how I was trained. And I should also add a third: people on the thread seem to deliberately misread statements that they don't agree with and attribute broad moral judgments to you when you take a position. So, I try to stay clinical and distant and try to discuss these things in as professional and polite a tone as possible to steer attention toward the comments and away from hyperbole and the personality of the speaker. Otherwise, things quickly degenerate. I'm not always successful, but I try. Hey, no one's perfect.

I should take a page from your book since my attempts to not be misunderstood because of discourse often fail.

 

[Nikkers]

Depends on where you live. That kind of dismissive attitude is not different than what you're critiquing. Btw have you seen the kind of women poor men get? Usually not the type of women a man with standards wants to have sex with. They usually love them because their options are scarce at best.

And when you label it as prostituting you paint a money exchanging hands picture when its more like being kept in comfortable and favorable surroundings. Its been my observation that most women who have the ability to get comfortable surroundings will do so and more importantly will take it if a man is providing. I generally don't see pretty desirable women saying no to that kind of lifestyle.

Thus far, I've always had more money than any guy I've dated .

I wasn't trying to imply this is a women-only sort of thing. Note that I said there are just as many men willing to pay to have their way as there are women willing to acquiesce. As for poor couples, I don't think that disproves the trend. I think in general people are looking to maximize their utility in the arena in which they find themselves. Poor men and poor women have zero opportunity to improve their lot and "date up", so they try to do the best with the hand they've been dealt. What I was really trying to get at is that, even in relationships that are ostensibly genuine, there is often a sense of shared mutual exchange that both are subscribing to. I have had relationships where I wanted nothing from the woman, but those are rare, I think. Usually both members of a couple have some sort of selfish need that they are seeking to fulfill, even if that need is a need for love. It is rarely out of some selfless desire to help someone else.

Yeah, those relationships seem pretty rare.
You have an interesting way of looking at this! *thinks about how a need for love could be selfish* lol

I think being able to work and willing to work are two different things. On their own women are just as capable as we are there's no denying that but whether its socially engrained or innate many seem to want to fall back and let the man kind of take over financially ("be a man"). Again it can be where I'm from but you have no idea how many women I encountered who were waiting to meet a man to change their lives. People who were artists were banking on a husband so they could have health insurance and help take care of some debt. My favorite are all the teachers and social workers who take low paying thankless jobs because they know they'll get married and the dude will improve their situation. Ii know someone will read this and think I'm full because they aren't like that but unfortunately every woman doesn't think like the women on this board.

Yeah, I know women that are like this. Hell, my parents tell my sister to go out and hang around the university at home.... meet a smart guy. She isn't gonna make much money herself, so the parents are kinda giving her another option. (They were actually joking though :lol: ).
Women do make less than men, so if it came down to one person needing to work and another staying home... it makes sense for the man to go, in the end it means more income for the household. But if both were able to work, all for that too. All depends on where a couple lives/was raised and what they view necessary for "making it work".



BUT, regarding love... to me, I really am a hopeless romantic. I don't care if a person has a lot of money or very little money. As long as "things" work between us, that's all that matters to me. I want to settle down and have children, and it doesn't matter how much money that person has. It's more important that they'd take time for the family and actually be there, rather than at work all the time or whatever.

 

[The Dark King]

thought i should add and let you know there's a heck of alot more to having kids than just having kids.

I was thinking the same thing when I saw that. It would be awesome if shit were different but in order to raise a family in a decent area with a decent life it requires more than a managerial job at McDonalds. Well at least in the US.

 

[The Dark King]

I didn't consider it that way at all. My husband contributed when he could But he was often deployed or was in school and his free time was spent studying. He didn't have a 9-5. And when he was home, he wasn't sitting around waiting to be waited on.

I WANTED to be a homemaker, not because I'm lazy and don't want to work, but I love the domestic arts and that's where my heart lies: making a home and raising a family. Some women choose a career outside the home and juggle both homemaking/family and a job. Some do it well, others...not so much. I feel fortunate that I had the privilege to stay home with my son for 8 years. It was a decision more or less forced by my ex's career, but we both decided that it was the preferred way to divide the responsibilities.

You said the responsibility usually falls on the woman as if to imply that even if both people work the household chores aren't divided equally. Your situation is totally different from what we were talking about then.

 

[orejon4]

Yeah, those relationships seem pretty rare.
You have an interesting way of looking at this! *thinks about how a need for love could be selfish* lol
.

I don't mean to attach a value judgment to 'selfish', just in the sense of being focused on one's self. You know?

 

[The Dark King]

Thus far, I've always had more money than any guy I've dated .

[I]Nicole do you think that's the norm or the exception?
As a guy who dates OFTEN trust me when I say its far more likely for the guy to make more and you're also in college how do you have more money lol.[/I]

Yeah, those relationships seem pretty rare.
You have an interesting way of looking at this! *thinks about how a need for love could be selfish* lol



Yeah, I know women that are like this. Hell, my parents tell my sister to go out and hang around the university at home.... meet a smart guy. She isn't gonna make much money herself, so the parents are kinda giving her another option. (They were actually joking though :lol: ).
Women do make less than men, so if it came down to one person needing to work and another staying home... it makes sense for the man to go, in the end it means more income for the household. But if both were able to work, all for that too. All depends on where a couple lives/was raised and what they view necessary for "making it work".



BUT, regarding love... to me, I really am a hopeless romantic. I don't care if a person has a lot of money or very little money. As long as "things" work between us, that's all that matters to me. I want to settle down and have children, and it doesn't matter how much money that person has. It's more important that they'd take time for the family and actually be there, rather than at work all the time or whatever.

I think where you're at in your life kind of skews your perception because to get ahead or for most people to make ends meet you have to work A LOT. You don't get a nice house and have nice things just working 40 hrs a week unless you're lucky enough to be born into money.

 

[Nikkers]

thought i should add and let you know there's a heck of alot more to having kids than just having kids.

Yeah, I know there's more to it than that .
There's the.... making them.

Really though, I changed what I typed a few times before I posted it, guess I left out another little bit.
Part of what I consider to be under the "things working" category is actually having enough money to make ends meet, provide for needs. There needs to be enough money to pay for rent/a mortgage, food, transportation, and whatnot.

I categorize this differently than all the "wants", and being able to throw money around, that's not for me lol. Want someone that knows what they're doing with money but don't feel the need they have to pull out stacks upon stacks to impress me.

 

[The Dark King]

I don't mean to attach a value judgment to 'selfish', just in the sense of being focused on one's self. You know?

Also one might add if love were truly selfless you people wouldn't have such tendencies towards ownership of another's actions and jealousy wouldn't be so prevelent.