article: Recession: When the money goes, so does the toxic wife

[STR8UP]

He wouldn't be a quality man from a woman's perspective if he divorced her just because she turned 30 and he wanted a younger model, or he regularly cheated on her because he "naturally" wanted variety. And the same thing for women. A woman that is only with a guy because he is wealthy is most likely not going to be a quality woman from a man's perspective. What you are saying is because people have a natural tendencies to be attracted to something or a natural drive then however they expresses it is equally valid. Some people are just rotten, and natural drivers aren't a justification.

My big issue is that people have this convoluted view of right and wrong and how it relates to each of us pursuing our natural tendencies to secure the best future we possibly can for us and our offspring.

In other words, to call it "wrong" for a woman to lose attraction for her man when he loses his source of income implies that she her commitment to him is expected to be upheld unconditionally, at at the expense of HER well being.

And the same goes for the guy who leaves his wife when she becomes a fat nagging b!tch who withholds sex. Like it or not, marriage and commitment might make us feel good about our situation, but at the end of the day people aren't selfless and should not be expected to be so.

This is silly. If a man is attracted to a 25 year old woman just because her tits are nicer than he is abnormal, just as a gold digger is.

I don't think he was referring specifically to THAT quality, but of youth and beauty in general.

And then there are gold diggers. I guess maybe they would be analagous to a man with a tit fetish. But I wouldn't consider either one quality individuals.

So there should be a standard set for attraction?

Now we're getting into a different topic. Let's just put it this way, there was a percentage that stayed together. Within that percentage wouldn't you say that some of those women had different qualities from the others?

Your camp takes the statement "Women are essentially the same" as being that they are totally identical, when in reality it means that their base desires and motivations are the same. Yes- some women act and react differently than others. Some are more faithful. Some are compulsive liars. We get that. What we are saying is that women are given too much credit. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work when it comes to dealing with chicks. You have to assume that she's just another low class ho until she proves otherwise.

There you go again making strawman arguments. No one here has said that a woman coming from an impoverished country with no rights is a gold digger for marrying middle-class western men. What I said was that American women who turn down every middle-class man to hitch up with a man just because he has a net worth over a certain amount is a gold digger.

The key phrase here is "just because", and I would venture to say that only very very tiny percentage of women fall into this category of being with a man "just because" he has money. THAT is what a gold digger is, but in reality these women are very few and far between. Most women who get labeled as gold diggers are in fact attracted to the man for a number of reasons.

And if an American woman has high enough value (she's hot enough) that she can afford to pass up middle class guys, she has every right to, just the same as you have every right to pass up the chunky girl with bad acne from the office who is in love with you.

There is a big diffeernce between a place and time where women have nothing without a man and one where they have equal if not greater opportunitity. You can't directly compare the two situations.

This is faulty reasoning. A woman having the ability to provide for herself is not going to change her attraction mechanism. A woman who has millions is still going to be attracted to a wealthy and powerful man, probably even moreso.

Well STR8UP is there or not a such thing as a gold digger? And if there is, is it always really that hard to tell? I don't think so. I think it's pretty clear that a woman that won't have anything to do with any guy that's not exceedingly wealthy and then leaves the man the instance the wealth is gone to hitch on to the next wealthy guy is a gold digger.

And how many of the cut and dry situations are you personally familiar with?

I stated before that I personally know a small handful of couples whose marriage is on the rocks, and at least the timing of the downfall happens to coincide with a loss of income. Should we automatically label these women gold diggers?

That is the real point here. It isn't ever as simple as we would like for it to seem. Kind of like watching the news and formulating an opinion as opposed to sitting down with both parties involved. A lot of what you see is what sells, not what actually goes down.

I don't disagree that the public at large does what you're saying, but I thought we were having an internal discussion about the concept of the gold digger.

If we are talking specifically about the chicks in the story it's one thing, but the point that some if us were bringing up is that this a true gold digger is an uncommon thing.

It just seems to me that if you acknowledge that women vary and some fall on the mercanary side of the continuum, wealthy or not you'd want to associate yourself when the ones that fall as far away from that side as you can.

Absolutely. There is a sliding scale. But we rarely hear of or discuss this sliding scale. And the fact that by simply acknowledging that there IS a scale it makes the lines awfully blurry. It's much more convenient to break it down into black and white and that's what too many guys do because it doesn't make you think twice about your preconceptions.

 

[ketostix]

My big issue is that people have this convoluted view of right and wrong and how it relates to each of us pursuing our natural tendencies to secure the best future we possibly can for us and our offspring.

Is there right and wrong or is there not and anything goes? Is it right to lie, cheat and steal because you believe it's the best thing for you and your offspring? I don't believe it's that simple. I don't think that would benefit anyone and maybe nature not only gave humans the reasoning to make decision but also instincts of what's right and wrong? And maybe people vary by nature. I just think you are taking this nature argument too far and in one direction Str8up.

In other words, to call it "wrong" for a woman to lose attraction for her man when he loses his source of income implies that she her commitment to him is expected to be upheld unconditionally, at at the expense of HER well being.

No, no one is saying a woman should half starve and support her husband indefinitely. What I'm saying is it's "wrong" for a woman to latch herself on to a guy primarily for exuberant wealth and leave if it's not exuberant.

And the same goes for the guy who leaves his wife when she becomes a fat nagging b!tch who withholds sex. Like it or not, marriage and commitment might make us feel good about our situation, but at the end of the day people aren't selfless and should not be expected to be so.

These are exteme an not analagous examples though. A fat, nagging, sexless b!tch is an extreme example of a woman being completely worthless. It would analagous to an alcholic and abuse husband.

So there should be a standard set for attraction?

Well yeah. If I was with a woman just for the sex and I didn't like her personality, I wouldn't say I was particularly attracted to her. And if a woman was with a man primarily for his money, andthis is as uncommon as you think, I would consider her particularly attracted to him.

Your camp takes the statement "Women are essentially the same" as being that they are totally identical, when in reality it means that their base desires and motivations are the same. Yes- some women act and react differently than others. Some are more faithful. Some are compulsive liars. We get that. What we are saying is that women are given too much credit. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't work when it comes to dealing with chicks. You have to assume that she's just another low class ho until she proves otherwise.

I don't feel that I'm giving women too much credit at all. If anything the other camp is giving gold diggers too much credit.

The key phrase here is "just because", and I would venture to say that only very very tiny percentage of women fall into this category of being with a man "just because" he has money. THAT is what a gold digger is, but in reality these women are very few and far between. Most women who get labeled as gold diggers are in fact attracted to the man for a number of reasons.

And if an American woman has high enough value (she's hot enough) that she can afford to pass up middle class guys, she has every right to, just the same as you have every right to pass up the chunky girl with bad acne from the office who is in love with you.

We could debate how many true gold diggers there are out there or not forever, we don't know the real answer. I just don't agree passing up a chunky girl with bad acne is analagous to passing up a comfortable living with someone totally suitable for exuberant wealth.

This is faulty reasoning. A woman having the ability to provide for herself is not going to change her attraction mechanism. A woman who has millions is still going to be attracted to a wealthy and powerful man, probably even moreso.

See this is where you're in the camp that people aren't affected by their enviroment. A woman in poverty is going to behave differently than even a woman who is an RN. I've met enough well off, college degree women to know that they can be spoiled by their situation. I see it as women being spoiled and you seem to see it as women being the way nature intends them to be. Maybe nature never intend for women to control wealth in the first place. Is a woman doing something because of an attraction mechanism, or is she a spoiled and in a poorly controlled situation?

And how many of the cut and dry situations are you personally familiar with?

I stated before that I personally know a small handful of couples whose marriage is on the rocks, and at least the timing of the downfall happens to coincide with a loss of income. Should we automatically label these women gold diggers?

There's not enough information here, so maybe they are maybe they're not, who knows.

That is the real point here. It isn't ever as simple as we would like for it to seem. Kind of like watching the news and formulating an opinion as opposed to sitting down with both parties involved. A lot of what you see is what sells, not what actually goes down.



If we are talking specifically about the chicks in the story it's one thing, but the point that some if us were bringing up is that this a true gold digger is an uncommon thing.

What I'm saying is a true gold digger might be relatively rare but women run the gamut in the continuum of this tendency.

Absolutely. There is a sliding scale. But we rarely hear of or discuss this sliding scale. And the fact that by simply acknowledging that there IS a scale it makes the lines awfully blurry. It's much more convenient to break it down into black and white and that's what too many guys do because it doesn't make you think twice about your preconceptions.

I would just draw the line where it's pretty obvious that the woman has no interest unless she sees that a person has wealth. If it's too hard to determine then I don't make the determination. I got to say though honestly I believe many modern American women act as gold diggers. I put the blame on soietal and enviromental conditions, where as you don't seem to.