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.
you know, as I sit here biting into my apple, I wonder if I've ever thought about gold-digging women.
And the answer to that is no, I haven't. Mostly because I don't have that much money for them to spend, and even more important, I think the vast majority of women-at least in 'Merica since I've never lived anywhere else, aren't looking for men specifically with lots of money. Most women think deeper than a man's pocket books.
Edit: This apple is delicious. mmmm.
How successful a man is at dating is completely proportional to how much more time and energy he spends enjoying his delicious apple than considering the horrors of gold diggers.
could be a catch- all excuse of any kind. if im just too lazy and overwhelmed to explore my real issues or the truth(that i just don't try) I might offer the gold digger alibi myself. also i feel ugly and hate my appearance, but the REAL bare truth is that I don't try, not that I'm ugly.
i don't even think it's that women are looking for wealth per se. any woman who perceives me as "different" or lacking in some significant way (kind of like the "hes independent and does his own wash, he has stable employment BUT HE's NOT THAT AMBITIOUS or HES BEEN AT THE SAME JOB FOR 20 YEARS HES NOT A RISK TAKER..." I can, if im feeling frustrated enough, just lump that under "gold digger" because of all my other interpersonal issues. it's like ive just had enough of being graded and failing. its like reject before getting rejected
Are women figurative "Republicans" and you a figurative "Democrat"?
Those without typically complain. A man with no woman at all--zero--may look at a man with 5 women and think it's unfair that man has several women and he has 0 women.
A man with no house may look at a rich man with 5 luxury homes and think it's unfair that man as several luxury homes and he has 0 house.
Interesting a lot of people applaud Pope Francis for admonishing priests for what maybe 0.1% of them have in "luxury" items but have no problem getting "conservative" or monarchical in their discourse about men left impoverished with respects to the finite number of adult women on earth. I put in bold highlight and underline the word "adult" because I think it would be immoral to suggest men with zero women go seek romance and a sexual outlet with prepubescent girls (or even teenage girls--although I can okay the teenage girl thing depending on context).
I think that there are men and women alike who play this game. Shallow, useless women use their bodies for money, and shallow, useless men use their money to get a body. They both wind up unhappy.
mind blowing. and just hogwash.
anyone of any reasonable length of experience discovers that life is about ups and downs, regardless of the talents and gifts you inherited upon birth. so to conjecture that somewhere at the "end of the road" there is some euphoria or state of happiness where you don't get in unless you have done enough good deeds or have a worthy character is garbage. it's wishful thinking about karma at best.
ahh not really, most guys just want to get laid, lol
I can see if a man was looking for a long-term partner, but as far as dating, 'I believe' its not of immediate importance.
When women just want to get laid, they don't care either.
But most women have had the experience of a bf who lives off her salary and doesn't contribute an equal share, or they know someone who has. And most want to avoid being in that situation in the future.
So, when women look for a LTR, they look for a guy who can pay his own cable bill, this month and every month. That is what 'financially stable' means. It does not mean rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rlrl
could be a catch- all excuse of any kind. if im just too lazy and overwhelmed to explore my real issues or the truth(that i just don't try) I might offer the gold digger alibi myself. also i feel ugly and hate my appearance...i don't even think it's that women are looking for wealth per se...
...expressing frustration at women obsessed with money, or are they really expressing envy of men who are more successful than they are?
I ask because a lot of complaints about "gold-digging" are tinged with a subtle suggestion that wealthy men are getting access to women they don't really deserve...
I'd say option two, because if they were really wealthy, they wouldn't mind a quick fling with such ladies.
Truly wealthy men are in a position to deal with gold-diggers. They know what they have, and the ladies likely know they can be replaced at any time.
It seems to be Average Joes and guys who do fairly well, but aren't wealthy who complain about these things.
Gold digging is a relative term from a monetary standpoint. When I look up the definition it doesn't say "above 45,000 or only millionaires".
A GD is simply a woman who goes after a man simply for his economic status and the lifestyle it will help her live. It doesn't matter whether he's making 250 million a year or 10,000 a year. It also doesn't really matter how much money she makes either. A woman who makes 150,000 but is going after the millionaire for those reasons is still a goldigger even tho she can more then well take care of her self.
The whole "well she has money so she can't POSSIBLY be a gold digger" idea is one of the big misconceptions
Not sure where you got your definition from but Wikepedia says a gold digger is "a woman who dates wealthy partners with the sole intention of being a beneficiary of said wealth". I don't consider men making $45k a year to be wealthy, and I don't consider women with their own incomes looking for a financially stable partner, to be gold diggers.
But most women have had the experience of a bf who lives off her salary and doesn't contribute an equal share, or they know someone who has. And most want to avoid being in that situation in the future.
Oh we cant have a woman supporting a man now, can we (thats a no no) but its totally ok if a man is providing majority of the income. I see how it goes. hehe
did you read my prior post with the definition of gold digger?
and using my definition, your assumption is incorrect and that is not my beliefs.
do i believe women consider a man's financial status and resources when evaluating him for a long term mate?
abolutely, no doubt about it. and really boggles my mind how evasive women are on this issues. like it's shameful or unlady like to admit it.
every guy i know grows up with the societal message that being a successful man allows you to have a greater selection in choice in the women you date and marry. every guy.
just like every women i know grows up with the societal message that being physically attractive allows you to have a greater selection in choice the the men you date and marry. every woman.
sure there are variants, this is a "generalization", not some women, blah blah blah. all you have to do is observe popular media and the message is there right in front of you. no kidding.
But this is why your posts are confusing me. On one hand - you seem to think that few women are actual gold diggers. But on the other hand - you say that women measure a man's value based on his financial assets. And I disagree. Wanting someone who is financially stable in ADDITION to all the other qualities that you might look for in a partner does not mean you are measuring a man's value based on his financial assets. It might be part of the equation - it might not.
just like beautiful woman who knows she has all eyes on here, so do wealthy men.
but there are also many frugal men who are wealthy. one of my best friends will stay at a super8 motel instead of the hilton he can readily afford. interestingly, he did his best to avoid women he didn't deem had the values to deal with his financial status as he would like (grew up with little). and he ended up marrying a middle class woman from latin america. total sweetheart.
That's what I'm talking about. And he's happy? They're happy?
I suggested this to a friend once who would always get done over wrong by women he'd be messing around with here in Milwaukee. But noooooooo he was adamant he had to only mess with American women making him miserable.
Makes no sense to me. But to each their own.
Ultimately, I tell people they must decide what is right for them. You're adamant you're gay, well date the person of the same sex then. You're adamant the woman has to be American, well then date a woman that's American. You're adamant this person must be this height, well then date a person that height. You're adamant a person must be X, Y, Z... then find a person like that.
As for me I know what I like and reasonably what I want. And no gay, hetero, plump, skinny, liberal, conservative, Southerner, or Northerner is going to pimp talk me into otherwise.
Haven't watched most of this... but I'm sure it's about American women. It's about welfare. And yes... women on welfare want rich men in America. Are women on welfare gold diggers? Depends on what the term gold diggers means. Are women on welfare any better than the many American men they hate, many who are employed in blue collar jobs? No. But threads like these--usually run by feminists and liberals--invariably put down blue collar men in construction and trades or manufacturing jobs as "bad" people.
So-called "successful" men sure care and worry a great deal what millions of blue collar men do with their penises.
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.
