Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...

Forget marriage, now you can't even just live with them...

Author
Discussion

sugerbear

3,959 posts

157 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
F
supersingle said:
XJ Flyer said:
turbobloke said:
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.

Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment.
Basically there are too many men who leave themselves liable to this type of issue by thinking it is clever to use their material earning power as a pulling method.When the fact is that method is just likely to pull the wrong type of woman.While the right type will go for the total opposite approach and those that won't are the ones to stay away from.
There's a reason men use their wealth to pull women. It works!

There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...

I don't blame women at all. It's rooted in biology and they can't change that anymore than men can change their preference for slim waists and big t*ts.

The truth is we're wired up to cope with living in much simpler times before money, mass affluence or technology changed everything. We're just cavemen and cavewomen pretending to be civilised, some more successfully than others :grunt:
you are saying if it was a choice between Jimmy Saville with a 100million in his bank account and George Clooney living in a council flat in Dagenham that 100% of women would choose Sir Jimmy. Mmmmmm....

I think the judgement (if you anyone of the misogynists can be bothered to read it) is quite fair. Don't go luring people into your bedroom making them promises that impact on their long term wealth and expect a free pass when get bored and boot them out.

Red Devil

13,055 posts

207 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
There was also the action for criminal conversation, in which one man could sue another for seducing his wife. This reflected the notion of a woman as a species of property.
I've always been amused by the delicate understatement in 'conversation'. Rather more than just talking dirty! smile

It was not unusual in previous centuries and cases involving the posh set were always newsworthy. A famous English one occurred when George III's younger brother the Duke of Cumberland was actually caught 'at it' with the wife of Lord Grosvenor. The sum awarded to milord was over £1.5 million in today's money.

supersingle

3,205 posts

218 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
sugerbear said:
F
supersingle said:
XJ Flyer said:
turbobloke said:
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.

Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment.
Basically there are too many men who leave themselves liable to this type of issue by thinking it is clever to use their material earning power as a pulling method.When the fact is that method is just likely to pull the wrong type of woman.While the right type will go for the total opposite approach and those that won't are the ones to stay away from.
There's a reason men use their wealth to pull women. It works!

There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...

I don't blame women at all. It's rooted in biology and they can't change that anymore than men can change their preference for slim waists and big t*ts.

The truth is we're wired up to cope with living in much simpler times before money, mass affluence or technology changed everything. We're just cavemen and cavewomen pretending to be civilised, some more successfully than others :grunt:
you are saying if it was a choice between Jimmy Saville with a 100million in his bank account and George Clooney living in a council flat in Dagenham that 100% of women would choose Sir Jimmy. Mmmmmm....

I think the judgement (if you anyone of the misogynists can be bothered to read it) is quite fair. Don't go luring people into your bedroom making them promises that impact on their long term wealth and expect a free pass when get bored and boot them out.
I think you might just be misrepresenting my argument there a tad wink

Oh goody, I'm also a mysogynist too biggrin

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...
So if Mr Ecclestone had come along and waved his wallet, your dad would have been out on his ear?

I know (from her sister, who I suspect had engineered the thing and still thinks she was mad) that in the 70's when I was a small boy and my mother was a young divorcee staying with them in an expat community overseas, she turned down a very wealthy and titled chap in favour of someone potless back home. She's still married to him.

Impasse

15,099 posts

240 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
Oh goody, I'm also a mysogynist too biggrin
I do roll my eyes at times when that particular label is bandied about. I've no idea why some confuse cynicism, wariness and the desire to protect oneself both financially and emotionally with misogyny. They really are not the same things.

supersingle

3,205 posts

218 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
otolith said:
supersingle said:
There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...
So if Mr Ecclestone had come along and waved his wallet, your dad would have been out on his ear?

I know (from her sister, who I suspect had engineered the thing and still thinks she was mad) that in the 70's when I was a small boy and my mother was a young divorcee staying with them in an expat community overseas, she turned down a very wealthy and titled chap in favour of someone potless back home. She's still married to him.
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.

That doesn't mean they won't end up marrying a pauper or overlook a millionaire's raving pederasty. It just means that they are attracted to wealth in the same way that men are focused strongly on looks. There are very strong biological drivers for these urges.

I guess reality is a mysogynist too wink

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Saturday 18th October 2014
quotequote all
It's part of the package, but lots of things are. I love it that my wife works her arse off for a great, well paid career and doesn't want kids, but that's not the reason I married her.

Martin4x4

6,506 posts

131 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
I guess reality is a mysogynist too wink
We all are, well those that are not carpets anyway.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.
Dear gods I've read some stupid ste on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.

So.

In your opinion all women are just after (men's) money?

So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?

You sir are a pillock of the fist degree.

Edit: Actually you are not, what you are is a fking idiot.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Sunday 19th October 00:51

Red 4

10,744 posts

186 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Dear gods I've read some stupid ste on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.
You clearly haven't visited the SP&L section then.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
I wonder if Pistonheads would be so full of bitter ex-husbands of complete bhes if they chose their partners on more than just looks?

I think it would be great if the men who judge women on looks alone and the gold diggers were all to fk off and make each other miserable - though I suppose we would still be left with the poor but shallow and the greedy but ugly.

XJ Flyer

5,526 posts

129 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
XJ Flyer said:
turbobloke said:
The bit about "losing sight of the nature of the promise and the detrimental reliance" seems to assume aspects of the 'nature of the promise' that were not there.

Impasse said:
Yes, I read the judgement when the link was first posted. I didn't agree with the findings then and I don't now. It's a collection of ridiculous conclusions. 2+2 really does seem to equal 28500.
Understandable comment.
Basically there are too many men who leave themselves liable to this type of issue by thinking it is clever to use their material earning power as a pulling method.When the fact is that method is just likely to pull the wrong type of woman.While the right type will go for the total opposite approach and those that won't are the ones to stay away from.
There's a reason men use their wealth to pull women. It works!

There isn't a woman alive who isn't attracted to wealth. Many settle for poor men but if they had the choice...

I don't blame women at all. It's rooted in biology and they can't change that anymore than men can change their preference for slim waists and big t*ts.
Firstly there's not much point in fancying a woman with the hourglass figure if she hasn't got the personality to match it and if she's mainly in it for the money not love.While it is just as likely that wealth won't matter in a relationship that is just based on love as it is that a relationship based on wealth probably won't be based on love at least to the same degree.There seems to be enough wrecked marriages involving wealth which have broken up in massive alimony settlements to match to confirm that.

While plenty of ordinary working class ones based on love not money last the distance.Often to the point where the marriage doesn't actually end even with them being a widow because the women in question don't want anyone else but the man they married and stuck by through good times and bad for richer or for poorer.

The fact is using wealth to pull women might work in many cases but the odds are it will attract the wrong type of woman who's not in it for love but for money.



PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?
From the female bible:

What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own.

supersingle

3,205 posts

218 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
supersingle said:
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.
Dear gods I've read some stupid ste on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.

So.

In your opinion all women are just after (men's) money?

So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?

You sir are a pillock of the fist degree.

Edit: Actually you are not, what you are is a fking idiot.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Sunday 19th October 00:51
There's really no need to get so angry. Why don't you tell us why you disagree?

Until very recently marriage (for women) was primarily about finding a man who could provide for a family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman desiring that.

Pints

18,444 posts

193 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
supersingle said:
There's really no need to get so angry. Why don't you tell us why you disagree?

Until very recently marriage (for women) was primarily about finding a man who could provide for a family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman desiring that.
The requisite ability to provide for a family, as expected by the female of the species, will depend on her expectations of family life and her views on materialism.

Having ambition or wealth - as perceived by any number of women - may be as simple as not being a layabout tramp or the ability to afford a simple home.

sugerbear

3,959 posts

157 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
From the female bible:

What's yours is mine and what's mine is my own.
Oh for FFS, this would work equally if the shoe was on the the other foot. A man marries Miss Millionaires hotshot money bags, lives with her for ten years in a massive house, great lifestyle etc etc if the marriage breaksdown do you think that men would react differently, would they pack up with nothing and call it a day?

Nope, they wouldn't.


Edited by sugerbear on Sunday 19th October 07:22

supersingle

3,205 posts

218 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Pints said:
supersingle said:
There's really no need to get so angry. Why don't you tell us why you disagree?

Until very recently marriage (for women) was primarily about finding a man who could provide for a family. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a woman desiring that.
The requisite ability to provide for a family, as expected by the female of the species, will depend on her expectations of family life and her views on materialism.

Having ambition or wealth - as perceived by any number of women - may be as simple as not being a layabout tramp or the ability to afford a simple home.
If only people were satisfied with what they have! Unfortunately human nature dictates that we want MORE. Wealth is relative: We want more than someone else. That we might, (in absolute terms) have enough, doesn't seem to affect the way we are driven.

That was OK when we were cave dwellers but in the modern world it leads to all kinds of insanity.

JagLover

42,262 posts

234 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
supersingle said:
Women find wealth attractive. All of them. Bar none.
Dear gods I've read some stupid ste on this Forum but that just about takes the biscuit.

So.

In your opinion all women are just after (men's) money?

So, let me get this straight, women are not capable of earning money for themselves?

You sir are a pillock of the fist degree.

Edit: Actually you are not, what you are is a fking idiot.
He was not actually saying that, but it is one component of what virtually all women find attractive.

Look at what men find attractive, probably looks, personality, etc with wealth/income fairly low down the scale. With women it will again be a range of factors but wealth/income far more highly placed.


HenryJM

6,315 posts

128 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
JagLover said:
He was not actually saying that, but it is one component of what virtually all women find attractive.

Look at what men find attractive, probably looks, personality, etc with wealth/income fairly low down the scale. With women it will again be a range of factors but wealth/income far more highly placed.
I'd say the issue is that many men find rich women to be too daunting for them, many want to be the leader of the family, the money maker and find it very hard to cope with women who take that role themselves.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Attitudes to gender and money are often stuck in the past, as this thread perhaps indicates. I find it refreshing when a woman earns as much or more than me, and welcome the fact that this is becoming more commonplace than it used to be. I have never detected any interest in making a relationship merely transactional in any woman that I have gone about with.