Gosh, is your mind so narrowly single tracked? I'm not saying you run to the richest guy, but "rich" is a necessity to you, and you have placed "rich" as a higher priority over love. Love being the feelings, responsibility and commitment to a relationship. You have placed the person's wealth HIGHER than the person's character. In essence, you're saying the person's money, is more important than the person himself.

I threw a scenario to you, to answer, it will clear up your position, but rather than answer it, you chose to side step the question. This only further weakens your position in this discussion, as it seems you're trying to escape.

Here's the scenario again:
If your husband is making 15k a month and its enough for you, a guy who is making 100k a month isn't going to be very enticing to you. However, if suddenly things go bad for business and he ends up making 2k a month... would someone who is making 12k a month might seem more enticing to you now? Would you change your lifestyle, demands and expectations during the rough times? Would you be able to resist the tempations of material wealth if approached by another guy?

Remember, things are alot easier said than done, and people tend to look for things they cannot get in a relationship... outside their relationship. Whether you're such a person, I do not know, but the position you advocate goes encourages such behaviour rather than enforce the necessity of falling for a person's character rather than their bank account.


You're so damn shallow. Guys who marry a girl just because she's pretty is shallow, and that sort of person is very likely to cheat on her once her beauty starts to fade. Yes, we men like beautiful women... but the person we choose (or at least I) has something else besides the beauty. The thing that makes us stick to them is not how she looks, but who she is.

Her looks may attract me to get to know her better, but what would make me stick around her, is what kind of person she is. Do you see the difference with the position you advocate?


Its one thing to say that you chose another guy because your current guy was just a total bum. Its another to say that you leave your current guy because the other guy has more zeroes in his account. While there are scenarios where both criteria fits, the latter scenario can also happen if your guy is making enough, but you just demand more. THAT is the position you're advocating, and THAT is why you're getting so much flak.

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. I do agree with that there is nothing wrong with a girl expecting her life long partner to be successful. However, I do not agree with your advocation of the position that wealth is more important than the person himself. Wealth, is a supporting factor, not the initial and deciding factor.


You can never really know... the only way to know is to hit rock bottom and see if she'll be there to support you back up. That will be the test of her love, if she dumps you for someone richer because of that, then you can know that she loved the money... not you. However, who will want to hit rock bottom when they're at the top just to "test" this? Its stupid and pointless, so such a test cannot be artificially produced.

If you choose a person because of their wealth, you are essentially selling yourself. The fallacy moorish makes, is that its "the highest bidder", which is not necessarily the case. Its not an auction Its really more like how the market works. If a person buys at a price you're comfortable with, then its ok. You don't need to wait for the highest bidder, just enough to satisfy yourself.

The problem in this, that I keep trying to tell moorish, is that it places the wealth BEFORE the person. Its not "My partner has to have abc characterics and be able to support my family". She advocates "My partner has to be rich and also have abc characteristics".

+1

You said it when you said "A guy is just as likely to cheat on you in 10 years, might as well go for a rich one". I'm not putting words in your mouth, you said it yourself. Every word you use, how you use it, and how you justify/rationalise things reveals about what you truly think. Its easy to set up a "main point" that sounds good, but when that point is attacked, everything you use to defend it, will weigh in to the conclusion of your argument. If your argument is solid, your defence of it will remain consistent. That consistency is not reflected in your writing.


Wrong. I'm not coming from the view of who is chasing who. That is IRRELEVANT. I'm coming from the point of what keeps people together. The position you're advocating is "money". Whether you realise that or not.


Let me quote you...

bolded for emphasis


I don't know.. why don't YOU tell me?


That's because you got what you want. Now what happens if you lose it? As the above, what happens if your husband becomes poor?



Why do you always choose the extremes? You may not "hate" him, but you may find that person "acceptable". He may not be the most romantic person in the world, he may not be very sensitive, but he treats you well enough. Such a guy, in your mind would be more worth sticking with, than a person who treats you better, but doesn't make as much money.


Once again, what happens if he becomes "poor"? Sometimes being "poor" can last for a few years before he gets back up on his feet again. During that period, what would you do? what is your advice going to be for people in similar situations?

This post has been edited by silverhawk: Oct 6 2009, 01:49 PM

main buntut with other guys.

die la you 7chai...

I get your point miss. I've got it from the start.


I didn't say you deleted it, I just said you placed money ABOVE it. Money is more important to you than the person's character.


That's good, though I wonder why you said "I believe I will" rather than "I will". Why is there that glimmer of doubt?


That is YOUR perception of the argument, its not what WE are saying. At least not n00bi3, duke red and I. What we're saying its doomed when you place MONEY before CHARACTER. You're advocating looking for someone rich with a good character, rather than someone with a good character that happens to be rich. There is a difference between the two.

When you put money as the initial criteria, you don't bother to know the person first and what he is capable of. You just look at what he has, if he doesn't "have it" yet, you just ignore him. If you put character as the initial criteria, you'll actually get to KNOW the person FIRST, whether he has enough money to support you or not, or whether he is capable, you will then know and decide.

Debbie holds the latter view, she looks at character first. You don't see me slamming her views, only yours. Did you ever stop to think WHY?


I've seen many girls marry "poor" people and also be happy! Likewise I've seen people marry rich people and be sad.

Once again, you JUMP to the extreme. Between ok-ok and perfect there's a huge gamut of choices. I'm saying we should stick with someone we can accept, some who's character we like. Not someone's who's character we simply tolerate because they can give us something in return.


As I mentioned again and again, you're not looking at the points we're trying to tell you. You have an assumption of what we mean, and that skews your perception of our argument. Then you go around and try to refute us based on your version of our argument. However that is NOT what we're saying. Try to discuss this properly yes?


You know, if I didn't know better... I'd think you were male. Your ego is at least as big as one
Did it ever occur to you that I have a JOB and I need to WORK? Your arrogance astounds me. Proving you wrong is easy, and I've consistently been doing it, of course your ego will not allow yourself to admit that


There's nothing wrong with that. However, in life things do not always go the way we want them to. In that event, would you be willing to work to help support your family? or would you rather let your hubby carry all the burden? In any scenario, its always a good idea to be prepared for the worst, even though there is no sign of it coming in the future.

That's commendable.


For the last time, this isn't about "winning/losing". Its about realising the inconsistencies in your posts. Generally, and in principle, I agree with your views, however the more you spew out, the more it seems you're talking about something else. We all often consciously think of things we're going to say and how people around will perceive us for what we say. These are things we realise, but if you watch your words, the sub-conscious, the things we really feel reveals itself. Try to do examine it yourself, as sort of a self-reflection. I do it from time to time and it reveals a lot of what you truly feel/want.


Then you go and say this:

If you're going to filter people you date first depending on their money, then you're filtering out guys with good characters or perhaps on their way to making money. In other words, even when you're dating people, you don't really care about the person himself, but his wallet. Do you see why you're getting flak for such an approach? Duke red has brought this point up with you before.


If you don't think, you're not here to debate. You're just here to preach your views as if it were gospel truth. That my dear, is not a debate.


Yes I do, and why do you think guys don't want to look for women who would divorce them due to financial issues? While I personally believe its a man's duty to provide, I also believe its a woman's duty to support him and not be a leech. What's the point for us to marry someone if that person is likely to leave us when times are bad?

Moorish, to put it very simply, you're selfish. You think only about yourself, and in this debate, you've never stopped to think about the needs of others and how your "advice" would affect them.

A male equivalent of your advice would be to go around "spend money" on women, fool around, but don't marry them. After all, a man's prerogative is to breed with as many females as possible, just as it is your prerogative to find a successful man to support you and your children. Such advice would allow him to spread his seed, keep a ready supply of fresh young women, and secure his assets from potential divorce cases. Yet, I wouldn't call such advice, good advice, would you?


If he could, but wasn't rich, he wouldn't have had the chance in the first place.


There's nothing wrong in your aims. The problem lies when you try to turn your selfish needs into advice for other girls as well, assuming that your advice would make them happy, assuming that your advice is good for society. Newsflash girl, it isn't.

So far moorish, in all your writings in defending yourself, regardless of the topic. All you talk about what YOU want, about what YOU seek in life, about what YOU want your partner to give to you, and about how well YOUR hubby is treating you. Notice that EVERYTHING is about you. You can't separate yourself from the issue, you can't be objective in your views, it seems you can't think about anyone, other than yourself. I really do hope that is not the case, but that is the impression you have put forth in this forum, not just this topic alone.

Your hubby has swept you off your feet, and kudos to him, men should know how to woo their woman Now the question is, what qualities does your hubby have that you found attractive, or what is it about your hubby do you like that, that doesn't pertain to you?

Wow, I hath a female on my side

---

Added on October 7, 2009, 6:48 pmdead horse needs beating

This post has been edited by silverhawk: Oct 7 2009, 06:48 PM

Imagining it up? no I am not (after all, several other people have pointed it out to you), you probably don't realise the vector of your argument, even after its been brought up numerous times. Being able to read these minute details that reveals a person's true intentions is something I pride myself on. I can and have pointed out such minor details to you, you may not think its important, but it is, because if you truly believe in something, and you truly stand behind what you say without the need to gain acceptance from others, your words and how you say them would be different.

I can understand your frustration with the more immature members, but do you have to stoop to their level? They will beat you by experience moorish.


Oh, so its not about advising or educating people anymore?


Statistically speaking, yes, that is more likely to happen. You did after all filter based on money FIRST rather than on character. The initial dates and all were based on his material wealth, not who he is as a person. This initial "filter" becomes your primary need, and when such a primary need is diminished, you may feel unfulfilled. YOU may be different, but generally and statistically speaking, that simply isn't the case. Advocating and propagating such a mentality is simply going to make things worse for society.

Its one thing to say "go only after the rich men" and completely another to say "make sure you men is capable to support your future". They may both be similar, and have portions that overlap, but they are entirely different approaches. Can you see the difference?


The world isn't black & white. Going for either extreme is bad.


I didn't say you had to suck him dry, just that you're using his money for your own needs, without actually seeing him as a person, just like an ATM machine and someone to cheer you up when you're down. Get my drift?


Immoral by whose standards? Did you that if we all did a DNA test, we would that we're all mostly related to genghis khan? Now tell me, for a man, what would be a greater legacy than that? You keep talking from a completely female perspective, and now, I'm sharing with you a completely male perspective.

Regarding children growing up, we can have a separate topic on that, perhaps do one in RWI, it needs a bit of a change of pace


Unfortunately, what you fail to realise is, this is what you're indirectly preaching.


Despite him being a great guy and not exactly poor.


Its their fault for being so naive, however its equally stupid to jump from one end to the other. You can simply tell them that its important that their man understands what a family needs and is motivated to provide for it, or to tell them the importance of financial security and freedom in a family. If your advice came with such a tone, you wouldn't have had so much flak. However, your advice was simply "no money, no punani"


In all honesty, CC is a horrible place for such statistics as majority of the people here are immature, a lot of responses in this topic alone should be enough evidence You can throw me stories of your friends, and I can throw you back stories of my friends and relatives as well, both good and bad. All I've learnt from seeing all the cases (my own family included), is that in the end, its the bond in the family that matters, not any other factors and that if a couple gets into a relationship with such a filter first, it tends to stress the relationship a lot more when that primary criteria disappears.

Let me put it this way, money doesn't build a strong relationship, nor does it provide a reliable foundation for a relationship to build on. The bond in a relationship is strengthened based on the commitment of the couple themselves, money is simply a stress reliever in the relationship. Having it reduces the stress on the bond, which means it is less likely to break. This is good, BUT once it starts being stressed, you aren't sure whether the bond can handle such stress or not.

If a relationship starts out with both sides interested in knowing the other for who they are they build a foundation based on that bond. If you have money (or looks if from the guy perspective) as one of your foundations in starting the relationship, when that starts to disappear or deteriorate, its not just additional STRESS being placed on the bond, the very foundation of that bond starts deteriorating as well. Isn't it obvious why things start to fall apart then?

In short, relationships are more likely to fail when:
1) The level of stress a relationship has to handle is not accounted for (not considering money, or the aging effect of the body)
2) Building a foundation on an uncertain/unreliable foundation (rich ppl can go bankcrupt in a manner of days, looks fade with age)

You fully understand the importance of point 1), but you totally undermine the importance of point 2).

Also, why did you avoid answering my last question?

You've mentioned it in one of your posts.


So what if you didn't start the trend? Just because its the trend, you're going to follow it? Its a human trend in history to kill people, do you want to be killing people? No, I don't think so. Just because its the trend, doesn't mean you can't break from it. The same thing applies to the current situation, I'm not saying that you should give up the requirement of having a capable husband, but I'm saying that you should be focusing more on the person himself, rather than what the person has materially.


What you say, what you mean, and what you imply, can all mean different things. Did you know that? The choice of words you use, even if you're translating from a different language, carry different implications, even if they mean the same thing. For example, I know that saying, but if I were to explain to a girl who is naively telling me love conquers all, I'm not going to say "you need a rich partner" or "go marry a rich man". I'm going to tell her that its important that her partner is able to support a family, how money will stress a relationship and how her partner must also realise its importance.

Do you see the difference in approach here?


First, I'm not saying you're immoral for using his money. I expect to pay for my partner and my wife, and I expect to be able to support my family. However, if my partner is choosing me because of my money, and not because she likes me as a person, then I'm not going to want to be with such a person.

Being swept off your feet is fine and all, it is afterall those extra points that will often differentiate one guy from another. The question is, can you see the person's qualities for what they are and not how it pertains to you?


Wow, do you seriously want to use such a pathetic argument? In case you do not know, the killing in this world hasn't stopped, if anything it just keeps continuing. Do you really think playing the ps3 curbs our violent tendencies? No, its our education that curbs that, its how we're brought up, if you're not brought up the right way, whether you play a violent game or not, you're going to act violent.


Its important, but the actual issues to discuss are different. I'll make a RWI topic for it later, and I would like your input on it


No, its you who fails to recognise what you're implying.


In my case, its because you're propagating a disgusting mentality which I believe hurts relationships in the long term. Your actual point itself may be ok, but what you say has its implications which you're simply not aware of.


Wow, complete and utter fail of comprehension? That entire paragraph was talking about how a relationship will be stressed without money. Means if rich --> no money. If poor --> no money. At least with the poor relationship, wealth wasn't a deciding factor in the relationship, so its more likely to last.


Our approach in this is completely different. I realise the importance of money and I know it can be an issue, which is why I focus on character so that the lack/abundance of money becomes a non-issue. When stressed due to lack of money, it would be tough, but at least I know my partner is in with me for who I am, not for what I've lost.


Indeed it is, and if shit hits the fan in your family's finances, how much would you be worth on the market moorish? At what price would you be bought out? Remember, you did mention that everyone has their price, and that implies, you yourself, have a price.


I ask you a direct question, and you answer the opposite of what I ask? You're incredibly selfish, arrogant, and narcissistic to think that your husband's life is just entirely filled with you, as though as a person he has no other purpose or function. What the heck is he to you? A tool to fulfil your needs? Is that all you see him as? Is it so hard for you to just list a few things that defines him for who he is? Perhaps like how he's such a selfless person? or perhaps his confidence and how he carries himself? treats his parents/relatives? or how he is driven and motivated? his unique style of thinking? etc. etc. etc.

After dating a person for so long, being married and having his child. Simple stuff like that doesn't even cross your mind when you think about him? How incredibly self centred you are moorish.