Divorce...

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 28 2005, 12:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 28 2005, 12:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jan 28 2005, 09:58 AM

How long will she remain young, and still be a California 10? What happens when her beauty fades?

You're joking, right? California 10's beauty doesn't fade. It's just botoxed, nipped, tucked, waxed, peeled, and trained. Have you seen 50-something Goldie or Cher lately?

I dunno. The problem with plastic surgery is that it tends to show, so what you wind up with is a natural 10 in the over-50 category looking like a 5 trying to look like a 9, but ending up as a 7. I just have never much liked the over-nip-tucked look; it makes people look like their cheeks are stapled to their ears, as if they're walking into a 100 mph wind or pulling 6Gs in a jet fighter.

True beauty ages well with a minimum of regularly-scheduled maintenance.

[Writer_Chick1213]

But my point is, that if you're really serious about making a marriage work, don't wait until your wedding night to find out if you're sexually compatable. Certainly this is against what the church says, but I'm sure Heavenly Father would want us the marry the best person for us and stay with them rather than break our promises to each other because of a problem that both partners saw in a marriage that could have been taken care of before the marriage papers were signed.

What all of a sudden you can interpret what Heavenly Father wants better than the prophet? Thats arrogant of you.

And to address all the comments about how money and looks are what make a marriage work. Money gets spent and lost, looks fade, when your 90 and in a nursing home together your not going to care about any of that. Its love and respect that make a marriage work. Look at President and Sister Hinkley's marriage. I've seen plenty of marriages that are successful where the couple has next to nothing financially. Yes money makes it easier but it isn't a neccessity. And as for sex. It is ordained for a couple in the bounds of marriage as an expression of their love and a means of bringing children to the earth, not as a fullfillment of their carnal needs.

In the book True To The Faith it says:

"Remember that marriage in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other."

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 28 2005, 08:11 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 28 2005, 08:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 27 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 27 2005, 02:27 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 02:17 PM

I think you are stretching things a bit (maybe not as much as DisRuptive1, but still stretching things.)

I think women are only interested in taking you to the cleaners if she is poorly treated in lots of ways.  Or horribly treated in only one or two ways.  Many women want nothing more than to be "out".  They don't even want the money because that constantly reminds them of the absolute horrid conditions they lived under for so long.  Believe me, I speak from experience. 

Some men just think that anything a woman gets is too much.  Often a man encourages the woman to not work, to be an in-the-home worker, and when they mistreat the woman and the woman wants out, and enough money for support (since they no longer have marketable skills), they cry the blues.  But they are the ones that created that situation.

You haven't stated one single thing that you disagreed with me about.

All you refered to where the evils of ABUSE. Where did I advocate ANY abuse? I abhor abuse--there is no place for it in any relationship, and if it occurs, the partner should high tail it out of there yesterday?

Please address the things I said, state them specifically, and comment on them, not something I DIDN'T say.

Also, I'm not talking about what "SOME" men do--obviously there are SOME men who will do ANYTHING. Again, I don't advocate abuse, nor condone it.

Are you implying that to expect your wife to fulfill her role as a sexual partner to be an "abuse". Read again what PD had to say, he said it extremely well.

Cal, you made one gigantic sweeping stereotype of women that just doesn't hold water. I have never known any woman who married a man for his wallet. The point of my post was that the only time the wallet seems to be involved is when the woman is abused, and then, depending on the severity of the abuse, the wallet is of no use or of ultimate use. It would be helpful to speak to truths rather than stereotypes.

Jenda--first I'm not dealing with stereotypes, I'm dealing with what GENERALLY happens. Let me ask you, how often do you see a really classy HOT looking, young woman with a POOR guy? As a rule you don't. (of course there are exceptions). On the other hand, how often do you see really young hot chicks with ugly, but filty rich dudes---all the time.

Generally speaking, guys get as hot a chick as their walet can afford, and girls get as rich a guy as their looks will attract. That is the general truth--yes there are exceptions, but we're not talking about the exceptions, just the general reality.

Women hate to admit these truths. They say, "oh, I married him for his wonderful personality". Yeah, but if his wonderful personality hadn't included at least the potential for a wonderful bottomline it might have been a different story.

Now, fat ugly girls have to settle for what ever they can get, which may mean a nice, poor guy, with a great personality. Sorry for telling the truth ladies, but if you want to attract educated, successful guys, loose 70 lbs and learn to put on some makeup.

Jenda, the reason you haven't "heard" of any girls who marry for this reason is because they generally don't admit it out loud, especially to men. They are no fools. Just like men never admit that they mainly want great sex, first and what ever else comes second. Women want money first, and sex second.

Well, Cal, you must just hang out with the worst types of people because I have lived in many places and in all my life, I have only known one girl who I would call a gold-digger. Most of the people I know have married for love, and the size of the wallet played no factor. In fact, I have, more recently, heard of the opposite happening. Many men are looking for women to support them so they don't have to go out and get a job. I have heard men say this. "Man, why didn't you marry someone who could keep you?" It goes both ways.

Are there gold-diggers out there? Yes. Are they the majority of society? NO!

Jenda--how old are you? What percent of all the people out there do you know? There are studies out there that back up what I am saying. Guys who make a lot of money can hold out for the best looking women, and generally do. What you know about are some of the exceptions.

What difference does my age make? I will throw out, though, that I am three times married. The first time ended in divorce after my husband beat me several times and threatened me with my life. When it ended, all I wanted was out. I probably could have taken him to the cleaners, but every alimony check (if he ever bothered sending them) would have been a constant reminder of those few horrid years, and I wanted no part of that.

My second marriage ended, after supporting my husband through part of graduate school and post-doc years, as well as years of plenty because he had no idea what love was. We both worked and together we made a decent income. Good enough to live fairly comfortably in the NYC area. When it ended, I had no desire to take him to the cleaners because it would have cheated my daughter to do so, as we had joint custody.

Then I met my (present) husband. He was a nobody. He was a pilot who had dreams of becoming an airline pilot, but had just graduated from college and taught flying lessons for a living. That is not a real good living. I was still working. My husband got a job for a commuter line, and had to pay more for his training than he made the first year. After a few years, he moved on to the big airline. After 2 years there, he was furloughed back to the commuter airline, and just recently has been recalled to the big airline.

Oh, and BTW, I have lived and worked in Baltimore, MD, and NYC, NY, as well as various places in between.

So, let's look at your points. Having lived for long periods of time in big cities, and worked in places where I come in contact with lots of people, I can rightly say that I know lots of people.

Two. From my own personal experience, on two different levels (the marriage level and the divorce level), I would say that your analysis is completely off. Neither time did I try to exit the relationship better than I went in, although I had every right to, either from the way I was treated within the relationship, or because of supporting my husband through college, etc. As far as getting re-married to someone who could further my bank account, gee, your analysis falls pretty short there, too.

So, maybe you can provide some personal examples of how your observations prove your point. Because just throwing out generalizations just isn't working.

[pushka]

Phew! This topic is really flying now isn't it...I have been in touch with the original poster and it seems she was looking for opinions on Divorce from differing religions, perhaps not quite the answers she got here, but never mind, her talk topic has changed now...

Anyway...Thank you Strawberry for your remarks about my post...I am pleased to be reading and posting here more often again too...gives me plenty of food for thought.

Cal...I am very sorry if my comments offended you in any way...I am from the UK, so yes my experience of the USA way of life does come from the TV...I suppose if I watched enough of the old american soaps...Dynasty and Dallas for instance, I would agree with your assertions that people only marry for looks or money...

I am very sorry to hear the reason why you divorced your wife...she was indeed very shallow. The comment I glibly made 'no wonder you are divorced!', which I do realise sounds a little silly, was made assuming that you considered yourself to be a shallow person in that you only chose your wife because of her good looks...a bit of the old well you got what you deserved then...if you were not shallow, and didn't marry her just for that reason (which I assume you didn't) then of course you didn't get what you deserved, and I am sorry to have upset you. The comment was actually directed more towards disruptive and his photographs and captions!

I know that you did not mention abuse in your statements either...I was not saying that you did. The only reason I brought that up, and the wife-swapping etc. was to illustrate the reasons why my own marriage failed in spite of us having previously had a great sex life together...I felt that the things my husband started to demand were abusive.

It would be ideal for everybody approaching marriage to know that they were going to be sexually compatible...I am not against sex before marriage, however members of the LDS church are, so obviously this may be a problem that they face, and should try to overcome together. There may have been problems of sexual abuse against the wife before she met her partner which affect the way she is sexually, this ought to be discussed before they commit to each other I think though. Sometimes it is the man who has the lower sex drive...I have found this with 1 relationship at least...he was happy to just have sex every 3 months...I wasn't too happy with this but endured it and just cuddled and kissed him in the meantime...I didn't contemplate going off for one night stands, it all depends on who you are, how strong your commitment to one another is.

I just had a problem with the posts that Cal and DisRuptive made in general because they seemed to be laying all the problems within marriages at the feet of the wives rather than at the feet of both of the partners...if I have misunderstood your meanings in this respect then I apologise.

[DisRuptive1]

Men do try in marriages.

I do not believe, for any reason, that women DESERVE any kind of money should they get divorced, no matter how bad the relationship is. The reason is; imagine if you owned a car and were still paying car payments on it. Now let's say you got rid of it and sold it to some one else. Paying alimony is like paying car payments for a car you don't own anymore. And I feel alimony is sexist because a huge number of women get it compared with men.

[pushka]

DisRuptive, I can see where you are coming from here. When I divorced I did not expect to receive any payments for myself from my ex husband...it was mentioned by the solicitor that I could, but as far as I was concerned the only requirements were that we split equally the 'spoils' of the marriage, furniture, etc. and that he pay his maintenance money for the 2 children...in fact he never had to do that either because under our law if the children stay overnight with him 3 times a week this cancels out the requirement to pay maintenance...so I didn't come away with a windfall from my marriage...I do feel that once the man and woman have parted ways and all the commitments regarding the children have been sorted, what they then earn/don't earn is to do with as they will...the are completely independent from each other.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Jan 28 2005, 11:17 PM

Men do try in marriages.

I do not believe, for any reason, that women DESERVE any kind of money should they get divorced, no matter how bad the relationship is. The reason is; imagine if you owned a car and were still paying car payments on it. Now let's say you got rid of it and sold it to some one else. Paying alimony is like paying car payments for a car you don't own anymore. And I feel alimony is sexist because a huge number of women get it compared with men.

A lot of it depends on what the arrangement was within the marriage. If the husband and wife both worked, than IMO, unless one was grossly responsible for the problems in the marriage, things should be divided equally and no alimony should be set. However, if the husband has encouraged the wife to not work, which still happens in a significant number of households, then if a divorce happens, things should be split equally, and the husband should pay alimony since there was a decision for the wife not to work.

Decisions like this is what things like alimony is based on.

[DisRuptive1]

Yet the majority of cases still require the man to pay alimony, regardless of the situation of the woman. All the woman has to do is make less than her man and she can get alimony by arguing that her lifestyle won't be as luxurious as it was when she was married.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 28 2005, 10:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 28 2005, 10:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 26 2005, 06:43 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Becki@Jan 26 2005, 03:15 PM

Hiya,

I'm doing a talk on Divorce and wondered if I could get some opinions...

becki xxx :)

The only way to avoid it completely is not get married. Want any other pearls of wisdom. Short of that, things that lessen the likelihood........

1) Don't get married young (before 25 at least)--the worse advice I got from any LDS church leader was to hurry up and get married right after your mission. Church leaders REALLY need to STOP telling return missionaries to get married before they are through with their educations and get a career.

2) So, don't get married until you have your education (at least BA)--both men and women---and have been working at a career for a few years---financial trouble is the main cause of divorce.

3) Postponing marriage also allows you to get to know yourself and have experience with lots of personality types so you know what you want, and don't feel deprived of a fun singlehood.

4) Don't have kids for at least 5 years after you are married. Kids often ruin romance.

5) Women--give your husband sex whenever he wants it, and don't turn into a fat slob. Give him his way most the time, and he will reward you by actually letting you make most the decisions---NEVER, and I mean NEVER let him think that you expect to be in charge--and NEVER whine. Men HATE that---and if he is any kind of man, he will kick you to the curb the first time you do it. Don't pretend to be one way before marriage, and then change into something else after you snagg him--he will resent you for it. Expect that the guy is going to be an inconsiderate slob some of the time--accept it. If you can't don't marry him.

6) Men---make a lot of money, nothing else keeps women has happy as that. And be kind and polite to her, but don't lose your manly, independent edge. (In otherwords, don't let her cut your ________s off--let her know right off the top who is in charge--and stay in charge. If she starts nagging you while you are still dating, kick her to the curb quick. If she starts doing it after you are married---give her the ultimatum "knock it off, or I'm out of here".... and mean it.

Most important rule of all: Never try to change the person after you are married, accept the person COMPLETELY--short of actual abuse (which you should be able to notice BEFORE you get married--which is why you date them a LONG time before agreeing to marry)

This should get things rolling....

I actually agree with you Cal, 100%.

We shouldn't be telling people to get married and fill a nest they haven't even built yet. Even nature dictates preparation! And I agree women should give their men sex when ever they ask, but I also think a guy should not be so selfish as to ask when he knows his wife isn't in the mood or is tired from keeping his house clean and helping to bring home the bacon. And I think a guy should help with the housework and children when they come.

I think marriage has to be a partnership, not bipartisen(sp) like republicans and democrats who just try and put forth their own agenda and put down the other's.

I think marriages today are too much like politics and need to be totally revamped into something that works and benefits.

Yep--we do agree on that.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jan 28 2005, 09:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jan 28 2005, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 28 2005, 09:46 AM

Straw--you are a master of the strawman argument...imputing things to people that they have not said, and then arguing against that.

Where have I advocated kicking your spouse to the curb because they quit making money?  What I did say was, if a woman starts nagging you or makes it clear she is not interested in sex BEFORE you get married, that is when you kick her to the curb. Try to read more carefully before you respond.

Nevertheless, the reason you have no heard of women kicking a less attractive spouse to the curb is that generally speaking women don't marry for looks, they marry for money.

It is very sad to me that many men feel that they need a trophy wife to aid in their self esteem.

Why is it sad if a man that makes a lot of money can attract a really good looking woman? What is sad about that? It's just a matter of supply and demand. Unfortuately, it really ticks off the homely women, who can't attract a guy who makes a lot of money--and so they resent it and have to go make their own money. I'm not saying this is the way it SHOULD be, I'm just reporting what generally happens in the world.

Obviously there are lots of exceptions to this, but both men and women should be aware that this is the way a huge number of people think.

Cal,

Thanks for the compliment.

Really, my point was to show your argument reversed...from the point of a shallow and arrogant woman.

Cal, you did indicate that if a woman lack in areas of looks and performance AFTER a marriage she would "have problems". Now do you understand? The scenario just doesn't look as good to you when it is reversed, you couldn't even recognize it.

MOST women DON'T many for money as I indicated in my own personal experience. Even if my husband had not become successful I would have stayed with him because he is still as wonderful as the day I feel in love with him. Just so that it is clear women like men, are first attracted to men because they posses a certain charisma, and if he treats her right, she will follow him just about anywhere.

Where do you think the phrase of "Trophy Wife" came from? A trophy is something that it usually won through a competition. A trophy is something you show to your friends a say, "Look what I won" If a man marries an average looking woman does that mean that he is only average? I think that most couples are equally matched in the looks department. It may be that the better looking men seem to be more successful and that does seem to play a role in our society. Many times people will be hired on their looks.

Society has placed a lot of standards on us that we have no control over. Models have set an unreasonable standard for women. If you look at art from long ago you will see nearly naked voluptuous women and that is what was considered beauty. Why do women have to be a size 2 to be considered thin, I think that a more reasonable size would be an 8-10, with the average being about a 14. Where are the standards for men?

Of course these are just my opinions; just as you have yours based on your own life experiences. I am happy that you have been able to find happiness within your present marriage.

BTW, the caps are used for emphasis, not shouting.

You said:

Cal, you did indicate that if a woman lack in areas of looks and performance AFTER a marriage she would "have problems". Now do you understand? The scenario just doesn't look as good to you when it is reversed, you couldn't even recognize it.

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

[Cal]

Originally posted by curvette+Jan 28 2005, 09:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Jan 28 2005, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 28 2005, 08:32 AM

pushka---where in my postings have I ever advocated abusing the other person,

I think it was probably the comment "kick her to the curb". Obviously you are speaking sybolically, and not literally. Pushka: In American English it means, "Dump" her, push her aside, not literally kick her.

Thank you, Curvy, I should have clarified... didn't realize she would take it that way.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields+Jan 28 2005, 09:58 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Strawberry Fields @ Jan 28 2005, 09:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 28 2005, 10:05 AM

The only way a woman can expect that is if she is young and a California 10.

This is the part that drives me crazy.

How long will she remain young, and still be a California 10? What happens when her beauty fades?

(I guess a California 10 is somehow different then a Utah 10?)

She can remain a California 10 until she is about 30, then she can still be a Utah 10, but she will now be a California 7 or 8.

Let's see, a Utah 10 is about a California 8.

When her beauty fades, so do the men with buck pursuing her.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 28 2005, 12:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 28 2005, 12:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -curvette@Jan 28 2005, 12:14 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Strawberry Fields@Jan 28 2005, 09:58 AM

How long will she remain young, and still be a California 10? What happens when her beauty fades?

You're joking, right? California 10's beauty doesn't fade. It's just botoxed, nipped, tucked, waxed, peeled, and trained. Have you seen 50-something Goldie or Cher lately?

I dunno. The problem with plastic surgery is that it tends to show, so what you wind up with is a natural 10 in the over-50 category looking like a 5 trying to look like a 9, but ending up as a 7. I just have never much liked the over-nip-tucked look; it makes people look like their cheeks are stapled to their ears, as if they're walking into a 100 mph wind or pulling 6Gs in a jet fighter.

True beauty ages well with a minimum of regularly-scheduled maintenance.

Yep, PD is right in my opinion. Age always shows. There is absolutely nothing you can do to totally disquise it. Cher and Goldie look better, but you can still tell they are not 25.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Writer_Chick1213@Jan 28 2005, 01:23 PM

But my point is, that if you're really serious about making a marriage work, don't wait until your wedding night to find out if you're sexually compatable. Certainly this is against what the church says, but I'm sure Heavenly Father would want us the marry the best person for us and stay with them rather than break our promises to each other because of a problem that both partners saw in a marriage that could have been taken care of before the marriage papers were signed.

What all of a sudden you can interpret what Heavenly Father wants better than the prophet? Thats arrogant of you.

And to address all the comments about how money and looks are what make a marriage work. Money gets spent and lost, looks fade, when your 90 and in a nursing home together your not going to care about any of that. Its love and respect that make a marriage work. Look at President and Sister Hinkley's marriage. I've seen plenty of marriages that are successful where the couple has next to nothing financially. Yes money makes it easier but it isn't a neccessity. And as for sex. It is ordained for a couple in the bounds of marriage as an expression of their love and a means of bringing children to the earth, not as a fullfillment of their carnal needs.

In the book True To The Faith it says:

"Remember that marriage in its truest sense, is a partnership of equals, with neither person exercising dominion over the other, but with each encouraging, comforting, and helping the other."

None of what you have said contradicts the general rule that the more money a guy has the better looking woman he can attract. That doesn't make poor guys a bad catch, it just makes it riskier for the girl who wants to be well taken care of. Why should a California 10 take that risk when she doesn't have to?

Also, generally, when mormon girls get married they marry a guy who they see as having the POTENTIAL for making good money, since they generallly marry young guys who haven't made it yet. And, no, the generally don't divorce them if they don't make a lot of money, but I've noticed that the best looking mormon girls tend to marry guys who are in college.

For example, when I was in college and attending the mormon Institute, I dated several, what I would call California 8's or 9's, and maybe a 10 hear or there. Almost every one of them, in our conversation somewhere, brought up the subject of

what I was majoring in. Some asked my what my GPA was. They all seemed quite interested in what my professional ambitions were. Need I say more.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 28 2005, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 28 2005, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 28 2005, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 27 2005, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by -Cal@Jan 27 2005, 02:27 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 27 2005, 02:17 PM

I think you are stretching things a bit (maybe not as much as DisRuptive1, but still stretching things.)

I think women are only interested in taking you to the cleaners if she is poorly treated in lots of ways.  Or horribly treated in only one or two ways.  Many women want nothing more than to be "out".  They don't even want the money because that constantly reminds them of the absolute horrid conditions they lived under for so long.  Believe me, I speak from experience. 

Some men just think that anything a woman gets is too much.  Often a man encourages the woman to not work, to be an in-the-home worker, and when they mistreat the woman and the woman wants out, and enough money for support (since they no longer have marketable skills), they cry the blues.  But they are the ones that created that situation.

You haven't stated one single thing that you disagreed with me about.

All you refered to where the evils of ABUSE. Where did I advocate ANY abuse? I abhor abuse--there is no place for it in any relationship, and if it occurs, the partner should high tail it out of there yesterday?

Please address the things I said, state them specifically, and comment on them, not something I DIDN'T say.

Also, I'm not talking about what "SOME" men do--obviously there are SOME men who will do ANYTHING. Again, I don't advocate abuse, nor condone it.

Are you implying that to expect your wife to fulfill her role as a sexual partner to be an "abuse". Read again what PD had to say, he said it extremely well.

Cal, you made one gigantic sweeping stereotype of women that just doesn't hold water. I have never known any woman who married a man for his wallet. The point of my post was that the only time the wallet seems to be involved is when the woman is abused, and then, depending on the severity of the abuse, the wallet is of no use or of ultimate use. It would be helpful to speak to truths rather than stereotypes.

Jenda--first I'm not dealing with stereotypes, I'm dealing with what GENERALLY happens. Let me ask you, how often do you see a really classy HOT looking, young woman with a POOR guy? As a rule you don't. (of course there are exceptions). On the other hand, how often do you see really young hot chicks with ugly, but filty rich dudes---all the time.

Generally speaking, guys get as hot a chick as their walet can afford, and girls get as rich a guy as their looks will attract. That is the general truth--yes there are exceptions, but we're not talking about the exceptions, just the general reality.

Women hate to admit these truths. They say, "oh, I married him for his wonderful personality". Yeah, but if his wonderful personality hadn't included at least the potential for a wonderful bottomline it might have been a different story.

Now, fat ugly girls have to settle for what ever they can get, which may mean a nice, poor guy, with a great personality. Sorry for telling the truth ladies, but if you want to attract educated, successful guys, loose 70 lbs and learn to put on some makeup.

Jenda, the reason you haven't "heard" of any girls who marry for this reason is because they generally don't admit it out loud, especially to men. They are no fools. Just like men never admit that they mainly want great sex, first and what ever else comes second. Women want money first, and sex second.

Well, Cal, you must just hang out with the worst types of people because I have lived in many places and in all my life, I have only known one girl who I would call a gold-digger. Most of the people I know have married for love, and the size of the wallet played no factor. In fact, I have, more recently, heard of the opposite happening. Many men are looking for women to support them so they don't have to go out and get a job. I have heard men say this. "Man, why didn't you marry someone who could keep you?" It goes both ways.

Are there gold-diggers out there? Yes. Are they the majority of society? NO!

Jenda--how old are you? What percent of all the people out there do you know? There are studies out there that back up what I am saying. Guys who make a lot of money can hold out for the best looking women, and generally do. What you know about are some of the exceptions.

What difference does my age make? I will throw out, though, that I am three times married. The first time ended in divorce after my husband beat me several times and threatened me with my life. When it ended, all I wanted was out. I probably could have taken him to the cleaners, but every alimony check (if he ever bothered sending them) would have been a constant reminder of those few horrid years, and I wanted no part of that.

My second marriage ended, after supporting my husband through part of graduate school and post-doc years, as well as years of plenty because he had no idea what love was. We both worked and together we made a decent income. Good enough to live fairly comfortably in the NYC area. When it ended, I had no desire to take him to the cleaners because it would have cheated my daughter to do so, as we had joint custody.

Then I met my (present) husband. He was a nobody. He was a pilot who had dreams of becoming an airline pilot, but had just graduated from college and taught flying lessons for a living. That is not a real good living. I was still working. My husband got a job for a commuter line, and had to pay more for his training than he made the first year. After a few years, he moved on to the big airline. After 2 years there, he was furloughed back to the commuter airline, and just recently has been recalled to the big airline.

Oh, and BTW, I have lived and worked in Baltimore, MD, and NYC, NY, as well as various places in between.

So, let's look at your points. Having lived for long periods of time in big cities, and worked in places where I come in contact with lots of people, I can rightly say that I know lots of people.

Two. From my own personal experience, on two different levels (the marriage level and the divorce level), I would say that your analysis is completely off. Neither time did I try to exit the relationship better than I went in, although I had every right to, either from the way I was treated within the relationship, or because of supporting my husband through college, etc. As far as getting re-married to someone who could further my bank account, gee, your analysis falls pretty short there, too.

So, maybe you can provide some personal examples of how your observations prove your point. Because just throwing out generalizations just isn't working.

Your personal exceptions STILL don't disprove the rule. I never said that ALL good looking girls settle for guys with no ambition or money. I'm sure plenty do--as you have pointed out. But that is not the general rule.

Also, I never said anything about why girls LEAVE guys. My point was what men and women generally look for. Men with money generally look for good looking women. Great looking women generally look for guys with money. Welcome to the real world.

BTW--I'm sorry that you have had some bad experiences with men, and you are commended for dumping the guy that abused you---some put up with that sort of thing for far too long. I can't criticize anyone with two or three marriages under their belts. We've all had our "learning" experiences. However, women need to understand that to keep a guy happy she had to at least give him a reasonable portion of what he married her for in the first place--great sex.

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 28 2005, 02:58 PM

Phew! This topic is really flying now isn't it...I have been in touch with the original poster and it seems she was looking for opinions on Divorce from differing religions, perhaps not quite the answers she got here, but never mind, her talk topic has changed now...

Anyway...Thank you Strawberry for your remarks about my post...I am pleased to be reading and posting here more often again too...gives me plenty of food for thought.

Cal...I am very sorry if my comments offended you in any way...I am from the UK, so yes my experience of the USA way of life does come from the TV...I suppose if I watched enough of the old american soaps...Dynasty and Dallas for instance, I would agree with your assertions that people only marry for looks or money...

I am very sorry to hear the reason why you divorced your wife...she was indeed very shallow. The comment I glibly made 'no wonder you are divorced!', which I do realise sounds a little silly, was made assuming that you considered yourself to be a shallow person in that you only chose your wife because of her good looks...a bit of the old well you got what you deserved then...if you were not shallow, and didn't marry her just for that reason (which I assume you didn't) then of course you didn't get what you deserved, and I am sorry to have upset you. The comment was actually directed more towards disruptive and his photographs and captions!

I know that you did not mention abuse in your statements either...I was not saying that you did. The only reason I brought that up, and the wife-swapping etc. was to illustrate the reasons why my own marriage failed in spite of us having previously had a great sex life together...I felt that the things my husband started to demand were abusive.

It would be ideal for everybody approaching marriage to know that they were going to be sexually compatible...I am not against sex before marriage, however members of the LDS church are, so obviously this may be a problem that they face, and should try to overcome together. There may have been problems of sexual abuse against the wife before she met her partner which affect the way she is sexually, this ought to be discussed before they commit to each other I think though. Sometimes it is the man who has the lower sex drive...I have found this with 1 relationship at least...he was happy to just have sex every 3 months...I wasn't too happy with this but endured it and just cuddled and kissed him in the meantime...I didn't contemplate going off for one night stands, it all depends on who you are, how strong your commitment to one another is.

I just had a problem with the posts that Cal and DisRuptive made in general because they seemed to be laying all the problems within marriages at the feet of the wives rather than at the feet of both of the partners...if I have misunderstood your meanings in this respect then I apologise.

No offense taken.

However, you may have misinterpreted me in some ways. I don't think that men should leave their wives just because they don't put out anymore. That is their decision. It is just that women take a RISK that the husband will stray if she does. The same way that a man takes a RISK that the woman will straw if he quits supporting her. (again a general rule, with exceptions--).

Second, you made a statement something like a person should discuss sex before marriage to find out their compatibility. On this, all I can say is, talk is cheap. People will say whatever they think the other wants to hear to avoid being rejected. The only way you can know how a person is going to act is to live with them long enough to see it. (Obviously the LDS church frowns on that, so lots of LDS take their chances--some win, some lose---it becomes a crap shoot)

[Cal]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Jan 28 2005, 11:17 PM

Men do try in marriages.

I do not believe, for any reason, that women DESERVE any kind of money should they get divorced, no matter how bad the relationship is. The reason is; imagine if you owned a car and were still paying car payments on it. Now let's say you got rid of it and sold it to some one else. Paying alimony is like paying car payments for a car you don't own anymore. And I feel alimony is sexist because a huge number of women get it compared with men.

Yeah, where did women get the idea that men owe them something (alimony) when they get divorced. I hear women say "Well, I stayed home and took care of his children when he was working and making all that money"----Bull hacky! First, it was SHE that chose to have children and stay home. It was she that CHOSE not to get a career, and to look for a guy to support her. Second, who was paying the bill of supporting HER while she was at home? She didn't EARN anything--if anything SHJE owes him for supporting HER all those years--lets see, rent, food, clothing, entertainment, and who knows what else--it all cost him a fortune, and now she wants HIM to support her in style for the rest of her life? Sorry, babe, I don't think so.

[Guest Becki]

Thx for the replies lol

I totally changed my subject now...

becki xxx

[Jenda]

However, women need to understand that to keep a guy happy she had to at least give him a reasonable portion of what he married her for in the first place--great sex.

So, when a guy says otherwise, we are to automatically assume he is lying?

[pushka]

Thanks for coming back on the things I said Cal...Sorry I didn't take 'kick her to the curb' literally!! I understood what you meant, it sounded awful tho, not the sort of wording I would have used, but I didn't take it as meaning abuse.

When I referred to discussing any sexual problems before any commitment being made, I was specifically speaking about any woman, or man even, that had suffered some sort of childhood sexual abuse which might have left them with a problem about having any kind of sexual relations...I was not referring to normal couples because, like you said, if you haven't had sex then you have no idea what you are going to feel about it until you do.

I am sorry that there are so many shallow people in the world, marrying for looks or money alone, and all this talk of California 10 etc. is so alien to me, and ridiculous! Maybe it's because I'm an Englander!!! lol.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 30 2005, 11:01 AM

However, women need to understand that to keep a guy happy she had to at least give him a reasonable portion of what he married her for in the first place--great sex.

So, when a guy says otherwise, we are to automatically assume he is lying?

That's the number one thing on his mind, no matter what he says. Now, obviously a smart guy is not going to see only that, but women need to understand where men's priorities are--yeah, men want to be good husbands and fathers, but they expect one thing in return, no matter what they say.

[Cal]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 30 2005, 12:17 PM

Thanks for coming back on the things I said Cal...Sorry I didn't take 'kick her to the curb' literally!! I understood what you meant, it sounded awful tho, not the sort of wording I would have used, but I didn't take it as meaning abuse.

When I referred to discussing any sexual problems before any commitment being made, I was specifically speaking about any woman, or man even, that had suffered some sort of childhood sexual abuse which might have left them with a problem about having any kind of sexual relations...I was not referring to normal couples because, like you said, if you haven't had sex then you have no idea what you are going to feel about it until you do.

I am sorry that there are so many shallow people in the world, marrying for looks or money alone, and all this talk of California 10 etc. is so alien to me, and ridiculous! Maybe it's because I'm an Englander!!! lol.

Perhaps its the words themselves you are reacting to and not the actual concepts. So tell me what it is like in England that makes things so different there.

[Amillia]

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal+Jan 30 2005, 12:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cal @ Jan 30 2005, 12:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--pushka@Jan 30 2005, 12:17 PM

all this talk of California 10 etc. is so alien to me, and ridiculous!  Maybe it's because I'm an Englander!!! lol. 

Perhaps its the words themselves you are reacting to and not the actual concepts. So tell me what it is like in England that makes things so different there.

Well, as you can tell by my addition of LOL and the Englander bit wasn't supposed to be taken seriously...

I still maintain that the idea of reducing people to numbers seems somewhat distasteful to me, sort of like going into a department store and choosing your ideal partner by the size/state written on the coathanger!!! I'm sure there are men/women all over the place who do treat their prospective partners this way, I would have hoped that it is not the norm, but as long as it isn't happening to me in my relationships then I shouldn't worry if that's what other people are choosing to do...and they will bear the consequences of the choices they make.

Perhaps I've been 'off the scene' for too long to know what the selection methods are these days...I tend to spend my time mingling among socialists and anarchists, and trying to change the world to take any notice of how big a man's wallet is, or how finely turned out and pretty a woman is....like I said...it's all ALIEN to me, more like the toffs down in London

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 30 2005, 11:46 PM

What I remember saying was that if a woman totally lets herself go in the weight or looks department AFTER marriage--yes, she can expect problems, in the same way a man can if he lets himself go in the "supporting the family" department.

Again you site the exceptions. They do not disprove the rule. Men marry for looks, women marry for money.

What if the man lets his looks go (in my dh's case, his belly!)?

I have to disagree with the rule. Men do marry for looks, but not all women marry for money. I didn't. My dh was as poor as dirt, but handsome as Kurt Russel.

I'm not talking about the exceptions. The exceptions don't change the rule.