Guys, if your wife clearly married you for your money, are you okay with it?

[Anonymous]

The topic of why we enter relationships is a fascinating one.

In the 1800s in France it was common for bourgeois men to separately maintain 3 "types" of women:

- A wife, who was selected based on reason, i.e. raw intellectual and physical criteria, ability to run a household, capacity to raise good children, political and financial considerations. Divorce was not an option. This was a pragmatic relationship where both parties first and foremost benefited from the union in the material sense, love and sex were only a bonus. Marriage was principally expected to fulfill material needs for the husband, his wife and their children.

- A mistress for love and passion. The most passionate stage of love lasts for the first 2-3 years, so a man could very well have several mistresses over his life. It was common for the man to pay for the mistress's accommodation, buy regular gifts, and generally provide and care for her. Relationships between such lovers were principally expected to fulfill their emotional needs

- Prostitutes for sex. It was fine to have favorites, but these were not relationships of love. These relationships were principally expected to fulfill the man's sexual needs and the woman's financial ones.

I think this was not such a bad model in the end. Before you kill me on the altar of gender equality, please hear me out. Yes, it was relatively male-centric and that is why for ease of understanding, I presented it from the man's perspective. But don't oversimplify this, as women at the time also navigated between these roles, which gave them freedom to fulfill their material, emotional and sexual needs. It was common for example for mistresses to have purely sexual affairs with other men, and to attempt to marry well. It was also possible for married women to discreetly have emotional/ sexual affairs, as long as the household's integrity remained intact.

My point is not to promote a model or another, but to propose that we have recently (last 50 years) been asking way too much of marriage. It is now widely believed that our spouses should fulfill all our material, emotional and sexual needs, constantly and forever. In reality, these different relationship aspects ebb and flow, and when they do, people naturally often conclude that the person is "not right for them". Which is why you see such an incidence of divorce these days.

I do not believe in the absolute "freedom" widely promoted these days, because more "freedom" is not what is needed to ensure our happiness at this stage. What we need is a better societal structure that allows people to fulfill their needs in a healthy way. I don't believe that our current western culture is a healthy one in that regard.

When we are young, we throw ourselves into short-term relationships, changing partners from one day to the next. Many of us have liberal sex with random strangers, and "cheating" is commonplace. Why do we do this? We do this in anticipation for marriage. We are really front-loading our sex and emotional lives, in anticipation for a later marriage to "the one" which we know will necessarily entail sexual and emotional exclusivity - a situation we instinctively understand is untenable. This liberal drive during youth therefore comes not from a place of respect and attraction for others, but from a place of anticipated frustration, of stress, and thus ultimately of pure selfishness. It comes from a mindset of taking, and not of giving. By contrast, the 1800s model described above in my view leads to a healthier more relaxed society where people are not industrially using each other in their youth, as the society was open to people fulfilling their emotional and sexual needs at any stage in their lives (i.e. even when married).

After our wild youth, we then enter progressively more stable relationships, until eventually we are too old to simply be dating. Once we start making money, living in our own place, and generally being materially stable, we start thinking about having kids. Usually, the current long-term girlfriend/ boyfriend sometime in our late 20s/ early 30s thus gets the ring. Note how the timing of our achievement of material security is the most important determinant of who we marry. Note how we symbolize marriage with a piece of jewelry. We see here how a marriage is simply the introduction a materialistic link between the partners, to finalise the "required" trifecta of love, sex and material security. Interestingly, surveys show that most people currently married state that they could have been just as happy with one or more of their previous partners. In other words, although we organise our marriages on this premise, most of us understand there is no such person as "the one" who can fulfill all our needs.

Once married, as anticipated in our youth, we actually start getting deeply frustrated. In the best cases, love and sexual attraction ebb and flow in circa 3-year-long cycles, but often simply disappear forever. Depending on where we are in the initial attraction cycle when we marry, the first year or two of marriage meet our expectations, but eventually we realise -oh the horror!- that we do not passionately love our partners all the time. We realise -say it ain't so!- that we do not find them sexually attractive all the time. Although this is perfectly -biologically- normal, we do not see it as so, because that is not what we have been taught. We start wondering whether or not we made the right choice. Now with kids and the commitment to forever, we start to feel imprisoned as our emotional and sexual needs are no longer met all the time, while our material needs are. We are not only frustrated, but we also start feeling guilt. We start lusting after others and many start "cheating" again. We expect so much from our marriages that they inevitably let us down, but even worse than to frustration, they lead to betrayal, to guilt, to self-doubt, to depression, to cynicism. Because once married, there is a stigma associated with trying to fulfill our biological and psychological needs. It leads to several divorces over our lifetimes, getting more and more frequent. Marriage is progressively viewed as temporary agreement as we get older, and so they no longer even provide us with the material security they should. We start to focus on ourselves, first and foremost. We take more and more, rather than give. We enter in an implicit conflict with the entire opposite sex where situation is win-lose. Some of us even go back to the frenetic ego-feeding serial relationships of our youth to compensate for the impossibility of finding someone "perfect". In other words, we resign ourselves to never finding material security and throw ourselves into our other needs.

Again, I would invite you to compare this to the 1800s French model, where a marriage was only expected to be materially rewarding (hence its permanence). Emotional and sexual needs could be fulfilled by other people, as long as the marriage was respected for the pragmatic arrangement it was. It was fine to have lovers on the side to meet these needs.

Perhaps most importantly, notice how children were also major beneficiaries of the old model. As the security of marriage was not subjected to the unreliable, short-term whims of emotions and sexual needs, children were raised in much more stable familial environments. The sole underlying purpose of the families they grew up in was to nurture them, and develop them into the best possible adults. They were raised simply by one mom, and one dad, without any of the confusion introduced by divorces and remarriages nowadays. Divorces lead to children feeling chronically guilty, abandoned, and lonely. They too as a result eventually become cynical, selfish and unhappy adults.

Though again I do not promote any model over another, I do believe that we should recognize that while our need for security is permanent and constant, our emotional and sexual needs are not, and are in fact subject to frequent and uncontrollable fluctuations. By integrating love and sex into what was originally a permanent material arrangement, we have hurt our ability to fulfill our own (and our children's) need for security, and as a result have become withdrawn, selfish and unhappy.

And on that rejoicing note, I wish you good night!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think women are wired to be repulsed by someone being financially dependent on them (other than their children) so they find it hard to understand why a guy can stand being with someone who is much younger, and financially dependent -- when they could have a professional woman who makes a lot of money, etc.

But from a man's perspective, it's totally normal to be a provider to a (often younger) woman (or, I suppose man for those who swing that way). Men like providing for their SO. That's what they are wired to do. I think this is a big reason husbands tend to be older than wives, especially for second marriages. Older people tend to have more money, so it just works out that way.

How do you account for so many dead beat parents? Are they wired differently?

That's a fair question.

Although many of those "deadbeat dads" are actual deadbeats, some are people who truly got screwed in a divorce settlement, or are unemployed, and are honestly struggling financially.

I suspect that most "real" deadbeats are addicts, or have serious personality disorders.

Not really, in their mind their ex-wives are not "theirs" any more, so no money is due.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The topic of why we enter relationships is a fascinating one.

In the 1800s in France it was common for bourgeois men to separately maintain 3 "types" of women:

- A wife, who was selected based on reason, i.e. raw intellectual and physical criteria, ability to run a household, capacity to raise good children, political and financial considerations. Divorce was not an option. This was a pragmatic relationship where both parties first and foremost benefited from the union in the material sense, love and sex were only a bonus. Marriage was principally expected to fulfill material needs for the husband, his wife and their children.

- A mistress for love and passion. The most passionate stage of love lasts for the first 2-3 years, so a man could very well have several mistresses over his life. It was common for the man to pay for the mistress's accommodation, buy regular gifts, and generally provide and care for her. Relationships between such lovers were principally expected to fulfill their emotional needs

- Prostitutes for sex. It was fine to have favorites, but these were not relationships of love. These relationships were principally expected to fulfill the man's sexual needs and the woman's financial ones.

I think this was not such a bad model in the end. Before you kill me on the altar of gender equality, please hear me out. Yes, it was relatively male-centric and that is why for ease of understanding, I presented it from the man's perspective. But don't oversimplify this, as women at the time also navigated between these roles, which gave them freedom to fulfill their material, emotional and sexual needs. It was common for example for mistresses to have purely sexual affairs with other men, and to attempt to marry well. It was also possible for married women to discreetly have emotional/ sexual affairs, as long as the household's integrity remained intact.

My point is not to promote a model or another, but to propose that we have recently (last 50 years) been asking way too much of marriage. It is now widely believed that our spouses should fulfill all our material, emotional and sexual needs, constantly and forever. In reality, these different relationship aspects ebb and flow, and when they do, people naturally often conclude that the person is "not right for them". Which is why you see such an incidence of divorce these days.

I do not believe in the absolute "freedom" widely promoted these days, because more "freedom" is not what is needed to ensure our happiness at this stage. What we need is a better societal structure that allows people to fulfill their needs in a healthy way. I don't believe that our current western culture is a healthy one in that regard.

When we are young, we throw ourselves into short-term relationships, changing partners from one day to the next. Many of us have liberal sex with random strangers, and "cheating" is commonplace. Why do we do this? We do this in anticipation for marriage. We are really front-loading our sex and emotional lives, in anticipation for a later marriage to "the one" which we know will necessarily entail sexual and emotional exclusivity - a situation we instinctively understand is untenable. This liberal drive during youth therefore comes not from a place of respect and attraction for others, but from a place of anticipated frustration, of stress, and thus ultimately of pure selfishness. It comes from a mindset of taking, and not of giving. By contrast, the 1800s model described above in my view leads to a healthier more relaxed society where people are not industrially using each other in their youth, as the society was open to people fulfilling their emotional and sexual needs at any stage in their lives (i.e. even when married).

After our wild youth, we then enter progressively more stable relationships, until eventually we are too old to simply be dating. Once we start making money, living in our own place, and generally being materially stable, we start thinking about having kids. Usually, the current long-term girlfriend/ boyfriend sometime in our late 20s/ early 30s thus gets the ring. Note how the timing of our achievement of material security is the most important determinant of who we marry. Note how we symbolize marriage with a piece of jewelry. We see here how a marriage is simply the introduction a materialistic link between the partners, to finalise the "required" trifecta of love, sex and material security. Interestingly, surveys show that most people currently married state that they could have been just as happy with one or more of their previous partners. In other words, although we organise our marriages on this premise, most of us understand there is no such person as "the one" who can fulfill all our needs.

Once married, as anticipated in our youth, we actually start getting deeply frustrated. In the best cases, love and sexual attraction ebb and flow in circa 3-year-long cycles, but often simply disappear forever. Depending on where we are in the initial attraction cycle when we marry, the first year or two of marriage meet our expectations, but eventually we realise -oh the horror!- that we do not passionately love our partners all the time. We realise -say it ain't so!- that we do not find them sexually attractive all the time. Although this is perfectly -biologically- normal, we do not see it as so, because that is not what we have been taught. We start wondering whether or not we made the right choice. Now with kids and the commitment to forever, we start to feel imprisoned as our emotional and sexual needs are no longer met all the time, while our material needs are. We are not only frustrated, but we also start feeling guilt. We start lusting after others and many start "cheating" again. We expect so much from our marriages that they inevitably let us down, but even worse than to frustration, they lead to betrayal, to guilt, to self-doubt, to depression, to cynicism. Because once married, there is a stigma associated with trying to fulfill our biological and psychological needs. It leads to several divorces over our lifetimes, getting more and more frequent. Marriage is progressively viewed as temporary agreement as we get older, and so they no longer even provide us with the material security they should. We start to focus on ourselves, first and foremost. We take more and more, rather than give. We enter in an implicit conflict with the entire opposite sex where situation is win-lose. Some of us even go back to the frenetic ego-feeding serial relationships of our youth to compensate for the impossibility of finding someone "perfect". In other words, we resign ourselves to never finding material security and throw ourselves into our other needs.

Again, I would invite you to compare this to the 1800s French model, where a marriage was only expected to be materially rewarding (hence its permanence). Emotional and sexual needs could be fulfilled by other people, as long as the marriage was respected for the pragmatic arrangement it was. It was fine to have lovers on the side to meet these needs.

Perhaps most importantly, notice how children were also major beneficiaries of the old model. As the security of marriage was not subjected to the unreliable, short-term whims of emotions and sexual needs, children were raised in much more stable familial environments. The sole underlying purpose of the families they grew up in was to nurture them, and develop them into the best possible adults. They were raised simply by one mom, and one dad, without any of the confusion introduced by divorces and remarriages nowadays. Divorces lead to children feeling chronically guilty, abandoned, and lonely. They too as a result eventually become cynical, selfish and unhappy adults.

Though again I do not promote any model over another, I do believe that we should recognize that while our need for security is permanent and constant, our emotional and sexual needs are not, and are in fact subject to frequent and uncontrollable fluctuations. By integrating love and sex into what was originally a permanent material arrangement, we have hurt our ability to fulfill our own (and our children's) need for security, and as a result have become withdrawn, selfish and unhappy.

And on that rejoicing note, I wish you good night!

"Again, I would invite you to compare this to the 1800s French model, where a marriage was only expected to be materially rewarding (hence its permanence). Emotional and sexual needs could be fulfilled by other people, as long as the marriage was respected for the pragmatic arrangement it was. It was fine to have lovers on the side to meet these needs."

Have you read Zola? You are an insufferable bore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

And simply put, older guys have this God complex that now they know how to have sex better than younger years. Guess what? They don't.
All their infinite wisdom and shriveled meat and veg can't bring me to take the $$.

You sure act as though there are hordes of men just begging you to sleep with them.

Don't forget -- in a few surprisingly short years, you're going to be one of those old people too. Not only that, but you'll considered "old" at an earlier age than those silly old men that you laugh at now.

You probably think that it won't matter, because by then you'll have achieved some zen-like level of fulfillment and maturity (unlike all of those immature old creeps, who should act their age).

But you won't. You'll be another "invisible," middle-aged women who will suddenly appreciate the attention that she received in her youth, and will tell herself little lies that women tell themselves like "I look 10 years younger than my age!" and that "young men check me out all the time!" The difference between you and those creepy old dudes, is that they know full-well that they aren't physically attractive. They know that those younger women who not be interested if it wasn't for their money. They know, but don't care, because they like to f*** them. Those old dudes, know the game and they're prepared.

Your "wrinkled booty" will come like a thief in the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Men have such huge egos compared to women that they all seem to think they are "God's gift" to us.

Yep. It's kind of entertaining to see. Such a high level of delusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

Same here. Wrinkled ass? Probably with white hair near his balls?

Unless you are giving me a billion bucks, i will stick with my hot young guys my age. I'd rather even pay for myself AND them then have to put out for an oldie with a saggy gut.

[Anonymous]

haven't read the responses but I feel sorry for child 3. I am pretty sure she is not mama's favorite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

And simply put, older guys have this God complex that now they know how to have sex better than younger years. Guess what? They don't.
All their infinite wisdom and shriveled meat and veg can't bring me to take the $$.

You sure act as though there are hordes of men just begging you to sleep with them.

Don't forget -- in a few surprisingly short years, you're going to be one of those old people too. Not only that, but you'll considered "old" at an earlier age than those silly old men that you laugh at now.

You probably think that it won't matter, because by then you'll have achieved some zen-like level of fulfillment and maturity (unlike all of those immature old creeps, who should act their age).

But you won't. You'll be another "invisible," middle-aged women who will suddenly appreciate the attention that she received in her youth, and will tell herself little lies that women tell themselves like "I look 10 years younger than my age!" and that "young men check me out all the time!" The difference between you and those creepy old dudes, is that they know full-well that they aren't physically attractive. They know that those younger women who not be interested if it wasn't for their money. They know, but don't care, because they like to f*** them. Those old dudes, know the game and they're prepared.

Your "wrinkled booty" will come like a thief in the night.

You said these old men know the game and they are prepared. I hope you meant they stocked up on Viagra! If these old creeps like to have sex with young women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

You all do know this pp is just reciting a scene from Sex and The City, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

And simply put, older guys have this God complex that now they know how to have sex better than younger years. Guess what? They don't.
All their infinite wisdom and shriveled meat and veg can't bring me to take the $$.

You sure act as though there are hordes of men just begging you to sleep with them.

Don't forget -- in a few surprisingly short years, you're going to be one of those old people too. Not only that, but you'll considered "old" at an earlier age than those silly old men that you laugh at now.

You probably think that it won't matter, because by then you'll have achieved some zen-like level of fulfillment and maturity (unlike all of those immature old creeps, who should act their age).

But you won't. You'll be another "invisible," middle-aged women who will suddenly appreciate the attention that she received in her youth, and will tell herself little lies that women tell themselves like "I look 10 years younger than my age!" and that "young men check me out all the time!" The difference between you and those creepy old dudes, is that they know full-well that they aren't physically attractive. They know that those younger women who not be interested if it wasn't for their money. They know, but don't care, because they like to f*** them. Those old dudes, know the game and they're prepared.

Your "wrinkled booty" will come like a thief in the night.

You said these old men know the game and they are prepared. I hope you meant they stocked up on Viagra! If these old creeps like to have sex with young women.

You're going to be and old creep one day, too.

[Anonymous]

And they probably do use Viagra.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Men have such huge egos compared to women that they all seem to think they are "God's gift" to us.

Yep. It's kind of entertaining to see. Such a high level of delusion.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would never trade off my youth for money. I just can't imagine looking at wrinkled booty when he gets up to go to the bathroom after sex.

And simply put, older guys have this God complex that now they know how to have sex better than younger years. Guess what? They don't.
All their infinite wisdom and shriveled meat and veg can't bring me to take the $$.

You sure act as though there are hordes of men just begging you to sleep with them.

Don't forget -- in a few surprisingly short years, you're going to be one of those old people too. Not only that, but you'll considered "old" at an earlier age than those silly old men that you laugh at now.

You probably think that it won't matter, because by then you'll have achieved some zen-like level of fulfillment and maturity (unlike all of those immature old creeps, who should act their age).

But you won't. You'll be another "invisible," middle-aged women who will suddenly appreciate the attention that she received in her youth, and will tell herself little lies that women tell themselves like "I look 10 years younger than my age!" and that "young men check me out all the time!" The difference between you and those creepy old dudes, is that they know full-well that they aren't physically attractive. They know that those younger women who not be interested if it wasn't for their money. They know, but don't care, because they like to f*** them. Those old dudes, know the game and they're prepared.

Your "wrinkled booty" will come like a thief in the night.

Yes, there actually are hordes of men attempting to sleep with me. So what? At one time I fell for an older, attractive man who was intelligent and witty. I noticed he was quick to throw out his financial gains in life, where he lives, works, clubs he's in, ect. I didn't care and still don't. I wondered what had happened to him that made him feel that it summed up his worth (self worth). Know your value as a person. Yes, looks will fade for everyone, in time. People who love themselves who are fun to be around don't become invisible. The have a following that grows in life. Count yourself lucky if you are one of those people. With an attitude like yours, I doubt you know the game, but will inevitably try to play it anyway.
I think it's really sad you believe a younger woman would only be with an older man because of his money. Why is that engrained in your mind? Why do you sound angry and bitter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think men are conditioned from a pretty early age to expect that women will look to them as providers... So a blatant acknowledgement of that is ok so long as the woman is not mocking him in some way.

My DH must have missed that memo as I make 3x what he does.

It works for us.

you weren't attractive enough to get a high earning guy, huh[/quot

This is stupid. Not PP, but this is us as well. Met in college. Both of us went to graduate school. DH decided to go into public service and I decided to go into private sector. comsequently, I make 3x more. Both of us are very happy with our career choices, and we have Bern happily married for 20 years.

[Anonymous]

Yea, I'll stick with young handsome men.