Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I've sat back and listened to many women speak about what is important to them in a relationship, and heard various things, so I wanted some feedback on a broader scale.

What is more important for women in a relationship? Money or Love?

Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?

Can't generalize. Some do it for money, some for love.

There, that's the politically correct bs out of the way.

The correct answer is money.

Alot of women, from what I see, look to marry up, regardless if they are in love.

Originally posted by Stoic
I've sat back and listened to many women speak about what is important to them in a relationship, and heard various things, so I wanted some feedback on a broader scale.

What is more important for women in a relationship? Money or Love?

Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?

I find this idea sexist.

I married Bada for the great sex.

Originally posted by Naz
I find this idea sexist. I find that reality is often sexist.

Originally posted by Naz
I find this idea sexist.

Explain why you feel that this is a sexist subject, because I really don't see it that way. Would you feel the same way if I switched the gender to male instead of female concerning this topic?

I, realize that there are women that have their own careers, and don't need a man to pay or help pay their bills, but I've also heard women in these situations say that they would prefer to date a man that makes a similar salary as they do. I guess this topic is what you make of it.... however I apologize to those women that feel that this subject is sexist.

Depends on the person, generally I would say it goes like this but there are sometimes the rare person who goes on Love but:

-Children, this is the first thing on their minds and Marriage is usually a stepping stone towards it.

-if their young, its simply street cred/brag rights, brag to their friends that they have marriage etc etc, "damn I bet your jelous that ime married" same thing could be for children, but marriage is the case of this thread.

-Money is indeed important, because this links in with children, they often want to spoil the child rotten and be able to buy whatever they want for it and themselves, this is especially selfish kind of women who makes a guy into a credit card, ignoring the fact that a guy who doesnt mind being treated like this is using her as a sex bag.

It depends on age as well, younger girls may be leaning towards brag rights and material possessions, older may be for other things. Many of the reasons are linked to children, brag rights etc

Originally posted by Burning thought
Depends on the person, generally I would say it goes like this but there are sometimes the rare person who goes on Love but:

-Children, this is the first thing on their minds and Marriage is usually a stepping stone towards it.

-if their young, its simply street cred/brag rights, brag to their friends that they have marriage etc etc, "damn I bet your jelous that ime married" same thing could be for children, but marriage is the case of this thread.

-Money is indeed important, because this links in with children, they often want to spoil the child rotten and be able to buy whatever they want for it and themselves, this is especially selfish kind of women who makes a guy into a credit card, ignoring the fact that a guy who doesnt mind being treated like this is using her as a sex bag.

Yeah all women wantz teh babiez, even though the rate of childless women has doubled in the last 30 years.

Originally posted by Stoic
Explain why you feel that this is a sexist subject, because I really don't see it that way. Would you feel the same way if I switched the gender to male instead of female concerning this topic?

I, realize that there are women that have their own careers, and don't need a man to pay or help pay their bills, but I've also heard women in these situations say that they would prefer to date a man that makes a similar salary as they do. I guess this topic is what you make of it.... however I apologize to those women that feel that this subject is sexist.

Here is what makes it sexist:
Originally posted by Stoic
Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?
It would be a sexist subject if it as about men also, but you did it about women because that stereotype actually exists and it is "acceptable" to talk about women like that.

It's a social thing. It's not just marriage either, women go for the man who's best, just to say that they could get with him.

Men do it too, but only with looks.

Originally posted by Naz
I find this idea sexist.

It all boils down to the dark recesses of what Man And Woman are. Even if a women says she is enlightened and doesn't care about the money its not true. Men are the providers. From pre civilization humans we "Men" have been programed to attract a mate. How did we do this ? We went hunting and brought back a hunk of Elk flesh to feed her. We Built a Shelter for her to be warm and safe from Saber tooth and cave Bears. Times have changed and modern social construct tell women they are equal(which they are in intellect) and can make their own money and be independent and such but those "programed" behaviors are still there. I have many Married friends. And i have seen trouble in their marriage . At a glance your like ,whats the problem, they both work ,they both have good jobs but the wife makes More money than the Husband and that is a constant issue. Case in point: She is a Hospital administrator 6 figure a year earner. Her husband is a Paramedic. He loves his job,and its an admirable job that he worked hard for two years to get the education to do it, but she is always on his case to go back to school and be something More. Why? He makes a good living doing what he enjoys but, she makes More money and this,weather she realizes it or not ,goes back to The Men should be the "Bread winners". It will always be this way. She emasculates him because he doesn't make as much or more than her. I have seen this many times. Its just the nature of us.

Originally posted by Sanctuary
Yeah all women wantz teh babiez, even though the rate of childless women has doubled in the last 30 years.



Here is what makes it sexist:

It would be a sexist subject if it as about men also, but you did it about women because that stereotype actually exists and it is "acceptable" to talk about women like that. Marriage was a sexist thing to begin with. Unmarried women were basically children, and marriage was a man promising to not take advantage of the woman.

Divorce is even worse. Losing half of what you own to an abusive emotional *****. It's ridiculous people still feel the need to get married.

Originally posted by lord xyz


It's ridiculous people still feel the need to get married.

I agree. Its for insecure people who think "Now i have a contract that binds them to me" Like a Licence makes it permanent.

Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.

Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.

Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.

Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.

For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930


It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.

thread = sexist

generalization = wrong

I'd bet neither are the best indication of who a woman marries. Time and monetary commitment, proximity, likeness, probably way more important than finances or "love"

oh, and additionally, given that love is an ambiguous label that humans attribute to certain mental states and not a measurable empirical phenomenon, it is likely that subconsciously, a woman looking to marry up, would gain those mental states for people with more money.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.

lol, that is by no means definitive and plays almost no role in the discussion of love. (Interesting though, however there is lots of social psych stuff on this you might find interesting)

Love is a subjective label for a mental state, and thus, might be wholly unrelated to biological attraction processes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.

Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.

Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.

Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.

For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930


It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side. You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.

It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting. The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.

there is also the fact that humans can toilet train their children, which shows how mailable the genetic influences on behaviour can be.

Even just to say women want a man who can protect and provide, those two things will be defined in radically different ways for different women.

It also goes both ways. Personally, physical attractiveness of a girl is not the main turn on to me. Lots of "hot" girls (which really means girls who dress sluttish and don't have any real personality) repulse me.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, that is by no means definitive and plays almost no role in the discussion of love.

Actually, it plays a large roll in love. So large, in fact, that it is how humans even survived. If we are talking about the same things....are we?

Originally posted by inimalist
(Interesting though, however there is lots of social psych stuff on this you might find interesting)

I'm quite interested, actually.

Originally posted by inimalist
Love is a subjective label for a mental state, and thus, might be wholly unrelated to biological attraction processes.

True that the word "love" has different uses. Doesn't Latan have 4 words for "love"?

Anyway, love in the context we are speaking is romantic love. In which case, love is a hell of a lot more chemical than people would like to admit. Quite a few "involuntary" things happen when one thinks that they are "in love".

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.

Not really. Humans constantly go against what their programmed to do genetically. Shouldn't seem strange that I say we can't shuck our genetics but do so anyway. The genes which influence our behavior are still there...you can't get rid of that without gene-therapy which probably doesn't exist for that yet.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting.

One could derive, from reading my post, that it is both. One could also come to that conclusion from reading my other posts on similar subjects.

Yes, I know that that point is not directly aimed at me. But that is what it is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.

Cool. I find generalizations to fail when singularly used.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it plays a large roll in love. So large, in fact, that it is how humans even survived. If we are talking about the same things....are we?

the question is "do women get married for money or love"

why women are attracted to people is moot. Unless you believe love comes before attraction?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm quite interested, actually.

not my subject of expertise, so I really can't recommend anything. I'd say look into the mere exposure effect and the relationship between subjective love and the amount of resources immediately put into the relationship.

Originally posted by dadudemon
True that the word "love" has different uses. Doesn't Latan have 4 words for "love"?

Anyway, love in the context we are speaking is romantic love. In which case, love is a hell of a lot more chemical than people would like to admit. Quite a few "involuntary" things happen when one thinks that they are "in love".

actually, what I am saying is that love is NOT chemical

the chemical limbic activation for love is no different than "Highly excited". It is the other parts of the "conscious" brain that interpret that as love based on other situational factors.

There is no "love" brain state. Love is an entirely subjective human experience.

Women date me for my money....my money-maker, that is.


























Also, I'm broke as sh*t right now.

Also, I plan on marrying rich. Let's reverse the social stigma by being lazy pieces of crap and doing what women are supposed to stereotypically do. Come on guys, who's with me?

313

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Also, I plan on marrying rich. Let's reverse the social stigma by being lazy pieces of crap and doing what women are supposed to stereotypically do. Come on guys, who's with me?

313 No, because women will win, like they win everything.

Stubborn cun ts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to contradict yourself a bit there. On the one hand you say we can't "shuck" our genetics, yet admit that the more gender roles get blurred the more they become unimportant. A bit odd.

It's obviously a question whether it is all genetics or whether there's more upbringing influences, but that's the type of discussion that would be interesting. The blind acceptance of the stereotype in the face of empirical prove of the opposite though, is what is sexist. The generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.

Shaddup, before I ban you again.

Originally posted by inimalist
the question is "do women get married for money or love"

And the answer is yes to both...and then a whole lot of other things. But there is science to explain why it is easier to fall in love with Mr. Testosterone and Mr. Money. Doesn't science also show that Mr. Testosterone nowadays is more than likely to be Mr. Money too.

Originally posted by inimalist
why women are attracted to people is moot. Unless you believe love comes before attraction?

You have it backwards. Why women are attracted to people is followed by why they "love" who they do.



Originally posted by inimalist
not my subject of expertise, so I really can't recommend anything. I'd say look into the mere exposure effect and the relationship between subjective love and the amount of resources immediately put into the relationship.

Well, what I linked to was not just resources. It covered the physical (chemical) part of "love".



Originally posted by inimalist
actually, what I am saying is that love is NOT chemical

But...it is. It is a combination of environment and genetics. The initial portion is not as romantic as the romantics would like to believe. In fact, it kind of removes the romance out of it once you get to know it better.



wait....are you a romantic?

Originally posted by inimalist
the chemical limbic activation for love is no different than "Highly excited". It is the other parts of the "conscious" brain that interpret that as love based on other situational factors.

There is no "love" brain state. Love is an entirely subjective human experience.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/love1.htm

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0602/feature2/

http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html


What you're speaking about is psychological love after the initial chemical period. You know, the portion of a love relationship that lasts long enough to raise offspring past 2 years old...a nice threshold for early man.

It took a bit, but I found the study that talks about that.

"Dr Enzo Emanuele and his team found that those who had just met were brimming with NGF, whereas people who had been together for a year or more had much the same levels as the unattached.

For the romantically inclined, this may be bad news: all that magic reduced to metabolic processes and the contention that once you are past the 12-month mark, crazed excitement might be beyond your reach."


I agree that, after that initial chemical period, love is very much psychological and the "chemical" portion of it decreases greatly.

However, love literally is a "mind state" that can be measured and found the same in humans. Did my thread talk about the MRIs done on "in-love" people? I thought it did....

Originally posted by dadudemon
Despite how sexist it sounds, women are programmed to find a stable man who can support the family. By stable, I mean a big strong man with lots of testosterone and large in stature so they can be sure the man will hunt down the beasts and survive.

Since it is not the optimal hunting male that is preferred now but we are still stuck with the same mate selecting genetics, the stability has switched from hunting to money and shelter.

Yes. unfortunately, Sanctuary, it's because the women want to be able to raise their children. Regardless of what modern mores have done to us, we still can't shuck our genetics which have a large influence on our behavior.

Of course, just like all things, there are exceptions. And the exceptions are increasing as gender becomes more and more blurred.

For and in depth look into mate selection and tons of things sex, please review the following thread:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461930


It's quite long but pretty much addresses this thread from the science side.

This was my point.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to contradict yourself a bit .

generalization based on nothing is what Naz and Sanctuary find wrong, I believe.

Oh. I see what you did there.

Originally posted by shiv
Oh. I see what you did there. Who are you again?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
It all boils down to the dark recesses of what Man And Woman are. Even if a women says she is enlightened and doesn't care about the money its not true. Men are the providers. From pre civilization humans we "Men" have been programed to attract a mate. How did we do this ? We went hunting and brought back a hunk of Elk flesh to feed her. We Built a Shelter for her to be warm and safe from Saber tooth and cave Bears. Times have changed and modern social construct tell women they are equal(which they are in intellect) and can make their own money and be independent and such but those "programed" behaviors are still there. I have many Married friends. And i have seen trouble in their marriage . At a glance your like ,whats the problem, they both work ,they both have good jobs but the wife makes More money than the Husband and that is a constant issue. Case in point: She is a Hospital administrator 6 figure a year earner. Her husband is a Paramedic. He loves his job,and its an admirable job that he worked hard for two years to get the education to do it, but she is always on his case to go back to school and be something More. Why? He makes a good living doing what he enjoys but, she makes More money and this,weather she realizes it or not ,goes back to The Men should be the "Bread winners". It will always be this way. She emasculates him because he doesn't make as much or more than her. I have seen this many times. Its just the nature of us.

What utter nonsense.

I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.

My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.


We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.

The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.

My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.

I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What utter nonsense.

I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.

My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.


We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.

The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.

My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.

I find generalisation like this rather ignorant. He's a lucky guy, you're his sugar momma haermm

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I agree. Its for insecure people who think "Now i have a contract that binds them to me" Like a Licence makes it permanent. Agreed.

And in most cases, I believe that money won't keep your lover with you forever.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
He's a lucky guy, you're his sugar momma haermm

He's 2 years older than me. Don't I have to get a younger man to qualify?

I can always way till I'm 40 then have midlife crisis and get a 21 year old and be his sugar momma!

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Agreed.

And in most cases, I believe that money won't keep your lover with you forever.

imo love is the only real contract, everything else including marriage can be broken, including money, children etc, their not strong glue, love is.

What with the credit crunch going on at the moment those material money grabbers may end up dating a pauper when their fortune crumbles.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
He's 2 years older than me. Don't I have to get a younger man to qualify?

I can always way till I'm 40 then have midlife crisis and get a 21 year old and be his sugar momma! Just kidding

I agree actually that it doesn't matter who makes more money, man or woman. Hell, if I make a decent salary and she makes an extraordinary one, good for her.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What utter nonsense.

I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.

My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.


We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.

The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.

My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.

I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.

Wait.

I'm not a chef.

Originally posted by lord xyz
It's ridiculous people still feel the need to get married. I suspect that anyone who feels "the need" to get married is getting married for the wrong reasons. Marriage works best when it is a commitment made by mature people (perhaps something that is increasingly rare these days) who know what they're doing and are prepared for what life may throw their way.

Be careful you're not rationalizing your own fears about making such a commitment.

Originally posted by BackFire
Wait.

I'm not a chef. She's talking about her boyfriend, not the guy she cheats on her boyfriend with, cause he's so hot.

Originally posted by Mindship
I suspect that anyone who feels "the need" to get married is getting married for the wrong reasons. Marriage works best when it is a commitment made by mature people (perhaps something that is increasingly rare these days) who know what they're doing and are prepared for what life may throw their way.

Be careful you're not rationalizing your own fears about making such a commitment. So when the one person wants to get married and voices it to their partner, and the partner is elated at the prospect of wedding this particular person, and they agree to get married, it's a good thing

Originally posted by Bardock42
She's talking about her boyfriend, not the guy she cheats on her boyfriend with, cause he's so hot.

You're going to ruin everything.

Originally posted by BackFire
You're going to ruin everything.

I didn't mean to cry

You did. Admit it.

You also called a guy 'hot'.

Gay German.

Originally posted by BackFire
You did. Admit it.

You also called a guy 'hot'.

Gay German.

Y-you're a guy? When did that happen?

Touche.

Originally posted by Burning thought
imo love is the only real contract, everything else including marriage can be broken, including money, children etc, their not strong glue, love is.

What with the credit crunch going on at the moment those material money grabbers may end up dating a pauper when their fortune crumbles. Very true. I am very involved with someone who is much younger than I am and makes less money. Money does NOT make a relationship.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So when the one person wants to get married and voices it to their partner, and the partner is elated at the prospect of wedding this particular person, and they agree to get married, it's a good thing It's certainly a good start.

I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's certainly a good start.

I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life. Every relationship I have ever been in I put her first, always, and it always came back on me.

The one I am in now, she is always putting me first, or at least always wanting to know what I want to do in a given situation, even though it might conflict with what she wants, so that we might find some middle ground. I am very comfortable with it that way, even though it was quite an adjustment for me.

Ideally it should be 50/50 at all times, but let's get real, that aint gonna happen.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Every relationship I have ever been in I put her first, always, and it always came back on me.

The one I am in now, she is always putting me first, or at least always wanting to know what I want to do in a given situation, even though it might conflict with what she wants, so that we might find some middle ground. I am very comfortable with it that way, even though it was quite an adjustment for me.

Ideally it should be 50/50 at all times, but let's get real, that aint gonna happen.
As time goes by, there will be moments when she'll want you to put her first. You sound ready and able to reciprocate.

Originally posted by Mindship
As time goes by, there will be moments when she'll want you to put her first. You sound ready and able to reciprocate. Indeed I am. And there will be times when I need to be put first. I believe in the end it will all balance out. We will bring balance to the force haermm

Originally posted by dadudemon
However, love literally is a "mind state" that can be measured and found the same in humans. Did my thread talk about the MRIs done on "in-love" people? I thought it did....

blah, I hate to do this man, but I've been studying all day for an exam tomorrow morning and working an a major research paper due Thursday. I want to reply to what you said, but probably wont get the chance, and I know I often forget about it if I don't reply immediately.

not that I don't think you understand what you are saying, just there is likely a jargon issue between how you are describing this stuff and how I understand it. If you can point me even in the general direction of the MRI stuff you are talking about, I'll look at it, just because they will probably be laying it out in a way that is really easy for me, again, not that I don't think you know what you are saying.

I don't think we are too off, I just think you are putting the label "love" on something that is not so specific. Its a form of attribution error I've noticed people make, especially when it comes to neuroscience. Its an attempt to describe neuro functioning based on subjective experience, and not the other way around. I'm just sort of interested in how these researchers describe "love" and the like, as what you have suggested is that there would be a measurable way to describe how much of a subjective feeling a person has at any time, which I can almost assure you (why I want to see the studies) is not possible.

Originally posted by Sanctuary


It would be a sexist subject if it as about men also, but you did it about women because that stereotype actually exists and it is "acceptable" to talk about women like that.

Women hardly ever propose so I don't see your point.

Originally posted by Mindship
It's certainly a good start.

I think a big problem is that we live in a society with often unrealistic expectations about how life should be. Marriage, to a large extent, involves working at it. It means sacrifice, often putting the other person first, something very difficult to do in a me-centered culture, a culture hellbent on selling the illusion of a perfect life.

Well said.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What utter nonsense.

I earn sagnificantly more money than my partner does mostly due to the fact that my education level is higher than his (I hold a BA (hons) and an MA), and therefore easier to get much higher paid job - without any actual labour.

My partner has no problem nor an issue that I earn, and will most probably always earn more than he.
This doesn't threaten his ''manhood'' or any other macho shit people like to think all men have complex about.


We for example have an agreement that once we have children he will be staying at home and I will be working.

The logic behind that is that break in my career would be more costly to my future career than would him.
He has established himself with experience and would have little problem getting a job to the level he deserves.
I need to build my career in a rat race where anyone who falls behind gets left behind.

My partner is a chef by the way.
And he is not threatened that I have University and he doesn't. He has chosen this career because thats what he loves to do and enjoys doing.
It will be illogical for him to think that he will earn more than an investment banker or financial planner.

I find generalisation like this rather ignorant.

You are the exception. And its not a generalization. A friend of mine is a marriage counselor and i know the stuff is supposed to be confidential but he tells me about his clients all the time. the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not. The second most destructive is the husband does not work and the third is infidelity so please be mindful before you start throwing out the "Ignorant" word

Sugar Momma

money

When the love wanes people still stay together and it's out of fear of losing money or stability.

Originally posted by Stoic
Explain why you feel that this is a sexist subject, because I really don't see it that way. Would you feel the same way if I switched the gender to male instead of female concerning this topic?

I, realize that there are women that have their own careers, and don't need a man to pay or help pay their bills, but I've also heard women in these situations say that they would prefer to date a man that makes a similar salary as they do. I guess this topic is what you make of it.... however I apologize to those women that feel that this subject is sexist.

If you switched the gender and tried to claim that "men only marry for financial stability and not out of love", I would find that sexist too. I'm appalled you would imply that a women would not be able to sacrifice out of love.
Of course people in general would prefer to date someone from the same background and financial situation as themselves, I think this is a general truth for everyone, but to say that someone of either gender, because of their gender, wouldn't marry someone they love because that person isn't rich enough, is sexist.

Originally posted by chithappens
Women hardly ever propose so I don't see your point. I don't see how the person that proposes matters in this. If anything, it gives the man more chance to get with a "woman with a silver spoon", don't you think?

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
You are the exception. And its not a generalization. A friend of mine is a marriage counselor and i know the stuff is supposed to be confidential but he tells me about his clients all the time. the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not. The second most destructive is the husband does not work and the third is infidelity so please be mindful before you start throwing out the "Ignorant" word

Sugar Momma

Why should she be mindful. You obviously are ignorant on the subject, especially seeing how you only quote your personal experience (which, might as well be made up, for example, I know 50 marriage councelours and they all tell me that women making more money is never a reason for breakin up).


On top of that "You are the exception. And it is not a generalization...", that's a joke, right?

Originally posted by Bardock42



Why should she be mindful. You obviously are ignorant on the subject, especially seeing how you only quote your personal experience (which, might as well be made up, for example, I know 50 marriage councelours and they all tell me that women making more money is never a reason for breakin up).




I must concede to your point. You don't know Who i know but, what i said was fact. According to your philosophy of the thread, she could be lying and may not even be Married. So that makes anyone on here ignorant if they believe anything that is said on any thread.
Good argument.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
I must concede to your point. You don't know Who i know but, what i said was fact. According to your philosophy of the thread, she could be lying and may not even be Married. So that makes anyone on here ignorant if they believe anything that is said on any thread.
Good argument.



You are obviously right that her "evidence" is just as anecdotal as yours...but "she did it, too" doesn't make what you said any better, now does it?

Originally posted by Stoic
Well said. Thanks.

My girlfriend wants to marry me, but I'm a broke college boy. Hm, I guess it really depends on the woman.

He's closer to being correct.

Money is the #1 reason for divorce. Specific reasons are uknown. Still lookin'. (took me five seconds for this first one)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35097/top_reasons_people_divorce.html

Originally posted by dadudemon
He's closer to being correct.

Money is the #1 reason for divorce. Specific reasons are uknown. Still lookin'. (took me five seconds for this first one)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/35097/top_reasons_people_divorce.html

He said specifically "the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not." ... that might be one reason included in money, but it's not the same as the general label "money".

Originally posted by Bardock42
He said specifically "the number one thing he said that was destructive to a marriage is that the women makes more money and is unhappy that the spouse does not." ... that might be one reason included in money, but it's not the same as the general label "money".


"He's closer to being correct"...was not optimal...because I didn't specify that what it wa relative to.

I meant to say "he's close to being correct."

My bad.


I didn't look after posting that post. I just don't care enough. If someone else is willing to looke further, he can either be pwnt or vindicated. I highly doubt his reason is correct because that is a rather specific problem that doesn't occur very often. It's probably closer to who controls what money or something.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"He's closer to being correct"...was not optimal...because I didn't specify that what it wa relative to.

I meant to say "he's close to being correct."

My bad.


I didn't look after posting that post. I just don't care enough. If someone else is willing to looke further, he can either be pwnt or vindicated. I highly doubt his reason is correct because that is a rather specific problem that doesn't occur very often. It's probably closer to who controls what money or something. Ah, alright then.

I know the majority of my married male friends are up to their eyeballs in student loan debt and have a good decade or two of hard work ahead of them to pay it off. I would say that about half of them are going to be working in high paying jobs as a result of their education and the other half are going to have a harder time paying off those loans because they're working in fields where the rewards are more intellectual and emotional than financial. Of my female friends I would say that all of them have married beneath their own financial standing.

I would guess that the reason money is mentioned as a problem in so many marriages is because most people in this country, and in the world for that matter, are not rich. By averages money is going to be an issue for the majority of people because most don't have very much. However, I can honestly say that of the divorces with which I am familiar (my mother and step-father, my friend's parents and even a few of my peers who got married earlier than most) the problem was not money but the emotional differences the couple had from the beginning.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are obviously right that her "evidence" is just as anecdotal as yours...but "she did it, too" doesn't make what you said any better, now does it?

Enough of this B.S. Bardock.

On Page 1 you used the password to Sanctuary's account to spam Stoic's opening statement.

Page 2 You lashed out when I quoted text of you using the sock as evidence.

Page 3 Questioning the Integrity of Established Members.

You've Earned a Warning.

Originally posted by shiv
Enough of this B.S. Bardock.

On Page 1 you used the password to Sanctuary's account to spam Stoic's opening statement.

Page 2 You lashed out when I quoted text of you using the sock as evidence.

Page 3 Questioning the Integrity of Established Members.

You've Earned a Warning. I accept the warning in deep shame and apologize for my behaviour up until now and thereafter.

A cousin of mine is one of the people who sets interest/Lending rates in a Large Multinational bank. Her husband is a Physical Education Teacher.

Both are incredibly down to earth and bring the best out of each other.

For about 5 years in a row my Dad's business came close to collapsing. But his Wife kept him going financially.
I still think my Dad's Superman and I think of my Stepmom as my own Mother.

I've seen them arguing but its mostly over taking too long to put on make up and stuff.

My Godfather went through a phase when all his assets were possessed His wife watched his back. I don't think he's ever recovered but they have kids and a life together so something like money isn't gonna kill their relationship now.

Originally posted by Devil King
I know the majority of my married male friends are up to their eyeballs in student loan debt and have a good decade or two of hard work ahead of them to pay it off. I would say that about half of them are going to be working in high paying jobs as a result of their education and the other half are going to have a harder time paying off those loans because they're working in fields where the rewards are more intellectual and emotional than financial. Of my female friends I would say that all of them have married beneath their own financial standing.

I would guess that the reason money is mentioned as a problem in so many marriages is because most people in this country, and in the world for that matter, are not rich. By averages money is going to be an issue for the majority of people because most don't have very much. However, I can honestly say that of the divorces with which I am familiar (my mother and step-father, my friend's parents and even a few of my peers who got married earlier than most) the problem was not money but the emotional differences the couple had from the beginning.

Anecdotal paradox:

I am paying down my debts down and off while going to college.

When I go to graduate school, I will have less debt then than I do now.


WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Originally posted by Burning thought
Depends on the person, generally I would say it goes like this but there are sometimes the rare person who goes on Love but:

-Children, this is the first thing on their minds and Marriage is usually a stepping stone towards it.

-if their young, its simply street cred/brag rights, brag to their friends that they have marriage etc etc, "damn I bet your jelous that ime married" same thing could be for children, but marriage is the case of this thread.

-Money is indeed important, because this links in with children, they often want to spoil the child rotten and be able to buy whatever they want for it and themselves, this is especially selfish kind of women who makes a guy into a credit card, ignoring the fact that a guy who doesnt mind being treated like this is using her as a sex bag.

It depends on age as well, younger girls may be leaning towards brag rights and material possessions, older may be for other things. Many of the reasons are linked to children, brag rights etc way off.

reality: it's all about the cash flow.

even if you're not a millionaire, the girl wants to see if your making money.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
way off.

reality: it's all about the cash flow.

even if you're not a millionaire, the girl wants to see if your making money.


pffffffffffffft

as if those baby makers are smart enough to understand cash dynamics.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Kick
way off.

reality: it's all about the cash flow.

even if you're not a millionaire, the girl wants to see if your making money.

whats way off? i feel I basically mentioned what you said anyway, that the women wants some cash...I simply outlined reasons for it, and child support is one of the high ones.

No one has any money today, soooooooo better do it for love.

well...Bill gates may have something to say about that

Originally posted by Deja~vu
No one has any money today, soooooooo better do it for love.

hmmm.... you're a women correct? Would you be able to love, and marry "someone" that was poor without feeling regret later?

Whooo boy! I feel like I just set myself up for corrective action, but I am just so curious about what your answer will be, that caution has been thrown out the door.

Be honest ok.

lol

OMFG

"gee, could a woman ever love someone who wasn't taking care of them as some sort of dependent? Could a woman be financially independent from her husband and still love him?"

c'mon

Originally posted by inimalist
Both of what you posted are news media reports of this study:

http://homepage.mac.com/helenfisher/Sites/030606articles/Article_final_JRS_06.pdf

Hey, I tried. But the cnn one did have direct quotes from Fisher, though.

Originally posted by inimalist
Largely what I suspected to be true was. Namely, the jargon used by you to describe what is going on misses the nuance of the neuroscience that is being reported on (not your fault, the news media itself is is terrible at reporting science).

What are you talking about? What jargon? This is your second mentioning of this jargon.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, the report is a meta-analysis, meaning that there is no new research being presented.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. If the 17 people measured was a metanalysis, I'm quite confused and don't understand what a metanalysis is. If you were referring to the huge amount of quotes and almost nostalgic dialogues paying homage to other studies and writings of other people, I wouldn't necessarily consider that a metanalysis either. It seemed more like a dissertation or general intellectual discussion on the subject matter. It wasn't approached as being a metanalysis when it was written and I don't believe it was intended as such either.


Originally posted by inimalist
That is fine, though subject to certain problems normally not associated with research papers (again, the media missed that entirely, and I'm also not saying anything about the paper being wrong).

Your words confuse me further. The media missed what? It was rather straight forward. 17 "in-love" MRI tests.

Originally posted by inimalist
We pretty much agree on everything. In the paper, love is described as a subjective interpretation of activation in an "attraction system" reinforced through dopamine. We can split hairs about how to phrase how that refers to love, but largely I get what you are saying, and you aren't "wrong" (lol, love the ego, eh?).

LOL. I see. Cool.

It wasn't about me being wrong. It was simply citing a study that shows "in-love" is programmed into humans to further the survivability of our species. True that the conscious interpretation of "in-love" is very much subjective and it delves into an area that I am not relatively familiar with (I'm rather weak in psychology.), but that doesn't mean that there aren't commonalities between the "in-loves" that can't be measured and found consistent. Which was my point earlier. We're just animals and we jump through evolutionary loops that nature has set for us a long time ago. (which goes back to my original point in the thread.)

Originally posted by inimalist
I want to take you up on something you mentioned before. You said "Love is just a chemical reaction" or something to that degree. I think this study is actually evidence against that. I'll try to explain, but this is sort of needlessly complex.

I read ahead. Everything you said is correct but it isn't what I was meaning when I said that.

What I was referring to was our addiction to the chemicals/hormones released when we are "in-love". Dopamine, brought up by yourself, is a major example. I was referring to humans having a chemical addiction to the love state. I wasn't trying to say that we are p-zombies running on chemical whims; or, in other words, just plain old chemical meatbags. That isn't nearly romantic enough, imo. I'd like to think that the whole is greater than the sum of our parts, if you know what I mean. I'm not talking religion, either. I'm talking about real sentience which doesn't require god to be part of the equation.

Originally posted by inimalist
So, to begin with, everything is just a chemical reaction...

...

The affect of marijuana on a person is similar. I know you like to imbibe occasionally, so this will probably make sense.

Sorry, man, if I gave the wrong impression. I've never smoked marijuana nor have I ever been high. I would most certainly LOVE for marijuana to be legal, though. I would get a prescription and smoke during the summer. (because that's when my allergies act up the least.)

Anyway...tangent.

Also, I meant no disrespect with my trimming your post...just saving space. I do it later on too.

Originally posted by inimalist
When you get stoned, subjectively there is a sense of relaxation. However, physically, your autonomous nervous system jumps into action. Your heart rate increases, you become more anxious (why pot is bad if you are having an anxiety attack, or being high makes things more likely to trigger anxiety attacks), but you don't have the subjective experience of these things happening (most of the time).

I thought that the physical manifestations were quite variable. Meaning for some, heart rate decreased. Some sweat more, some sweat less. Some get excited and more energetic, some calm down (though, generally, it is a depressant). Etc. etc. so on and so forth. With this "love" study, brain activity was measured. I don't want to go as far as to say it was universal, but I would say that the data was quite solid.

Originally posted by inimalist
When I say love is not chemical, this is what I am referring to. Yes, there is an attraction system that activates based on contextual conditions etc. And you can measure the activation in that system, however, that measure will give you no idea whatsoever about the subjective "love" experience of the person, and is actually why I'm a little resistant to refer to it as a "love" state of mind.

Cool.

Well, it's not just a love state of mind...if you were referring to brain activity alone. There's also that plethora of chemicals associated with being in love that is consistent among humans.

Originally posted by inimalist
Also, as I was saying before, knowing that love is a chemical reaction tells us nothing about love anyways, given that everything you know and experience and do is a chemical reaction in the brain.


Sort of..but not really. I think we're arguing apples and oranges again.

Yes, these chemicals tell us a great deal about being in love. They don't tell me nearly as much as a pharmacologist, though. lol

When specific chemicals(hormones) can be measured and behavior correlated to that chemical, it is only compounded to a holistic level when we deal with multiple elements (again, hormones) being associated with a set of stimuli. Example would be a sexy ass women flirting with you when she was wearing clothing your found appealing while wearing a perfume that you found appealing (even if you didn't realize it at the time.)

Dr. Fisher has even stated that the colognes and perfumes we select are selected to augment our own set of smells that function in attracting a mate. This is related to immune systems and producing the best immune system in offspring. Though that is a bit out there and it may even be an antiquated behavior we perform due to our waning pheromone system, it may hold some sort of mate selection plausibility.

Are you getting a better feel for where I was going with this now?

Originally posted by inimalist
What activates each person's attraction system is going to be unique.

I agree.


Originally posted by inimalist
While things like "motherly" or "good provider" may form sort of abstract categories for generalization, each individual is going to have in their memory a different personal experience with what a motherly person is or what a good provider is. There may be genetic disposition, but the huge variety of people and of people who get married show that this is highly non-specific at best. Also, the adage or men marry people like their mothers and women their fathers (not entirely untrue either) gives good reason to believe that what makes the ideal mate is something learned from experiences with one's own parents.

All very interesting. I must say that I've never heard that adage.

Also, according to the work done by Fisher and her peers, men choose their sexual partners more based on visual queues than things of a psychological origin. I'm not referring to just the MRI study. Some of the other items was covered in my thread about sexual attraction.

Originally posted by inimalist
Sort of circumventing all of this, however, is the story of toilet training...they can be overridden by life experience.

I must say that I have never heard or studied that shitting example from any anthropologist. Very interesting. I can assume that that is not your original thought, but if it's not, cheers for being an ubertastic intellectual. I'll let you tell me before I start sucking your dick too much that...lol

However, your line of thought is becoming more tangential with this last one.

I was originally talking about a women trying to find or attract a man, based on her evolutionary programming: something or somethings held in common among the genders that can be observed occurring in the highly social species known as humans. That's what I was talking about.

Originally posted by inimalist
and I'll leave it at that.... probably a TLDR anyways..

I read it, but I didn't feel like typing out a response. I was rather busy lately. Finished most to all of my homework for the week earlier today so I had time.


One of these days....we'll meet up and share a bowl. These conversations never grow dull.

The gold digger stereotype pissing me off because no one ever mentions the other side of it. Rich guys date young attractive women because they are just that, young and attractive. Isn't that the same as women dating rich men? They're both getting something out of the deal so its fair.

Originally posted by cococryspies
The gold digger stereotype pissing me off because no one ever mentions the other side of it. Rich guys date young attractive women because they are just that, young and attractive. Isn't that the same as women dating rich men? They're both getting something out of the deal so its fair.

The men's motive is usually love.

Where as the women aren't concerned with their looks, nor any other kinds of emotionss.

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
The men's motive is usually love.

Where as the women aren't concerned with their looks, nor any other kinds of emotionss.

You're kidding right?

Originally posted by Bada's Palin
The men's motive is usually love.

Where as the women aren't concerned with their looks, nor any other kinds of emotionss.

"You're kidding right?"



lol



How about the men are dating/getting married to those young women for social and evolutionary reasons? Social because they are a trophy, evolutionary because we are naturally attracted to "pretty" women. Even women find "pretty" women attractive.....just maybe not as sexually as men.

Some marry for love, some marry for money, some may marry for status, a visa and God knows what else.

I think the idea that we can analyze a whole gender's intentions, just shows how prevalent sexism still is.

Originally posted by Nick Carroway
Some marry for love, some marry for money, some may marry for status, a visa and God knows what else.

I think the idea that we can analyze a whole gender's intentions, just shows how prevalent sexism still is.

right, because there's no difference between SEXES (not genders)

Originally posted by dadudemon
right, because there's no difference between SEXES (not genders)

I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.


For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human. To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking. Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.


For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human. To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking. Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.

Edit: In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity.

Well said.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"You're kidding right?"

lol

How about the men are dating/getting married to those young women for social and evolutionary reasons? Social because they are a trophy, evolutionary because we are naturally attracted to "pretty" women. Even women find "pretty" women attractive.....just maybe not as sexually as men.

What about them? We were discussing gold diggers.

Those who fall for women like that are poor souls, those who choose women based on their looks seem to get their money's worth.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I don't understand. The word "sexes" is neither possessive -which is required to be grammatically correct- nor is it (generally) considered more politically correct. The word "gender's" works perfectly in the sentence, syntactically and grammatically. If it was too politically correct then that is one thing, but if you were trying to correct his usage of the word then I must say I think you missed the boat on this one.

Make sure you know what you're talking about before you become a grammar Nazi. I don't know if you are being an idiot on purpose or if you really are ignorant.

"Sexes" is a plural word. The human species comes in two sexes: male and female.


My post was an ellipse. If it were to be fully expanded so an idiot like you could understand, it would read as follows:

"Right, because there is no difference between the male and female SEXES (not genders)."

The word "genders" would fail to capture what I was alluding to in my obviously sarcastic post. I apologize that you are too ignorant to understand that. I was not correcting that poster's use of the word "gender." I was wording my sentence with proper parenthetical explanation to prevent a certain argument from occurring because I am a smart little boy like that. doped

Since I am a nice guy, I'll explain it to you a bit more below.


Originally posted by Red Nemesis
For the sarcasm in the post, I can only respond with the contention that while the genders may be different, both are fundamentally human.

Thank you for telling me that males and females are human and that there are differences between the two. That clears everything up.

Let me return the favor in like manner.

Door knobs are used to open doors. Behold, their "openy" goodness.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
To make a blanket statement about half of humanity that for some reason does not also hold true for the other half is an action that I would be wary of taking.

That is great.

You could also say, in the same vein, that there are characteristics that can be assigned to a specific sex that are mutually exclusive to the other. You should be wary of saying that one sex is all the same, both sexes are completely different, or both sexes are all the same only if you wish to be exactly right.

I would say that what you have said above is absurdly simple; but, unfortunately, that concept is lost to many people.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Immutable (for now) biological facts (like womens' breasts) are one thing, but declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population seems rash.

I think I understand now. You do not like to treat humans like animals. You feel that we are above animal classifications. Simplifying human behaviors to be animalistic does not fit with your perception of the "superior" human. Even if you don't realize that you're doing it and declare you aren't, that's what you've done in your ignorant arrogance.

Also, you are not arguing against anything I have implied in my sarcastic post. In fact, you have gone off into the tangential. (They call this a straw man.) This is what happens when one assumes without half a brain. You should probably be careful about that considering your intellectual reach, holmes.

What you have failed to realize is I did not say anything about "declaring a norm for the varied and diverse emotional quirks of the population..." (Which, by the way, I think you just like to see words you have typed as the topic was concerning the sex/gender specific behavioral elements, not the whole of the population. Since we can see quite clearly how great you are with context, we can let this oversight on your part slide...actually, no we won't. You're like an old man going on and on about bullshit that you hope no one calls you on. Maybe we should start calling you Old Mr. Straws?)






Now, to explain what I really meant which should have been quite easy for you to see:

I was - sarcastically out of jest, not spite - demonstrating that we can clearly analyze a sex's(not gender) mating intentions and behaviors. (Less so when the behavior is confined/defined as companionship instead of mating. In this case, gender can be used but even gender fails to be an adequate nomenclature for such a complicated yet ambiguous "necessity". )


Would you like to know why I don't really like to use the word "gender" when defining these biological mechanisms? (Oops, I think I just gave it away. DAMNIT! No where's the fun? haha)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Edit: In case I wasn't clear, "gender" is a valid synonym for "sex" when discussing masculinity/femininity.

Oh, hai! You can haz biology for definitionz?


Seriously, we were not referring to masculinity or femininity, Old Mr. Straws. We were referring to specific behavioral characteristics in the mating behaviors of the female of the human species. (And, in my case, also male behaviors.)

Has it dawned on you yet? I am doubting it has since you didn't know how the word "sexes" was used. It must suck to to be able to use flowery language yet fail to grasp basic human communication due to a frustrated intellect.


I seriously contemplated not responding to you at all because of how stupid and irrelevant your post was. I didn't want to take the time to respond because responding to your post bestows a certain level of respect and credence to your words (regardless of how hostile or derisive the response is, simply responding automatically grants the conversation a fundamental level of respect), and we both know that your post is so full of shit that it deserves neither. However, I was bored from writing my paper on beer and I needed to entertain myself by responding with a derisive and parodistic post.



I hope, for you sake, that you give up your futile attempt at pontification. I would be quite embarrassed if I were you. You may want to consider hitting the log out button and spend time with a female human that is around your age.

I'm not sure what I did to earn such an aggressive response. I thought (mistakenly) that you were trying to correct his usage of the word "gender" which is an acceptable synonym for "sex."



You've been reported for bashing and while I'm still unsure of what caused the belligerence in the post, I know enough not to dignify it with a point by point rebuttal. I was cautioning against making blanket statements about large swaths of the population. How you can synthesize my worldview from that I do not know. I do know that your impression is almost definitely wrong.

Well, Nick Carroway said that we can't analyze a whole gender's intention, I don't think that in any way implies that there is no difference between the "sexes". Nor does difference between sexes imply that analyzing and generalizing intentions is feasible. So, the initial response was certainly too vague. I also think you are being silly, dadudemon (on an unrelated note).

I think the level of reduction between dadudemon's point and his argument is causing a bit of confusion, unless I am off.

On the previous page, he and I were talking about biological imperatives with regard to mate selection, where there largely can be some "generalities" made about what genetic/phenotype qualities would be those which produce more reproduction. Woman want a provider, however they define that, woman want X, however X is defined.

This is a very reductionist view of behaviour, and is very problematic for the type of behaviour we are discussing (complex subjective motivations for mate choice, which in humans has major social dimensions) largely because there are so many "general variables" (like "provider" which each woman will have a different representation of, to the point where "provider" could be defined by anything once we are using the definitions of many women in society.

Here is where I feel some (if unintentional) sexism comes in. Because we assume those underlying "generalities" lead to predictable behaviour, we assume there should be some ability to generalize behaviour based on gender (assuming men aren't looking for a provider). But, because of the variability in how those underlying dimensions (definition of "provider" are defined, they manifest in a way where there is more variation within the genders than there is between.

Height, for instance, is something that would be distributed like this. The height of men and women is HIGHLY variable, and while the average leans to men being taller, this give you relatively no indication of whether any particular man will be taller than any particular woman. Tallness may be a quality associated more with men, but both genders vary so vastly, that any random selection of a man and a woman would not be shocking if it turned out to have a taller female.

Another example that gets a lot of media play is talking. Women, by a hardly significant margin, talk more than men, but there is so much variance within the genders, that a talkative man and quiet woman would not be unexpected if randomly selected.

almost all human qualities are normally distributed, meaning that there are lots of people that are average, and about the same amount who are X amount above or below average. This can be plotted on a graph and looks a lot like a bell curve, the tall middle part representing the average, and the short skinny tails the extreme cases. I can't think of one human quality that, were you to plot both of the gender's normal curves, there would be little overlap. Even things like "math" and "computers" only become very gender segregated at the highest echelon, and there are powerful social explanations for that.

Sort of a tangential point to the last, a recent study into video games found 2 things. 1) there is a difference in the abilities of normal, non-video game playing men and women with regard to visual spatial tasks, with men normally performing significantly better at the tasks, and visual spatial abilities are highly related to math abilities. 2) After ONLY 10 hours of playing an FPS, both groups had improved significantly (both boys and girls) however the girls had completely closed the gender gap. This is very salient, and shows we still have HUGE social gender issues which need to be addressed long before we can start to say what gender is good at what, as that seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm not sure what I did to earn such an aggressive response.

So you still are unable to comprehend on a general level.


Let me assist you, my friend.


Originally posted by dadudemon
I was bored from writing my paper on beer and I needed to entertain myself by responding with a derisive and parodistic post.


In other words, I think you've failed to realize that I was parodying the tone of your post with a hint of hyperbole.


You have mistaken my post as malicious when it was intended as for humor and entertainment. (Come on, you didn't once laugh and say to yourself, "You cheeky little bastard."

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I thought (mistakenly) that you were trying to correct his usage of the word "gender" which is an acceptable synonym for "sex."

Is this your way of admitting fault? If so, it is perfectly fine. I wasn't offended at all, dude.

Now, for a what I was actually doing in the post, read below.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was - sarcastically out of jest, not spite - demonstrating that we can clearly analyze a sex's(not gender) mating intentions and behaviors. (Less so when the behavior is confined/defined as companionship instead of mating. In this case, gender can be used but even gender fails to be an adequate nomenclature for such a complicated yet ambiguous "necessity". )

Generalizations among the sexes can be concluded with a degree of accuracy. (Usually, those studies show the results in varying degrees.) They most certainly cannot be confined to - borrowing from a inimalist post - a 0 1 polarity. I don't like working with the social aspect of it as much as I like working with something harder like biology.



Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You've been reported for bashing

NOOOOOOOO! Why did you report me? crybaby

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
and while I'm still unsure of what caused the belligerence in the post,

Understandable, because you're an idiot. hahaha...okay, the real reason is you failed to derive that I was, to put it simply, mocking you.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I know enough not to dignify it with a point by point rebuttal.

Right, because being wrong with an initial assumption coupled with multiple straw man arguments has nothing to do with an unwillingness to post a rebuttal.

Also, you can't reword what I have and pretend it is an original idea. (Seriously, are you kidding me?)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I was cautioning against making blanket statements about large swaths of the population.

Again, I was, in jest, showing that we can't pretend everyone is a unique snowflake no matter how hard we try.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
How you can synthesize my worldview from that I do not know.

You should know that psychology is my strongest point. There's nothing I know more about than psychology.


Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I do know that your impression is almost definitely wrong.

You got me. I have no idea what to do now that you've said 'nuh uuuuhh!"




And for good measure, you need these:

http://www.tulumba.com/mmTULUMBA/Images/305732883304_250.jpg







Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, Nick Carroway said that we can't analyze a whole gender's intention, I don't think that in any way implies that there is no difference between the "sexes". Nor does difference between sexes imply that analyzing and generalizing intentions is feasible. So, the initial response was certainly too vague. I also think you are being silly, dadudemon (on an unrelated note).

I was commenting on Nick's blanket idea about it being sexist.

Also, yes, you are right on, as usual. What I was doing was just plain silly. I thought it was obvious.

...The hell?


Congratulations! You convinced me that you were sincere! Your prize is... your imagination providing you with a simulation of my mild frustration and consternation. Enjoy it.


I think I've been trolled.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
...The hell?


Congratulations! You convinced me that you were sincere! Your prize is... your imagination providing you with a simulation of my mild frustration and consternation. Enjoy it.


I think I've been trolled.




You have to be joking.


So, you post something insulting and inflammatory and you expected me to thank you and ask for seconds? Do you even know what the real world is like?

Originally posted by dadudemon


You have to be joking.


So, you post something insulting and inflammatory and you expected me to thank you and ask for seconds? Do you even know what the real world is like?

what was the "insulting and inflammatory" thing he posted.

Originally posted by Bardock42
what was the "insulting and inflammatory" thing he posted.

I'm not playing this game. You figure it out.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm not playing this game. You figure it out.

I think he hasn't been insulting. Maybe you mistook it as insulting, as you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge in the field of psychology, but I don't think he had the intention to insult you, nor did he, imo, do it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think he hasn't been insulting. Maybe you mistook it as insulting, as you seem to pride yourself on your knowledge in the field of psychology, but I don't think he had the intention to insult you, nor did he, imo, do it.

I don't know if you're being sarcastic on your psychology remark, but I was being very much sarcastic when I was talkig about my "prowess" in psychology. I mentioned earlier in this thread, twice, that I was weak in psychology, in my replies to inimalist.

It was meant as another trap that you think I never make. If he were to bite and point out that I wasn't any good at it or say anything negative about that comment of mine, I would have another reason to call him an idiot. I stated earlier in this very same thread that I was weak in that area. I did the trap because I wanted to draw attention to inimalist's and my discussion earlier so he would actually read and understand where the hell I was coming from in the first place instead of his initial erroneous assumption. Since he didn't bite, I don't think it's a bad thing to reveal my intentions.


As for the rest of the contents of your post, I am not playing your little game, Bardock42.

Originally posted by dadudemon


You have to be joking.


So, you post something insulting and inflammatory and you expected me to thank you and ask for seconds? Do you even know what the real world is like? You know what?






































































Bewbs.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
You know what?






































































Bewbs.


Very insightful. A mass of fat and glands has great power over man, doesn't it?

Then when she screws you out all your money uses you for sex never shows you no love shes a *gold digger*

Yep we are all the same can't ever be love.....

Oh i forgot then comes the *divorce* , from the Latin word meaning to rip out a man's genitals through his wallet.

Hey ho guess that's life

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very insightful. A mass of fat and glands has great power over man, doesn't it? You've managed to take the fun out of boobs.



See that, a one-liner from two and a half men was better than you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very insightful. A mass of fat and glands has great power over man, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Stoic
I've sat back and listened to many women speak about what is important to them in a relationship, and heard various things, so I wanted some feedback on a broader scale.

What is more important for women in a relationship? Money or Love?

Can a women love, and accept being married to a poor man, with the possibility of raising their social status with hard work, or is the temptation of finding a man with the proverbial silver spoon too great?

I've heard and read many things over the years on this. Like women marry mainly for interest, money/security/stability; a free ride, while guys marry for love. You are, afterall, most likely to see a drop dead gorgeous woman be with or be married to a short, old, fat, bald guy with some money who's an undesirable assh*le, than a guy whom looks like a supermodel with a good personality whom doesn't have much money.

I've also heard that currently almost 60% of marriages fail or end up in divorce with the top reason being finances with 85% of divorce initiators being women.

As an aside, and personally, I say marriage is unnatural. It's a human-made social construct. And as i've always said, anything that is unnatural is bad for the body and the mind. Unnaturalness doesn't sit well with human nature yet we fight nature, fit into strict rules our brains don't recognize and you get the rates and results we get while still continuing to be ignorant but "continuing the fight" which is why their is struggle.

But to get back, I always wondered why is it that a lot of women absolutely hate it when a guy talks prenuptuals with their excuse being that even thinking about that means that you're already thinking about divorce. Which is dumb. I'd want a prenup just incase we get divorced. Not cause I know that we're gonna get divorced. But they're not mad at that really. They're mad with the fact that you're not nieve and that they won't be able to get any of your money if it comes down to it. That and/or the very fact that you're thinking about not giving them any free money crosses your mind...They absolutely abhor that idea.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
But to get back, I always wondered why is it that a lot of women absolutely hate it when a guy talks prenuptuals with their excuse being that even thinking about that means that you're already thinking about divorce. Which is dumb. I'd want a prenup just incase we get divorced. Not cause I know that we're gonna get divorced. But they're not mad at that really. They're mad with the fact that you're not nieve and that they won't be able to get any of your money if it comes down to it. That and/or the very fact that you're thinking about not giving them any free money crosses your mind...They absolutely abhor that idea.

Prenups are unfair in a lot of marriages since women are the one's expected to take time off of work when they have children. They become dependent on their husbands.

Originally posted by cococryspies
Prenups are unfair in a lot of marriages since women are the one's expected to take time off of work when they have children. They become dependent on their husbands.

That is not entirely true, many men are the homemakers, and many women are the bread winners. I have a friend that cares for his children 5 days per week and his ex wife gets the children on weekends.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I've heard and read many things over the years on this. Like women marry mainly for interest, money/security/stability; a free ride, while guys marry for love. You are, afterall, most likely to see a drop dead gorgeous woman be with or be married to a short, old, fat, bald guy with some money who's an undesirable assh*le, than a guy whom looks like a supermodel with a good personality whom doesn't have much money.

I've also heard that currently almost 60% of marriages fail or end up in divorce with the top reason being finances with 85% of divorce initiators being women.

As an aside, and personally, I say marriage is unnatural. It's a human-made social construct. And as i've always said, anything that is unnatural is bad for the body and the mind. Unnaturalness doesn't sit well with human nature yet we fight nature, fit into strict rules our brains don't recognize and you get the rates and results we get while still continuing to be ignorant but "continuing the fight" which is why their is struggle.

But to get back, I always wondered why is it that a lot of women absolutely hate it when a guy talks prenuptuals with their excuse being that even thinking about that means that you're already thinking about divorce. Which is dumb. I'd want a prenup just incase we get divorced. Not cause I know that we're gonna get divorced. But they're not mad at that really. They're mad with the fact that you're not nieve and that they won't be able to get any of your money if it comes down to it. That and/or the very fact that you're thinking about not giving them any free money crosses your mind...They absolutely abhor that idea.


Shocking but true.

Originally posted by Stoic
That is not entirely true, many men are the homemakers, and many women are the bread winners. I have a friend that cares for his children 5 days per week and his ex wife gets the children on weekends.

I said "in a lot of marriages". In some marriages its perfectly fair.

Marriage for happy life need both love and money.

Women are leeches with 2 maybe 3 uses.

Originally posted by KidRock
Women are leeches with 2 maybe 3 uses. anal, oral, vaginal?

i had been seeing a woman for about a yr, spend a lot of time talking doing thinks together had a lot in common. She found me attractive (which i am). as much as we had in common she chose another man who was short fat unattractive and was one rank higher then me in the military service, was also still married.. he was known in my Nco circle as a lazy fat drunk.

one of my fellow marines informed me that the female had been seeing him which made me very upset.I had decided to stop seeing her in light of this new information, after a month she decided to confront me. I had told her i had found out about her and the other person which is why i had ceased speaking to her. when i asked her why she had chosen him over me she had no response, she was aware of his marriage and children his alcoholism and violent behavior and was considered joke in the military, who was 1 incident away from being kicked out of the marine corps.

she new all this and still chose him over me.. i was very upset that she couldnt reply why she did it, i already new the answer i was already aware that his family own real state agencies..


well after our discussion i figured i was done with putting up with her and the marine, I informed the marine to pack his bags and get out of my barracks and if i saw him again i would report his adultery.. the marine was used to doing what ever he wanted because he felt he was entitled to everything.. well as i expected he tried to cover up his recent behavior and once he felt safe from reprisal came back to my barracks, not knowing that it was a fellow marine who had informed me about his behavior and had been confirmed by the female. he decided to confront me and inform me that i couldnt prove anything and that his rank kept him from being accused by a lower ranking Nco without any proof..


As a Marine i am sure you are all aware of the proper response to such a challenge, an upfront to my honor not just by them cheating on me behind my back, but to say i would be called a liar gave me the opportunity to beat him down and regain my honor. he had brought his friends and the female to back him up in case things escalated, which he had to be aware of since he had come looking for me.

any ways to end the story, i knocked out both of his friends with the 1st punch. punked him because he lost the will to fight me. i felt cheated by him in that i couldnt hit him, because he was apologizing to me.. his friends tried to report the incident that i assaulted them, and hoped to get me charge and sent to the brigg. realizing that other marines had witness the incident and overheard the argument he refused to admitt to the incident.

i ended up having to go into a room with a bunch of officers and explain my actions.. all the higher ups were aware of the other marines and their reputation and they also looked at my record as well as my reputation, they couldnt understand my sudden change of behavior. i had informed them of the circumstances that led to the confrontation..

everyone decided to drop my charges due to the fact, that i had told the marine to stay away from the barrack and it was clear he had come looking for a confrontation. i was informed they would punish all involved and in the marines punishment can be harsh for certain behavior.

so the marine and the WM/female ceased seeing each other in preparation for there investigation in adultery.. she decided to marry another marine to distance her self. she chose another rich person who was one of the ones i had beaten up.. so in conclusion women will chose money over love seeing as she seemed to dismiss their inexcusable behavior so long as they have money and will risk dishonor and emotional abuse of others so long as she is getting paid..

Anger management....just saying.

yes, but now i feel like some weight has bn lifted i feel happy all of a sudden..

OK then.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
yes, but now i feel like some weight has bn lifted i feel happy all of a sudden..

you learned the hard way. but at least you now know how it can be with that type of woman so the next time you'll be better prepared to deal with the bs more effectively.

more effectively? i lived righteously just to be shitted on followed the rules change my life style and behavior.. the woman was a giant lie sweet innocent good upbringing from a small town..

you could never tell she was money hungry this from a guy who was raised in a city of sin who is used to making 5 grand in less then an hour at a casino playing cards.. going to strip clubs having financially secured friends and family..

i lied cheated and stole and one day i decided to change my life and give up all my possessions, and live my life by honor courage commitment in the military service. just to find out it is worse then the life i lived because at least i was honest with ppl with the type of person i was.. i stayed away from ppl and ppl stayed away from me ppl understood who and what you were.. you dont step on ppls toes or cross the line..i stay away from bikers and there women, bikers stay away from me and my women.. mutual respect and fear of the persons we are... we dont hide are true faces...

in the military certain ppl dont seem to realize they are prey or think they are hunters and cross the line to what amounts to disrespect.. i am not talking about committing violent crimes against the person for there action, but it seems that the mouse nips at the lion not realizing the inherent danger.

any ways the only thing i learned was ppl will confuse your kindness with weakness and i have never been weak till that moment. i realized i dont like being weak and went back to my old attitude of pure punishment and no second chances in my personal life as well as my military life you cross the line no talk no excuses just punishment...

sad part i was known as a fare Nco who was understanding and did right by his people... regardless of the person i once was..

It should be love. Throw power in as a factor. That's an issue in a marriage too.

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i realized i dont like being weak and went back to my old attitude of pure punishment and no second chances in my personal life as well as my military life you cross the line no talk no excuses just punishment...

That's the way I was when dating. No second chances. There's far to many women out there to even need to forgive and forget in the beginning of a relationship. Besides, it saves heartache in the long run anyway.







I did read your story solely for the entertainment. Too bad on that. Women aren't looking for a suger daddy...and I'd say that most don't even give that any thought when it comes to relationships. There's plenty out there for you.