Are women that marry for money/financial security bad?

[Maverick]

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?

All relationships are social contracts.

One can even make the argument that having a relationship based on money is actually more stable than a relationship based on love (which is basically just a feeling).

I would not have an issue DATING someone that just wanted me for my money (as long as I'm getting something out of it too). I would have an issue with MARRYING (and starting a family with) someone like this though.

[MrMan]

It's not a bad thing if a woman makes choices basing on finding a spouse who will be a good father to her children. Providing is part of that.

[Winston]

Winston,
So you don't think Russian golddiggers treat their men good? Why do you say that?

Because I've seen them and met them. You can ask any guy that's met a gold digger or visa whore. When Russian women gold digged me, they treated me like crap. They do not have a sense of fairness. They are perfectly happy to receive and never give and would in fact PREFER that. They don't feel guilty for taking a lot from a guy and giving little or nothing in return, they figure if he's willing to be scammed or fooled, then he deserves it.

Russian women are very authentic and flirtatious, that's what's very refreshing about them. But that doesn't mean they have ethics or conscience. They believe that the strong have a right to take advantage and exploit others. Authenticity does not mean good morals or kindness or fairness, one can be authentically evil or greedy. Many are also cold and calculating on the inside.

Huh? Women don't need and want sex and romance? Since when?

You didn't read what I wrote. I said that women do not need sex and love the way men do. Men and women do not need sex and love equally. Consider the following:

- You never see women looking depressed, deflated and miserable from lack of sex. They don't suffer from lack of it the way that men do.
- You never hear about women going on a mass shooting spree from loneliness and lack of love or being unwanted.
- Women who attain wealth, power, status or even equality with men, usually do not need men. They also do not want to be controlled by a husband anymore because it would mean giving up their power or sharing it (e.g. Queen Elizabeth I of England). But men who attain power and wealth still need women of course, and will take advantage of their status so that they can get more women and sex. Attaining money and power does NOT diminish a man's need for sex and women. And in fact, most powerful men have mistresses, so they have more than one woman.
- You see brothels for men but not brothels for women. Women do not go to brothels to have sex with men. But you men go to brothels to have sex with women.
- Men fall in love easily. Women don't. They are more inhibited and careful and slower about falling in love.
- Men are eager to have sex right away. Women aren't. They are slower and more patient about sex than men are. On dates, the man is usually trying to escalate things into sex asap, aka "trying to move fast", but the woman is usually trying to get him to slow down and move slowly.
- As you know, a starving person who is eager and desperate for food will eat right away when food is given. We all know of men who are starved for sex, who will have sex right away with any woman they can, even if she's fat and unattractive. But you do not see women who are starved for sex and eager to have it right away with anyone they can.

We all know these things above. So you see, women and men do NOT need sex equally and are NOT equally desperate for it. It's obvious that women don't need sex as much as men do, and do not suffer from lack of it the way men do. They are not overly eager for sex like many men are.

Isn't all of this obvious and apparent? So what are you contesting then?

That's why the sexes are not equal. So there needs to be something to make women need men as much as men need women, else the human race could not survive and reproduce and raise children. And that has traditionally been that women need men for resources, security, protection and as a "rock to lean on".

What this means is that in trying to create equality for women, feminism has in fact created INEQUALITY between the genders, ironically. That's the big scam and trick that American culture, society and media don't understand.

[S_Parc]

We all know these things above. So you see, women and men do NOT need sex equally and are NOT equally desperate for it. It's obvious that women don't need sex as much as men do, and do not suffer from lack of it the way men do. They are not overly eager for sex like many men are.

Isn't all of this obvious and apparent? So what are you contesting then?

That's why the sexes are not equal. So there needs to be something to make women need men as much as men need women, else the human race could not survive and reproduce and raise children. And that has traditionally been that women need men for resources, security, protection and as a "rock to lean on".

What this means is that in trying to create equality for women, feminism has in fact created INEQUALITY between the genders, ironically. That's the big scam and trick that American culture, society and media don't understand.

This is one of the reasons why I don't understand why my RealDoll Manifesto was not so lauded?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26219

Once I'd been doing the Doll and playing with her DDs, I haven't been actively interested in b***bs and @sses in ages.

Instead, guys would rather sit around, mope around all day, and hope to make an annual trip to Thailand for some bargirl or soapy massage action. That's one week out of a whole year. And for those other 51 weeks, there's non-stop horniness.

[Zambales]

There are usually two types of women. The ones who are only interested in financial security and the ones who want emotional security.

With the former, there are two bitches in that kind of relationship. One's ruthless and materialistic and the other one's stupid and male.

[NorthAmericanguy]

All relationships are social contracts.

One can even make the argument that having a relationship based on money is actually more stable than a relationship based on love (which is basically just a feeling).

I would not have an issue DATING someone that just wanted me for my money (as long as I'm getting something out of it too). I would have an issue with MARRYING (and starting a family with) someone like this though.

Exactly! Out of experience I now have numerous relationships with different women strictly for money and I have ZERO problems. ZERO! Why? Because a relationship for money there are clear boundaries in that nobody gets any money for nothing, and I don't get anything without giving anything, so we're locked into about as fair exchange two people can possibly get and it keeps us in check in preventing us from taking advantage of each other.

[Bao3niang]

Anyone who places a high degree of importance on materialistic things is no good to me. They are sabotaging their own happiness. Well, whatever makes them happy but if they finally wake up one day and realize the void in their lives it may very well be too late. Whether you are rich or poor, character is what matters.

[JohnDoeBigBaller]

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 they aren't bad, they are just acting according to their nature. It is a woman's nature to want to get as much material resource out of a man as possible.

That's why women see prostitution as cheating. Because you can get sex without all the commitment and other bullshit that normal women use to enslave men.

[Bao3niang]

If anyone goes for me for any reason other than WHO I am, f**k it. I will not accept such an arrangement. I have nothing to offer other than myself and my generally good character. As for love, depends on how you define it. Love is not that wishy-washy feeling, love is not what you see in Hollywood movies and Korean dramas, which in the latter women get CEOs who drive sports cars while also cooking for them and buying them expensive gifts. I'm sorry, I'm not like that. To me, love is lifelong companionship. Perhaps it's easier for me to express my understanding in Chinese: 真正的爱情就是亲情。它不奢华，不浮躁。平平淡淡，没有大起大落。当你和一个人在一起已经成了一种习惯，当两人之间的感情无法割舍，这才是爱情得真谛。夫妻之间必须相濡以沫，相依为命。

[JohnDoeBigBaller]

Winston,
So you don't think Russian golddiggers treat their men good? Why do you say that?

Because I've seen them and met them. You can ask any guy that's met a gold digger or visa whore. When Russian women gold digged me, they treated me like crap. They do not have a sense of fairness. They are perfectly happy to receive and never give and would in fact PREFER that. They don't feel guilty for taking a lot from a guy and giving little or nothing in return, they figure if he's willing to be scammed or fooled, then he deserves it.

Russian women are very authentic and flirtatious, that's what's very refreshing about them. But that doesn't mean they have ethics or conscience. They believe that the strong have a right to take advantage and exploit others. Authenticity does not mean good morals or kindness or fairness, one can be authentically evil or greedy. Many are also cold and calculating on the inside.

Huh? Women don't need and want sex and romance? Since when?

You didn't read what I wrote. I said that women do not need sex and love the way men do. Men and women do not need sex and love equally. Consider the following:

- You never see women looking depressed, deflated and miserable from lack of sex. They don't suffer from lack of it the way that men do.
- You never hear about women going on a mass shooting spree from loneliness and lack of love or being unwanted.
- Women who attain wealth, power, status or even equality with men, usually do not need men. They also do not want to be controlled by a husband anymore because it would mean giving up their power or sharing it (e.g. Queen Elizabeth I of England). But men who attain power and wealth still need women of course, and will take advantage of their status so that they can get more women and sex. Attaining money and power does NOT diminish a man's need for sex and women. And in fact, most powerful men have mistresses, so they have more than one woman.
- You see brothels for men but not brothels for women. Women do not go to brothels to have sex with men. But you men go to brothels to have sex with women.
- Men fall in love easily. Women don't. They are more inhibited and careful and slower about falling in love.
- Men are eager to have sex right away. Women aren't. They are slower and more patient about sex than men are. On dates, the man is usually trying to escalate things into sex asap, aka "trying to move fast", but the woman is usually trying to get him to slow down and move slowly.
- As you know, a starving person who is eager and desperate for food will eat right away when food is given. We all know of men who are starved for sex, who will have sex right away with any woman they can, even if she's fat and unattractive. But you do not see women who are starved for sex and eager to have it right away with anyone they can.

We all know these things above. So you see, women and men do NOT need sex equally and are NOT equally desperate for it. It's obvious that women don't need sex as much as men do, and do not suffer from lack of it the way men do. They are not overly eager for sex like many men are.

Isn't all of this obvious and apparent? So what are you contesting then?

That's why the sexes are not equal. So there needs to be something to make women need men as much as men need women, else the human race could not survive and reproduce and raise children. And that has traditionally been that women need men for resources, security, protection and as a "rock to lean on".

What this means is that in trying to create equality for women, feminism has in fact created INEQUALITY between the genders, ironically. That's the big scam and trick that American culture, society and media don't understand.

i know it sounds f***ed up, but in reality isn't the whole mess of this modern society because the weak have outbred the strong? So yeah, maybe if the strong would start exploiting the weak more, the weak would eventually die off and then only the strong would remain.

Treat russian women or treat any woman like shit. Spend nothing on them. The more you spend on them, the less they respect you. Don't even buy them a drink, insist to split the bill and then take her and f**k her brains out.

[Kradmelder]

Women have married for security, physical and financial, ever since marriage was invented. In return they provided you with loyalty and a home. These days they offer neither but still want the security. I think what offends men is not that they look at your money, but that they want to offer nothing in return except spreading their legs when the urge suits THEM.

[Hero]

No, I don't think that women who marry for financial security are bad at all. Call me unromantic, but I think of marriage as a business arrangement, where each side brings something to the table. The man brings financial security, and in exchange the woman provides sex. Of course there should be some love there, but love isn't enough.

[Russian1860]

In the neighboring topic Winston called children leeches. Here most people imply the same towards women. But hey, maybe it should be correct to ask yourself first, what do you give your woman, so that to expect full output in return?

Those who think, that money can buy love, are wrong. You should contribute your time, attention and care, so that to have a right to claim the same from her. Women need not just a security, but love as well. I don’t defend all women. Many of them are bitches. But let’s discourse objectively. Not all of us, men, are perfect either. That is typical mistake to conclude about misfortune in a relationship, without making unbiased self-analysis first.

[Zambales]

Women have married for security, physical and financial, ever since marriage was invented. In return they provided you with loyalty and a home. These days they offer neither but still want the security. I think what offends men is not that they look at your money, but that they want to offer nothing in return except spreading their legs when the urge suits THEM.

Yup. Pretty much sums it up. Anglo females have evolved into total cunts in a matter of decades.

I remember having a conversation with one of my ex's some years ago and to be fair she wasn't the typical materialistic entitled sort. In fact she paid her way and then some, although she did admit to taking liberties if a man let her.

[Zambales]

No, I don't think that women who marry for financial security are bad at all. Call me unromantic, but I think of marriage as a business arrangement, where each side brings something to the table. The man brings financial security, and in exchange the woman provides sex. Of course there should be some love there, but love isn't enough.

They're not all bad in a general sense, just bad in a marital situation because they base the relationship on convenience and materialism instead of love.
Have these types of women as acquaitances or bang buddies by all means but definitely not as a wife.