Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who said money? "Money" is merely a medium of exchange, it is not 'wealth'
If you have kids... Are you telling me you would not do "X" if they were "Y"?
(If no kids, replace with other family or loved one etc)
There's a price for everything. It may not be practical, or realistic, but it exists.
-In case anyone believes I was being sexist about the 'women/emotions/nurturers' comment, I was not. That's a GOOD thing, as I said, for the propagation of the species.
-If it wasn't for women, none of us would be here!
And if we're going to use extreme examples that umbrellas the miraculous, anything goes. Of course, this type of rhetoric only has a place in internet hyperbole land, but if it can be typed, it will be. Moot or not.
And if we're going to use extreme examples that umbrellas the miraculous, anything goes. Of course, this type of rhetoric only has a place in internet hyperbole land, but if it can be typed, it will be. Moot or not.
Please read post 133.
Additionally, I would say that a woman's emotional/nurturing nature is easier to manipulate (in some aspects) then men.
That is why 'Slick Willey' did so well after playing the Sax on Jay Leno...
Who said money? "Money" is merely a medium of exchange, it is not 'wealth'
If you have kids... Are you telling me you would not do "X" if they were "Y"?
(If no kids, replace with other family or loved one etc)
There's a price for everything. It may not be practical, or realistic, but it exists.
-In case anyone believes I was being sexist about the 'women/emotions/nurturers' comment, I was not. That's a GOOD thing, as I said, for the propagation of the species.
-If it wasn't for women, none of us would be here!
The name of the thread is "How much money can replace looks/personality in dating?"
Additionally, I would say that a woman's emotional/nurturing nature is easier to manipulate (in some aspects) then men.
That is why 'Slick Willey' did so well after playing the Sax on Jay Leno...
But if you were passing out Steaks and beer.....
I don't know who Slick Willy is and I don't think I've ever watched a Leno show. As far as women's innate emotional this or that. Meh. I think there might be a cultural component there, but certainly nothing inherent (outside a greater ability to cry perhaps).
Further, I'll call bull here if the implication is that this supposed ease of manipulation, which I disagree with, lends to a lower level of bartering for goods and services. Many guys here leave out whole subsets of women for prole mentality. Well, there are those of us that simply don't need the money. And then there's the fact that beauty and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, so that leaves many of these assertions hollow.
eta: I read post 133 and I'll reiterate that it's moot.
I don't know who Slick Willy is William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton and I don't think I've ever watch a Leno show. Nor have I... Know about it though. As far as women's innate emotional this or that. Meh. I think there might be a cultural component there, but certainly nothing inherent (outside a greater ability to cry perhaps). So you totally disagree with the anthropologicaltendencies of Nature Vs nurture, women make better nurturers etc...?
Further, I'll call bull here if the implication is that this supposed ease of manipulation, Emotional, Not a ease of manipulation, but women respond to differing stimuli. Example: Men are more turned on physically (Sight) while women are turned on emotionally (Don't need/want as much the lights on, but need to feel the emotional connection.) It's not anything to feel bad about one way or another, just something to be recognized. which I disagree with, lends to a lower level of bartering for goods and services. If you'll read my last passage, what I'm saying is NOT "A lower level" but that it is more probable that you can appeal to their emotions... Most people would call that LESS shallow and look upon it as a complement if we stated it generically. I believe it has evoked an emotional response due to context. Many guys here leave out whole subsets of women for prole mentality. What? Well, there are those of us that simply don't need the money. Ummm, did you miss my first post where I said it was about stuff the money would buy and the evolutionary signals it sent? And then there's the fact that beauty and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, Agreed. so that leaves many of these assertions hollow.
The name of the thread is "How much money can replace looks/personality in dating?"
I have no idea what you are trying to ask.
Well, it's fitting for this thread. Women will either sell themselves if they're destitute, sell themselves if they're lazy or perhaps unintelligent, and now they will sell themselves for a miracle. That's about right for CD.
Location: I never said I was perfect so no refunds here sorry!
6,489 posts, read 7,181,993 times
Reputation: 29855
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
No amount of money can buy a *good* person.
Yeah I use to think that as well
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
