Discuss and talk about any general topic.
Conventional wisdom says they are,but are they really? As you know people often try to discourage men from looking for foreign wives by saying they are con artists just out for a meal ticket,passport etc. I used to agree until recently. You see one of my uncles passed away a few years ago and his ex-wife re-married him less than a year before he died so she could get his life insurance policy and assets upon his passing. My family had a lot of animosity towards her because she used him or so it seemed.But then we forgave her because it was and still is clear that she did have a genuine fondness for my uncle on some level and misses him even though she may not have in the beginning. And you know what? My uncle died happy and feeling less alone because he had his wife back. I think that counts for something. What am I trying to say? I am saying that I don't think its that important if a woman loves the man in a romantic and sexual way or not if she: treats him good, is good company, gives him sex/affection,is loyal, and most of all makes him happy. And truth be told I don't think most men would mind to marry a woman who was marrying him for financial reasons if she did all of those things faithfully. I think men find purpose through loving,caring for,and spending time with a woman and women find purpose through keeping their men happy, keeping him company,and caring for the children. If all of those things are present in a relationship does the Disney chick flick stuff even matter? Anybody agree with me on this or am I just a cynical bastard?
No woman wants to marry for a worse life. So this will always factor in to some extent. Just listen to what they talk about and you'll know their hearts. Women are not very good liars once you understand their nature. If you hear a woman talk about wanting a nice man for a husband and having a family, and then talks about just a simple place to live and enough food to eat, that's a sign of a good woman.
If they talk about luxuries, then obviously a bad sign. If you're hearing talk of handbags but not having a family, avoid.
The ex-wife could have stayed with your late uncle without going through the bureaucratic process of remarrying. The fact that it was done in a last minute manner seems dubious to me. The smarter thing your uncle could do, would be putting in a special clause unknown to the wife. For example, if she remarries or get a new boyfriend 3 years after the passing of your uncle, then she will not get a dime. A schemer would have flipped off immediately after knowing her plan did not work as she intended and disappeared immediately. Anyway, it is too late for this.
Back to the original question, I think it is not bad at all. There should be a net gain for both parties in a relationship. Otherwise, why be in one? The only problem I see is when the woman getting a free ride while the man getting shafted left and right. Women are getting very spoilt these days. And when the guys are not spoiling their women, the big daddy government kindly fills in that role using my tax dollars.
Personally I am not interested in women who are only after money. I don't see the point in a relationship like that. Why marry someone who doesn't care about you, isn't attracted to you and is basically scamming you by pretending she loves you? Not appealing at all IMHO. If you want to use money to get sex just do p4p, at least those women are honest.
I would say it is bad for anyone to love money. But I think it is natural for a woman to want a man to be a provider and a protector, not just in terms of money, but just in general. So I think that is a fair part of the equation.
And is a foreign woman who wants a man who can provide for her, and stays with him, faithful for life, worse than an American woman who has her own job, but gets bored and divorces her husband and takes away the kids and a steady stream of income in the form of child support that pays her rent for 10 or 12 years?
Good question OP. But your uncle and his wife are a bad example. The emotion she felt for your uncle could have come out of guilt. Remember that Anna Nicole Smith always claimed that she truly loved the multimillionaire old man that she married, even though no one believed her.
But if your uncles wife treated him good then that's another matter. Not all gold diggers treat their male victim good. Russian gold diggers don't. What race was she? Did she know your uncle was dying or terminally ill?
That being said, I don't think it's unnatural for women to need money from men. Men and women do not need each other equally. Women do not need sex, love and romance the way that men do. So there has to be a hedgemony here to make men and women need each other equally. And that hedgemony has usually been money, security, resources and protection. Ironically, women needing money and security from men is what keeps the genders EQUAL in terms of needing each other. Sometimes truth is ironic.
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.
Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!
"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
So you don't think Russian golddiggers treat their men good? Why do you say that?
And to answer your question she was a white American woman and she knew he was ill.
I agree with you totally.
Should the uncle have died alone, in a nursing home, neglected, stinking in his own urine? That's the question her opponents in your family have to answer.
Ability to provide is a naturally attractive trait in males.
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
Huh? Women don't need and want sex and romance? Since when?
I agree that some women are attracted to money, but I do not agree that money causes true attraction and/or love. Relationships based ONLY on money are fake and a form of prostitution. And like I said before, true gold diggers are also dishonest and untrustworthy. Of course there are grey areas. Many women (inlcuding a lot of so called "mail order brides" from poor countries) want the whole package: someone who is a good provider and also someone they are actually attracted to and love. That is different and those women are not true gold diggers IMHO.
Another thing I don't agree with is that all women want money. Just look at all the broke guys in third world countries with hot girlfriends. There are millions of them. It isn't hard for an attractive woman to find a guy with at least some money even in poor countries. I personally know several poor women from third world countries who had the opportunity to date guys with money but chose to date broke guys they actually loved instead.
Are women that marry for money/financial security bad?
As opposed to women that marry for looks and/or personality?
Why is it that people have issues when women marries a guy for money and resources? Is that any different to a woman who marries for looks?
Is seems like women are supposed to marry a man for his personalty to avoid being labeled superficial, slutty golddigger?
But I have issues with women who think personality is the most important and not shallow trait, I'd say that out of these 3 traits(money, looks, personality) personality is the easiest one to fake and hardest one to quantify.
Last edited by Banano on Wed Jun 03, 2015 1:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I think it's ok for a woman to want stuff from a man. By stuff I mean money, resources, or the ability to obtain or have use of them. Or to put it in even more basic terms, being provided for one way or another. The conventional way of doing it is with money, but it's not the only way. Being able to obtain things, or being able to make maximum use of things, that counts too. For example, being frugal and having a knack for finding bargains, those are also means of providing. Or being able to build something. Even having the ability to do DIY is a form of providing. So is being intelligent, as this can lead to wise decisions.
Money is like sex. They're both currency, and they're both a fact of life. Men like money and women like sex, and vice versa, but men pursue sex because they're driven to, and women pursue money (aka resources, or the ability to get them) because they're not driven to achieve like men are, so they rely on men to provide. Fair enough. In those crude economic terms, men and women need different things from each other, and are willing to make a fair trade. There's no point in denying it or complaining about it because it's just how it is, and there's nothing wrong with it.
All women are whores. I don't mean it as an insult, but as a crude way of saying that women trade their sexuality for resources, just as men trade their resources for sex. And so they should. Sex and resources are extremely valuable things, and they're important needs that need to be met, respectively, hence our sex drive and hence the drive of women to get resources. There's nothing evil about it, it's just nature's way of getting us to meet those needs before all our other needs can be met. It's a system that works well. The man gets the sex that he pursues, and the woman gets looked after.
However, we're not like the other animals. We have a much more sophisticated set of needs that goes beyond that simple transaction. So we need each other for more than that. Plus, the woman enjoys the sex too, and the man provides for himself while providing for her. We're all pragmatic people. We may as well accept it, without making it a moral dilemma. The trick is to play fair, and then take it to the next level where you get all those other needs met too.
So as long as no one deceives the other, and no one gets too greedy, and each gives the other those things that go beyond the basic economics of sex, and everyone plays fair, it's all good. It's like any other relationship between two people. No one is friends with people who don't offer anything. Even if we had the time to be friends with everybody, we would still only choose those that don't sap our energy.
The trouble is when women get too greedy and entitled. That's the equivalent of a man wanting sex from a woman but without offering any emotional whatever in return. It's unsatisfying and unfair. There's nothing wrong with the game, it's how you play it. Gold digging is not fair play, which is why it feels so bad if it happens to you.
I find it interesting (in a positive way) that most of the comments so far are positive. I suspect that women are hardwire (or at least their software is programmed) to want a man who can take care of her and any potential children that might come along. In the old days that might have meant a good hunter; today it means a guy with money or at least the potential to earn money.
The tricky part is in recognizing when a woman is all about the money. That's certainly not something any of us want. But a woman attracted to a man who has accomplished something in life or accumulated things is certainly not bad, as long as that is not the sole reason for the attraction.
When it comes to marriage the romantic love component is overblown. You certainly want to have feelings for the other person but marriage isn't a quick emotional one nighter. It's a lifetime commitment that should be made with your head, as much as your heart and your c0ck.
So money should be a component in a woman's decision to marry. Unfortunately most men don't use the same standards. By that I mean that a guy should choose a partner who values (and doesn't waste) his money. That's why the worst combo is a guy with cash and a girl who spends it like water. But a guy with a bit of cash and a girl who values the security that the cash provides - that can be a great combo.
Check out my blog @ www.marriedafilipina.com
Some great wisdom on this thread.
"Well actually, she's not REALLY my daughter. But she does like to call me Daddy... at certain moments..."
Ultimately the whole point of men and women getting together is to be companions. When you get past all the sex economics, that's what it's all about. It's like life. First you need to survive, but after you've figured that out, you then need to actually live.
I believe that there are 3 reasons to be with someone :
* To be a good companion
* To make each others' life better, not worse
* To bring out the best in each other and help the other be a better person
And when you add all that up, you get the ultimate reason, which is to make each other happy.
The sex / resources trade is just the first hurdle, simply because it involves the 2 most important immediate needs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Cornfed and 2 guests