Different Kinds of Gold Diggers

[MrMan]

How do you define a gold digger? Does a gold digger have to mean a man harm before she can be considered a gold-digger.

I mentioned in another thread that I've watched several episodes of 'Take Me Out-Indonesia.' The US version of the show is kind of light and neither men nor women seem to take it seriously. But the women on the show in Indonesia are typically looking for husband-material, and the hosts and contestants after getting matched up will hint that they are hoping they will marry their partner.

The women will reject men (hit the buzzer and turn out the light) if they find out if a man is a dancer, a photographer, a model, or an athlete, jobs that usually don't pay well in Indonesia. They'll say they are looking for business men (or business owners) or doctors. Some of them will make jokes about wanting a husband with a thick wallet. Then other girls will get onto their fellow contestants for being too materialistic if they take it too far. One girl told a man she needed a man who could provide her with 2 million a month (about $200). Male contestants will sometimes tell how much they make. One man talked about a shop selling about $500 a month in addition to his job. A man with a car wash said he made about $2000 a month. But it does seem like the women all want a man who can provide for them financially as criteria for marriage.

Does a woman only considering a man for marriage who earns a decent living count as being a 'gold digger'? Does it if she's is in a culture where she will quit work when she gets ready to have the first child?

In the US, there are gold diggers who want to marry a rich man to divorce him and take half, or if he's very old, to be his sole heir.

IMO, the really bad kind of gold diggers are the ones who plan to divorce their husbands and take half. Below that would be the ones who want to divorce and take half.... if it doesn't work out, and women who marry a man to take his inheritance. But is woman who wants a man whose established in his career so he can take care of her a gold digger? What if she insists on a well-to-do man? What if she's willing to be a good wife, cook clean, be sexually available and enthusiastic, to love her husband, bear and care for his children, and be with him through old age? Does that count as gold-digging if the only man she'd consider is one who can provide for her financially?

[Lorenzo]

How do you define a gold digger?

Does a woman only considering a man for marriage who earns a decent living count as being a 'gold digger'? Does it if she's is in a culture where she will quit work when she gets ready to have the first child?

I think you have cultural misunderstanding. In Asia, women value men differently than in the Western world. They are practical in their approach. The man should be educated and have a good stable job to provide for the family and keep the marriage free of money problems. Age and looks are secondary considerations. In the USA, physical looks, age, sense of humor, and putting the woman first are big factors with being rich a big plus. So if you understand this, the only real "gold diggers" in Asia are women hunting for wealthy men that can be taken advantage of, with no long term relationship interests. This may be to support her family or purely materialism.

My now Korean wife tells me her best friend divorced in Korea shortly after marriage when she learned the man had financial troubles and debt he never told her about. Korean ladies need a lot of pampering, designer clothes and hand bags and nice cars. Guess he was a good guy but got cut for money reasons. It is very common for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese women to value a man based on the financial support he can provide. The same could be said for all of Asia.

[Ghost]

.

[Johnny1975]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

Never reveal your true income to a woman. Always pretend that it's less than what it is. Keep your finances to yourself. Don't share bank accounts. Make her contribute to the household and to dates and holidays (gold diggers hate contributing). Never give her money, always make it a loan and don't make a habit of it. Stash money away. Always make dates and birthday presents cheap. Tell her from the start that you're very frugal. Become a repellent to gold diggers.

[MrMan]

I wouldn't put a woman who wants a man who can provide into the 'gold digger' unless she's excessively money motivated, but I thought it was a good topic of conversation.

Johnny1975, I like my wife staying at home and taking care of the kids. That tires her enough. If she works a regular job outside the home, I know that will make it harder to keep up with an active sex-life. We've done a business together, too, which requires sporadic work.

I think Indonesian women in general make better wives in many ways than your average American woman. But I did have to be selective, because there are women there who are too money-oriented. I am a frugal type person, but so is my wife. She doesn't shop as a hobby, is willing to wear stuff from the Salvation Army if necessary, and shops carefully to save money. When I was single in Asia, I'd eat two meals out every day. I might grab something for breakfast at the boarding house I was staying at, eat some bread with something on it, for example. But for lunch and dinner, I'd eat out. So when I met the woman who became my wife, I started taking her out for dinner every night. You could get a meal at the food court at the mall for a dollar or a dollar fifty back then. The first place I took her was a Japanese bento place. I think it was about a dollar fifty to eat there back in the late 1990s in Jakarta. When I took her out some place nicer, she'd try to order the cheaper stuff off the menu. She was always trying to get me not to spend too much money on her. She didn't want to talk too long on the phone because they charge for local calls like long distance. She ended up moving to a boarding house right by her school, which was close to where I lived, so we could meet and talk in person very easily.

She was a poor college student so I never expected her to pay for anything. Before we were actually dating, I offered to help with her tuition. I had to talk her into accepting. She'd been praying for the Lord to provide that. Before me, provision came in other ways. I kind of had a sense I was going to marry her right after our first conversation, so I figured if I was going to marry her, I ought to at least help her with her degree. I think tuition was $50 a semester.

[Zambales]

If she cares about money and wealth first before other considerations, then she's a gold digger. I don't think it's useful to break it up into types or put it on a sliding scale. In my mind, she either is or is not a gold-digger.

Totally agree. Women who put money before anything else cannot be trusted and the ones who deem 'wealth' as having a good partner make the best wives.

[Zambales]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

In this day and age why can't the woman provide the lifestyle she wants by herself and not rely on men to do it for her?

I wouldn't class this type of woman as an out-and-out gold digger though, but there's definitely an element of freeloading about her simply because she's not prepared to provide for her own needs.

[Johnny1975]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

In this day and age why can't the woman provide the lifestyle she wants by herself and not rely on men to do it for her?

I wouldn't class this type of woman as an out-and-out gold digger though, but there's definitely an element of freeloading about her simply because she's not prepared to provide for her own needs.

There's something unnatural about a woman totally providing for herself. I think it's ok for a man to pay the lion's share, but she should contribute. Maybe 1/3, maybe 1/4, whatever.

[Zambales]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

In this day and age why can't the woman provide the lifestyle she wants by herself and not rely on men to do it for her?

I wouldn't class this type of woman as an out-and-out gold digger though, but there's definitely an element of freeloading about her simply because she's not prepared to provide for her own needs.

I think it's ok for a man to pay the lion's share

Absolutely, but that has to be his decision, not hers.

[Johnny1975]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

In this day and age why can't the woman provide the lifestyle she wants by herself and not rely on men to do it for her?

I wouldn't class this type of woman as an out-and-out gold digger though, but there's definitely an element of freeloading about her simply because she's not prepared to provide for her own needs.

I think it's ok for a man to pay the lion's share

Absolutely, but that has to be his decision, not hers.

Yes. But a woman has the right to reject a guy if he doesn't provide. But she certainly shouldn't be pushy about it. I think first dates should be free, to test her.

[Zambales]

If she wants a man who earns enough to provide an adequate, modest lifestyle, and if she naturally wants to be a nice person to him and put out, then that's ok. And if he isn't there yet but she's willing to stick with him, even better.

In this day and age why can't the woman provide the lifestyle she wants by herself and not rely on men to do it for her?

I wouldn't class this type of woman as an out-and-out gold digger though, but there's definitely an element of freeloading about her simply because she's not prepared to provide for her own needs.

I think it's ok for a man to pay the lion's share

Absolutely, but that has to be his decision, not hers.

Yes. But a woman has the right to reject a guy if he doesn't provide.

Depends. What stage of the relationship are we talking about?

[Johnny1975]

Yes. But a woman has the right to reject a guy if he doesn't provide.

Depends. What stage of the relationship are we talking about?

Oh that would be after a while. Not straight away.

[Zambales]

OK.

IMO, If they're not living together he is under no obligation to provide for her whatsoever. If they are, his only obligation is to pull his weight and pay half the bills etc

[Johnny1975]

OK.

IMO, If they're not living together he is under no obligation to provide for her whatsoever. If they are, his only obligation is to pull his weight and pay half the bills etc

I agree. But I think it's reasonable and natural for a woman to want to see signs that he would in future be willing to provide. That's why I think it's a good idea to keep dates cheap (be the provider but on a small scale), but pay more than half just as a demonstration, and let her know that you welcome contributions, i.e. if she offers to pay 25% of a date or treat you, let her. But providing for her, like paying her bills and stuff like that, no way.

Another thing is to never tell her what your income is. If you earn $100,000 give her the impression (but don't be specific) that you earn $30,000 and spend accordingly, and treat yourself in secret.

Also, being a provider doesn't have to always mean having a lot of money and spending a lot. It can mean being clever and frugal with money, it can mean being resourceful, and it can mean doing away with unnecessary expenses.

[Zambales]

She has to see the signs most definitely and she's well within her rights to dump him if he comes across as the mean type or one that shirks his responsibilities. Totally agree on that aspect. But saying that she has absolutely no right to dictate to him about how much he should earn just because she wants a better lifestyle. If she does want a certain lifestyle she should be woman enough to get off her ass and create it herself.

As for telling a woman your income. Usually they have a rough idea by the car you drive and the house you live in.