Guys, just take it as added insight into a lady's mind.

it isn't so much about money as per se.
It is your ability to support the family. You're not only marrying your woman, you're marrying her and her family as well. Her parents become your responsibility as well.

Women, no matter how tough she looks on the outside, is still a fragile little creature that needs loving and caring and lots of pampering and attention. Thats just what women is. They need to be looked after, they need a sense of security, to know that the man she married is capable of holding the family.

So suck it up guys and stop depending on the woman to fill the other half of the rice bowl. If you want to court a girl, make sure you have what it takes to support her and her family.

MEN!!! pphhbbbtt!!!!

Regardless, try to get a mate first and then get married and start breeding. Then tell me if she's wrong, dum dum.

It is about the ability to fulfill the marital obligation of shouldering the responsibility of taking care of, not only the guy's family but his wife's family as well.

Its just that the rich guy fares better in shouldering such responsibility instead of the poor guy. It also depends on how capable the guy is in taking on such heavy responsibility.

If you're not up to the mark to take on such responsibility, then don't get married. Look for a whore if you need sex. Marriage is not for sex only. Strings, lots of it, are attached!

I think we should meet up and have you evaluate Mistress Happy's Escort Service and see how well I fare in making men happy. OK?


Bill Gates is a celebrity in his own. And he's still married to that same woman.

True love can't pay for bills, infant formula, and Huggies PullUps, nor can it pay for that Chemo for that aged in law of hers.

Its never about money. But about the ABILITY to shoulder the responsibility to take care of your wife and her family, besides your own family.
Love is only skin deep if you can't shoulder the responsibility with full commitment and conviction.

Again, its never about money. Its about your capability. If you're incompetent, you'd expect to be taken care of instead, right? How convenient.

Its OK for the girl. Because ultimately, regardless of how you dislike it, it is still the GUY'S responsibility to lead and sustain the household.

Unless of course, you're a sissy and change your surname into your wife's. and eat slipper rice.

And you'd prefer a woman to be spending on you instead?
Which part of TS posts says anything about sucking men's money?

If you need a reason for being in love? You're talking about a one-sided relationship, which is irrelevant.

If you do love the woman, and is committed to her, and to take care of her, then your assertions above are moot.
You will do all you can to take care of her regardless. But it helps if you're capable financially.

Working hard together yes, but not to the extent of until the rest of their lives.

Try and see if you can work hard while having monthly periods, emotional instabilities, then you get pregnant for 9 months and still have to travel to work in that 9 months, then rest 1 month, and get back to work again, while having to take care of the baby, day in day out while looking after the husband as well.

The gist is, the man have to STEP UP and be more reliable than when he was a bachelor.

try running your own business.

if you're clueless on your finance, then its good you should never get married in the first place.

In the animal kingdom, the male that hunts the best, or makes the nest the best gets to mate. No different here. The fittest should survive.

But u have no problem spreading yr legs for me wor, sayang

lesbian love is good!!! we should invite Map for 3sum. epic!

I love to eat sosejes too, apart from money

How much do you need to sustain a family, send the kids to school, college, uni?
You should have figured that out first. If you still don't know, you don't deserve to get married.

Since you can choose who is worthy enough to be your mate, the same applies to the other gender.

He has respect and honour for the woman plus responsibility. You have none.

Nope. I understood your points full well, of which implied a flawed personality based on the perception that you gave from your points.
You were the one who frequently uses Ad Hominem. Besides, your points does show your character, as what you wanted me to perceive, so it isn't Ad Hominem anymore.

Write it then. Why use Ad Hominem on him by calling him a confused person yet provide no justification without due prejudice.
Your imputation amounts to defamation.


Why not you give a reason why the wife MUST offer you sex and give birth to your babies.


Since when there is ever a thing called FAIR?
You want fairness? Try becoming a hermaphrodite.
After 35 pages and you still harp on the same old flawed argument of woman being money minded. It isn;t about money. It is about the ABILITY and CAPABILITY to earn/make money and support the family.

girlfriends or wives, its up to you to shoulder the responsibility as best to your ability.

Business dont need 10 years. EVen in 1 day can be done too. I'm running my own biz SOHO style, low cost, low capital and overhead. I figured that to increase my income, I cannot depend on my job. I need to step up to create a job for myself. If I can spend 8 hours a day making my bosses richer and bringing in customers for them, why not spend it to do my own business and bring in profit for myself?

And no, my relationship is fine, into its 7th year now.

Responsibility, Commitment, and Conviction. Anything else will fall into place in due time.


You do realize that the question you posted can be used back on you, don't you?
Besides, this thread isn't about gold diggers. So your assertions are moot.

A gentleman should know how to behave, else he won't be called one. You do know what it takes to be one, don't you?

If the men are that capable, working will only be an option for women, not a necessity.
And yes. the Man is still the leader of the household. A relationship between the man and the woman has roles for each one to follow. It is only because either one is incapable, that the other has to cover up for his/her partner. Nothing wrong with that, but inherently women still look up to man for their leadership qualities due to their nature in being logical and level headed thinking.
Sure they can contribute, but it is better if its only an option for them not a necessity. Because when they are pregnant for that 9 months, she can't contribute as much as she could even if she wanted. Women also have periods every month, which can hinder their ability to work and cause them to be emotionally unstable. Sometimes they will have body pains too. Women are fragile creatures, physically and mentally. Man are born tough. It is a gentlemanly obligation to take care of her in times of her need.

So looking at the first post, if you see a rich (possible capable) man, and a poor (possible incapable) man, based on such simplistic scenario, one tends to choose the former than the latter. Of course, this is question is too general as lots of variables aren't present to give a complete justification of anyone's answer


So? I don't beach about it like you do

Your argument is moot as well, because the assertion wasn't about the reliability on man based on the "amount" of money he already makes. No monetary figure was mentioned. It was an open ended assertion with a general and simplistic statement. Further into the posts you'll see that it would mean the capability of shouldering responsibilities and not just the *amount* that matters. If one is irresponsible and spendthrift, no amount of money is ever enough

For men then shirks at responsibilities, surely it meant little to them.

They stick around for as long as my legs remained split asunder, emanating my feminine excretions all around in such awesome splendour.


If it is about the amount of money, then please state at which point the post mentioned about the amount of money?

Nope. It implies that rich can provide. Not the "amount" of money one needs to be called rich.
"Rich" is also very subjective and relative. The statement shown was of a very simplistic and general purview that being rich is better than poor.
The general perception here is that rich can provide and poor can't.

Ideally, while love is more important than money, but many times the lack of money and the pursuit of money can wither the love down over time. This happens even among the rich too. And the most number of arguments in marital issues are caused by financial means.

Also, some woman tends to be very idealistic and doesn't think much about the sustainability of the family despite lacking in financial means, other would be more of a realist and would choose their mate more carefully, putting logic ahead of emotions. There is no right or wrong.

At the end of the day, whatever floats your boat, take it.

Moorish is voicing out her perception based on her experience. Perceptions are subjective and relative. There is no absolute answer here.
And her perception also imply that life can be better if your mate is resourceful in financial means. And the general assertion is, if you can choose, most logical answer would be to choose the one with the most capability and resources.

I do believe strongly in commitment. Love without it is useless and meaningless

If you're thinking of going into business, consider opportunities instead of just limiting to your skills or industry you're working in.

Poor people live within their means. Thats how they survive. If they can't afford education for their kids, they just send them to work, or beg.
Simple. Some even trade food for liquor too. Very nice and warm family.

Do you think those who're undeserving of love should be offered loved unconditionally?

I see Jolibee! Filipinos are quite pretty

---

Added on April 29, 2009, 3:45 pmThis isn't the case, if you do read TS's earlier predicament with her bf of 4 years.

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Apr 29 2009, 03:45 PM

In actual divorce cases, the wife do get half of the husband's assets and custody of their children. More so when the husband openly commits adultery

Thats what Moorish did. She used her brain and dumped the man with poor character and values because he doesn't give a shit to improve his financial rut. So quit beaching around.

And if that is so, don't you think it is right to dump this undeserving bloke and go for one that truly deserves her? Since this man has all the qualities in terms of capability, financial standing, patience, and loving, much unlike the lorry driver. Love is only skin deep if either one doesn't take the initiative and commitment to improve themselves and take care of their loved ones. I believe the lorry driver was taking Moorish for granted and remained in competent throughout his sorry life. He's still a lorry driver even now!

---

Added on April 30, 2009, 10:27 amIt is a natural instinct for a woman to choose her man depending on how well he can support and take care of the family. This happens in the animal kingdom too, and applies well to humans.

A woman who has no confidence with the ability of the man to take care of her and her children should not be with this man. Its also an inherent maternal instinct among women. The struggle to survive and provide for the young. So it is completely normal for woman to choose her man as selectively as possible, going for the man with the highest possible chance of successfully raising her children up.

This post has been edited by happy4ever: Apr 30 2009, 10:27 AM

I can make your wildest dream come true, elevating you to godhood, when you soak your head down between the valley of my twin peaks, squeezing and bouncing the mammaries off your eyeballs, titillating your oral sensories to the next spiritual plane, while extracting your manhood out into my Cave of Enlightenment, thereby joining our body in one unison, gyrating our pelvis in the same frequency, squirting the heavenly excrements of my feminine body into your lips, tasting heaven and engulfed in womanly embrace of love and joy, making you vibrate violently in when you reach the Climax of Millennium, dispensing your excretion into my Cave to form a union of two flesh into one, sharing fluids of love in heavenly embrace.


Does this answer your question, sayang?

Without woman, all men will be gay.

Its ok to be lesbians. Research indicates that more people prefer to watch lesbians in actions than gays.

Character changes over time due to changes in perception from experience. Nothing is absolute.
So nothing can be judged, but only to anticipate.

In the animal kingdom, the female, will all the time, pick the males with the most capabilities and/or resources. It is the natural maternal instinct to choose their mate that can provide security for the female to nest and grow their young.

It is only in human, does this things get screwed backwards because females of the two legged tend to be stupid enough to neglect their instincts and to cohabitate with incapable, poor, and stupid males. In the end, they breed more stupid and poor people.

To those who complain about women being money minded, you're just being a sore loser.

---

Added on May 3, 2009, 7:45 amThe journey of discourse is better than the destination itself, usually. The process of arguments/debates itself yields good benefits as it provokes one's mindset to think, rationalize, and form better arguments. It doesn't matter if they go into arguments over and over again. The gist is that they become more closer and loving in gay love over time.

This post has been edited by happy4ever: May 3 2009, 07:45 AM