Attraction to Money and Materialism

[njtosd]

[quote=Happs], it’s an easy introduction line that’s commonplace and complementary.

.[/quote]

It’s a line that presupposes that women who are minding their own business are interested in the opinions of random (usually unappealing) men walking by. Compliments are only compliments if you respect the source ….

[scaredyclassic]

this guy was a dweeb with no game; “duh, you pretty”.

not funny, not partiularly confident, just exudes utter lameness.

she expressed no interest initally because he was a dullard.

[NotCranky]

Water seeks its own level. Plenty of good men and women…even the kids today you can kind of see who will make good partners and who is a disaster. Of course there are always some surprises.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhhh, kev?? In CA, you have to be married for ten years to be eligible for any alimony at all. [/quote]

Uhhh, wtf? Absolutely not true!

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art33
[/quote]

svelte, you didn’t read (or understand) my sentence correctly. A marriage is considered of “long duration” in CA if it has exceeded ten years in length. It has nothing to do with how long SS is paid after a divorce as discussed in your article.

see: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/FAM/1/d9/3/2/s4320

Yes, in CA, the court typically retains jurisdiction over a long-term marriage but, practically speaking, a SS payor can (and, more often than not, does) return to court after half the length of the marriage has elapsed post judgment and successfully greatly reduce or eliminate SS. The purpose of SS payments to a non-disabled spouse is to better equalize living conditions between the parties until the lesser-earning spouse can educate themselves for employment and/or advance to a better paying job. SS was never meant to fully support a (voluntarily or involuntarily) unemployed spouse for life while the payor-spouse works FT on up past retirement age to make his/her SS payments into oblivion. CA is a no-fault divorce state and thus doesn’t have “punitive alimony” to be paid to a “victim” of infidelity, for example. The only time in CA when the amount of a SS award is (temporarily) punitively set is when a the payor-spouse pled guilty to or was recently convicted of domestic violence against the payee spouse and the payee spouse suffered prolonged physical, emotional or mental injuries from that DV incident and also makes less than the payor spouse.

The family law attorneys I’ve seen in action representing higher-earning spouses and/or parents in CA who are getting divorces or are sued for paternity fight tooth and nail for lesser SS and CS and nearly ALWAYS fight for their 50%+ timeshare with the child(ren) and receive it. And, believe me, they don’t mind coming back post-judgment for modifications to everything.

I’m not an attorney but my advice to anyone getting a divorce in CA is to make a private deal with your spouse immediately before or after filing for divorce and be willing to take vehicles, RE, cash, stocks, a portion of your spouse’s retirement account IN LIEU of monthly SS payments, if at all possible. Anything could happen to a SS payor’s job or they could suffer long-term injuries, making a SS order virtually unenforceable.

I’ve known two SS payors here in SD County who inherited paid-off modest homes from a parent, then deeded those homes to their spouses while still married but legally separated so that their estranged spouse was considered a “family member” who was eligible to receive an Interspousal Transfer Deed and thus retain the old assessment and low property taxes, pursuant to a Prop 58 loophole. This enabled the long-term ex-spouse (unrelated to his/her deceased parent-in-law former owner) to live cheaply for life while they worked a low paying job and/or collected their pension. The payee spouse took it in lieu of SS and it was a smart decision for them.

GOOD LUCK getting a permanent spousal support award in CA in a dissolution of marriage of less than ten years duration. A judge MIGHT award temporary support while the case is being litigated and/or until an already-enrolled student SS payee finishes school.

I’ve seen several female judges in this county read the riot act to women domestic litigants before them, giving them short time frames to comply for failure to apply for employment when they didn’t have any of their own income. There’s a lot of misconception out there regarding SS and the presumption that one party be supported for life wholly by SS due to the seemingly constant barrage of sensational stories spewing from the MSM over celebrity divorces. Of course, these long-term marriages have many assets to divvy up, often including multiple real property holdings in two or more countries and royalty payments for life.

These CA divorces aren’t the same animal as Joe and Suzy 6p wage-earner(s) who have a mortgage, car payments and possibly minor children in the mix.

[UCGal]

[quote=FlyerInHi]One of my female friend was complaining to me that her husband looks like a slob all the time. She’s embarrassed to be seen with him. The guy is a good husband and earns a good living.

You can wear cheap h&m clothes and still look good. Just look neat and tidy.

Everyone wants curb appeal and pride of ownership.[/quote]
See – if she’d been a cougar and married a hot young (well dressed) stud – she’d have no complaints.

Now apply it to you comment below…

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]What’s wrong with being a “cougar?” (Woman who dates younger men.) As a early-30s guy, I actually prefer the company of women in their late 30s to mid 40s to my age or younger. Generally smarter, more together, and less goddamned boring than little ditzes in their 20s.

The more cougars, the better in my book.[/quote]

That means when you are 50, your wife will be 60+[/quote]

If some attractive older gal hooks up with spdrun,and they stick together… she’d probably not be complaining that he’s a slob later in life.

(Actually – since I don’t know spdrun – she might be… maybe he is a slob. LOL.)

[spdrun]

Actually, I’m rather sloppy.

[PCinSD]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhhh, kev?? In CA, you have to be married for ten years to be eligible for any alimony at all. [/quote]

Uhhh, wtf? Absolutely not true!

http://www.divorcenet.com/states/california/ca_art33
[/quote]

svelte, you didn’t read (or understand) my sentence correctly. [/quote]

What other way is there to read or understand that sentence? There is no ambiguity with what you stated. Svelte is right. It is 100% not true.

If you have a link for the law that supports that sentence I’d like to see it.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu][quote=FlyerInHi]One of my female friend was complaining to me that her husband looks like a slob all the time. She’s embarrassed to be seen with him. The guy is a good husband and earns a good living.

You can wear cheap h&m clothes and still look good. Just look neat and tidy.

Everyone wants curb appeal and pride of ownership.[/quote]

Brian, are you offering relationship tips again :)?[/quote]

I was thinking you guys were stretching a bit in the other thread regarding the FIH-Brian connection, but this post by FIH has eliminated any doubt. You are right, FIH is most likely brian.

One has to wonder if brian has ever even had a relationship with a woman, much less a successful one. No woman that I’ve ever known would knowingly date a guy who talks about women and relationships like brian does.

[CA renter]

[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI: Did I say anything about not having emotional connections with anyone else? Not having other friends would be boring, for sure.

But no, I couldn’t be married to and share a home with someone whom I didn’t have an emotional connection with. That would be a bit pointless.

This is not the 1700s. I’m not interested into marrying into another royal family or to get half the bride’s father’s herd of sheep.[/quote]

If every man thought like you do, spdrun, the divorce rate would be halved. You’re looking for the right things, and I think you’ll be exceedingly happy with the outcome.

IMHO, most marriages fail because people are focused on the looks/money thing when searching for a mate. If people would focus on character, common beliefs, personality, etc., most marriages and families would be far better off.

Guys who set out in search of “hot-looking” women should not be the least bit surprised to find that many of those women will be looking for very wealthy men. Superficial people will attract other superficial people.

[all]

[quote=CA renter]
One has to wonder if brian has ever even had a relationship with a woman, much less a successful one. [/quote]

Successful relationship with a woman, or a relationship with successful woman?

[earlyretirement]

Reminds me of this from a few years ago:

THIS APPEARED ON CRAIG’S LIST

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City , so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 100 – 150. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 150,000 won’t get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

– Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won’t hurt my feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I’m 25)?

– Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain? I’ve seen really ‘plain jane’ boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I’ve seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What’s the story there?

– Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows – lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

– How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults – I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them – in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.

——————–

THE ANSWER

Dear Pers-:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here’s how I see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity…in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain, you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold…hence the rub…marriage. It doesn’t make good business sense to “buy you” (which is what you’re asking) so I’d rather lease. In case you think I’m being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It’s as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as “articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful” as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn’t found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn’t need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you’re going about it the right way. Classic “pump and dump.”

I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

[spdrun]

Lol.

First problem:
“Not from NY.”
Second problem:
Thinking that a million bucks a year is middle class in NYC.

Looks like a big hag of fail got schooled, hard 🙂

[Happs]

Good point, but do you think if the guy in the video said an introductory remark that was more erudite, philosophical or academic, and unrelated to looks that he would have had any interest from the woman?

[CA renter]

[quote=Happs]Good point, but do you think if the guy in the video said an introductory remark that was more erudite, philosophical or academic, and unrelated to looks that he would have had any interest from the woman?[/quote]

I’m probably not a “typical” woman, but a clever, intelligent comment would definitely make a better impression on me than the line this goof made when the girl first approached him.

What’s funny is that when I told my DH about this video and the guy’s initial comment, my DH didn’t understand why that would be a turn-off, either. I tried to explain that a line like, “I think you’re beautiful; would you like to go out sometime?” is awfully close to a woman telling a man, “You look like a successful, wealthy man; would you like to go out sometime?”

As mentioned above, a man who focuses on a woman’s looks should expect nothing less than a woman who focuses on a man’s wealth/power. That trade is as old as humankind, whether we like it or not.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=CA renter]

As mentioned above, a man who focuses on a woman’s looks should expect nothing less than a woman who focuses on a man’s wealth/power. That trade is as old as humankind, whether we like it or not.[/quote]

We seem to be in agreement. As someone said before they deserve each other.

Now, if we were to do an experiment and have an older woman ask a young surfer dude for dinner at the beach, I expect he would say yes. It’s free dinner.

[Author]

Posts