Barber's 22nd Rule of Relationships (12/24)
David C. Barber
You do not have to spend much money to enjoy yourself with the
right person. If you feel you _must_ spend money to keep
someone else's attention, then you are chasing the wrong person
for the wrong reasons.
*David Barber*
@}-->----
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!dbarber
ARPA: crash!pnet01!dba...@nosc.mil
INET: dba...@pnet01.cts.com
For many people, the only use of the Bible is to prove that they are right,
and [that] anybody who disagrees is wrong.
Daniel Mocsny
>If you feel you _must_ spend money to keep
>someone else's attention, then you are chasing the wrong person
>for the wrong reasons.
That is only true if you are miserly and/or impoverished.
--
Dan Mocsny Snail:
Internet: dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171
dmo...@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati
513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171
sen
>In article <65...@crash.cts.com> dba...@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>>If you feel you _must_ spend money to keep
>>someone else's attention, then you are chasing the wrong person
>
>
well , if you truely *love* somebody and be reciprocated then one can spend
a fortune. but one *cannot* buy love.
--
***e-mail: s...@cl.bull.fr----------------##-----SIDDHARTHA---SEN***************
voice-mail: (33) (1) 34.60.47.52 (res) ## snail-mail: F 7 1 D 5, BULL S.A.
v-mail: (33)(1)30.80.70.00 ext 3911(off) ## 78340 Les Clayes sous Bois, FRANCE
****** LA VIE EST UNE TRANSITION ENTRE UNE INCERTITUDE ET UNE AUTRE !! *******
Daniel Mocsny
> well , if you truely *love* somebody and be reciprocated then one can spend
> a fortune. but one *cannot* buy love.
The Beatles sang this.
However, they did not care to test their hypothesis.
Actions speak louder than lyrics.
Jim Kasprzak
>> well , if you truely *love* somebody and be reciprocated then one can spend
>> a fortune. but one *cannot* buy love.
>
>The Beatles sang this.
>
>However, they did not care to test their hypothesis.
>
>Actions speak louder than lyrics.
>
maybe of personal philosophies: to say that "money _can_ buy you
love" raises the question of just what you define as love (which
is not exactly the easiest thing to answer).
Experience in the Real World shows us unquestionably that money
can buy you sex. But by most people's definition that alone isn't
love.
Money can also buy you an SO. This usually costs more than plain
old sex, and generally the longer-lasting and more stable you
want the relationship to be, the more it's going to cost. But
again, one can have an intimate relationship and still not have
love.
Now here I move away from empirical observations and into the
more subjective realm of personal beliefs. To wit: if someone
loves you, they love you because you are _you_, not because of
how much money you have or don't have. Love is a personal and
not a financial matter, and should be able to survive things
like financial ruin (or an unexpected massive influx of money,
which happens less often but could be just as dmaging to a
relationship).
If someone doesn't love you, again, it's because you are you
and spending any amount of money on that person isn't going to
change what makes them not love you.
I have no doubt that if you spend enough money on a person
who doesn't love you, you can get them to say "I love you".
But that, in my book, isn't love.
--
Jim Kasprzak kasp...@mts.rpi.edu (internet)
RPI, Troy, NY user...@rpitsmts.bitnet
"A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -Rush
Daniel Mocsny
> Hmmm. We may have run up against a question of semantics here, or
>maybe of personal philosophies: to say that "money _can_ buy you
>love" raises the question of just what you define as love (which
>is not exactly the easiest thing to answer).
You sound like a man who has never patronized a pet shop.
You can most certainly purchase doggie-love, which some people
would consider an empty experience, a cheap imitation of the real
thing, a masturbatory mockery, etc. Not me, of course. I hold pet
owners of all ilk in the highest regard.
(Dang! I wish my nose would stop jutting into the CRT like that...)
> Experience in the Real World shows us unquestionably that money
>can buy you sex. But by most people's definition that alone isn't
>love.
Most people have a definition? Here I was thinking that most people
did not. Come to think of it, I've never heard anybody provide a
very satisfying definition of "love". Sure, lots of people can say
lots of things about something they call "love", but a *definition*???
That's beyond the current state-of-art just now.
Remember, what can be defined can be engineered. And what can be
engineered can be manufactured. And what can be manufactured can
be sold. And what can be sold can be undersold. And what can be
undersold can be given away illegally to minors in brazen
promotional schemes. And what can be...can also find its way into
attics. And what can find its way into attics tends to accumulate
ferociously in older neighborhoods.
So, I ask you, when was the last time you upgraded the insulation
in an older house? Did you see anything funny up there in the crawl
space? Or maybe you're not telling, hmmm?
> Money can also buy you an SO. This usually costs more than plain
>old sex, and generally the longer-lasting and more stable you
>want the relationship to be, the more it's going to cost. But
>again, one can have an intimate relationship and still not have
>love.
Now here I have to ask you to show your work. If you wanted to hire
a quality prostitute, you'd be looking at $100 or more a shot. At
a reasonable schedule of activity, that's coming to about
$5000 per month. I don't know anybody who spends that kind of money
on an SO. I don't know many people who *could* spend that kind of
money (on anything).
On the other hand, if you find an SO who is gainfully employed and
has reasonable self-respect and independence, you spend no money
at all beyond what you would have spent to go out alone anyway.
This is one good reason why SO's are more popular than prostitutes:
because they are way cheaper. :-)
Seriously now. Do you think any woman in her right mind is going
to fork over serious bucks on some gun for hire, even some guy
with a large-caliber weapon, when she can have me for a nickel?
WAIT---don't answer that!
> Now here I move away from empirical observations and into the
>more subjective realm of personal beliefs. To wit: if someone
>loves you, they love you because you are _you_, not because of
>how much money you have or don't have.
But you with money is not the same person as you without money. If
you don't believe me, just give me all your money right now and I'll
keep it away from you for some time. Then you can report back to us
about your experiences without money and how this changed you and
your relationship to the world completely.
>Love is a personal and
>not a financial matter, and should be able to survive things
>like financial ruin (or an unexpected massive influx of money,
>which happens less often but could be just as dmaging to a
>relationship).
What kind of "love" are you talking about? Is this love between
two human beings? Or is this something from the Brothers Grimm?
> If someone doesn't love you, again, it's because you are you
>and spending any amount of money on that person isn't going to
>change what makes them not love you.
Are you just speculating here, or have you actually dated any
women?
> I have no doubt that if you spend enough money on a person
>who doesn't love you, you can get them to say "I love you".
>But that, in my book, isn't love.
If they say it skillfully enough, you will forget all about your
book. Obviously, if they are inept, you threw your money away.
Just having money to throw doesn't guarantee your money's worth.
The instant you have money, the world is full of people hatching
schemes to get some or all of it.
"People who say 'money can't buy you everything' don't know where
to shop."
Kevin Brown
>>In article <65...@crash.cts.com> dba...@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>>>If you feel you _must_ spend money to keep
>>>someone else's attention, then you are chasing the wrong person
>>
>>That is only true if you are miserly and/or impoverished.
>
> well , if you truely *love* somebody and be reciprocated then one can spend
> a fortune. but one *cannot* buy love.
One cannot buy love directly. One can, however, if one is male, use money to
substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
more women are attracted to you, the higher the probability that you will
find love.
Thus, in a sense, money CAN buy you love.
I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
>***e-mail: s...@cl.bull.fr----------------##-----SIDDHARTHA---SEN***************
--
Kevin Brown
Addresses in preferred order:
csci...@cl.uh.edu
nuchat!ke...@uunet.uu.net
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <42Q^VG=@rpi.edu> jim...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>> Experience in the Real World shows us unquestionably that money
>>can buy you sex. But by most people's definition that alone isn't
>>love.
>
>
>Most people have a definition? Here I was thinking that most people
>did not. Come to think of it, I've never heard anybody provide a
>very satisfying definition of "love". Sure, lots of people can say
>lots of things about something they call "love", but a *definition*???
>That's beyond the current state-of-art just now.
>
said that most people would agree that sex alone isn't love.
>So, I ask you, when was the last time you upgraded the insulation
>in an older house? Did you see anything funny up there in the crawl
>space? Or maybe you're not telling, hmmm?
I'm keeping it all for myself. Nyaaah.
>Now here I have to ask you to show your work. If you wanted to hire
>a quality prostitute, you'd be looking at $100 or more a shot. At
>a reasonable schedule of activity, that's coming to about
>$5000 per month. I don't know anybody who spends that kind of money
>on an SO. I don't know many people who *could* spend that kind of
>money (on anything).
>
>On the other hand, if you find an SO who is gainfully employed and
>has reasonable self-respect and independence, you spend no money
>at all beyond what you would have spent to go out alone anyway.
That's a fairly large if. Such people do exist but aren't always
available. And then there are the stick-in-the-mud traditionalists
like myself who think that men should pay for dates. Not to mention
things like spontaneously deciding to buy something for my SO just
because I'd like to give it to her. I do that a lot more often for
SO's than for people who are just friends. And often if I do
spontaneously spend a lot of money on a woman with whom I'm "just
friends", it's because I'd like her to become an SO (this falls
in the category of "buying an SO", not of "buying love").
>But you with money is not the same person as you without money. If
>you don't believe me, just give me all your money right now and I'll
>keep it away from you for some time. Then you can report back to us
>about your experiences without money and how this changed you and
>your relationship to the world completely.
Y'know, I can't really argue with this. Score another one for Dan.
>>Love is a personal and
>>not a financial matter, and should be able to survive things
>>like financial ruin (or an unexpected massive influx of money,
>>which happens less often but could be just as dmaging to a
>>relationship).
>
>What kind of "love" are you talking about? Is this love between
>two human beings? Or is this something from the Brothers Grimm?
Come on, Dan, are you implying that this sort of love doesn't exist
in the real world? It may be rare, but it's not mythical.
>> If someone doesn't love you, again, it's because you are you
>>and spending any amount of money on that person isn't going to
>>change what makes them not love you.
>
>Are you just speculating here, or have you actually dated any
>women?
Very funny, Dan.
That last statement was actually inspired by recent experience.
I had an SO with whom I was crazy in love. I spent a lot of money
on her because I thought it'd make her happy, and knowing that I'd
made her happy made me very happy. And it did make her happy, but
she didn't love me. Eventually she found someone she did love, and
our relationship was history.
Whaddaya think, Dan? Maybe I didn't spend enough?
>> I have no doubt that if you spend enough money on a person
>>who doesn't love you, you can get them to say "I love you".
>>But that, in my book, isn't love.
>
>If they say it skillfully enough, you will forget all about your
>book. Obviously, if they are inept, you threw your money away.
Hm. Are you saying that if someone doesn't love you, it's still
worthwhile to get them to deceive you into believing that they
do? Sure looks that way to me.
>Just having money to throw doesn't guarantee your money's worth.
>The instant you have money, the world is full of people hatching
>schemes to get some or all of it.
I think I agree with this the most of all the stuff you've said
in this posting.
Dave Eisen
>
>One cannot buy love directly. One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
I have never in my life seen any evidence (outside of bad sitcoms) that money
helps men be more successful socially or sexually. Maybe I just don't run
in wealthy crowds.
--
Dave Eisen There's something in my library
1447 N. Shoreline Blvd. to offend everybody.
Mountain View, CA 94043 --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
(415) 967-5644 dke...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Deb Schwartz
>
>You do not have to spend much money to enjoy yourself with the
>right person.
Almost true, except do you realize how much birth control devices cost these
days!???
A
--
Debbie Schwartz ....uunet!bcstec!voodoo!das or d...@voodoo.UUCP
"Your desk is not messy! It's just \ "If you think you have your
decaying into a lower energy level faster \ life figured out - you're
than everyone else's." -- my coworker Mike \ confused." -- Merlin
Patricia Mae Anthony
>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>more women are attracted to you, the higher the probability that you will
>find love.
>
>Thus, in a sense, money CAN buy you love.
>
>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
it was the special attention that attracted me. Unfortuantely, I think all
of us tend to fall back on money as a tool for giving special attention,
rather than just being direct with our feelings. This is probably due to
lots of different reasons, including ways of doing things that we observed
from the previous generation, as well as plain old fear of being rejected.
It's a lot easier to spend money, and chalk of a failed friendship/beginning
relationship to "it just didn't work out", rather than to face personal
rejection.
I've posted some stuff about pampering men, and I think that the money
and gestures and little gifts, have to be separated from what I've
actually communicated to that man about what I feel for him. For example,
I could wine & dine a good friend who is feeling low, or I could wine &
dine a romantic interest. It's up to me to communicate verbally what
the wining & dining means.
I've seen some posts also about gift giving, and what the other person
will think. While money makes it easy to get flowers, and gifts, and
to make a bigger "statement", it's always wise to clarify that statement
with words in some way.
I think it is unfortunate for men that they have had to be the initiators
so much of the time, and that they have had such financial burdens. I'm
learning that it doesn't take lots of money to get to know someone,
whether it be a good friend or a romantic interest. It's also difficult,
when I meet a man who is so used to being the initiator and the banker,
to let him know that I am open to something different, without hurting
his feelings, or making him feel that I am rejecting his gestures/money/
gifts entirely.
Patricia
Greg Skinner
>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>more women are attracted to you, the higher the probability that you will
>find love.
>Thus, in a sense, money CAN buy you love.
I would rephrase this in the following way: Money can be used to
establish for oneself a place in society. Given the fact that money
plays an important role in society, and there are certain perceptions
of people based on how much money they are perceived to have, I think
it is safe to say that money can put a person in a position where they
will appear to be a more favorable candidate for a relationship than
someone without money.
I don't have a good definition of what it means to "have money", but
one way to think of it is "is able to afford things I would like to
have, but cannot afford."
>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
This is the traditional view, at any rate -- that people can move up
in society by marrying those who can provide some financial security.
The question which seems to be being debated here is whether or not
this view is pervasive in our society today. Perhaps not on this
group, since many people who read and post here are making reasonable
(but not outrageous) salaries, but I wonder how true it is for people
who are making minimum wage, people who are millionaires, etc.
A related question is could your being in a particular socio-economic
class restrict you from person(s) who you could have a successful
relationship with, and if this is true, how can this gap be bridged?
--gregbo
Daniel Mocsny
I would say this:
One cannot obtain love without paying some cost. However, merely paying
the cost does not guarantee anything.
> One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>more women are attracted to you, the higher the probability that you will
>find love.
Even if women are completely blind to money, one must also consider
that searching for love requires time. The wealthy man can afford to
invest more leisure time in the pursuit. The most productive venues
for meeting MOTAS tend to be otherwise unproductive.
>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
But if true, then men should be smart enough to figure out what women
want. I suspect that this sentiment is either (1) wishful thinking, or
(2) a way of saying that money can't RELIABLY buy love.
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <71...@uceng.UC.EDU> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>>What kind of "love" are you talking about? Is this love between
>>two human beings? Or is this something from the Brothers Grimm?
>
> Come on, Dan, are you implying that this sort of love doesn't exist
>in the real world? It may be rare, but it's not mythical.
Myths are certainly not based on commonly observable things. If
I see cinderblocks every day, then I can't consider them mythical
objects.
Something that is "mythical" may indeed exist. But only a few people
have seen it. And the stories may grow in the retelling. Therefore
the existence of that thing is not very meaningful for the average
person.
>>Are you just speculating here, or have you actually dated any
>>women?
>
> Very funny, Dan.
I tried to be funny, but clearly at your expense. Will you accept
my apology? I don't wish to play any rougher than a person wants
to be played with.
> That last statement was actually inspired by recent experience.
>I had an SO with whom I was crazy in love. I spent a lot of money
>on her because I thought it'd make her happy, and knowing that I'd
>made her happy made me very happy. And it did make her happy, but
>she didn't love me. Eventually she found someone she did love, and
>our relationship was history.
>
> Whaddaya think, Dan? Maybe I didn't spend enough?
Maybe. But we'll never know, will we?
You can get almost anyone to do almost anything for enough money.
The reason most of us don't believe this is that we don't have "enough
money" to prove it. Would this woman have stayed with you for
$1,000,000,000? I would be very surprised if the answer was "no".
I doubt if this woman would have meant more to you than $1,000,000,000.
Because, after all, the average skilled worker generates about
$1,000,000 in actual new wealth during a productive career. If someone
gave you $1,000,000,000, that is as close as we can come today to
giving you 1,000 lifetimes.
Suppose you had had $1,000,000,000 to throw at the problem of keeping
woman X. That would have opened up some interesting options. For
example, you could have hired a whole staff of various sorts of
experts to advise you on how to make yourself more attractive to
woman X. You might have failed anyway, but that would surprise me.
>>If they say it skillfully enough, you will forget all about your
>>book. Obviously, if they are inept, you threw your money away.
>
> Hm. Are you saying that if someone doesn't love you, it's still
>worthwhile to get them to deceive you into believing that they
>do? Sure looks that way to me.
I'm saying that if you don't know the difference, what is the
difference? The difference can only be the difference that you
realize. If I go to the grave with enough evidence to satisfy
me that someone loves me, then I am satisfied. I can spend my
whole life trying to second-guess people and their motives,
but what's the point? The only meaningful question is "Am I
getting what I want from this person?"
oscar Valdes
>I have never in my life seen any evidence (outside of bad sitcoms) that money
>helps men be more successful socially or sexually. Maybe I just don't run
>in wealthy crowds.
Write to Hugh Hefner. You'll get some evidence.
*******************************************************************************
Sooner or later reality bites you in the ass
*******************************************************************************
Jim Kasprzak
>In article <WWT^T-=@rpi.edu> jim...@itsgw.rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes:
>> That last statement was actually inspired by recent experience.
>>I had an SO with whom I was crazy in love. I spent a lot of money
>>on her because I thought it'd make her happy, and knowing that I'd
>>made her happy made me very happy. And it did make her happy, but
>>she didn't love me. Eventually she found someone she did love, and
>>our relationship was history.
>>
>> Whaddaya think, Dan? Maybe I didn't spend enough?
>
>Maybe. But we'll never know, will we?
>
>woman X. That would have opened up some interesting options. For
>example, you could have hired a whole staff of various sorts of
>experts to advise you on how to make yourself more attractive to
>woman X. You might have failed anyway, but that would surprise me.
>
If I may further use my example: by the time it became clear that my
relationship with this woman wasn't working out, we both knew why. It was
your basic personality clash - we just weren't as compatible as we'd
thought we were. Now, if I really wanted to save the relationship, I
could have done it by drastically altering my personality so that I was
someone with whom she'd fall in love and not want to leave. I suspect
that'd cost me far less than $1,000,000,000 - probably just the cost of
some heavy psychiatric treatment and perhaps some drugs. Or nothing at all
if I were sufficiently strong-willed (or is that weak-willed?) enough to
bend my personality at will. But that's a non-monetary cost which I wasn't
willing to pay. The main problem there was not something to which money
was directly applicable.
>> Hm. Are you saying that if someone doesn't love you, it's still
>>worthwhile to get them to deceive you into believing that they
>>do? Sure looks that way to me.
>
>I'm saying that if you don't know the difference, what is the
>difference? The difference can only be the difference that you
>realize. If I go to the grave with enough evidence to satisfy
>me that someone loves me, then I am satisfied. I can spend my
>whole life trying to second-guess people and their motives,
>but what's the point? The only meaningful question is "Am I
>getting what I want from this person?"
>
had in mind was an objective view. Your way of looking at it is more
pragmatic and probably more useful in the real world, but it still
doesn't disprove my original assertion.
For instance, let's say the tables were turned. Suppose some woman
whom you didn't love had the financial resources to create a situation
that made you want to act as if you loved her. We'll assume you can do
a convincing job of it. Now, as far as she's concerned, you love her,
but from your point of view you don't. Has she bought your love? I guess
that depends on who you ask.
Dave Taylor
Money can assist in the quest for love.
Well, I agree (startlingly enough), but suggest that there are a number
of other things that can also assist in the quest for love, like
honesty, compassion, self-confidence, a sense of fun, attractiveness,
etc etc. You don't need *all* of these, obviously, but I think if you're
*missing* all of these ingredients then you're probably going to find
it a tough quest...not impossible, just tough.
A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
how come so many poor people are happily married? How can someone who
has a minimum wage job (or less) "afford courtship"?
From the semi-rhetorical edge,
-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California
tay...@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
Joe Buck
> Daniel Mocsny and Kevin Brown state, more or less directly, that:
>
> Money can assist in the quest for love.
>
> Well, I agree (startlingly enough), but suggest that there are a number
> of other things that can also assist in the quest for love, like
> honesty, compassion, self-confidence, a sense of fun, attractiveness,
> etc etc. You don't need *all* of these, obviously, but I think if you're
> *missing* all of these ingredients then you're probably going to find
> it a tough quest...not impossible, just tough.
In my case, I found the wonderful relationship I now enjoy only after I'd
already committed to taking a substantial decrease in income (giving up
a very lucrative job to become a graduate student). My love life is much
better as a grad student than it ever was when I was making over $50K a
year. Yes, money can assist, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.
> A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
> how come so many poor people are happily married? How can someone who
> has a minimum wage job (or less) "afford courtship"?
There are many cheap or free dates. Taking your sweetie to a beautiful
and romantic natural spot is cheap. Factored over the length of time
you'll use it, VCRs are a great bargain; you can rent a movie and make
popcorn and have a very cheap date at home. There is no charge for
conversation, hugs, holding hands, kisses, necking, um, it's getting
warm in here...
--
Joe Buck
jb...@galileo.berkeley.edu {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck
Monica Waldman
>Daniel Mocsny and Kevin Brown state, more or less directly, that:
>
> Money can assist in the quest for love.
>
>Well, I agree (startlingly enough), but suggest that there are a number
Having $$ to burn allows certain for luxuries. Being starving students
and finding fun things to do for little or no $$ is fun, experimental and
enlightening, but not a state most people want to be in their entire
life.
If nothing else, having lots of $$ allows you to place a lot of personal ads.
>A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
>how come so many poor people are happily married?
According to shrinks and the like, $$ is the cause of most fights that
couples have (your mileage may vary). I'm not saying that people are not
capable of kissing and making up, but the lack of $$ or misuse has ruined many
a relationship.
--
standard disclaimer, etc., ad nauseum
"Cover a war in a place where you can't drink beer or talk to a woman?
"Hell no!" - Hunter S. Thompson
Jean Marie Diaz
From: jb...@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Date: 4 Jan 91 20:20:42 GMT
There are many cheap or free dates. Taking your sweetie to a beautiful
and romantic natural spot is cheap. Factored over the length of time
you'll use it, VCRs are a great bargain; you can rent a movie and make
popcorn and have a very cheap date at home. There is no charge for
conversation, hugs, holding hands, kisses, necking, um, it's getting
warm in here...
However, as Miss Manners puts it, "A date consists of food, affection,
and entertainment. [...] When the affection IS the entertainment, we no
longer call it dating." :-)
AMBAR
Help! I'm trapped in the real world!
>Almost true, except do you realize how much birth control devices cost these
>days!???
No. :^(
Zach Frey
--
Zachary Frey | fr...@egr.msu.edu | uunet!frith!frey | FR...@MSUEGR.BITNET
"Coop, ya think too much."
-- Sheriff Harry S Truman, _Twin_Peaks_
Daniel Mocsny
>Now, if I really wanted to save the relationship, I
>could have done it by drastically altering my personality so that I was
>someone with whom she'd fall in love and not want to leave. I suspect
>that'd cost me far less than $1,000,000,000 -
>willing to pay. The main problem there was not something to which money
>was directly applicable.
First of all, I disagree with your claim that money did not apply to
the problem of you wanting to change your personality. Since we are
talking about a hypothetical possibility here, I assume that you
did not actually research the possibility of hiring professional
help to modify your behavior. Given that we aren't familiar with
their methods, how do you know what the cost would have been?
When I say that "money can buy love", I don't mean it can create love
out of nothing. If I have $1,000 in my hand, I can't exchange it for
groceries unless I can find someone with groceries who wants to make
a deal with me. So, if I am sitting on an ice floe somewhere in the
Arctic Ocean, I could well write a song like: "I don't care too much
for money, because money can't buy me groceries."
Just like you can't buy groceries in a hardware store (unless you want
to get some more iron in your diet), so too you can't expect to be
able to buy just anyone's love. They've got to have it in stock...
> Okay, so you're dealing with a subjective view of love, while what I
>had in mind was an objective view. Your way of looking at it is more
>pragmatic and probably more useful in the real world, but it still
>doesn't disprove my original assertion.
Here I thought my view was the objective view. I am judging a person's
behavior from what I can observe about it. If I want to second-guess
everything another person does ("But does she *really* love me?"),
then there's no end in sight. It's the Other Minds Problem in another
guise. Not only have I no objective way to prove that she loves me,
I have no objective way to prove that she even has a mind, or any
existence outside *my* own mind. All of reality could be an illusion
in which I am trapped, and I have no way to devise a test which can
get out of it.
Of course I can't disprove your original assertion, but if I can't,
what is the difference that you will ever know? I don't care if a
woman "really" loves me, or if she just like to hear my jokes, or
she digs my body, or if she thinks I do this or that well. All I
care about is whether she is giving me what I want, and about the
probability that she will continue to do so.
> For instance, let's say the tables were turned. Suppose some woman
>whom you didn't love had the financial resources to create a situation
>that made you want to act as if you loved her. We'll assume you can do
>a convincing job of it. Now, as far as she's concerned, you love her,
>but from your point of view you don't. Has she bought your love? I guess
>that depends on who you ask.
You have raised a general principle: in any interaction between two
people, we have two independent views about what is going on. You can't
speak of "my love" as though it is some absolute entity with any
existence of its own. Rather, "my love" has some component that exists
in my mind, which is completely my business. And "my love" has another
component that exists in HER mind, and is completely *her* business.
Remember, in the air between her head and my head, my love does not
exist at all! (It's not in the air between our heads, but in the air
between our ears.)
So if you want to talk about her purchasing the aspect of my love that
exists in my mind, that would be equivalent to her purchasing my mind.
This may be possible, but it is not meaningful, because no mechanism
exists whereby she may own, consume, trade, or experience my mind. All
she can do is assert ownership over aspects of my external behavior.
(Note that this is purely a technological problem, given that we have no
technological capability to significantly extend our sensory reach into
another person's brain. Someday we may be able to do that, but by that
time we will have completely conquered our need for love.)
So as far as she is concerned, she has made a transaction and gotten
what she wanted. That is how I approach shopping at the grocery, and
that is how I approach shopping for love. I don't care if the grocer
is only selling to me because he is greedy. I am willing to let the
grocer take a profit.
Jim Kasprzak
>how come so many poor people are happily married? How can someone who
>has a minimum wage job (or less) "afford courtship"?
>
of them to choose from.
I asserted earlier that "money can't buy you love", and I haven't
completely backed down from that stance, but I'll agree that in the
real world, people tend to find relationships within their own
income range. There's some flexibility downward, generally not too
much upward, but for the most part you will tend to find your SO's
within the same social class.
Thus, poor people's lack of money is no hindrance in their finding
relationships with other poor people. If they want to find an SO
among the millionaire set, though, they're most likely out of luck.
Jim Kasprzak
>out of nothing. If I have $1,000 in my hand, I can't exchange it for
>groceries unless I can find someone with groceries who wants to make
>a deal with me. So, if I am sitting on an ice floe somewhere in the
>Arctic Ocean, I could well write a song like: "I don't care too much
>for money, because money can't buy me groceries."
>
>Just like you can't buy groceries in a hardware store (unless you want
>to get some more iron in your diet), so too you can't expect to be
>able to buy just anyone's love. They've got to have it in stock...
assertion "money can buy love" looked to me like "money can buy
anyone's love any time, if you have enough of it". Obviously that
wasn't what you were saying. And my contradiction of it needed
some clarification as well.
I think we may still disagree on the nature of love, but it looks
like we're both admitting that there are circumstances under which
love can be obtained with money, and circumstances under which it
can't.
>Here I thought my view was the objective view. I am judging a person's
>behavior from what I can observe about it. If I want to second-guess
>everything another person does ("But does she *really* love me?"),
>then there's no end in sight. It's the Other Minds Problem in another
>guise. Not only have I no objective way to prove that she loves me,
>I have no objective way to prove that she even has a mind, or any
>existence outside *my* own mind. All of reality could be an illusion
>in which I am trapped, and I have no way to devise a test which can
>get out of it.
I was assuming an objective reality independent of anyone's mind.
But it's true, as you say, that we have no way of proving that such
a thing exists. Maybe I'm wasting my time trying to figure out what's
in someone else's mind. (Maybe? I end up saying that every time
someone does something I don't understand, which is pretty often.
But I keep trying to second-guess them nonetheless. Just my own
little foible, I guess.)
>You have raised a general principle: in any interaction between two
>people, we have two independent views about what is going on. You can't
>speak of "my love" as though it is some absolute entity with any
>existence of its own. Rather, "my love" has some component that exists
>in my mind, which is completely my business. And "my love" has another
>component that exists in HER mind, and is completely *her* business.
>Remember, in the air between her head and my head, my love does not
>exist at all! (It's not in the air between our heads, but in the air
>between our ears.)
Another clash of assumptions. I'd been basing my point of view on
the assertion that there was an existence to a person's love. You
don't adhere to such a view. Given that, I don't think we're going
to come to any sort of agreement on this issue unless one of us
changes our mind. But I can understand the logic behind your point
of view. I hope you can do the same for mine.
Dave Eisen
>income range. There's some flexibility downward, generally not too
>much upward, but for the most part you will tend to find your SO's
>within the same social class.
>
I would venture to guess that women find more "upward flexiblity"
than men do and might even find "downward flexibility" to be a
problem.
Daniel Mocsny
>how come so many poor people are happily married?
Because there are a hell of a lot of poor people.
Dave, do you know what is supposed to be the #1 cause of divorce?
"Money Problems". And I don't think people consider having too much
to be a problem.
Daniel Mocsny
>In my case, I found the wonderful relationship I now enjoy only after I'd
>already committed to taking a substantial decrease in income (giving up
>a very lucrative job to become a graduate student).
Do you expect to lose this wonderful relationship if your income
increases when you return to the job market?
Do you think your reduced income can reasonably be perceived as a
temporary condition by other people?
Do you think that women who are attracted to money are impatient?
(Note that I am not making any assumptions about your relationship,
since I don't know your partner. I am only saying that a woman who
values money might well be willing to wait. In fact, she may well
do better in the long run by endearing herself to someone with
a lot of potential. That's like getting in on the ground floor.
Once he's loaded with money, his expectations may well be higher,
and the competition harder.)
> My love life is much
>better as a grad student than it ever was when I was making over $50K a
>year. Yes, money can assist, but is neither necessary nor sufficient.
How would your love life be if you were a grad student with over
$50K a year coming in from a trust fund? My guess: not bad.
Money is only a tool. And like any tool, it's only as good as the
tool-user. But some women might really like your tool.
Anyway, I have never had a relationship with a woman who would have
objected to me having more money. But I have had women turn me down
because I didn't have enough money at the time. And I have certainly
dated women who were willing to look at my earning potential more
than what I happened to have at the time.
Rich Wilson
>>A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
>>how come so many poor people are happily married?
>
>Because there are a hell of a lot of poor people.
>
>Dave, do you know what is supposed to be the #1 cause of divorce?
>"Money Problems". And I don't think people consider having too much
>to be a problem.
>--
>Dan Mocsny Snail:
I thought the #1 cause of divorce was lack of communication.
From what I've seen in my life the more money people have the more
they seem to fight about it and be obsessed with it. I am not making
any kind of sweeping generalization about it, this is just among the people
I know and have known. I know two extremely wealthy families and they are
both full of so much hatred and bitterness for each other and who is
getting 5 cents more of the family fortune than the next member. It is
really sick and really sad. They are so paranoid about being 'taken' and
so and so is getting more and they really use money to control one another.
YUCK!
Anne
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <6...@voodoo.UUCP> d...@voodoo.UUCP (Deb Schwartz) writes:
>>Almost true, except do you realize how much birth control devices cost these
>>days!???
>No. :^(
Zach, I'm surprised! You never struck me as the gambling type.
Sundar Varadarajan
> I would rephrase this in the following way: Money can be used to
> establish for oneself a place in society. Given the fact that money
> plays an important role in society, and there are certain perceptions
> of people based on how much money they are perceived to have, I think
> it is safe to say that money can put a person in a position where they
> will appear to be a more favorable candidate for a relationship than
> someone without money.
I think money buys you opportunity. To me it means that I can go out more
often and to more places (Hawaii as well as Monterey). Of course, you could
get to meet more people and possibly more opportunities for relationships.
To an extent though, money is like having good looks or being smart etc.,
It only provides the opportunity, it does not make it happen. I take the
approach that what I have (money, looks, smarts) is all I have to work with
and try to get the kind of things that I want, rather than complain about
what I could do if I had more of this or more of that.
> A related question is could your being in a particular socio-economic
> class restrict you from person(s) who you could have a successful
> relationship with, and if this is true, how can this gap be bridged?
I would certainly think so. If one person's idea of spending a night is a
burger and a video and another's is a candlelight dinner and a symphony, then
it would be a problem. Of course, one can have a simple candlelight dinner
at home and watch the New York Philharmonic on video, but compromises ought
to be made.
Sundar Varadarajan
sun...@hpda.hp.com
Sharon Lynne Fisher
>One cannot buy love directly. One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
Bullshit.
Nick Szabo
>more subjective realm of personal beliefs. To wit: if someone
>loves you, they love you because you are _you_, not because of
>how much money you have or don't have.
My material possession are part of what people see when they
think of me. They don't see me naked in a vacuum (well maybe
if they're kinky. :-) Since money can buy material possessions,
it can influence people's perceptions of and reactions to me, including
whether or not they fall in love.
>Love is a personal and
>not a financial matter, and should be able to survive things
>like financial ruin (or an unexpected massive influx of money,
>which happens less often but could be just as dmaging to a
>relationship).
The question before the house is a "can " question ("can money
buy love") not a "should" question. As you imply, love sometimes
does *not* survive large financial changes. This being the case,
it is apparent that money can influence, therefore "buy", love
if used correctly.
> If someone doesn't love you, again, it's because you are you
>and spending any amount of money on that person isn't going to
>change what makes them not love you.
If I (not naked in a vacuum) change, people's reactions to me,
including love, can change also.
> I have no doubt that if you spend enough money on a person
>who doesn't love you, you can get them to say "I love you".
>But that, in my book, isn't love.
Maybe if you *don't* spend money and they say "I love you", it
isn't love. Who's to judge?
Best regards,
--
Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
"If you want oil, drill lots of wells" -- J. Paul Getty
The above opinions are my own and not related to those of any
organization I may be affiliated with.
David C. Barber
[...stuff deleted...]
> I asserted earlier that "money can't buy you love", and I haven't
>completely backed down from that stance, but I'll agree that in the
>real world, people tend to find relationships within their own
>much upward, but for the most part you will tend to find your SO's
>within the same social class.
>
everybody who finds a relationship well below them, the person they are having
that relationship with has found it an equal amount above them.
*David Barber*
@}-->----
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!dbarber
ARPA: crash!pnet01!dba...@nosc.mil
INET: dba...@pnet01.cts.com
Conservative: A liberal who has been mugged.
Liberal: A conservative who has been arrested.
David C. Barber
>I thought the #1 cause of divorce was lack of communication.
>From what I've seen in my life the more money people have the more
>they seem to fight about it and be obsessed with it. I am not making
>any kind of sweeping generalization about it, this is just among the people
>I know and have known. I know two extremely wealthy families and they are
>both full of so much hatred and bitterness for each other and who is
>getting 5 cents more of the family fortune than the next member. It is
>really sick and really sad. They are so paranoid about being 'taken' and
>so and so is getting more and they really use money to control one another.
>YUCK!
I think the reason for this is that, the more you have, the more you have to
(possibly) lose.
Also, once rich, they can't imagine how they'd ever get by if they suddenly
became poor. They are convinced that they can never be happy with less than
they have. They're wrong -- but they'll never realize it.
Bill HMRP Vajk
> Unfortuantely, I think all of us tend to fall back on money as a tool for
> giving special attention, rather than just being direct with our feelings.
The very simple efforts by a few of the very special people in my life
in the past didn't cost money in any real terms. But they were the matters
of convenience which by extension demonstrated in caring about my comfort
which really captured my attention. And this is probably a short tutorial
on how to score many points with someone near the beginning of a relationship.
A few very special women I was dating kept a small stock of all my favorite
stuff on hand. Namely cigarettes (back when I smoked,) booze, soda, shaving
cream, and such.
> It's a lot easier to spend money, and chalk of a failed friendship/beginning
> relationship to "it just didn't work out", rather than to face personal
> rejection.
Strangely, one recent experience was with a woman who was hell bent on
spending nothing of her money at all. I suppose it comes from her having
grown up aparently quite impovrished. Quite a wonderful person in most
all other respects, however.
> I've posted some stuff about pampering men, and I think that the money
> and gestures and little gifts, have to be separated from what I've
> actually communicated to that man about what I feel for him. For example,
> I could wine & dine a good friend who is feeling low, or I could wine &
> dine a romantic interest. It's up to me to communicate verbally what
> the wining & dining means.
The best, by far, wine and dine events in my experience, have been in her
home or mine. The signals are also a lot easier to read. Never have had
a romantic dinner without candles, or an unromantic one with.
> It's also difficult, when I meet a man who is so used to being the
> initiator and the banker, to let him know that I am open to something
> different, without hurting his feelings, or making him feel that I am
> rejecting his gestures/money/gifts entirely.
I know this is going to sound harsh, but perhaps the ones who have a lot of
trouble accepting you in toto are poor choices, perhaps bad matches. Perhaps
the selection process is working well after all. I understand your lament, and
your dread of unnecessarily hurting someone's feelings.
Sounds as though there are some factors at work here which you will not
compromise, and I don't blame you in the least (would that I could find such a
treasure close to my home, and appropriate for me in other ways.) But therein
resides the necessity that compromise by the man may not be required either.
The dilemna is, therefore, self-resolving. All that remains is acceptance.
Bill.etc | Angels fly because they take themselves lightly.
| - G. K. Chesterton
Bill HMRP Vajk
> A related question is could your being in a particular socio-economic
> class restrict you from person(s) who you could have a successful
> relationship with, and if this is true, how can this gap be bridged?
Yes, it can seriously impede the development of a relationship.
In order to overcome the barriers, the most basic requirements are deportment
and appearance, followed closely by an overwhelming desire to cross the
boundry and sufficient humility to honestly appreciate the values prevalent in
the intended landing zone.
Even so, the permanence of such a relationship is tenuous at best, and
demands a very heavy commitment and flexibility by both parties in order to
be successful for even a short term of several years.
And regardless of the starting "station", it is probably always much more
difficult to initiate a relationship with a person whose socio-economic
level is below yours than above. There seems to be some significant
political correctness in accepting persons of "lower birth." But there
is almost invariably a distrust of those whose origins are above one's.
Bill.etc | A thick skin is a gift from God. - Konrad Adenaur
Steven J Turnauer
Hmmm...concise, to the point, and eloquent. But, Sharon, what are you
_really_ trying to say? C'mon, don't hold back on us!
:-) :-)
Steve
************************************************************************
Cross your heart and hope to die it's love/ A perfect world in my minds
eye and oh/ The face that's watching me tonight has me/ Falling for that
Certain Smile
Hold your hand up, swear to god it's love/ Help me to believe because
for all/ The words you said to me tonight has me/ Falling for that
Certain Smile/ Falling for that Certain Smile - Midge Ure
************************************************************************
Dave Eisen
>>
>It seems to me that flexibility upward and downward must be equal, because for
>everybody who finds a relationship well below them, the person they are having
>that relationship with has found it an equal amount above them.
>
Of course it must sum to 0.
But it is entirely possible that men tend to date people who are
less economically gifted than they are and women tend to date men
who are more economically gifted than they are. Conventional wisdom
is that this is the case, I suspect the statistics say it is, but I
haven't seen it in my limited personal experience.
Kevin Brown
>>One cannot buy love directly.
>
>One cannot obtain love without paying some cost. However, merely paying
>the cost does not guarantee anything.
Right. Note, however, that (like goods) the cost is not fixed to one single
price, but rather increases as the "quality" increases. "Quality", of
course, is a rather subjective term. Generally speaking, what is of "high"
quality to a person will be more difficult (and thus more expensive) to
obtain than something of "lower" quality, but this is not always true. The
definition of "quality" is subjective (especially when it comes to love)
but the market itself is, I dare say, objective. Most markets I know of
are arranged such that the kind of quality that is in the highest demand
will have the highest price. This follows from standard economics.
So, there's the chance that the individual will have a rather bizarre
definition of "quality" when it comes to love, and will thus be able to
obtain what he considers to be "high quality love" at bargain-basement
prices. But that's a low-probability situation. For most of us, the
higher the "quality" of love, the more expensive it is. For males, the
expense is in terms of wealth, aggressiveness, assertiveness, etc.,
whereas for females the "expense" is more in terms of physical appearance.
This raises a rather interesting question: if one is able to obtain
something of "value" simply by having the right combination of inborn
traits, does that something of "value" still have a "cost"?
Since money is effectively an expendable asset, and since obtaining it
(usually) requires continuous expenditure of effort, the economic model
of love seems quite appropriate when the average quality of love that
one can obtain is related to how much money one has (and, to some extent,
how much money one spends). But does the economic model hold when the
average quality of love that one can obtain is NOT related to an
expendable asset, but rather a fixed (inherited) asset?
You can see where I'm going with this: the economic model of love holds
for men, i.e. from the standpoint of the male. But does it also hold
from the standpoint of the female? The only way I can think of it holding
(maybe) is if we consider the female to be the "seller" and the male to be
the "buyer". The only real difference being that, for the male, the price
he pays is in terms of an expendable asset, whereas the "goods" that are
exchanged for that are, for the female, renewable. This tends to give the
female a certain advantage in the transaction, as she is able to, effectively,
get "something for nothing"...
No doubt the above analogy is a bit extreme, since in most cases both people
(male and female) have to put in some work to maintain the relationship.
>> One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>>more women are attracted to you, the higher the probability that you will
>>find love.
>
>Even if women are completely blind to money, one must also consider
>that searching for love requires time. The wealthy man can afford to
>invest more leisure time in the pursuit. The most productive venues
>for meeting MOTAS tend to be otherwise unproductive.
Right. So not only is the probability increased by the value that women
place on the male's wealth, but it is also increased by the extra free
time available to the wealthy man. However, this does depend greatly
on how much time the man is willing to put into achieving a given lifestyle.
It becomes a tradeoff: in general, the more time you're willing to put in,
the more money you'll have available and thus the higher your standard of
living will be, but the lower the amount of free time you'll have available.
Time is a conserved quantity, and if money is directly related to time
then it, too, is a conserved quantity (one might argue that it is usually
a conserved quantity anyway, and I would tend to agree).
Somewhere in there is an optimum balance between the amount of money
available and the amount of free time available such that the probability
of finding love is maximized.
>>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
>
>But if true, then men should be smart enough to figure out what women
>want. I suspect that this sentiment is either (1) wishful thinking, or
>(2) a way of saying that money can't RELIABLY buy love.
That it can't reliably buy love is contained in my statement: having money
increases the probability of finding love. But notice that reliability
and probability are one and the same. A millionaire has VERY good odds of
being able to find love.
So the REAL question is: by how much does having a given increase in available
wealth increase the probability of finding love? I fully expect it to NOT
be a linear function. :-)
>Dan Mocsny Snail:
--
Kevin Brown
Addresses in preferred order:
csci...@cl.uh.edu
nuchat!ke...@uunet.uu.net
Kevin Brown
>
> Money can assist in the quest for love.
>
>Well, I agree (startlingly enough), but suggest that there are a number
>of other things that can also assist in the quest for love, like
>honesty, compassion, self-confidence, a sense of fun, attractiveness,
>etc etc. You don't need *all* of these, obviously, but I think if you're
>*missing* all of these ingredients then you're probably going to find
>it a tough quest...not impossible, just tough.
Certainly. However, I expect that an excess of one trait (e.g., money) can
make up to some extent for the lack of some other trait.
>A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
>how come so many poor people are happily married? How can someone who
>has a minimum wage job (or less) "afford courtship"?
Perhaps because people with less have to settle for "less", and thus they
do just that? Perhaps because they have other traits (e.g., machismo)
which makes up for the lack of money?
> -- Dave Taylor
Daniel Mocsny
>In article <67...@crash.cts.com> dba...@pnet01.cts.com (David C. Barber) writes:
>>It seems to me that flexibility upward and downward must be equal, because for
>>everybody who finds a relationship well below them, the person they are having
>>that relationship with has found it an equal amount above them.
>
>Of course it must sum to 0.
The possibility exists that they two parties in the transaction
have different values, and therefore both of them can simultaneously
perceive a "win".
This is, in fact, the basis for every "make-able" deal.
If I am hungry, I will value groceries more than I will value the
green slips of paper in my wallet. Conversely, the grocer, who has
an excess of groceries, will value the green slips of paper. Both
of us can walk away quite pleased about the trade.
>But it is entirely possible that men tend to date people who are
>less economically gifted than they are and women tend to date men
>who are more economically gifted than they are. Conventional wisdom
>is that this is the case, I suspect the statistics say it is, but I
>haven't seen it in my limited personal experience.
Right, but if the man does not value the woman's economic gifts,
but instead values her other gifts, then he might not consider
the relationship to be "below" him.
Daniel Mocsny
>So the REAL question is: by how much does having a given increase in available
>wealth increase the probability of finding love? I fully expect it to NOT
>be a linear function. :-)
Of course it can't be linear (unless it is constant), because p <= 1.
It might be quasi-linear on certain dollar intervals, however.
Actually, p must be a nonlinear function of a whole vector of things, so
dp/d$ would probably also be a nonlinear function of that whole vector.
>>Dan Mocsny Snail:
>
>
>--
> Kevin Brown
> Addresses in preferred order:
> csci...@cl.uh.edu
> nuchat!ke...@uunet.uu.net
Joe Buck
necessary nor sufficient." and give some anecdotal evidence. You write
back as if I argued that money is a negative. Of course it isn't.
Dan goes on to write:
> Anyway, I have never had a relationship with a woman who would have
> objected to me having more money. But I have had women turn me down
> because I didn't have enough money at the time. And I have certainly
> dated women who were willing to look at my earning potential more
> than what I happened to have at the time.
Maybe so, but I'll also bet that at some point in your life a woman
has rejected, or will reject, you in favor of a man with less money
than you. That's why I said it's neither necessary nor sufficient.
Desiree Champagne
>
>Having $$ to burn allows certain for luxuries.
Like used CDs, used books, used clothing ...
>According to shrinks and the like, $$ is the cause of most fights that
>couples have (your mileage may vary). I'm not saying that people are not
>capable of kissing and making up, but the lack of $$ or misuse has ruined many
>a relationship.
This is oh-so-true. Even the most generous of us can become
screaming maniacs when involved with somebody who is foolish with the
rent, food or drug money.
Desiree
Larry Margolis
> In article <71...@uceng.UC.EDU> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes
> >"Money Problems".
>
No, the number one leading cause of divorce is . . .
Marriage!
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (bitnet), MAR...@IBM.COM (csnet)
cs354- Broward Horne
>Bullshit.
If only it were bullshit! Bad call, Patricia, *bad* call.
My vote here is TRUE ( in my experience )
Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
Which would *you* choose?
I have no qualms on this one at all. Given the choice of
woman A, who doesn't expect ( or want ) to work
identical twin, woman B, who supports herself,
I choose B, every time.
--
'Finally, I headed northward towards the border,
Broward Horne and my only hope of survival.
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu A freeway, out of Los Angeles'
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu - Jack McVax$, 1990 :(
Daniel Mocsny
Already I like Joe's article three times more than usual.
>Maybe so, but I'll also bet that at some point in your life a woman
>has rejected, or will reject, you in favor of a man with less money
>than you.
You don't see too many men like that.
I'm doing my best to create more of them...
Help! I'm trapped in the real world!
>In article <1991Jan5.0...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> fr...@kira.uucp (Help! I'm trapped in the real world! ) writes:
>>In article <6...@voodoo.UUCP> d...@voodoo.UUCP (Deb Schwartz) writes:
>>>Almost true, except do you realize how much birth control devices cost these
>>>days!???
>>No. :^(
>Zach, I'm surprised! You never struck me as the gambling type.
I'm not, thus the ":^(". I was more of a gambler in my younger
days, but I gave that up for Lent.
Let me state unequivocally for the record that I have not engaged
in any activity that would require me to be knowledgable about the
current pricing of contraceptives for longer than ... long enough
that "I can't seem to recall that", to quote a former President.
There! Do you think I can grow up to be a politician someday?
Singleness sucks (but that can be fun, too ...)
--
Zachary Frey | fr...@egr.msu.edu | uunet!frith!frey | FR...@MSUEGR.BITNET
"Coop, ya think too much."
-- Sheriff Harry S Truman, _Twin_Peaks_
Nick Szabo
>necessary nor sufficient." and give some anecdotal evidence.
"Necessary and sufficient" are boolean terms not very useful in the
complex world of love. More interesting are the questions, "under
what conditions does money buy love, and how can it be best deployed?"
First, under what conditions does money buy love? I could refer to
scientific studies, humanistic scholarship, or personal experience,
but for brevity I will simply refer to the all-time favorite romantic
movie among women, namely _Pretty Woman_. In this movie, Julia Ward
is wooed by the following of Gere's money-related items (ladies, feel
free to add your perspective on this):
Money itself, for sex ($300): we can define love as involving,
at the very least, kissing on the mouth, and rule out prostitution.
Lotus ($40,000?): actually Richard Gere had the Lotus because he could
pay for the wimp lawyer from whom he borrowed the thing, but that is
a quibble. Make sure you let her handle the stickshift.
Tailored Suit ($2,000): Also requires a minimum of Status Skills (see)
so you don't spill food on it.
White Bathrobe ($60): Taking off her leather boots and Carol Channing wig
and putting on a bathrobe was one of the biggest improvements of the
movie. This has to be the Most Economical status item. Throw in a big
white towel (I saw a "towel for two" in the Land's End catalog that
looked quite comfy; $30).
Status Skills: why strawberries go good with champagne, which fork
goes with what, etc.: Hopefully somebody teaches a class in all this
together so that you don't have to take dozens of different classes.
But I'd guess such convenience won't come cheap ($5,000).
Penthouse Suite ($2,000/wk.): The top floor is "The Best", but she might
pretend to almost fall off the balcony so you can "rescue" her. If she
falls, she wasn't the right gal anyway.
Hotel Butler: Comes with the Penthouse Suite. Be sure to turn him
from a conservative anal-retentive into a kow-towing slave of your
love purchase (with a $1,000 tip).
Grand Piano ($2,000): Have the Butler tune it before and after making
love on it.
Clothes for Her ($10,000): Use that Gold Card to bully the clothing-store
workers into sucking up to her. Remember, "stores are friendly to
credit cards not people".
Diamond Necklace ($250,000): This is what separates the men from the
boys.
Polo match ($100), "people I see a lot of", ($20,000). Even unfriendly
friends don't come cheap. Senators must be paid off; lawyers must
be payed off and kept from hitting on your love purchase.
Umbrella ($20): This is for waving around to pretend one is a Knight
coming to the Rescue. It is only useful in the last 10 minutes of the
movie, long after she has already said "I love you" and made love to you
in every conceivable position.
Personally, out of those I can only afford the bathrobe, towels, and
umbrella (sorry gals). But, I assume there are at least a few women
left in the world who take _Pretty Woman_ for the fairy tale it is,
and could settle for a guy in a nice car, who will put her up in a nice
house, with that bathrobe and the big, comfy towel for two. Now
even that isn't easy, which brings us to the question "how can money
best be deployed"? Let's look at the extreme strategies in such a
milieu for an average middle-class single guy:
For one extreme take a male "miser", who saves and invests most of his
money; he spends much less money than the average guy on clothes, dates,
etc. On a date he will look like a lower-class bum, he will not have
picked up any "sophisticated" habits etc., so his chances are less than
those of the average guy, that the average woman will fall in love with him.
He won't get too much nookie either.
Now take the other extreme, a male "lover" who spends most of his
money on clothes, dates, etc. He will be loved by many women, but since
he does not accumulate wealth he cannot obtain a Richard Gere-like level,
and thus the best women (or *lots* of women, take your pick) are out of
his reach.
(Strategies for females are best left to the gals).
My own goal is to find a woman such that we are in love with each other
and our life (esp. family) goals are compatible. The timeline for this is
to start the family 5-10 years from now. For this, I have the goals of
being able to afford a few status items (mostly clothes) and picking up
some "sophisticated habits" within the next 2-3 years, being able to afford
a house and support a small family in 5 years, etc. Thus, my strategy
might be called the "miser/lover" strategy. For my goals, this is better
than the pure "miser" or "lover" strategies. However for guys more
interested in sex than family, the male sex drive peaks at 18 and
diminishes with age, so something like the "lover/pauper" strategy
is better. Don't come yelling at my children for social security checks,
though.
Now all the above is grossly simplistic, but perhaps an improvement
over "necessary and sufficient."
1/2 :-)
Chris Andersen (The Dangerous Guy)
}tay...@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) writes:
}>Daniel Mocsny and Kevin Brown state, more or less directly, that:
}>
}> Money can assist in the quest for love.
}>
}>Well, I agree (startlingly enough), but suggest that there are a number
}>of other things that can also assist in the quest for love, like
}>honesty, compassion, self-confidence, a sense of fun, attractiveness,
}>etc etc.
}
}make up to some extent for the lack of some other trait.
And vice-versa...
--
Chris Andersen (..!uunet!sequent!toontown!chris)
The first time you say "I love you" is a million times more stressful
then the first time you say "wanna go out for a bite and a flick?"
Dave Eisen
>For one extreme take a male "miser", who saves and invests most of his
>money; he spends much less money than the average guy on clothes, dates,
>etc. On a date he will look like a lower-class bum, he will not have
>picked up any "sophisticated" habits etc., so his chances are less than
I wasn't aware we'd met....
Sharon Lynne Fisher
> Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
> Which would *you* choose?
But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
Patricia Mae Anthony
>In article <22...@well.sf.ca.us> s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
>>
>>
>>>One cannot buy love directly. One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>>
>>>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>>>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>> ^^^^
>>Bullshit.
>
> If only it were bullshit! Bad call, Patricia, *bad* call.
> My vote here is TRUE ( in my experience )
>
CowPatti
Patricia Mae Anthony
>> because I didn't have enough money at the time. And I have certainly
>> dated women who were willing to look at my earning potential more
>> than what I happened to have at the time.
>
>Maybe so, but I'll also bet that at some point in your life a woman
>has rejected, or will reject, you in favor of a man with less money
>than you. That's why I said it's neither necessary nor sufficient.
>
CowPatti
cs354- Broward Horne
>>
>>
>>>One cannot buy love directly. One can, however, if one is male, use money to
>>
>>>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
>>>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
>> ^^^^
>>Bullshit.
>
> If only it were bullshit! Bad call, Patricia, *bad* call.
> My vote here is TRUE ( in my experience )
Bad memory, Broward, *bad* memory. For ' Patricia ', read ' Sharon '.
Youchhh!
--
Broward Horne The Amazing Lazing
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu Potatohead
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu
cs354- Broward Horne
Boy, and I thought I had a problem in being too literal-minded.
An allegory, analogy, comparision. A way of simplifying a complex
problem into it's relevant components.
Anyway, 10 to 1, the analogy struck home, ehhh? And if you're not
happy with it, then
IN MY EXPERIENCE, money is big thing to many women. There, now you
may write me ( and every other guy who has said his piece about it )
off, as statistical anomolies.
cs354- Broward Horne
In the past 2 years, I've had 3 chances at 3 women who owned houses.
I'm not hypocritical enough to say it had NO effect on my thoughts.
And *my* primary drive is independence, not money, status, etc.
( pretty obvious from the CS-354 heading, huh? :) )
I suppose, if you're still tied up in the LOVE CONQUERS ALL thing,
you might deny the corrupting influence of money on your decision
processes. For myself, I like to know just how much it's affecting
my decisions, and compensate accordingly.
Tom Chapin
No, but they can be equivalent in desirability except for that
trait. Or maybe the rich one can be just a bit more callous, or
maybe quite a little...
--
tom chapin att!hrccb!tjc t...@hrccb.att.com
Daniel Mocsny
However, a man with money today can be flat broke tomorrow. He can do
this without changing very much, in some circumstances. Conversely,
a man living in abject squalor could win the lottery. I don't think
that in the several seconds that elapse while he rips open the envelope,
too much about him changes other than his financial situation.
We could ask a similar question of the men:
Given the choice of woman B, who is of normal weight,
and her identical twin, who is 75 pounds overweight and clinically
obese,
Which would *you* choose?
I think I know what Avery Colter will say...
But anyway. Sharon, do you think that gaining 75 pounds would affect
your competitive position in the Courtship Game in any way? I bet you
would probably say that gaining 75 pounds of bodyfat would reduce the
number of men who want to date you. If you suggested that a majority
of men found a woman's attractiveness to decline if she gained a lot
of bodyfat, none of us would try to argue with you.
This is how men feel about money (and a lot of other things). Are both
of us wrong?
Kristen Kohlbecker
>
>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
I hope thaat you're kidding...there is a trial going on in NewYork (I think
that's where it was) where a man took several rich widows for all that they
had. I can't believe that he is totally unique. To a lesser degree perhaps,
but still evident, money is an attractor to *both* sexes.
>
> Kevin Brown
> Addresses in preferred order:
> csci...@cl.uh.edu
> nuchat!ke...@uunet.uu.net
Tyger
*****************************************************************
Kristen Kathryn Kohlbecker, Net.Baby [tm]
Never let a man get the upper hand...
There's no telling where he'll put it. - Piers Anthony
*****************************************************************
ARPA: crash!pnet01!ty...@nosc.mil
INET: ty...@pnet01.cts.com
Kevin Brown
>ke...@nuchat.UUCP (Kevin Brown) writes:
>>I suspect that more men than women believe this sentiment, for obvious
>>reasons: money is not as much of an attractor of men as it is of women.
>
>I hope thaat you're kidding...there is a trial going on in NewYork (I think
>that's where it was) where a man took several rich widows for all that they
>had. I can't believe that he is totally unique. To a lesser degree perhaps,
>but still evident, money is an attractor to *both* sexes.
Correct. I didn't say that money was an attractor of ONLY women, just that
it is MORE an attractor of women than men. Lord knows I could use a rich
girlfriend. ;-)
It's refreshing, in a way, to hear of cases where the guys are doing the
same thing to women as vice-versa. But it's sad, too. This sort of
thing shouldn't happen AT ALL.
>Kristen Kathryn Kohlbecker, Net.Baby [tm]
So how long have you been a Net.Baby [tm]? Perhaps long enough to graduate
to Net.Toddler [tm]? :-)
--
Larry Margolis
> In article <22...@well.sf.ca.us> s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
> >>substantially increase the probability that one will find love. This is
> >>because women tend to favor men who have substantial amounts of money. The
> > ^^^^
> >Bullshit.
>
> If only it were bullshit! Bad call, Patricia, *bad* call.
> My vote here is TRUE ( in my experience )
>
> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
>
> Which would *you* choose?
>
>
> woman A, who doesn't expect ( or want ) to work
> identical twin, woman B, who supports herself,
>
> I choose B, every time.
Identical twins look alike, but can have different personalities. One might
prefer A, who is poor but a wonderful person, over B, who is rich by being
a contract killer.
If you want to posit that they are identical in every way except for the money,
then that's equivalent to saying do you want your lover, person X, to be rich
or poor. Of course, most people would say rich. That's not favoring MOTAS's
who are rich, that's saying that if you were seeing a specific MOTAS and you
had a choice if they were rich or poor, you'd want them to be rich. (It's also
not a very realistic situation.)
Chris Andersen (The Dangerous Guy)
>
> (Women:) Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
>
> Which would *you* choose?
>
> to work and identical twin, woman B, who supports herself,
>
> I choose B, every time.
I would too most likely. However, the two comparisons are really not
comparable. In the first its a choice between two people based on what they
have (money) while in the second its a choice between two people based on
what they do (support themself or not).
But realisticaly I base this kind of decision on a lot more then just these
simplistic qualities.
Dave Taylor
>> ... [I] suggest that there are a number of other things that can also
>> assist in the quest for love, like honesty, compassion, self-confidence,
>> a sense of fun, attractiveness, etc etc.
with:
> ... I expect that an excess of one trait (e.g., money) can make up to
> some extent for the lack of some other trait.
Which is fine, but then immediately below it, he says:
> Perhaps because people with less have to settle for "less", and thus
> they do just that?
Interesting how we've reached a typical value judgement based on
someones earning potential/reality. "less" is clearly more than
just an indicator of financial status, to me, at least.
I stick with my original comment; people with all possible combinations
of positive and negative traits can succeed in finding a compatible mate.
The differentiator is how fast, how painless, and how successful they
are. And that, I believe, is based on what they're like and how they
live their life. Nothing at all to do with money, which, for any sort
of longer term relationship, doesn't even go that far towards compensating
for lack of compassion, honesty, etc.
As for me, well, I'd much rather go out with someone that was fun, honest,
intelligent, and compassionate than someone that was wealthy...and have
always tended to use those criteria for dating... ('sides, if they can't
handle my perverse sense of humour, then we're doomed from the start!)
Living my life in a day,
-- Dave Taylor
Intuitive Systems
Mountain View, California
tay...@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
Larry Margolis
> If you suggested that a majority
> of men found a woman's attractiveness to decline if she gained a lot
> of bodyfat, none of us would try to argue with you.
I think that no matter *what* you post to this group, *someone* will try to
argue with you. 1/2 :-)
Teri Miller
I agree. I mean, why does one have money, and one not? That's one difference
right there. Did their rich uncle like one of them better than the other?
Or is one just luckier playing lotteries? But, if they were truly identical,
they would have played the same lottery with the same numbers, and split the
prize. Further, if the experiences of the two are identical, even
though one has money and the other doesn't (which is the only way they
*could* be identical, differing experiences cause personalities that differ)
then it wouldn't matter which one I chose, since they would be leading
identical lifestyles. After all, if they did anything differently from
one another, like living in a nicer house or hanging around with different
friends, they would become different.
Teri Miller
>
> IN MY EXPERIENCE, money is big thing to many women. There, now you
> may write me ( and every other guy who has said his piece about it )
> off, as statistical anomolies.
>
Broward: why should it matter to *me* how much money you have? I'm not the
type of person to decide to spend your money for you, and further, I'm quite
capable of earning my own money, thank you!
The only reason it would make a difference to me is if I had to curtail my
lifestyle in order to accomodate someone else. In other words, if I want to
go for ice cream, and you are broke, we have a number of choices. The only
choices that I'm not going to be happy about are those than entail my going
without ice cream. Otherwise, treating you to ice cream, or going out and
just my getting ice cream, or any other mutually satisfying solution is fine.
The only reason I can think of that someone should be asking about your
finances is simply to find out if a particular activity is OK by you. As
in the following example: "Hey, Marcia, wanna go to the ribbon store on
Sunday, or will your piggybank squeal in dismay?" Otherwise, if someone
is quizzing you about your finances, especially to find out if you are a
"suitable" date, I think you should put the shoe on the other foot.
Why not ask the quizzer about *her* finances? "Why do you want to know my
bank balance? Planning to redecorate your home with it?" Or, how about
this: "Don't worry: I can afford it. Can you?" I figure it this way: if
she's suggesting dates that she can't afford, and expecting you to pay
for them, you're probably well rid of her, no?
Teri Miller
>
> In the past 2 years, I've had 3 chances at 3 women who owned houses.
> I'm not hypocritical enough to say it had NO effect on my thoughts.
> And *my* primary drive is independence, not money, status, etc.
> ( pretty obvious from the CS-354 heading, huh? :) )
>
owns a house is pretty silly, unless you really think she's the bee's knees.
> I suppose, if you're still tied up in the LOVE CONQUERS ALL thing,
> you might deny the corrupting influence of money on your decision
> processes. For myself, I like to know just how much it's affecting
> my decisions, and compensate accordingly.
>
I'm not going to deny that it's *easier* to date someone who makes about as
much as I do. That way neither of us has to compromise our lifestyles for
the other. On the other hand, though, I *earned* my portion of the house
I just sold, and it meant that much more to me. I'm currently living in
a house that I don't own, and it just isn't the same.
My pride isn't in what I own. My pride is in what I can and have earned.
I've gotten a hell of a long way on no degree, and nobody's *given* that
to me. A lot of wonderful people have guided me along the way, but I made
the journey myself.
Bill de Beaubien
] I asserted earlier that "money can't buy you love", and I haven't
]completely backed down from that stance, but I'll agree that in the
]real world, people tend to find relationships within their own
]income range. There's some flexibility downward, generally not too
]much upward, but for the most part you will tend to find your SO's
]within the same social class.
Actually, the flexibility downward and the flexibility upward are exactly
equal. They have to be, since downward for one person in a relationship
is upward for the other. Even if you get into group marriages, it'll
average out...
] Jim Kasprzak kasp...@mts.rpi.edu (internet)
] RPI, Troy, NY user...@rpitsmts.bitnet
] "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -Rush
Bill
--
Bill de Beaubien / w...@moscom.com
cs354- Broward Horne
>Broward: why should it matter to *me* how much money you have? I'm not the
>type of person to decide to spend your money for you, and further, I'm quite
>capable of earning my own money, thank you!
>
The difference between us is, I don't deny that it *IS* a factor.
I want the world to be peaceful, happy, and everyone would get along.
IT"S NOT!!!!
Pretending or denying doesn't make it so.
>she's suggesting dates that she can't afford, and expecting you to pay
>for them, you're probably well rid of her, no?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
ONCE AGAIN, EXACTLY THE POINT!!!!!!!
Now answer honestly. If I was totally unaware of the situation
or foolishly believed it wasn't true, WOULD I EVER REACH THE
CONCLUSION I WAS WELL RID OF HER?????? HELL, NO!
I'd be like Mark, wanting the world to be what it SHOULD be
and getting stomped on, disillusioned, disappointed in the
process. I KNOW, I used to be like that. I got tired of it.
I didn't say YOU were like that. I said it *IS* a factor
to be aware of.
--
Broward Horne ' I'd rather be stuck in traffic '
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu -Jack McVax$, in
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu The Land That Progress Queued :)
cs354- Broward Horne
>
>
>But anyway. Sharon, do you think that gaining 75 pounds would affect
>your competitive position in the Courtship Game in any way? I bet you
>would probably say that gaining 75 pounds of bodyfat would reduce the
>number of men who want to date you. If you suggested that a majority
>of men found a woman's attractiveness to decline if she gained a lot
>of bodyfat, none of us would try to argue with you.
>
Godamn you, I wanted to say that! :)
Steven J Turnauer
>In <71...@uceng.UC.EDU> dmo...@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) writes:
>> If you suggested that a majority
>> of men found a woman's attractiveness to decline if she gained a lot
>> of bodyfat, none of us would try to argue with you.
>
>I think that no matter *what* you post to this group, *someone* will try to
>argue with you. 1/2 :-)
Oh, bullshit Larry. Can't you see how wrong you are?
:-), of course
Steve
--
*** I'm gonna find someone whose heart is in their soul/ Not just a ***
*** pretty face that leaves me in the cold/ Someone who really needs***
*** me like I needed her/ And if she should ever call, I'll be the ***
*** one who has it all! "(Could've Said) I Told You So" - Kon Kan ***
Greg Skinner
>>A question for the veritable peanut gallery too; if money is so important
>>how come so many poor people are happily married? How can someone who
>>has a minimum wage job (or less) "afford courtship"?
My response to this is that money is not an absolute requirement for
someone to be married. However money is a form of security, and there
are a lot of people in this world who look upon those with more money
as being better able to provide (financial) security (at least).
>I asserted earlier that "money can't buy you love", and I haven't
>completely backed down from that stance, but I'll agree that in the
>real world, people tend to find relationships within their own
>income range. There's some flexibility downward, generally not too
>much upward, but for the most part you will tend to find your SO's
>within the same social class.
I tend to agree with this statement. It is unfortunate, because some
good relationships might form if people could look past
socio-economic/political differences.
>Thus, poor people's lack of money is no hindrance in their finding
>relationships with other poor people.
Except in the case where the poor person being sought after is trying
to escape poverty. Such a person might consider a person with more
money as a more appropriate person to be in a relationship with.
(Also known as "marrying up")
Sure, you can find counterexamples to this rule. But I think if you
took a reasonably sized random sample of people in relationships, you
would find that the rule holds in the majority of cases.
--gregbo
Greg Skinner
>I thought the #1 cause of divorce was lack of communication.
Lack of communication is a major factor in divorce. But lack of money
can induce stress in a relationship, which can cause a breakdown in
communication, and result in divorce.
>I know two extremely wealthy families and they are
>both full of so much hatred and bitterness for each other and who is
>getting 5 cents more of the family fortune than the next member.
Certainly, there will be families that will fight among themselves for
control of the family money. But their situations tend to be
considerably different than those individuals who are on a more
day-to-day existence with their finances, going from week to week just
barely making enough to pay rent, buy groceries, etc. These people
can't save anything that could be fought over by their relatives.
Having money (ie. being able to put away some money) enables you to do
the following things:
* take a vacation every once in a while to get away from the stress of
day-to-day life
* afford to live in a nicer apartment/house in a nicer neighborhood
* afford to be able to send your kids (if you have kids) to a private
school, and/or buy them lots of books and other educational
materials to round out their educations
* get your car (if you own one) repaired on a timely basis, and get a
new car when you need it
* have repairs made on your house (if you have one) when it is needed
* save up for your children's (if you have them) college educations,
or go back to school yourself if you are so inclined
* many, many other things which poor people cannot do
Now I'm not saying that being able to do all these things is going to
guarantee that a relationship holds together. Certainly, there are
examples of marriages among people with considerable savings that have
failed. But I think for a good number of people money plays an
important part in the decision of who to be in a relationship with,
for the reasons I have stated above. Personally, I will take these
things into consideration if I get involved with someone who I think I
might want to spend the rest of my life with.
--gregbo
cs354- Broward Horne
>Broward Horne (paraphrased):
>>
>> (Women:) Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
>> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
>>
>> Which would *you* choose?
>>
>> (Men:) Given the choice of woman A, who doesn't expect
>> to work and identical twin, woman B, who supports herself,
>>
>> I choose B, every time.
>
>I would too most likely. However, the two comparisons are really not
>comparable. In the first its a choice between two people based on what they
>have (money) while in the second its a choice between two people based on
>what they do (support themself or not).
>
Touche! I applaud you. You're absolutely right. They aren't
comparable after all. You're the only one who seemed to even
get the point here.
Astounding how many people misinterpreted this example.
You get an 'A', Chris.
I can see I need to refrain from abstract thinking. :)
Most people would choose to think that money is unimportant because
that's the way it *SHOULD* be. Look, I even subconciously modified
my argument, myself. Thank you, Broward, for making my case for me.
David A Keldsen
>CowPatti
Congratulations, *now* you are a net.goddess.
Dak
--
David A. 'Dak' Keldsen of SoftQuad, Inc. email: d...@sq.com phone: 416-963-8337
"Just roll the dice and accept this as a tragic turn of events, OK?"
-- Calvin
Dave Eisen
>In article <22...@well.sf.ca.us> s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
>>But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
>>for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
>
>However, a man with money today can be flat broke tomorrow. He can do
>this without changing very much, in some circumstances. Conversely,
>a man living in abject squalor could win the lottery. I don't think
>that in the several seconds that elapse while he rips open the envelope,
>too much about him changes other than his financial situation.
I'll through my vote in with Sharon on this one.
The point is that money per se isn't really the issue. I don't think
that winning the lottery would improve a man's chances with any but
a small fraction of women. I don't think it would be much more of
an advantage than a woman's winning the lottery would be helpful
in attracting men.
So money isn't the point. Why do men with more money seem to do
better with women, even to the point where many male posters say
that women turned them down because they didn't have enough of it?
I contend that the point is that the same traits that make one attractive
to women (intelligence, assertiveness, social skills, strength of
character, ...) are amply rewarded in the workplace so the men that
are more appealing tend to have more money.
Of course, there is a flip side to all of this. Money is one of
the ways (in some ways, the only meaningful way) for people in
our society to be rewarded for "winning" the competition thing
males of all species are involved in. So the traits that will make
one money are the ones that lead one to be the dominant male are the
ones that make one attractive.
Take your pick as to how cause and effect work here.
--
Dave Eisen There's something in my library
1447 N. Shoreline Blvd. to offend everybody.
Mountain View, CA 94043 --- Washington Coalition Against Censorship
(415) 967-5644 dke...@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU
Nick Szabo
[re: women who are attracted by money]
>It's refreshing, in a way, to hear of cases where the guys are doing the
>same thing to women as vice-versa. But it's sad, too. This sort of
>thing shouldn't happen AT ALL.
That's almost like saying "reality shouldn't happen at all." I don't
see anything wrong with love being influenced by "material things".
I wouldn't appreciate love being *faked* in the pursuit of my money,
as perhaps occured with the widow-marraige artist, but that is a different
story.
--
Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter...
Chris Andersen (The Dangerous Guy)
>s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
>>
>>But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
>>for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
>
>your competitive position in the Courtship Game in any way?
I've heard this type of question asked many times and have always been bothered
by it. I think I know now why: it ignores the fact that traits are
interelated. When one aspect of a person changes, that change usually causes
varying degrees of change on other aspects of that person. When something
about a person changes (in this case their weight) its often indicitive of
a change somewhere else in their body or mind (the old principle of cause and
effect).
Therefore, when you talk about an aspect of a person changing while others
remain constant you are describing an artificial scenario which has no bearing
on reality. When one thing changes, lots of things change. Therefore it is
very difficult, if not impossible, to judge if a change in Sharon's body is
the real reason why people might act differently around her (maybe her sudden
weight gain would turn her into a moody bitch (no offense Sharon)).
>I bet you would probably say that gaining 75 pounds of bodyfat would reduce
>the number of men who want to date you.
>...
>This is how men feel about money (and a lot of other things). Are both
>of us wrong?
But this doesn't tell us if the loss of popularity was directly attributable
to the weight gain or money loss. It could be that those changes, being
most likely unpleasent ones, would make us more depressed and people in
general don't like being around depressed people. Therefore more people,
in general, would avoid you.
Not because you are fatter or are poorer but because you just aren't "fun"
to be around.
Dave Eisen
>that's where it was) where a man took several rich widows for all that they
>had. I can't believe that he is totally unique. To a lesser degree perhaps,
>but still evident, money is an attractor to *both* sexes.
>
Two different issues here.
The man who defrauded these women wanted their money, he probably had
little or no interest in the women. The money made him interested in
their money. In the reverse situation, the money would make women
more interested in the man himself.
Jeff Beck
Things like great sex, lots of money, etc. never guarantee that a
relationship will turn out well, but the lack of them sure can
create lots of problems.
--
******************************************************************************
* Jason Bold - Madison,WI= [(rutgers||ames)!uwvax||att!nicmad]!astroatc!bold *
* "A strawberry mind, a body that's built for two" - Michael Hedges *
******************************************************************************
Kenn Barry
I'd like to volunteer to test this "money can/can't
buy love" business. Howzabout you thousands of readers out
there take up a collection, and send me a few mil? I promise
I'll post a summary of how it affects my sex life.
Kayembee
cs354- Broward Horne
>"So and so has more money." So and so may be a tightwad who never wants to
>do anything because it costs money. People aren't fruit flies or lab rats;
>it isn't easy to divorce *one* trait from the person as a whole.
Okay, I get it now. I'm not saying woman look only at money. I'm saying
it is a factor, much of the time, perhaps large, perhaps small.
In fact, up until a few years ago, money was *relatively*
unimportant to me.
It has become more important because I have come to realize
that it is so DAMN important to everyone else, and the lack thereof
was cutting down my chances with women.
--
Broward Horne ' WIN .. Or Die! '
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu - Jack McVax$, in a previous life
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu
Greg Skinner
>that anyone I date or marry is going to give me any money at all.
Your (collective 'you') SO may not hand money over to you directly,
but you can benefit from the fact that he has money. For example, you
can afford to live in a house in a nicer neighborhood, you can afford
to have modern appliances, you can afford to send your kids to nicer
schools and/or provide them with things that will enhance their
upbringing, like dancing lessons (if you have kids), get better
medical care, and so forth.
Not all people who "marry up" are looking to grub money off of their
spouses, but they are concerned with the kind of lifestyle they will
lead as they get older. "Marrying up" can increase the comfort level
at which you live, even if you are not getting access to the actual
cash.
/* possible generalization follows */
Another side to this discussion: by involving oneself in social
activities, one can increase the likelihood that one will find an SO.
But for the poor person who must work two jobs and (if they have kids)
provide their own day care or sitters, there will be less opportunity
for social (non-work) contact, because they'll be too tired to go out
and do anything.
--gregbo
The New Regime
} In the past 2 years, I've had 3 chances at 3 women who owned houses.
I'm a homeowner. I *used* to have money. :-) Former home owners have money.
It also reduces your freedom to do things like go places on weekends because
you can't call the landlord to "get the plumbing fixed". You might find
that you won't have as many "chances" with a woman that owns a house
because in reality the bank owns the house and the house owns her.
} I'm not hypocritical enough to say it had NO effect on my thoughts.
} And *my* primary drive is independence, not money, status, etc.
} ( pretty obvious from the CS-354 heading, huh? :) )
No it's not because I doubt that many of us know what CS-354 is. I'm
assuming that it's a Computer Science class but considering a significant
number of people on the net are either enrolled in CS classes or have taken
CS classes it really doesn't give us any insight into what your drives are.
} For myself, I like to know just how much it's [money] affecting
} my decisions, and compensate accordingly.
Interesting choice of words...
--
John Fereira | jo...@lynx.com |
Lynx Real-Time systems | or | Ask me about my vow of silence.
Trendy Los Gatos, Ca. | uunet!lynx!john |
Chuck Linsley
-s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
->[Attribution lost] writes:
->> Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
->> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
->> Which would *you* choose?
->But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
->for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
-I agree. I mean, why does one have money, and one not? That's one difference
-right there. Did their rich uncle like one of them better than the other?
-Or is one just luckier playing lotteries?
Maybe he just won the lottery yesterday, and the different
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: Barber's 22nd Rule of Relationships (12/24)
Summary:
Expires:
References: <1991Jan3.0...@menudo.uh.edu- <22...@well.sf.ca.us> <1991Jan7.2...@sapphire.idbsu.edu> <22...@well.sf.ca.us> <16...@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Sender:
Reply-To: chu...@chips.com (Chuck Linsley)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Chips and Technologies, San Jose, CA
Keywords:
te...@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Teri Miller) writes:
-s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
->[Attribution lost] writes:
->> Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
->> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
->> Which would *you* choose?
->
->But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
->for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
-
-I agree. I mean, why does one have money, and one not? That's one difference
-right there. Did their rich uncle like one of them better than the other?
-Or is one just luckier playing lotteries? But, if they were truly identical,
-they would have played the same lottery with the same numbers, and split the
-prize. Further, if the experiences of the two are identical, even
-though one has money and the other doesn't (which is the only way they
-*could* be identical, differing experiences cause personalities that differ)
-then it wouldn't matter which one I chose, since they would be leading
-identical lifestyles. After all, if they did anything differently from
-one another, like living in a nicer house or hanging around with different
-friends, they would become different.
Maybe the played the game where the lottery computer picks the numbers
for you, and he just won yesterday, so the financial difference hasn't
existed long enough to cause a significant difference in experiences.
Maybe he's a stingy SOB (i.e., they both are) and won't share the money
with his brother. Maybe you don't really want either of them. ;-)
Chuck
chu...@chips.com
Greg Bullough
>>
>>
>>> Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
>>> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
>>> Which would *you* choose?
>>
>>But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
>>for the fact that one has money and one doesn't.
>
>I agree. I mean, why does one have money, and one not? That's one difference
>right there. Did their rich uncle like one of them better than the other?
>Or is one just luckier playing lotteries? But, if they were truly identical,
>they would have played the same lottery with the same numbers, and split the
>prize.
These folks, it seems, are trying to say "but two people won't be identical."
Okay, that's true. But the point of the experiment is to prove the questioner's
point that money, perhaps, could make a difference. It strikes me that an awful
lot of people are going to an awful lot of trouble to discredit the question,
but aren't really answering the question "what would you do?"
So I'll take a crack at it.
My first answer is "I'd choose the (woman) I fell in love with." And there
could be a lot of factors there, like which one I met first, or which one
responded to me more closely.
"But," you say, "they are IDENTICAL, which means you met them at the same
time." And I answer, "but maybe THEY'RE different financial conditions
result in different responses to me." But I'll give you that one.
Then I'll say "I have a problem." "Can I choose *both*?" I mean, maybe
the wealthy one can support all three of us in the style to which...
Alright, I'll be serious.
Fact is, while they may be identical, no two relationships are ever identical.
Thus I'll choose the one with which I have the better relationship.
Now if that's the poor one, good. If it's the wealthy one... ...better.
You see, I've just admitted that financial stability is a Good Thing(tm).
It's not a deciding factor. It's a sort of bonus. A nice surprise (I
know what I'm talking about here). And it will shape, and, in its way,
"enrichen" the relationship.
There's nothing wrong with being able to say "I'd still love you if you
were as poor as a church mouse, but I'm glad that you aren't."
Greg ==============================================
There once was a lawyer they called Mr. Slade
he had but few clients and they couldn't pay
at last of starvation he grew so afraid
that he courted and married a wealthy old maid
==============================================
Sharon Lynne Fisher
>Given the choice of woman B, who is of normal weight,
>and her identical twin, who is 75 pounds overweight and clinically
>obese,
> Which would *you* choose?
But they are *not* going to be identical! Additional, or less, weight aren't
factors that can be looked at in a vacuum. There's all sorts of other factors
that can be involved.
>But anyway. Sharon, do you think that gaining 75 pounds would affect
>your competitive position in the Courtship Game in any way? I bet you
>would probably say that gaining 75 pounds of bodyfat would reduce the
>number of men who want to date you. If you suggested that a majority
>of men found a woman's attractiveness to decline if she gained a lot
>of bodyfat, none of us would try to argue with you.
But I wouldn't say that, because I don't know. A friend of mine weighs a
lot. Yet she's probably had more boyfriends than I do -- guys who wouldn't
or didn't go out with me, in fact. :-) I lost 40 pounds last year and my
boyfriend broke up with me. Yes, it would seem that more people are
interested
in dating me now than when I weighed more. But my self-image is better, I'm
older, had more experience, don't have a boyfriend -- so there's all sorts of
other factors to consider besides pure poundage.
Teri Miller
>>In article <22...@well.sf.ca.us> s...@well.sf.ca.us (Sharon Lynne Fisher) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Given the choice of man A, who is poor.
>>>> And his identical twin, man B, who is rich,
>>>> Which would *you* choose?
>>>
>>>But this is *stupid*. Two people are *not* going to be identical except
>Fact is, while they may be identical, no two relationships are ever identical.
>Thus I'll choose the one with which I have the better relationship.
>
>Now if that's the poor one, good. If it's the wealthy one... ...better.
>
>You see, I've just admitted that financial stability is a Good Thing(tm).
>It's not a deciding factor. It's a sort of bonus. A nice surprise (I
>know what I'm talking about here). And it will shape, and, in its way,
>"enrichen" the relationship.
>
Ah, but the one thing that I'm seeing assumed here is that she will share
the money with you! Will she really?
That's really what bothers me about that type of question. I don't figure
that anyone I date or marry is going to give me any money at all. My current
SO and I pay for everything equally. If he had 10 million dollars in the bank,
it wouldn't make me a whit richer or more financially secure, because it's
*his* money. If he chose to make me a gift of it, or if he chose to put
it in an account we could both draw on and asked me to go ahead and help
him spend it, fine. But I don't just *assume* that any rich boyfriend is
bounty just waiting for my itchy little fingers.
I'd rather trust myself to provide financial stability. He could leave
me at any time. He could spend us into a hole. He could die and leave
it all to his canary. But if *I* earn it, if I save it, if I invest it,
it's there for me to enjoy at my whim. (Assuming, of course, it's not
invested poorly, stolen - you get my drift, right?)
A rich SO comes with none of the benefits, IMHO, of my having earned the
wealth myself, and all of the drawbacks of: differing lifestyles, differing
expectations, possible distrust ("Is she just after me for my money?"),
not to mention other women who will view him as "financial security" and
try to get their hooks into him. Personally, I don't think there are as
many of those as some men claim, but they do exist, and they can get
vicious.
I prefer to sit on my own toasty bankbook, and enjoy the freedom to save
it, or spend it, as I see fit, no strings attached. I busted my buns for
it, and I'll enjoy it. And, yes, some people might think it's stingy,
but mine is the only name on that account, and I think that's entirely
appropriate.
cs354- Broward Horne
>
>most likely unpleasent ones, would make us more depressed and people in
>general don't like being around depressed people. Therefore more people,
>in general, would avoid you.
All this dancing around the subject, bringing up rationalizations
and specific examples to avoid facing the fact that people are
fallible. ( and you dance well, Sharon )
Here, I stand before you, and say, Yes, I DO consider money,
or earnings a factor.
Would I be less attracted to overweight woman? Yes, most of the
time. Are her chances of romantic success with me lessened? YES.
Maybe if I just agree that there is no problem,
then everything will be okay. Okay.
You're right. Money has absolutely no relevance in dating, or to
a potential partner. And now that I think about it, virtually
all of the overweight women I've overlooked, really DID have
bad personalities. I guess it wasn't the weight after all.
Do you agree with my newfound knowledge, Chris and Sharon?
--
Broward Horne "That's it, man. Game over"
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu -Pvt. Hudson
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu
cs354- Broward Horne
In article <85...@lynx.UUCP> jo...@lynx.UUCP (John Fereira) writes:
>} And *my* primary drive is independence, not money, status, etc.
>} ( pretty obvious from the CS-354 heading, huh? :) )
>
>No it's not because I doubt that many of us know what CS-354 is. I'm
>assuming that it's a Computer Science class but considering a significant
>number of people on the net are either enrolled in CS classes or have taken
>CS classes it really doesn't give us any insight into what your drives are.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious. I could have one of the neat headings
like IBM, or DEC, but ultimately it wasn't it worth it for me.
>
>} For myself, I like to know just how much it's [money] affecting
>} my decisions, and compensate accordingly.
>
>Interesting choice of words...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How we *do* learn about ourselves, huh? Ouch!
Actually I would never have chosen ' Independence ' as my main concern
in a million years, until I ran a computer evaluation program this year.
Then it asked me a series of questions involving value decisions.
At the end, out popped ' Independence ', in the top THREE slots.
I said, ' What bullshit ', and ran it again. Boop, out popped
independence in the top three slots.
I questioned my family and friends about this, and they thought
it so obvious, they had never mentioned it.
--
'Finally, I headed northward towards the border,
Broward Horne and my only hope of survival.
ho...@sapphire.idbsu.edu A freeway, out of Los Angeles'
an...@cleveland.freenet.edu - Jack McVax$, 1990 :(
Kevin Brown
>In article <1991Jan9.0...@menudo.uh.edu> ke...@nuchat.UUCP (Kevin Brown) writes:
>[re: women who are attracted by money]
>>It's refreshing, in a way, to hear of cases where the guys are doing the
>>same thing to women as vice-versa. But it's sad, too. This sort of
>>thing shouldn't happen AT ALL.
>
>That's almost like saying "reality shouldn't happen at all." I don't
>see anything wrong with love being influenced by "material things".
>I wouldn't appreciate love being *faked* in the pursuit of my money,
>as perhaps occured with the widow-marraige artist, but that is a different
>story.
I was referring to the fact that there are women who will take men to the
cleaners, and men who will take women to the cleaners. NOT the fact that
some women will pursue men who have money and vice-versa (though that *is*
unfortunate because I don't have huge sums of money ;-).
>Nick Szabo sz...@sequent.com
--
Kevin Brown
Addresses in preferred order:
csci...@cl.uh.edu
nuchat!ke...@uunet.uu.net
Sharon Lynne Fisher
>No, but they can be equivalent in desirability except for that
>trait. Or maybe the rich one can be just a bit more callous, or
>maybe quite a little...
I don't agree. You can never find two people who are equivalent *except*
for one trait. Saying otherwise is like those physics experiments that
ignore friction, gravity, and all sorts of factors -- and then don't map
to reality.
Kevin Brown
>Kevin Brown responds to my comment:
>
>>> ... [I] suggest that there are a number of other things that can also
>>> assist in the quest for love, like honesty, compassion, self-confidence,
>>> a sense of fun, attractiveness, etc etc.
>
>with:
>
>> ... I expect that an excess of one trait (e.g., money) can make up to
>> some extent for the lack of some other trait.
>
>Which is fine, but then immediately below it, he says:
>
>> Perhaps because people with less have to settle for "less", and thus
>> they do just that?
>
>Interesting how we've reached a typical value judgement based on
>someones earning potential/reality. "less" is clearly more than
>just an indicator of financial status, to me, at least.
Clearly. But most people settle for what they can get, and what they can
get is going to be determined by a combination of the value that they
perceive in another and the value that another sees in them. If money
is a factor in determining how attractive a man will initially appear to
a woman, then she will go for the richest man available, all other things
being equal. But that's the catch: while money may be a factor for her, it
is not the only one. How IMPORTANT the money factor is will vary with the
individual.
So the only people who are making value judgements are the ones who are
looking for a mate. Generally speaking, unless person (a) finds person
(b) attractive, and vice-versa, no relationship will be formed, regardless
of how wonderful their personalities may be. Initial attraction is
generally a requirement.
Were this not the case, then the "friendship to romance" thing would be a
LOT more common than it is. After all, most people think that their
friends have wonderful personalities and are kind, compassionate, etc.
Clearly, something else is necessary for a relationship to happen. Most
people call it "magic" or some such thing. I call it attraction.
>I stick with my original comment; people with all possible combinations
>of positive and negative traits can succeed in finding a compatible mate.
Sure. I did not say anything about whether the given mate that someone
ends up with is compatible or not. Compatibility can be viewed as the
lower bound of acceptability. If someone is acceptable to another, and
vice versa, then they are compatible. However, that someone is acceptable
does not imply that someone is the best one can get.
>The differentiator is how fast, how painless, and how successful they
>are. And that, I believe, is based on what they're like and how they
>live their life. Nothing at all to do with money, which, for any sort
>of longer term relationship, doesn't even go that far towards compensating
>for lack of compassion, honesty, etc.
Right. I do not claim that the more money one has, the longer the
relationship will last (though there may be some people for whom this
is the case). I claimed that a male who has a lot of money has a
higher probability of finding "love" than someone who doesn't, on average.
This is because the male with lots of money will have a greater selection
of women to choose from, because there are quite a few women (it seems) for
whom money IS a factor in determining how attractive they find someone
initially.
The traits that determine initial attraction are, at best, a subset of
the traits that make or break a relationship. You cannot say that you
are attracted to someone because of their wonderful personality when you
don't know that person yet. Such knowledge comes AFTER the formation of
the relationship (of one sort or another), not before.
>As for me, well, I'd much rather go out with someone that was fun, honest,
>intelligent, and compassionate than someone that was wealthy...and have
>always tended to use those criteria for dating... ('sides, if they can't
>handle my perverse sense of humour, then we're doomed from the start!)
How are you going to determine whether someone is fun, honest, intelligent,
and compassionate before you go out with them (at least as friends)?
If you can't, then it's some other thing that determines which new people
you decide to try to get to know better, right?
> -- Dave Taylor
Steven J Turnauer
Ok, the check's in the mail.
Greg Skinner
> I think you have it backwards. If a man felt that he should buy
>his wife a diamond ten year anniversary band for their 10th anniversary,
>but felt stressed because he did not have enough money to do it, would the
>stress have been caused because of lack of money or lack of
>communication.
Lack of money is inducing stress in the man here. But the real cause
of his stress is lack of self-esteem.
> If instead, he went to his wife and said "honey, I would really like
>to buy you a diamond ten year anniversary band, but I can't afford it", she
>may suggest some alternatives, or she might say, "I am not really that keen
>on an anniversary band, why don't we take a vacation alone for two weeks,
>instead".
If the man feels that somehow he is "not man enough" because he can't
afford to buy his wife an anniversary band, he may not listen to his
wife's suggestions, and/or internalize his own anger for not being
able to afford the band. This will lead to a breakdown in
communications. Repeated episodes of this type could lead to divorce.
True, if he'd just go along with his wife, he might no longer need to
feel stressed. But his stress really has nothing to do with his wife.
It is all inside of him because he feels he needs to prove himself (to
her, and perhaps to other family members, friends, etc.). Having
money would make him feel less stressed (in that area at least).
Obviously, this guy's got a problem, which probably isn't just limited
to lack of money. But lack of money exacerbates the problem.
> I think clear consistent communication is the basis of every
>relationship (even one with ourselves!).
I think clear consistent communication is necessary for both partners
to have a fulfilling relationship. I also agree that it is scary to
accept that you are inadequate in some areas. But there are people
that do not have a good grip on handling their inadequacies, and take
them into their marriages hoping that nothing will happen that will
reveal their inadequacies. Unfortunately things do happen and
sometimes people get divorced because of them.
--gregbo
Sundar Varadarajan
g...@CS.UCLA.EDU (Greg Skinner) writes:
> Lack of communication is a major factor in divorce. But lack of money
> can induce stress in a relationship, which can cause a breakdown in
> communication, and result in divorce.
Greg,
I think you have it backwards. If a man felt that he should buy
his wife a diamond ten year anniversary band for their 10th anniversary,
but felt stressed because he did not have enough money to do it, would the
stress have been caused because of lack of money or lack of communication.
If instead, he went to his wife and said "honey, I would really like
to buy you a diamond ten year anniversary band, but I can't afford it", she
may suggest some alternatives, or she might say, "I am not really that keen
on an anniversary band, why don't we take a vacation alone for two weeks,
instead".
I think clear consistent communication is the basis of every
relationship (even one with ourselves!). Often we don't know what each of us
wants. Sometimes we do and deceive ourselves otherwise, e.g. I really like
writing, and I hate being an assistant, but I am happier because I make more
money.
Self discovery and accepting responsibility is always a scary process,
because we have to accept that we are inadequate in one way or another and
we would like to believe we are perfect. But I digress ...
Sundar Varadarajan
sun...@hpda.hp.com
Dave Eisen
>
>It also reduces your freedom to do things like go places on weekends because
>you can't call the landlord to "get the plumbing fixed". You might find
>that you won't have as many "chances" with a woman that owns a house
>because in reality the bank owns the house and the house owns her.
>
All of this house stuff is one of things like marriage that I don't think
I'll ever understand. It seems to me that you are presenting all kinds
of fabulous reasons (all of them incredibly true among my
non-independently-wealthy friends who own houses) to live in an apartment.
I never did like raking leaves.
My girlfriend disagrees sharply with me on this issue. We've had a
discussion or two about it...
--
Dave Eisen The author is not advising:
1447 N. Shoreline Blvd. "when in doubt, knock her out."
Mountain View, CA 94043 Shaharazad Ali in The Blackman's Guide to
(415) 967-5644 Understanding the Blackwoman.
Dave Eisen
>the money with you! Will she really?
>
>That's really what bothers me about that type of question. I don't figure
>that anyone I date or marry is going to give me any money at all. My current
>SO and I pay for everything equally. If he had 10 million dollars in the bank,
>it wouldn't make me a whit richer or more financially secure, because it's
>*his* money. If he chose to make me a gift of it, or if he chose to put
>it in an account we could both draw on and asked me to go ahead and help
>him spend it, fine. But I don't just *assume* that any rich boyfriend is
>bounty just waiting for my itchy little fingers.
>
But it makes a difference.
My girlfriend keep our money entirely separate, she has no more interest
in combining finances than I do and she has things like big student loans
to pay off keeping her strapped a little tighter than I am.
But if one of us lost eir job, I suspect the other would loan em money
and make sure things go OK for the unemployed one. I don't see myself
joining the ranks of the homeless, she wouldn't let that happen.
And that is *exactly* the kind of reason people who aren't openly
sleazebuckets like to be involved with someone with some money --- they
know they'll be taken care of and that's a nice feeling.
Dave Eisen
>[]
Kenn --
Give me a call when this all comes through...
Big Dave