marrying rich...or educated at least

[kasia]

growing up, i was always told that i was somewhat of an idealist...naive. i was always saying, "i can marry anyone--even a garbage man, so long as i'm in love." (no offense to garbage men--"sanitary engineers", that is). anyhow, i said it so often that it was almost my motto. and so my older guy friends would always pat me on head and say, "yeah right. what are you going to do? live with him on a mountain and away from society?" and i always had no idea what they were talking about.

so here i am...in law school. and i've been dating, to date, all non-wealthy guys. wealthy guys actually turn me off. my professor/mentor once actually told me that i should at least give rich people a chance (and he was super liberal--which meant that he thought i was pretty bad.)

and so i get pretty shocked, even now, when i hear about girls turning guys down because they aren't rich enough. i don't even know what it feels like to judge a guy by his car. why? how? it all just doesn't make sense to me.

there are three things i look for: intelligence, ambition, and integrity. and cute looks--so, okay, four. none of these entail wealth. not inherently, at least.

so does wealth matter to you? and do you think it has anything to do with being asian (and the stereotype of us being oh so materialistic?) please share.

[misst0fu]

aren't we all materialistic in a way? marriage is so very far for me. wealth/money is a plus. how are we going to keep the marriage alive. financially that is. but if i were dead broke and in love with the man i married. i'll be fine. hey. money can't buy love

[princess]

i think if u reallie love someone than ull see past their financial situation. if i was in love with some bum who wasnt even TRYING to make a living and was squeeking by, i would tell him i wouldnt marry him until he got his act together. but if he was actually an honest worker who juss didnt happen to have a high paying job id respect that. being wealthy isnt everything. id take pride in whatever we could afford together.

[bonani]

i share a similar reaction to hearing about women marrying for (or not marrying because of) money... it disappoints me to realize that there are women out there who feel they have no survival skills and nothing to offer the world out there that they would have to rely on another person's money to support them...or they are some lazy ass bitches! it reflects very poorly on the others of us who don't even figure monetary success into the equation.

it's true that love can be damaged beyond repair when there are financial problems in a marriage - but it's not just about the dollars. it's about all the rest of that couple's issues bearing much more strain with the material pressures associated with financial stress.

as for the issue of it being cultural... the asian cultures generally being much more conservative and patriarchal than the non-asian cultures, the women are socialized to believe they must depend on their partners for material comfort and success upon entering the marriage. material comfort and success is also associated with less suffering and of course all parents want for their children (especially daughters) not to have to suffer... hence, we are raised to seek out those who will provide us with a comfortable lifestyle.

the question i always pose to the elders who would preach that mindset is this: if there is material support but no emotional support do you not suffer? and which pain is worse?

...hmmm, looks like my 2 cents turned into a buck-fifty... :oops:

[kasia]

good analysis. i like bonani.

why is she still pre-conceptive slush?

i move to promote her. anyone second?

[achtungbaby]

[quote:ffd98325da="kasia"]good analysis. i like bonani.

why is she still pre-conceptive slush?

i move to promote her. anyone second?[/quote:ffd98325da]

http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq#rang
Four more posts and she can become fetus:)

[bonani]

[quote:ddd163ea8c="achtungbaby"][quote:ddd163ea8c="kasia"]good analysis. i like bonani.

why is she still pre-conceptive slush?

i move to promote her. anyone second?[/quote:ddd163ea8c]

http://yellowworld.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=faq#rang
Four more posts and she can become fetus:)[/quote:ddd163ea8c]

HAHAHA! now i have a goal...

[GhostInTheMachine]

[quote:df02774f33="kasia"]wealthy guys actually turn me off. [/quote:df02774f33]

I'm surprised to hear you say this. Doesn't the fact that he's wealthy and successful say something about his work habits, dedication, and goal mindedness. Although, it's possible that the wealthy guys you've dealth with have been stuck up and snobby. There are those wealthy few who are down to earth and humble. It's funny how society makes the rich out to be bad people. JMO though. :)

[achtungbaby]

[quote:a341f80da3="GhostInTheMachine"]Doesn't the fact that he's wealthy and successful say something about his work habits, dedication, and goal mindedness.[/quote:a341f80da3]

Of course, it could also mean he has a very large silver spoon lodged up his anus.

[kasia]

yeh. what achtung said.

and that tends to be the majority of them.

[GhostInTheMachine]

Oops, from your subject line "marrying rich...or educated at least," I assumed you meant those living by their own means and not off their parents. Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. Although, I know they're out there. I've heard about this guy who's parent paid for his engagement and wedding ring. Pathetic!

[kasia]

[quote:3c18cef000="GhostInTheMachine"]Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. [/quote:3c18cef000]

are you kidding? that's [i:3c18cef000]all [/i:3c18cef000]asian guys! (that i know)

[GhostInTheMachine]

Yes! I've just become a fetus. :D

[achtungbaby]

[quote:14bb911b85="kasia"][quote:14bb911b85="GhostInTheMachine"]Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. [/quote:14bb911b85]

are you kidding? that's [i:14bb911b85]all [/i:14bb911b85]asian guys! (that i know)[/quote:14bb911b85]

Hey! Guys might be bad, but girls are 1000000000000 times worse. Want further proof? Comb the campus of a local law school -- typically a bastion for progressive, forward-thinking women -- and amongst some of the Asian women you'll find little daddy's girls.

[kasia]

[quote:5f0d17cb42="achtungbaby"][quote:5f0d17cb42="kasia"][quote:5f0d17cb42="GhostInTheMachine"]Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. [/quote:5f0d17cb42]

are you kidding? that's [i:5f0d17cb42]all [/i:5f0d17cb42]asian guys! (that i know)[/quote:5f0d17cb42]

Hey! Guys might be bad, but girls are 1000000000000 times worse. Want further proof? Comb the campus of a local law school -- typically a bastion for progressive, forward-thinking women -- and amongst some of the Asian women you'll find little daddy's girls.[/quote:5f0d17cb42]

are you talking about me? i'm not even getting married yet. :cry:

[kasia]

[quote:85ab6dce93="kasia"][quote:85ab6dce93="achtungbaby"][quote:85ab6dce93="kasia"][quote:85ab6dce93="GhostInTheMachine"]Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. [/quote:85ab6dce93]

are you kidding? that's [i:85ab6dce93]all [/i:85ab6dce93]asian guys! (that i know)[/quote:85ab6dce93]

Hey! Guys might be bad, but girls are 1000000000000 times worse. Want further proof? Comb the campus of a local law school -- typically a bastion for progressive, forward-thinking women -- and amongst some of the Asian women you'll find little daddy's girls.[/quote:85ab6dce93]

are you talking about me? i'm not even getting married yet. :cry:[/quote:85ab6dce93]

[i:85ab6dce93]and[/i:85ab6dce93] i don't squander my parent's money.

[GhostInTheMachine]

[quote:da4389636a="kasia"][quote:da4389636a="GhostInTheMachine"]Geez, I hope no one out there is at a marrying age and still dependant upon thier parents. [/quote:da4389636a]

are you kidding? that's [i:da4389636a]all [/i:da4389636a]asian guys! (that i know)[/quote:da4389636a]

Very pathetic indeed. Do asian parents think they're doing their kids a favor by spoiling them sick? I see you're point though. Avoid these people, like the plague. They usually have no ambition or sense of independance. When it comes down to it, you should be marrying whoever makes you happy (regardless of financial situation).

[LilCPChik]

i dont wanna get married all da problems.. i'm trying 2 aviod trouble.. thats prob. not the way.. or mayb it is.. haha

[deez nuts]

I need a sugah momma! Just playin'

[kasia]

so vbkao does not believe that there are any girls out there who are *not* golddiggers. it is his position that the existence of non-golddigging girls is conceptually impossible. he wanted me to start a thread about this, but i realized we already had one. :)

karma points to whoever can prove him wrong.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Well, I used the term "golddigging" very loosely. I feel that we all enter into marriages not just out of love but because we seek something in return. Marriage is a manifestation of romance, but it's also a living arrangement. As such, we don't naturally gravitate to marry people we don't get some kind of benefit from. It's either emotional or financial, but it's still a benefit... a positive gain from at least a personal perspective.

Altrusim in love is rare and fleeting.

[teaz0r]

i was taught to never have to depend on a man for money.
if i marry. it'll be because of the yucky love stuff. and if the yucky
love stuff fizzles out after a couple years i'll just divorce his ass.

i'll definitely be capable of supporting myself and any children
i have with all the material possesions that i want and need.
with or without a husband.

emotionally wise, i'd suck it up and move on. get me a new man
that makes me feel the yucky love stuff all over again.

i'm hoping i won't have more than two divorces. but i do leave room
for myself to make mistakes.

[Xishi]

Rich or educated..?
Umm...

I plan on being both myself...so...I feel like I am entitled to both from my potential other...

Educated...intelligent..those are things that all good girls should be attracted to...

Now...rich...hm...
I want a successful guy...because I plan on being a successful female individual...
If I become successful myself...then it would be a lot easier and appropriate that I date someone who is also successful...not because I want to gain anything off of him...but because it is sexy...and it would make it less likely that he would need to gain anything extrinsicly off of me...so our relationship would be more sincere that way...

Haha of course...this reasoning goes in a circle in that I partially want to be successful myself because it attracts more successful guys and it makes it easier for them since they do not have to worry about problems like women wanting to freeload of off them with me...
I hate spending other people's money...so successful guys do nothing for me in a practical sense...but success is an indication of a lot of other valuable virtues that I find very intriguing...

I mean...yeah if I had to choose one...between educated and rich...then probably educated...

Really though...there are great...intelligent...kind...way awesome guys who are not rich...
But...there are also great... intelligent..kind..rich guys...

As if now...I am still a indigent student...so all suitors are eligible if intelligent and sincere...(Average looking preferred...)

[applehead]

i won't mind living paycheck to paycheck.
and just have enough to get by.
i feel that money complicates things.
so someone who is rich never appealed to me.
it doesn't turn me off either. i don't think.
i guess i'm apathetic towards that.

but how is having an educated man benefical to me?
i'd rather my husband be street smart than book smart.

[SunWuKong]

¦³¿ú¤£¬O¸U¯à¡A ¥i¬O¨S¦³¿ú¬O¸U¸U¤£¯à¡C

you can't do everything you want if you have money, but you can't do anything you want if you don't have money.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by applehead@Apr 12 2003, 02:22 AM
i won't mind living paycheck to paycheck.

sandee and dave rubbed off on you, sat night?

heh heh heh j/k!

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by applehead@Apr 12 2003, 02:22 AM
i won't mind living paycheck to paycheck.
and just have enough to get by.
i feel that money complicates things.
so someone who is rich never appealed to me.
it doesn't turn me off either. i don't think.
i guess i'm apathetic towards that.

but how is having an educated man benefical to me?
i'd rather my husband be street smart than book smart.
i'm all off the above. you lucked out.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 11 2003, 04:38 PM
so vbkao does not believe that there are any girls out there who are *not* golddiggers. it is his position that the existence of non-golddigging girls is conceptually impossible. he wanted me to start a thread about this, but i realized we already had one. :)

karma points to whoever can prove him wrong.
if girls don't dig for gold, they dig for sumthin else. same with guys i think, if they aren't boobdiggers they'll find sumthin else. it's easy to prefer gold because we live in a material society *shrug*

[applehead]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 12 2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by applehead@Apr 12 2003, 02:22 AM
i won't mind living paycheck to paycheck.
and just have enough to get by.
i feel that money complicates things.
so someone who is rich never appealed to me.
it doesn't turn me off either. i don't think.
i guess i'm apathetic towards that.

but how is having an educated man benefical to me?
i'd rather my husband be street smart than book smart.
i'm all off the above. you lucked out.
steve your spelling sucks.
i think.
you lucked out.
:)

[Xishi]

Methinks that head here is blocking people on her IM...

Head..that is really bad...

BOO...booooooo...

:D

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by applehead@Apr 13 2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 12 2003, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by applehead@Apr 12 2003, 02:22 AM
i won't mind living paycheck to paycheck.
and just have enough to get by.
i feel that money complicates things.
so someone who is rich never appealed to me.
it doesn't turn me off either. i don't think.
i guess i'm apathetic towards that.

but how is having an educated man benefical to me?
i'd rather my husband be street smart than book smart.
i'm all off the above. you lucked out.
steve your spelling sucks.
i think.
you lucked out.
:)

SLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by Xishi@Apr 13 2003, 01:45 AM
Methinks that head here is blocking people on her IM...

Head..that is really bad...

BOO...booooooo...

:D
it's all about blocking people on IM!

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 13 2003, 08:45 AM
SLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURP
Get a room. I don't need to read/see this.

FP has the right idea about what I've been saying, Kasie. We always dig for something. It's just a matter of what we target. Some people go for security, some people dig for thrills and some people might dig for affirmation. There's nothing that's really morally better or worse about such behavior as long as the other person is approaching this situation with a fairly clear head and is getting something out of it too.

[deez nuts]

same shiznit.

some women want a certain education level, certain level of income, degree of financial stablity etc etc.

some men want a certain height, bust size, waist size, leg length, skin complexion etc etc.

blah blah blah

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 13 2003, 05:37 PM
some men want a certain height, bust size, waist size, leg length, skin complexion etc etc.

blah blah blah
Credentials and career are a plus for me

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by golden_buns@Apr 13 2003, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 13 2003, 05:37 PM
some men want a certain height, bust size, waist size, leg length, skin complexion etc etc.

blah blah blah
Credentials and career are a plus for me
yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.

[Xishi]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 13 2003, 01:09 PM
FP has the right idea about what I've been saying, Kasie. We always dig for something. It's just a matter of what we target. Some people go for security, some people dig for thrills and some people might dig for affirmation. There's nothing that's really morally better or worse about such behavior as long as the other person is approaching this situation with a fairly clear head and is getting something out of it too.
Kao is right...

I always hear people uttering absurdity like "Oh...I like him/her for what he/she is...I don't care about anything else..."
I deem that as a looser's excuse for settling for mediocrity...

I think that it should be a turn on for one to want something off of you...
Hopefully...what they want is more for intrinsic purposes instead of the practical...
I think that it is a show of good taste when a girl chooses a guy with a clear objective of his superior intelligence...elite education....kindness...conversantness...ect...
On the other hand...secret agendas of wanting a guy for practical reasons or wanting to milk gold out of a guys is just a plain off put and show of self-disrespect...

Uhh...shame...

[iris]

I feel a man who is financially secure through his own abilities possesses the same values I look for in a potential spouse. He is bound to have strong work ethnics, dedication, and a desire to succeed. Monetary status through self-made means is an indication of intelligence, a good career, and achievement. It is not a crime to be wealthy. I am paid well for what I do and I am not ashamed of that. Moreover, I'd prefer a man who is the same.

I think everyone prefers a significant other that has a good career (i.e. pays well) and intelligence. Who really says, "Well I love this girl/guy even though she/he is incredibly dumb and going nowhere in this world?" Though one's sig. other may not be financially secure now, that is the goal to which we all work for and the potential they possess to move up in this world is what attracts one person to another. The ability to do well in life is an indication of other attractive qualities such as motivation and perseverance.

[kimpossible]

The old married broad speaks.

Outside of the fact that I would LOVE to record this discussion to drag it out years later after you're all married to compare the ideals to a few years of reality, I'd say that 1) according to the definitions here I'd fall squarely into the shallow and moneygrubbing category 2) I'm okay with that.

Relationships and dating are for love and communication. Marriage IS about finances, family and legal matters. That does not make it a matter of course that it will be devoid of love or that money becomes the priority.

But in life, shit happens and it is usually costly. The best way to deal with costly unhappy shit happening is to have money. The best way to have enough money to deal with costly unhappy shit is to have an education and know how to deal with finances.

Maybe in youthful exuberience or having a younger position in your family, you have the option of not being responsible for other people. My husband and I do not have those options. Family members die, family back in Taiwan needs money, parents grow old and need financial support, family members get sick and require expensive medications, and if you're wondering how our happy married couple fits into this -- they want to retire early so they can share as much of there last years together before they die and hopefully leave a better life for the family they leave behind.

You'd better believe I looked for an ambitious good looking guy who had it together and had the potential to be a good family man. I plan on doing this marriage thing only once; I did want it all. So aside from having the general good man characteristics, I wanted love and someone who shared my cultural beliefs and experiences. But people see different things. The guy that was perfect for me was the guy most girls passed over as a wallflower and nerd.

And I'm sure he had similar criteria for me. He's said he didn't want to marry someone from Taiwan, but still wanted someone Asian enough to cook the food he likes and be able to relate to culturally. He wanted a woman that wouldn't get fat after marriage and would age well. He waited to see how my mother had aged before marrying me. He wanted someone with ambition, education and a belief that learning will be lifelong. As an only child he needed someone who could be counted on to share the responsibility in his family.

We all want something.

[kimpossible]

where the hell did SWK's post go? :huh:

[golden_buns]

HH, I totally agree with you in pretty much everything you said. I think feeling love for your significant other is essential but love can't buy you food, a roof, and overall well being.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Apr 14 2003, 12:53 PM
where the hell did SWK's post go? :huh:
:D


»¶´Ô©j©j¡A©p¦n¡C

:D

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Kasie,

Schopenhauer said it best.

"But, finally, what draws two individuals of different sex exclusively to each other with such power is the will to live, which exhibits itself in the whole species, and which here anticipates in the individual which these two can produce an objectification of its nature according to its aims. "

- The Metaphysics of the Love of the Sexes

We seek that which we feel will help us survive. We seek what we feel we need. In a way. we're all golddigging. Self-interest is integral to love whether we like it or not. I'm not going to live completely for someone else unless that somehow increases my half-rational/half-irrational perception of what's good for my well-being.

[kasia]

but say you have this man that is financially well-off, driven, ambitious, educated, responsible, family-oriented, and so-on, you marry him, and he gets into a car accident and becomes a paraplegic who can no longer work nor support the family. would you leave him? or would you stay because you still love him for the driven, ambitious, educated, and responsible man that he is despite the fact that you will never get any tangible benefit from it?

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

That doesn't really preclude that poor guy's wife from getting some kind of survival benefit from sticking around. I mean if she sticks around, she still gets the psychological gratification of doing the ethically and morally right thing, right? If that's the case, which it usually is, then there's a survival benefit that the relationship still provides for that specific woman. As long as the costs don't outweigh that emotional benefit, she still gets something from it. As a result, she's still theoretically "golddigging."

"Golddigging" is just what we label a solely money-focused version of the emotional and practical cost-benefit balancing we do in our heads everyday when it comes to romance.

[kimpossible]

I married to build a family together. Lucky for me that I love the guy I married. I promised to love in sickness and in health for richer or poorer. We realize it may come to one of us unable to physically or mentally able to carry on and we don't want to burden the other. Which is why we did things like get life insurance, hire an estate lawyer for wills and durable power of attorneys and purchase graves and prepay our funeral costs in our 20s.

Being physically or mentally unable to carry on does not equal not ambitious or ceasing to care about our family. I'd work and take care of him in the same manner he did for me. If he was a deadbeat dad and lazy piece of shit who ignored his family in order to gamble and whore, I'd cut him loose and pick up his role within our extended family. Responsibility changed once we were married. I owe loyalty not just to him but to the entire family. If he won't take care of what the family needs, I will.

Life is unpredictable. I do have a great marriage but we've only been married a few years. In the best circumstances, we'll have many more years of life. People change, luck and finances change. For all I know he'll trade me in for two 20s when I'm 40. There are no guarantees in life. It doesn't change what I wanted in a mate. Part of that is ambition. You never know anyone 100% - never but I have a pretty good insight into his nature. That ambition to me was one of the traits I loved; if he ever was blinded or burned or parapalegic it would stop him for about a microsecond before he would find a way to continue, to survive, to succeed.

[lethal]

I think it all boils down to a value judgment...and who are we to question each other's values just because they are different than our own?

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 11:05 AM
That doesn't really preclude that poor guy's wife from getting some kind of survival benefit from sticking around. I mean if she sticks around, she still gets the psychological gratification of doing the ethically and morally right thing, right? If that's the case, which it usually is, then there's a survival benefit that the relationship still provides for that specific woman. As long as the costs don't outweigh that emotional benefit, she still gets something from it. As a result, she's still theoretically "golddigging."

"Golddigging" is just what we label a solely money-focused version of the emotional and practical cost-benefit balancing we do in our heads everyday when it comes to romance.
getting psychological gratification does not = golddigging. and in reading h.h.'s post, i'm assuming that she'd stick around because she truly loves him, not because she'd believe that she's doing the right thing. but of course, h.h. will never really have to consider this situation in real life b/c her and her husband will live a healthy and happy life together until they're 105.

[SunWuKong]

my god all this talk about marriage is making my head hurt. maybe i should wait till i'm 35 instead of 30 to get married.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 11:48 AM
my god all this talk about marriage is making my head hurt. maybe i should wait till i'm 35 instead of 30 to get married.
how about just settling to be my second husband?

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by tazadar@Apr 14 2003, 11:48 AM
Let's hope not. If Mr. HH happens to be crippled, she'll be calling you to file the papers.
No, I'll be looking for you to make you husband No. 3. SWK gets higher billing at husband No. 2.

[kasia]

what's the male term for 'concubine'?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 02:57 PM
what's the male term for 'concubine'?
cockubine? :D

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 11:05 AM
That doesn't really preclude that poor guy's wife from getting some kind of survival benefit from sticking around. I mean if she sticks around, she still gets the psychological gratification of doing the ethically and morally right thing, right? If that's the case, which it usually is, then there's a survival benefit that the relationship still provides for that specific woman. As long as the costs don't outweigh that emotional benefit, she still gets something from it. As a result, she's still theoretically "golddigging."

"Golddigging" is just what we label a solely money-focused version of the emotional and practical cost-benefit balancing we do in our heads everyday when it comes to romance.
getting psychological gratification does not = golddigging. and in reading h.h.'s post, i'm assuming that she'd stick around because she truly loves him, not because she'd believe that she's doing the right thing. but of course, h.h. will never really have to consider this situation in real life b/c her and her husband will live a healthy and happy life together until they're 105.
Psychological gratification is a benefit for which you've entered into a relationship. It's golddigging because you're entering the relationship for a benefit. Like I've said repeatedly before, we all golddig to one extent or another. We're not just there for the moral sanctity and purity of love. We gratify conscious and subconscious desires. We're there for what we receive and we give because what we receive doesn't make it as much of a sacrifice as a fair trade.

Just to put another take on the HH example... HH doesn't think it's a huge threat that if something happened to her husband, he'd just lie down and die. He's more determined than that. He'll find a way to keep giving her some kind of emotional/physical support and benefit. She didn't marry just so she can give a guy her all without getting something out of it. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, HH). Yeah, she'll stick around because she truly loves him, but she truly loves him because part of him is good for her as well. It's not some one-sided affection for him that keeps her sticking around.

Just so everyone knows, Kasie and I were discussing this over IM. Kasie made a comment about "golddiggers" and I mentioned that it's not really something I can judge about because we're all "golddiggers" in some sense of the word or another. She decides to go all Scalia on me and foregoes any critical thinking here and applies only the strictest definition of the word.

Shame, Kasie. SHAME.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 12:12 PM

Shame, Kasie. SHAME.
Shut up, No. 4.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 12:12 PM
(Please correct me if I'm wrong on this, HH).
No can do, all debated out. Moving on to idiot mode.

[lethal]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 04:12 PM
She decides to go all Scalia on me and foregoes any critical thinking here and applies only the strictest definition of the word.
Going Scalia!

Wow Kasie...do you take that to be an insult or a compliment?

[kasia]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Apr 14 2003, 12:42 PM
Going Scalia!

Wow Kasie...do you take that to be an insult or a compliment?
just know that it's coming from vbkao. *shrug* :)

the reason why he's saying that i'm "going scalia" is because i believe the term 'golddigger' must in some way relate to the money. hence 'golddigger'. it's not just a strict construction of the word, however. i believe that it is the only way to construe it. vic disagrees and argues that it can be used for any person who derives some sort of benefit from his/her relationship (since we are all self-interested). i responded that his belief is a truism - that we are all self-interested - but that i disagree with his definition of 'golddigger'.

[SunWuKong]

who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:04 PM
who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate
there's a better chance of her being a golddigger than a chinese woman in the u.s.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:04 PM
who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate
there's a better chance of her being a golddigger than a chinese woman in the u.s.
yeah but all i gotta do is send a few hundred bucks back to her parents every month to keep her mouth shut. that's not too expensive.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:04 PM
who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate
there's a better chance of her being a golddigger than a chinese woman in the u.s.
yeah but all i gotta do is send a few hundred bucks back to her parents every month to keep her mouth shut. that's not too expensive.
oh, what? you're going to leave her there? hahaha.

edit: okay, you said you'd send money to her parents. still, i think it's a pretty good idea to leave her there, too. good way to weed out the golddiggers who want a green card.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by tazadar@Apr 14 2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:04 PM
who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate
I wonder if there's more women in Anhui province that look like Zhao Wei.
the prettiest girls in china from what i've heard are in suzhou.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 14 2003, 03:04 PM
who cares
i'm gonna go buy a peasant wife from mainland china when it's time for me to procreate
there's a better chance of her being a golddigger than a chinese woman in the u.s.
yeah but all i gotta do is send a few hundred bucks back to her parents every month to keep her mouth shut. that's not too expensive.
oh, what? you're going to leave her there? hahaha.

edit: okay, you said you'd send money to her parents. still, i think it's a pretty good idea to leave her there, too. good way to weed out the golddiggers who want a green card.
yeah yeah you know i'm only kidding

i'm all about the overseas chinese girls! :D

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Apr 14 2003, 12:42 PM
Going Scalia!

Wow Kasie...do you take that to be an insult or a compliment?
just know that it's coming from vbkao. *shrug* :)

the reason why he's saying that i'm "going scalia" is because i believe the term 'golddigger' must in some way relate to the money. hence 'golddigger'. it's not just a strict construction of the word, however. i believe that it is the only way to construe it. vic disagrees and argues that it can be used for any person who derives some sort of benefit from his/her relationship (since we are all self-interested). i responded that his belief is a truism - that we are all self-interested - but that i disagree with his definition of 'golddigger'.
Well, the reason I'm saying you're going Scalia is that you're sticking too closely to what I said as a single statement in itself as opposed to taking it into the context of the conversation we had. My statement about us all being golddiggers was in response to your statement castigating all "golddiggers" for being incredibly more amoral than the rest of us. My point was to say that we all do what golddiggers do but we take more factors into account that put a better gloss on what we do in the view of others. Figuratively, we're all golddigging. Thus, "we're all golddiggers." I've heard hyperbolic descriptions of people engulfing food when they're hungry, but they don't literally engulf it according to the dictionary definition of the word. They eat it. People use words to emphasize their point.

I mean, you can just stick to the definition of the word itself, but you're getting stuck on the wrong point itself. I was trying to show that what we castigate in supposed golddiggers is an impulse we all have.

Honestly, I don't see how your response pointed out that what I was saying was a truism. It seems more like you're trying to refute my point directly. Using HH as an example of love sticking it out for love's sake was meant as a counterargument, no? I made a point that HH would still get something out of the relationship despite the hypothetical disability as a response to your point that love makes our actions altruistic. It's not like we two have been working on 2 different scopes here...

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Apr 14 2003, 12:42 PM
Going Scalia!

Wow Kasie...do you take that to be an insult or a compliment?
just know that it's coming from vbkao. *shrug* :)

the reason why he's saying that i'm "going scalia" is because i believe the term 'golddigger' must in some way relate to the money. hence 'golddigger'. it's not just a strict construction of the word, however. i believe that it is the only way to construe it. vic disagrees and argues that it can be used for any person who derives some sort of benefit from his/her relationship (since we are all self-interested). i responded that his belief is a truism - that we are all self-interested - but that i disagree with his definition of 'golddigger'.
Well, the reason I'm saying you're going Scalia is that you're sticking too closely to what I said as a single statement in itself as opposed to taking it into the context of the conversation we had. My statement about us all being golddiggers was in response to your statement castigating all "golddiggers" for being incredibly more amoral than the rest of us. My point was to say that we all do what golddiggers do but we take more factors into account that put a better gloss on what we do in the view of others. Figuratively, we're all golddigging. Thus, "we're all golddiggers." I've heard hyperbolic descriptions of people engulfing food when they're hungry, but they don't literally engulf it according to the dictionary definition of the word. They eat it. People use words to emphasize their point.

I mean, you can just stick to the definition of the word itself, but you're getting stuck on the wrong point itself. I was trying to show that what we castigate in supposed golddiggers is an impulse we all have.

Honestly, I don't see how your response pointed out that what I was saying was a truism. It seems more like you're trying to refute my point directly. Using HH as an example of love sticking it out for love's sake was meant as a counterargument, no? I made a point that HH would still get something out of the relationship despite the hypothetical disability as a response to your point that love makes our actions altruistic. It's not like we two have been working on 2 different scopes here...
to say that we're all self-interested in a truism. i don't think that entering a relationship because you like the person is the same as entering a relationship because you like his money. sure, in both cases, you'll derive some sort of benefit. but it's not the same thing.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Well, if what I said was a truism, then why are you arguing against my point? And objectively, it's not quite a truism either because you've got many people who believe that love is a redeeming emotion that's more about giving than receiving, making it a negative-sum venture. Also, the fact that you were trying to construct a relationship situation where self-interest doesn't play a logical role but the relationship still persists due to "love" seems to indicate that you don't really buy my point that the love that persistently binds these unfortunate hypothetical people together can still be fueled by a surviving self-interest. Either that or you don't just accept that idea in the same way we accept most truisms where it's not even a subject of devate.

And your distinction seems like more of a focus on the degree of naked self-interest than anything else. It's like disputing over how self-interested people are rather than whether they're self-interested or not. You call it two different things, but I don't think they're two completely different approaches to a human relationship. I mean golddigging is searching for a well-being measured by money whereas you get more intrinsically reciprocal by going further up the scale of "real" emotional attachment. I don't think it's two completely different . It's just the foci that differ. The consequences are different, but I think the acts are the same.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 04:41 PM
And your distinction seems like more of a focus on the degree of naked self-interest than anything else. It's like disputing over how self-interested people are rather than whether they're self-interested or not. You call it two different things, but I don't think they're two completely different approaches to a human relationship. I mean golddigging is searching for a well-being measured by money whereas you get more intrinsically reciprocal by going further up the scale of "real" emotional attachment. I don't think it's two completely different . It's just the foci that differ. The consequences are different, but I think the acts are the same.
not just the degree. i'm saying that they're different. like fats. there's saturated and unsaturated. one's good for you, one's not. but they're both fats.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

But they're different only to a degree. They're same to a good degree as well.

This debate really sucks.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 04:54 PM
But they're different only to a degree. They're same to a good degree as well.

This debate really sucks.
sorry. i can't process long sentences.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Don't worry Kasie. We'll work on that. Have you tried tutoring?

I just think you're overaccentuating the difference between golddigging and normal romance. I myself don't feel like you can really put a huge moral judgment on a golddigger if the golddigger's target is willing and happy.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 05:15 PM
Don't worry Kasie. We'll work on that. Have you tried tutoring?

I just think you're overaccentuating the difference between golddigging and normal romance. I myself don't feel like you can really put a huge moral judgment on a golddigger if the golddigger's target is willing and happy.
i guess. then they shouldn't hide behind the pretext of love and romance.

tutoring won't help. i think i'm naturally slow. ;)

[deez nuts]

i'm still with victor. not sure now, i'm lost in all the legal mumbo jumbo and my ADD kicked in. but going on victor's original premise, i agree 100%.

[kasia]

so it seems like there is no way out of it - victor's proposition, i mean.

even if i chose to marry the most repulsive, ignorant, moronic, arrogant guy...and ended up loving him b/c i'm a loving person - my motive for remaining in the relationship would still be construed as self-interested b/c i love him...right?

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:10 PM
i'm still with victor. not sure now, i'm lost in all the legal mumbo jumbo and my ADD kicked in. but going on victor's original premise, i agree 100%.
what *is* his original premise, as you understand it?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:19 PM
what *is* his original premise, as you understand it?
what i stated earlier:

yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:29 PM
what i stated earlier:

yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.
okay...maybe i've been participating in my own debate or something...but i thought vic was saying that we're all, in a sense, golddiggers...and that we should not perceive one group as more shallow, etc., b/c we're doing just what they're doing.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:29 PM
what i stated earlier:

yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.
okay...maybe i've been participating in my own debate or something...but i thought vic was saying that we're all, in a sense, golddiggers...and that we should not perceive one group as more shallow, etc., b/c we're doing just what they're doing.
well some are gold diggers, some are looking for an emotional crutch, some are diploma junkies etc etc. who's to say one is better than the other.

in my opinion, it's a fine line between gold digging and looking for someone with financial stability. it's purely subjective.

some call anna nicole smith a gold digger. but on the flip side look at the old geezer husband. he was on his last breath and he got to feel up on some serious ho-ho's.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:29 PM
what i stated earlier:

yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.
okay...maybe i've been participating in my own debate or something...but i thought vic was saying that we're all, in a sense, golddiggers...and that we should not perceive one group as more shallow, etc., b/c we're doing just what they're doing.
well some are gold diggers, some are looking for an emotional crutch, some are diploma junkies etc etc. who's to say one is better than the other.

in my opinion, it's a fine line between gold digging and looking for someone with financial stability. it's purely subjective.

some call anna nicole smith a gold digger. but on the flip side look at the old geezer husband. he was on his last breath and he got to feel up on some serious ho-ho's.
but there are those who don't even look for financial stability.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:29 PM
what i stated earlier:

yeah, i think it all boils down to the fact that everyone has an idea of what they want in a mate. and some of those can be perceived as either shallow and/or "gold digging."

but, the way i look at it: to each their own.

i'm with victor on this one.
okay...maybe i've been participating in my own debate or something...but i thought vic was saying that we're all, in a sense, golddiggers...and that we should not perceive one group as more shallow, etc., b/c we're doing just what they're doing.
well some are gold diggers, some are looking for an emotional crutch, some are diploma junkies etc etc. who's to say one is better than the other.

in my opinion, it's a fine line between gold digging and looking for someone with financial stability. it's purely subjective.

some call anna nicole smith a gold digger. but on the flip side look at the old geezer husband. he was on his last breath and he got to feel up on some serious ho-ho's.
but there are those who don't even look for financial stability.
i'm saying we all have different things we look for. who's to say the girlfriend who is looking for high earning potential in a boyfriend vs a boyfriend looking for a certain height and weight in a girlfriend.

it's all just criterias. i think vic was merely stating that "gold digging" is a small part of a greater spectrum. we're all digging for something in a potential soulmate. whether it's tangible or not.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 14 2003, 06:47 PM
it's all just criterias. i think vic was merely stating that "gold digging" is a small part of a greater spectrum. we're all digging for something in a potential soulmate. whether it's tangible or not.
then that would be a truism, no?

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 09:49 PM
then that would be a truism, no?

it's a battle between lawyers.  i want out of the cross-fire.
dunno ask vic. i'm tired.

this is between lawyers or logic junkies. i'm walking away from the cross-fire.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Kasie, it's impossible to win this game with you because you refuse to play.

My point, which CSB has been stating pretty well, is not a truism because you're basically arguing against the idea that we're digging for some benefit no matter what you call it. If it was a truism, you wouldn't be arguing at all. You must find something wrong with this point or else you wouldn't keep questioning us about it. At the same time, once we clearly state this point out, you get all confused again because you can't refute it and interpret that to mean we haven't argued with you at all. If anybody needs to clarify their point, it's you.

We've been stating over and over agian that there's not much of a clear, conceptual difference between formal money-focused golddigging and the normal cost/benefit balancing most of us apply to our romance lives. The only difference is that one is less approved and cuddly than the other. Condemning the former as immoral behavior is a shaky endeavor because we all engage in one form of it or another, making us all potential hypocrites if we're too quick to judge. Therefore, I don't judge as long as the other person "exploited" by the "golddigger" has an idea of the truth and is getting some benefit out of it as well. I don't think other people are readily entitled to condemn either.

The minute we state our argument though, you basically tell us that "golddigging" and normal behavior are markedly different without dilineating a clear difference other than the fact that you dislike the former and seem to tolerate the latter. Yet when we elaborate and talk about this point to show that the difference isn't as clear as you might think and show how most of us mortals "golddig" in our own ways, you get contentious all over again and the debate restarts like some perverse perpetual motion machine.

According to my dictionary, a truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; a statement which is pliantly true; a proposition needing no proof or argument." For example, a truism is a point like "Sometime's the sky is blue. Sometime's it's not." When we state our argument though, you seem to find something false or inaccurate enough about our point to start testing and doubting us. As long as you can keep raising doubts about the situation and keep questioning us on it, it's not a truism.

[Elizabeth A.]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 14 2003, 02:57 PM
what's the male term for 'concubine'?
[useless information] A male concubine is a "concubator" [/useless information]

[Tao]

so if you're a hen you'd be a concubator's incubator?

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 14 2003, 07:07 PM
Kasie, it's impossible to win this game with you because you refuse to play.

My point, which CSB has been stating pretty well, is not a truism because you're basically arguing against the idea that we're digging for some benefit no matter what you call it. If it was a truism, you wouldn't be arguing at all. You must find something wrong with this point or else you wouldn't keep questioning us about it. At the same time, once we clearly state this point out, you get all confused again because you can't refute it and interpret that to mean we haven't argued with you at all. If anybody needs to clarify their point, it's you.

We've been stating over and over agian that there's not much of a clear, conceptual difference between formal money-focused golddigging and the normal cost/benefit balancing most of us apply to our romance lives. The only difference is that one is less approved and cuddly than the other. Condemning the former as immoral behavior is a shaky endeavor because we all engage in one form of it or another, making us all potential hypocrites if we're too quick to judge. Therefore, I don't judge as long as the other person "exploited" by the "golddigger" has an idea of the truth and is getting some benefit out of it as well. I don't think other people are readily entitled to condemn either.

The minute we state our argument though, you basically tell us that "golddigging" and normal behavior are markedly different without dilineating a clear difference other than the fact that you dislike the former and seem to tolerate the latter. Yet when we elaborate and talk about this point to show that the difference isn't as clear as you might think and show how most of us mortals "golddig" in our own ways, you get contentious all over again and the debate restarts like some perverse perpetual motion machine.

According to my dictionary, a truism is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; a statement which is pliantly true; a proposition needing no proof or argument." For example, a truism is a point like "Sometime's the sky is blue. Sometime's it's not." When we state our argument though, you seem to find something false or inaccurate enough about our point to start testing and doubting us. As long as you can keep raising doubts about the situation and keep questioning us on it, it's not a truism.
what you're saying is this:

1) people enter into relationships hoping to derive some sort of benefit because they are, by nature, self-interested. that is what i'm calling a truism.

2) those who hope to derive love out of a relationship are no better - or it cannot be clearly articulated as to why they are better - than those who hope to obtain money. this is our point of disagreement. it's not just that i tolerate the former but not the latter. i think there is something objectively different between the two. with the former, you actually love the person for who they are - even though that would benefit you. with the latter, you like the person for his money and need not pay attention to who he is.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 15 2003, 12:47 AM
i think there is something objectively different between the two. with the former, you actually love the person for who they are - even though that would benefit you. with the latter, you like the person for his money and need not pay attention to who he is.
I don't think most people are that completely naked about it. Only a few men and women will only work according to money. They're going to choose amongst the best options they have that fit their criteria. Money might play a larger role than we'd like with these "golddiggers," but many of the people we'd call "golddiggers" aren't completely motivated by money alone. There's a difference between the 20 year old co-ed who marries the 90 year old man and carries on a bunch of affairs and the Chinese woman who marries an American man she's only "fond of" and not "in love with" primarily for a higher standard of living. I feel that both people would be labelled golddiggers, but I only feel comfortable making a perjorative judgment in the prior case when the evil of the situation is just ridiculously clear. In most cases, the difference between golddigging and normal behavior and choices aren't that objective.

[moschikat]

Originally posted by Elizabeth A.@Apr 14 2003, 07:32 PM
[useless information] A male concubine is a "concubator" [/useless information]
:lol:

[kasia]

do you think men look for financial stability in women?

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 17 2003, 01:20 PM
do you think men look for financial stability in women?
for me, it's a plus. that and a good education.
but not a necessity. the only necessary qualification i've got right now, as far as marriage is concerned, is chinese language abilities.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 15 2003, 08:29 AM
I don't think most people are that completely naked about it. Only a few men and women will only work according to money. They're going to choose amongst the best options they have that fit their criteria. Money might play a larger role than we'd like with these "golddiggers," but many of the people we'd call "golddiggers" aren't completely motivated by money alone. There's a difference between the 20 year old co-ed who marries the 90 year old man and carries on a bunch of affairs and the Chinese woman who marries an American man she's only "fond of" and not "in love with" primarily for a higher standard of living. I feel that both people would be labelled golddiggers, but I only feel comfortable making a perjorative judgment in the prior case when the evil of the situation is just ridiculously clear. In most cases, the difference between golddigging and normal behavior and choices aren't that objective.
but for some people, money may not play a role at all. i think we can draw a distinction between them and those who view money as *a* factor.

[golden_buns]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 17 2003, 10:20 AM
do you think men look for financial stability in women?
I think that wit the cost of life nowdays it's becoming quite common. For me it's a big plus.

That's why I dig Doc... ohh wait he doesn't have any boobs

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 17 2003, 10:28 AM
for me, it's a plus. that and a good education.
but not a necessity. the only necessary qualification i've got right now, as far as marriage is concerned, is chinese language abilities.
is it a plus because of what it shows about her? or is it a plus because of the money itself?

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 18 2003, 07:20 PM
but for some people, money may not play a role at all. i think we can draw a distinction between them and those who view money as *a* factor.
So how do you view those people who view money as *a* factor?

[Tao]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 18 2003, 08:55 PM
So how do you view those people who view money as *a* factor?
i would understand, as long as it's not the only thing ppl consider. but then again, most ppl who are worthy enough for a person to consider marriage, is usually a succesful person, in his or her own way, and even if he/she doesn't have money, they are usually ambitious and passionate about something. and usually this kind of passion leads to a decent salary. i mean face it who would want to consider a bum as a husband/wife?

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 18 2003, 04:55 PM
So how do you view those people who view money as *a* factor?
never thought about them. not everyone goes around judging people. :)

[kasia]

Originally posted by Tao@Apr 18 2003, 05:00 PM
i would understand, as long as it's not the only thing ppl consider. but then again, most ppl who are worthy enough for a person to consider marriage, is usually a succesful person, in his or her own way, and even if he/she doesn't have money, they are usually ambitious and passionate about something. and usually this kind of passion leads to a decent salary.  i mean face it who would want to consider a bum as a husband/wife?
like i said, i'm attracted to ambitious and passionate guys, too. but i can also think up scenarios where ambition and passion may not lead to a decent salary. and that wouldn't make a difference if whether or not i like the guy.

on the flip side, if a guy were loaded but had no ambition or passion, i'd see nothing in him. the money wouldn't sway me at all.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 18 2003, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 17 2003, 10:28 AM
for me, it's a plus. that and a good education.
but not a necessity. the only necessary qualification i've got right now, as far as marriage is concerned, is chinese language abilities.
is it a plus because of what it shows about her? or is it a plus because of the money itself?

i don't use women's money

it's a plus because of what it says about her
especially if she comes from a really poor background

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 18 2003, 05:27 PM
like i said, i'm attracted to ambitious and passionate guys, too. but i can also think up scenarios where ambition and passion may not lead to a decent salary. and that wouldn't make a difference if whether or not i like the guy.

on the flip side, if a guy were loaded but had no ambition or passion, i'd see nothing in him. the money wouldn't sway me at all.
I'm one of those people where all my ambition and passion is pretty much directed at everything but making money. I have pretty much everything I want that money can buy excluding Krispy Kreme stock.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 18 2003, 08:25 PM
never thought about them. not everyone goes around judging people. :)
Well, if you believe you can make a moral distinction between people who don't consider money at all and people who use it at least as a factor, you're making a judgment-like act in itself. You might not say anything directly or intend to say anything, but you're making an indirect statement. By saying one kind of behavior is upright/smart/moral, you're implying that another is not (at least in your own personal view).

It's hard to believe from what you've said before in this discussion that you don't have some opinion on how others consider money as a factor in the romance context.

[deez nuts]

who needs money? we can pay the bills with love.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

CSB. Leave Meena. We'll run away together and be deliriously happy, poor people.

Because so many of them exist.

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 22 2003, 04:39 PM
CSB. Leave Meena. We'll run away together and be deliriously happy, poor people.

Because so many of them exist.
are you nuts? with your student loans and mine?!?!?!?!?!

hey look! law school and med school loans now.....schweeeeeeeeeeeet.

[kasia]

Originally posted by VBKao@Apr 22 2003, 01:21 PM
Well, if you believe you can make a moral distinction between people who don't consider money at all and people who use it at least as a factor, you're making a judgment-like act in itself. You might not say anything directly or intend to say anything, but you're making an indirect statement. By saying one kind of behavior is upright/smart/moral, you're implying that another is not (at least in your own personal view).

It's hard to believe from what you've said before in this discussion that you don't have some opinion on how others consider money as a factor in the romance context.
i wasn't making a moral statement. i was saying how i wanted to live my life. just because i felt my way was *better*, it doesn't necesarily mean that i felt it was *morally* better.

[kasia]

Originally posted by Chasiubao_Boy@Apr 22 2003, 01:31 PM
who needs money? we can pay the bills with love.
i dont' know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's never as simple as that. if 2 people are truly in love, i'd believe that they'd work hard to build a good home, etc. but see, all that would be done based purely on the idea of love..

the fact that people are having trouble grasping that idea, i think, says something about our societal state.

it's simple, really. you get married only when you truly love a person. if you don't love a person, why marry them at all? it's not like you *have* to end up with somebody.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 12:06 PM
it's simple, really. you get married only when you truly love a person. if you don't love a person, why marry them at all? it's not like you *have* to end up with somebody.
but being in love with someone doesn't mean you should marry him/her. you can surely wait until you fall in love with someone who is rich and educated.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 08:27 AM
but being in love with someone doesn't mean you should marry him/her. you can surely wait until you fall in love with someone who is rich and educated.
but really...how often do you fall in love?

[Napoleon Chynamite]

i like how the title of this thread insinuates that if you can't have someone who's rich, perhaps you can have someone who is at least educated, which is obviously not as valuable or important as having money :lol:

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 11:06 AM
i dont' know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's never as simple as that. if 2 people are truly in love, i'd believe that they'd work hard to build a good home, etc. but see, all that would be done based purely on the idea of love..

the fact that people are having trouble grasping that idea, i think, says something about our societal state.

it's simple, really. you get married only when you truly love a person. if you don't love a person, why marry them at all? it's not like you *have* to end up with somebody.
i was being sarcastic.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 11:06 AM
i dont' know if you're being sarcastic or not, but it's never as simple as that. if 2 people are truly in love, i'd believe that they'd work hard to build a good home, etc. but see, all that would be done based purely on the idea of love..

the fact that people are having trouble grasping that idea, i think, says something about our societal state.

it's simple, really. you get married only when you truly love a person. if you don't love a person, why marry them at all? it's not like you *have* to end up with somebody.
i wasn't making a moral statement. i was saying how i wanted to live my life. just because i felt my way was *better*, it doesn't necesarily mean that i felt it was *morally* better.

Well, that's what I thought you were doing because we were talking about moral behavior and you're saying you can make a distinction between the people who don't put money into account as all and people who take it in as a factor. One doing the better thing and the other not. It just doesn't seem like it could be anything else but a moral call.

Then again, I can see how you could couch it as a practical choice.


it's simple, really.  you get married only when you truly love a person.  if you don't love a person, why marry them at all?  it's not like you *have* to end up with somebody.

Well, isn't it a human impulse to seek some kind of long-term company? I think most people eventually want some stable romantic arrangement. And if you want long term companionship in our society, marriage in the end seems to be the default. Professionally and emotionally, it's hard to live on your own in this society past a certain age without getting left behind in many ways. I feel like it's almost mandatory.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 12:28 PM
but really...how often do you fall in love?
more often than you think? beats me.
i just got done talking to a 40-year old single mother divorcee. she told me how it was so hard to be a single woman in your 40s, and that you should marry someone you like, not someone you love. i guess what she meant was to make sure it's someone you can get along with, and not just someone you love.

being in love and being in a working marriage are two different things. i honestly don't think love is all that you need for a good marriage. if the only thing that i have with a woman is love, i certainly wouldn't marry her. she'd just be someone i date.

[SunWuKong]

most of the members here aren't married. but i'd like to know how many of you are children of divorcees.

[kasia]

right...the analogy i use...

it's like searching for knowledge and settling for coherence. searching for love and settling for compatibility.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 02:28 PM
right...the analogy i use...

it's like searching for knowledge and settling for coherence. searching for love and settling for compatibility.
how does that address the point i was trying to make - love and marriage are two different things? why would you marry someone you only love but have no compatibility with?

[ChinaLama]

well, i'd rather get married and LEARN to love rather than spend my entire life chasing after a phantom love.

of course if i really loved someone, i wouldn't refuse to marry her. :)

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Apr 23 2003, 02:48 PM
well, i'd rather get married and LEARN to love rather than spend my entire life chasing after a phantom love.

of course if i really loved someone, i wouldn't refuse to marry her. :)
yeah, according to the simpsons, the divorce rate for arranged marriages is like 1 to 85 or something. :P

[ChinaLama]

my marriages wouldn't arrange a marriage for me but i'd be down for it. i mean every girl my parents know are more succcessful than i am.

oh wait i guess the OTHER side has to consent, too. and no way in hell would a woman's parents arrange to have their daughter marry me. esp since her first job will make more than twice as much plus benefits as i am.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 02:28 PM
right...the analogy i use...

it's like searching for knowledge and settling for coherence.  searching for love and settling for compatibility.
how does that address the point i was trying to make - love and marriage are two different things? why would you marry someone you only love but have no compatibility with?
i was trying to draw the distinction between marrying for like and marrying for love. you don't have to marry the person you love. but if i were to get married, i would like to marry someone because i love *him*...and not his money. loving him and his money is not the same as just loving him for him.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 02:28 PM
right...the analogy i use...

it's like searching for knowledge and settling for coherence. searching for love and settling for compatibility.
how does that address the point i was trying to make - love and marriage are two different things? why would you marry someone you only love but have no compatibility with?
i was trying to draw the distinction between marrying for like and marrying for love. you don't have to marry the person you love. but if i were to get married, i would like to marry someone because i love *him*...and not his money. loving him and his money is not the same as just loving him for him.
i don't think anybody here is trying to say that s/he would marry someone s/he doesn't love. correct me if i'm wrong.
but i think for some people, money comes in as part of the compatibility issue. to make that life-time commitment, some people would require money in addition to love.

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 12:11 PM
i don't think anybody here is trying to say that s/he would marry someone s/he doesn't love.  correct me if i'm wrong.
but i think for some people, money comes in as part of the compatibility issue.  to make that life-time commitment, some people would require money in addition to love.
i think you're misunderstanding my point. i'm not saying that anybody here would marry someone that he/she doesn't love. the point is whether money is an issue for everyone.

and if we're really going to be realistic, there's rarely a case when you have two people who you love equally and one happens to be better off than the other.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 12:11 PM
i don't think anybody here is trying to say that s/he would marry someone s/he doesn't love.?correct me if i'm wrong.
but i think for some people, money comes in as part of the compatibility issue.?to make that life-time commitment, some people would require money in addition to love.
i think you're misunderstanding my point. i'm not saying that anybody here would marry someone that he/she doesn't love. the point is whether money is an issue for everyone.

and if we're really going to be realistic, there's rarely a case when you have two people who you love equally and one happens to be better off than the other.
well, everybody have different standards for marriage right? nobody can truly control who they fall in love with, but for some people, a certain level of education and a certain financial level is required for marriage. i don't see anything wrong with that. marriage is more of a decision of practicality in my opinion.

bottom line is, ¬Û·R®e©ö¡A¬Û³BÃø¡C

[kasia]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by kasia@Apr 23 2003, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 23 2003, 12:11 PM
i don't think anybody here is trying to say that s/he would marry someone s/he doesn't love.?correct me if i'm wrong.
but i think for some people, money comes in as part of the compatibility issue.?to make that life-time commitment, some people would require money in addition to love.
i think you're misunderstanding my point. i'm not saying that anybody here would marry someone that he/she doesn't love. the point is whether money is an issue for everyone.

and if we're really going to be realistic, there's rarely a case when you have two people who you love equally and one happens to be better off than the other.
well, everybody have different standards for marriage right? nobody can truly control who they fall in love with, but for some people, a certain level of education and a certain financial level is required for marriage. i don't see anything wrong with that. marriage is more of a decision of practicality in my opinion.

bottom line is, ¬Û·R®e©ö¡A¬Û³BÃø¡C
no, i know. the debate was whether all people needed that.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

Well, I thought the debate was more about whether you could draw a really clear distinction between "golddiggers" and the rest of us.

I hope to marry for love. I can't see myself falling for someone who doesn't have some kind of social or practical capital though. Someone with a sharp mind who's not going to have to rely on me to support everything she does with my finances, effort and emotional investment. But I think I find those qualities attractive enough that I'd be pretty in "love" with a woman like that.

And in America with our capitalist society, isn't a man what he earns and can purchase and provide to a great degree? I mean, it's always been like that. I don't think anyone could consider an able-bodied male who can't or won't support himself to a minimal extent a real man.