|
|
|
|
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 7/8/2007 4:54:48 PM | | Really, every woman in LA is a golddigger? Several million of them are illegal and take jobs you and I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. They work in illegal facories, clean houses, ride the bus for hours. But then, they're kind of dumpy and the wrong color and can't be seen on YOUR arm in Westwood, can they? You get what you pay for. You like the looks of that mess, but whine about what it costs. | |
|
Ender
|
Joined: 2/1/2004
Msg: 52 | |
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 7/8/2007 9:01:08 PM | Dude, if you spent big $$ on a woman for two years and didn't catch on then its nobody's fault but your own.
Honestly though, I think your post is BS.
As for beign a gold digger....any woman that EXPECTS me to pay for everything. Not that I have an issue with paying for a date, but in this day and age I don't think it should be expected that a man always pays for everything. Likewise, I would consider a woman a gold digger if she EXPECTED me to buy her fancy nick nacks and jewlery etc. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 4:14:24 PM | | A man should be able to tell if a woman is a gold digger on the first or second date. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 4:21:58 PM | I don't know if anyone else has suggested this but, if this girl wouldn't let him sleep in the same bed while they were on a cruise or in Hawaii then she isn't just a gold digger but she is also hiding her junk. She's gold digging dude.
Love can't be that blind. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 4:47:55 PM |
Move to Montana to find some women that truly care.
Yes, they are located right next door to the Unabomber.  | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 6:22:22 PM | Hiding her junk? What the hell does that mean?
I am hiding some of my junk in the attic, some in the garage. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 6:28:35 PM | ^^ I think it's means baggage. The only thing else it would refer to is her "private parts" which of course "could" fit here.
I can say that in a matter of an hour here I received 8 emails after I posted my pic. There IS some truth to that increasing a better return for your buck, and dam*n good since it's free!!!  | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 11/27/2007 6:51:21 PM |
Hiding her junk? What the hell does that mean?
Girls have goodies and guys have "junk". It's just a slang term. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/15/2008 10:46:44 PM | | Funny, the last time I checked , men can be true g-diggers as well, in this 2 paycheck world...I have run across my share of men hoping for a woman to " be his other half". increase his level of success , be his muse with benefits...runs both ways, does it not? | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/16/2008 8:38:34 AM |
Funny, the last time I checked , men can be true g-diggers as well, in this 2 paycheck world...I have run across my share of men hoping for a woman to " be his other half". increase his level of success , be his muse with benefits...runs both ways, does it not?
There is a HUGE diffenrence between wanting an equal partner and being a gold digger. In today's economy, if a lady is looking for a man to support her, she's a gold digger. Period. If she's willing in controbuting to the partnership, then she's not. It's really that simple.
Now contributing to the partnership doesn't have to mean money. For example: if there is a marriage and one (EITHER the man or women) wants to be a home maker and the other agrees that that is a reasonable contribution to the partnership, then that's fine. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/16/2008 9:48:49 PM | The funny thing is that most men who worry about gold diggers have no money to dig.
First if the lady expects you to pay for the date, she is not a gold digger, it is your duty if you are a gentleman.
I've given up on men and got me a sugardaddy. I gotta have that shopping money and I don't want to work hard for it.
Also some men don't know the meaning of the term "sugardaddy" If you buy a woman drinks or lunch , that's not a sugar daddy thing, that's a date. You gotta put out some cash and gifts to be a sugar daddy. I don't want to be spoiled with kisses or affection, I want to be spoiled with money and nice dinners. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/16/2008 10:14:31 PM | ang65,
There's another more fitting word for women (or men) who do what you're describing. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/16/2008 10:27:03 PM | sweeeeeet,
I have no idea why hoping for the things you list makes someone a "true golddigger." I always thought people in love each wanted the best for the other and wanted to contribute to each other's success. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/16/2008 10:30:14 PM | Matchlessm--- Good answer to sweeeeet
a golddigger is only in the relationship for themselves. It is all about THEM (what's in it for ME?). A healthy relationship is about US and each helping the other to be the best that they can be. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 6/17/2008 11:15:35 AM | People PLEASE... the nonsense posted here is overwhelming!
Original Poster: Let me guess, you were raised by females, probably feminists, who told you repeatedly that if you are a "good man" and "just be yourself", women will want to be with you and stay with you, right? Clue: That's the worst advice a woman could ever give to a man/son/friend.
Let's talk about sex first. Women decide within the first few minutes whether they will ever sleep with you, and it will happen within the first 5 to 10 hours of contact time or will likely never happen at all (no matter HOW much you pay her!). That's what actual psychologist who study this say - it's NOT my opinion. By the end of the 4th date (which is probably about your 10 hours) 80% of couples have had sex. After that, you're 'just a friend' or 'just a sucker'. Move on.
Money: Never BUY a woman's time... not with a drink, not with dinner, not with a vacation UNLESS she is rewarding you (with sex, affection, taking turns with buying, etc). The most successful men in dating always split the bill, because then you have partnership relationship, not a hooker/john relationship.
'Old Fashioned". Walk away from any woman who says you should pay because she is "old fashioned". She is simply telling you she's a hooker; that she's ENTITLED to your money simply because she's female. They will ALWAYS end badly for the man. If you want to play along, say, "Ok, what year are we talking about when you say OLD"? They usually say 1950's or 1960's. You reply, "OH, ok, back when domestic violence was acceptable, child abuse was readily accepted, women were not allowed to work in any office jobs, and if they worked at all were the lowest paid and got the worst jobs in the company. Is that what you're pining for?" If they are, say you'll go along with that, but she is to quit her job TOMORROW, vow to stay home all day (remember, no TV and no cellphone, it's the 50s!) and clean. If dinner's not on the table and she's not dressed and in full makeup, she gets a punch in the mouth, 50s style. The concept of men paying for dates was from a time when women were excluded from the workplace. That stopped 30 years ago. There is no excuse for women not paying their fair share in 2008. Unless they're hookers.
Rewarding women for bad behaviour creates MORE bad behaviour for the rest of us. STOP. Grow some balls. Treat women as equals, as human beings (not hookers) and the crap decribed in this thread will quickly stop.
10 hours of contact time, guys, that's where you escalate or walk away. After that you're just getting set up to be a victim. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/13/2009 12:32:47 PM |
10 hours of contact time, guys, that's where you escalate or walk away. After that you're just getting set up to be a victim.
I just loooooooove hearing guys like this talk! You can tell what books he's been reading!!!
He's laid out the bargain...now we may decide.
Hoo boy that took a long time!! | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/15/2009 8:26:19 AM | I feel the urge to comment here. Women are not the only gold diggers in the universe. I knew a "gentleman" who made quite a bit of money and manage to manipulate 2 women into supporting at the same time. One was buying his clothes, food, household goods ect; the other was supplying him with weekly grocies along with his beer and little gifts on the side. He was one happy little clam. He would pay for as little as possible. Just some food for thought. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/15/2009 10:46:34 AM | I just loooooooove hearing guys like this talk! You can tell what books he's been reading!!!
He's laid out the bargain...now we may decide.
Hoo boy that took a long time!!
Hey Impie,
I suspect that you have no idea how degrading it can feel to be used as a walking wallet. I hope you never find out. But it does tend to trigger a certain level of rage in a man, especially after hearing about how we're all such pigs for the last 30 years or so. (And even before that it was the same story. Women weren't allowed in the workplace because men were regarded as untrustworthy--whether it was to get out jobs done while there were women around to ogle, or to refrain from molesting those women.) It was just that the remedies back then were different. What has changed over the last 30 years is the general recognition that women ought to be safe, equal, free, and respected as adults.
By and large, men have gotten with the program--however grudgingly 'cause we didn't want to lose our perceived privileges--and the position of women has improved immensely. The sense of entitlement revealed by a woman who insists on being treated like an infant these days is, at best, unbecoming.
Now that I am dating someone who is willing and able to pull her own weight in all aspects of the relationship, I can say that it is a huge relief. It makes me want to stick with her.
They say that you can't change the basic attitude of an adult. You can only pick the people with whom you want to spend time. The only thing I'd change about the 10-hours rule is this: rather than using it to figure out whether or not someone will put out, it might make more sense to see if a particular person is someone with whom you'd actually want to spend more. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/15/2009 5:45:35 PM | I don't know what book the author of post 65 got his information from, but it doesn't speak well for our literary standards. He seems to believe a concocted, ludicrous stereotype of family life before the rise of modern (i.e. de Beauvoir, Friedan, Greer et al.) feminism. It's a form of propaganda much beloved by Hollywood screenwriters, churned out for the gullible to swallow whole. I think they do this to glorify, by contrast, the freedom of family life today, now that we've escaped from the crippling restraints of those benighted arrangements.
My mother and her mother both worked before they got married, and most of their fellow employees were women. My mother used to be amazed at the talk of sexual harassment at work, because she'd never seen it herself or heard of it from her working girlfriends.
My parents danced and kissed and went to parties and drank Cokes, but they didn't have sex within their first 10 hours together. Nor even within their first ten days, or weeks, or months together--but after they were married. But they were married--happily--for sixty years, until my father died.
My father had his own business, and dinner was almost always ready for him. He never raised a finger to my mother--nor would she have stayed with anyone who did, even once. Oddly enough, they actually informed themselves about the world, went to art museums, and discussed all sorts of interesting things. They even cared about raising my sister and me--it never would have crossed their minds to rely on the schools for that. Oh--and they had a TV all through the 1950's. So did our neighbors, and I always looked forward to the night the fights were on, when I got to go next door to watch them with my Dad and his buddy. Neither of the wives ever joined us--just imagine! | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/15/2009 6:53:44 PM | | You know, the problem with the poster in #65 is he is acting as if all women are cookie cutter cut outs of each other. I have met men that I knew within minutes of meeting them that there was no way in heck I would sleep with them and did. Sometimes, when friendship developes, what was not a natural attraction, can become an attraction with time. I'm not saying that is the case all the time, but I think it's wrong to generalize this way. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/15/2009 7:56:45 PM | I think it's wrong to regurgitate a thread that is almost 3 years old!
(Even longer than the OP "dated the gold digger!") | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/16/2009 12:44:11 PM | Barbe, I agree, and Matchlight, your experience mirrors that of so many people who have established good lifelong relationships.
I am so glad when posters put this kind of twaddle out for everyone to see. I certainly would not date anyone who expected me to sleep with him within the first ten hours of contact.
From what I have seen and what I believe, one is much more likely to establish a successful relationship when sexual contact can be avoided until both parties have made a commitment. This way, nobody gets pregnant, nobody spreads any microbes, and frankly, it is easier to leave a partner who is unscrewed.
If a man is thinking only of the cost/benefit ratio of money/sex, he would do better to seek out a professional, and just let it be a straight exchange. If he would have an actual relationship, people have things like values...
I may know within a few minutes of meeting a man whether or not I would enjoy a sexual advance from him, however I would be infuriated if the man expected me to throw away my values because of some book he had read. As far as I am concerned, such a lack of respect would certainly ensure I handed said cretin his walking papers. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/16/2009 3:43:27 PM |
My mother used to be amazed at the talk of sexual harassment at work, because she'd never seen it herself or heard of it from her working girlfriends. Are you trying to be obtuse? Because it's working!
When your mother was working, this was not generally accepted behavior in society in general. It was a rare event. This is not so now.
. He seems to believe a concocted, ludicrous stereotype of family life before the rise of modern (i.e. de Beauvoir, Friedan, Greer et al.) feminism. I will not sit idly by and allow you to corral Simone De Beauvoir into a man hating feminist. While you may think she is a feminist... she was first an foremost a philosopher, an existentialist. Her reaction to being a highly educated woman in an era where it was the exception, and not the rule, was her essay "The Second Sex."
While this book may be the basis of much of modern feminist theory, it's been sadly perverted by many modern feminists such as Mary Daly, and Greer. Most of this is due to the originally appalling translation and overzealous editing that removed great hunks of the original text of her work by Alfred Knopf, Inc. She herself had requested a new translation. It is only being done now... 23 years after her death. Read in the original French, it's a very different book.
My parents danced and kissed and went to parties and drank Cokes, but they didn't have sex within their first 10 hours together. Nor even within their first ten days, or weeks, or months together--but after they were married. But they were married--happily--for sixty years, until my father died. Well, and a woman who insists on that today, is shunned and ridiculed. Somehow, somebody got the idea that premarital sex was an entitlement and the idea has caught on like wildfire.
Women are called derogatory names for getting offended when men approach them with messages that are sexually explicit in nature, before they have not only not taken the time to get to know them... but even met them in person. They are also criticized and considered immoral for being promiscuous. How are women supposed to navigate in this construct?
If a man is stupid enough to trade his money for sex or the hottest little trick in shoe leather over what and who a woman in inside... do not ask me to feel badly for him when it blows up in his face and the little head overtakes the big one in primary thought processes. If they took the time to use the big head for the use it was intended for... "thought," this might occur far less. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/17/2009 12:44:58 AM | I'd be exaggerating if I said I have no idea what you're on about--but not much. I started my post by referring to post #65. I'm surprised to see your reaction.
If you'd read it carefully, you'd see the poster was pooh-poohing women who say they're "old-fashioned," and therefore expect the man to pay if they go out. He says women who say this are telling men they're "hookers," because they're saying that just by virtue of being female, they're entitled to a man's money. And if a man meets one of these women, he should get away fast.
To show how nonsensical this pining for the "old-fashioned" days is, he tried to show how loathsome the 1950's and 1960's were. I took exception to that, because I think trying to persuade with hyperbole is a cheap trick. It's usually a tipoff that you don't have the facts to make your case. Here are some of post #65's over-the-top assertions:
They [i.e. the women] usually say ['old' means] 1950's or 1960's. You reply, 'OH, ok, back when domestic violence was acceptable, child abuse was readily accepted, women were not allowed to work in any office jobs, and if they worked at all were the lowest paid and got the worst jobs in the company. Is that what you're pining for?' If they are, say you'll go along with that, but she is to quit her job TOMORROW, vow to stay home all day (remember, no TV and no cellphone, it's the 50s!) and clean. If dinner's not on the table and she's not dressed and in full makeup, she gets a punch in the mouth, 50s style.
I commented on several of these assertions. I was disputing them by proving that in at least one instance I knew of--my own family--they were false. That's why I recounted how--even well before the 1950's--my mother worked in an office with a number of other women. It's also why I pointed out that both my parents and their neighbors had TV's throughout the 1950's, and that although my mother usually had dinner ready for my father, he'd never have imagined punching her if she hadn't. (Or for ANY reason)
Women decide within the first few minutes whether they will ever sleep with you, and it will happen within the first 5 to 10 hours of contact time or will likely never happen at all (no matter HOW much you pay her!).
I recounted what my parents did before they married to prove that the poster's assertion was just plain false in at least one case I knew of. Of course I know sexual mores have changed drastically since that time. But he made a flat statement. If he wanted to guard against rebuttals like mine, he should have made clear that, although men should apply the "10 hours' contact" rule to dating today, several decades ago no one would have thought of applying it. And yet some people, at least, got excellent results without any such rule. If it's so great, how can that be?
What I wrote about my mother not encountering or hearing of any sexual harassment is true. But it was really just an aside. I'm not sure why you'd think I was obtuse, or that I wasn't aware it's a consideration in the workplace. I already knew something about that area of law, and I've heard more than one legal presentation on the subject.
I think you completely misunderstood the purpose of what I wrote. It irks me to see that brainless, fabricated caricature of the '50's repeated ad nauseam, in everything from TV ads to movies to posts on here. I think it's a subtly mocking portrayal of that period as the bad old days when middle-class Americans were naive, dopey, and irritatingly conventional and optimistic. And totally insensitive to the environment! I suspect the purpose is to make present-day American family life look better in comparison than it would if viewed by itself.
TV, movies, ads, etc. are likely to show families as progressive, enlightened, and egalitarian. And the roles have changed. No more father knows best--there often seems to be a clueless Dad who couldn't find his fanny with both hands, a Mom who continually has a wisecrack ready at his expense, and kids who are the only ones who really know what's going on. Forget, of course, the 35% national illegitimacy rate and its contribution to poverty, violent crime, drug use, poor education, etc. Forget also the high divorce rate and its tendency to have negative effects on children. At least we're not back in those impossibly lame, mind-numbingly bourgeois "Father Knows Best" days, when everyone ate macaroni and meat loaf!
I doubt I'll be reading de Beauvoir in the original French anytime soon, so I'll take your word for it. Where did I claim, or even imply, that she (or either of the others I named) was a "man hating feminist?" I was only trying to distinguish between the first American feminist movement and the one that began c. 1960. If I'd known more about the subject, off the top of my head, I would have left her name out. I don't know enough about her work to have any particular feelings about it, one way or the other. | |
|
| Gold digger and 4,151 emails
Posted: 2/17/2009 11:46:58 PM |
I commented on several of these assertions. I was disputing them by proving that in at least one instance I knew of--my own family--they were false. That's why I recounted how--even well before the 1950's--my mother worked in an office with a number of other women. It's also why I pointed out that both my parents and their neighbors had TV's throughout the 1950's, and that although my mother usually had dinner ready for my father, he'd never have imagined punching her if she hadn't. (Or for ANY reason)
M,
I am glad that you and the women in your family had a better experience than many, but an exception doesn't disprove the rule. Even if the majority experience was like yours, a significant minority to a majority of women have complained about a different experience--sexual harrassment, wage discrimination, and closed job opportunities were very prevalent back then and women really had no recourse. I remember my mother losing jobs for not putting out or not being pretty enough. And I remember how common it was for kids to be beaten with belts, among other things.
If you weren't aware of those things going on, it doesn't mean they weren't. It could just mean that you were out of touch. You have much to be thankful for if your parents were successful in insulating you from those ugly realities. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
