Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Fifi47
Joined: 8/19/2004
Msg: 128
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their moneyPage 6 of 32    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32)
I would marry for companship, love, intimacy, someone to grow older with, (living with someone without being married to him is not for me I don't think). We would feel as if we complement each other and are both complete people who are a good fit for each other. Since I have not played the married/children gig, maybe I look at it through rose colored glasses at my old age. Money? I would just like to meet a man who does not think 20 dollars is a lot to pay for dinner.......
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 129
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 4:30:27 PM

So how did the sex life of women over 40 get into a topic about women who are marrying men who have higher incomes


First off, please don't change the quotes.

THE title of this thread IS "increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money". THAT specifically states as a fact (which it certainly isn't) that more and more women are specifically targeting specific men to marry BECAUSE of their money.

That's not true. Not even close. Not more and more and more and ...

However ...

... in the context of SOME women targeting specific men "with money" as a specific monetary goal, the level of sexual interest in general in men in general on the part of **those specific women targeting men "with money** is germaine indeed.

Because ...

... gold digging is a form of prostitution, and a dishonest one at that, one that society frowns on because gold diggers produce nothing of value for society as a whole.

Prostitutes don't like their tricks, AND have no sexual desire for their tricks. They can not have desire for a man, because they don't get to sleep with men attractive to any other woman. *IF* they had sexual desire for an attractive man, they'd be perpetually frustrated. Not good. Crossed eyes, tongue hanging out, broken fingernails from climbing the walls and all that.

Therefore ...

... gold digging is ipso facto a game played by diggers without sexual longings for men.

Therefore ...

... women (this discussion was predicated upon women's behavior as gold diggers, if male equivelant were to be discussed, it could be, but it wouldn't change anything) with sparse and/or diminished sexual longings are indeed THE SPECIFIC item of discussion.

Simply put, women with ordinary to above ordinary sexual longings for men don't become gold diggers. The discussion became more oriented towards those age groups more inclined to produce gold diggers.

Most men, most women, are pretty decent people. Some are not decent at all. The tacit question (for both men and women) is how does one tell the decent from the wiley, conniving indecent? There ARE some general points to start at. General points.
 Welsh474
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 130
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 4:57:28 PM
When a young woman in her 20's/early 30's marrys for the first time she may well be marrying for love and who cares about the dollar or she may well be marrying him for love and his "potential". When you are in your 40's and 50's both men and women are generally in their high income earning years so does this mean that when you marry a man that is 50 you become a gold digger, don't think so. If I happen to find a man that fits me and he happens to make more money than me it does not automatically throw me into the gold digger category.

Most folks marry within their age group doing a + or - of 5 or so years. Yes, some middle aged men will find a twinkie for arm candy and some twinkies will find an older man for his money but the majority find someone in their own age group.

I'd like to ask the fora why they married who they did - the majority of you have been married, many more than once. So what attracted you to the person you married - was it love, looks, money, potential money. I know that when I married in 1973 my husband was a policeman, I worked in a clothing store - we had no money, we had hand me down furniture and a baby on the way. All we had was lots of love and hope and stars in our eyes.

All we have really learned from this thread is that some marry for money, most don't.
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 131
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 5:04:56 PM

Throughout history the only way a woman could survive was to secure herself a husband who could provide for her...........so what's new about that?


Actually ....... "throughout history" women young enough to, and inclined to. breed mated up with young athetic men (who could defend the cave) who had handsome faces (meaning good genes, meaning their children were more likely to survive to adulthood). Young men seldom "had money" or money equivilants.

All three are still true today.

"throughout history" men hunted the deer and caught the fish, while the women gathered the nuts and berries. THIS is the reason society holds gold diggers in such low esteem, for they don't produce anything society values, and they ply their trade using abject dishonesty.

Also ...

... "throughout history" most families with girls had to pay young men to take the daughters off their hands, and had to pay dearly. It was, and is, called "A Dowry."
 Welsh474
Joined: 9/13/2010
Msg: 132
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 5:21:41 PM
Geez, who cares - I haven't had a female relative traded for a goat in many, many years. History is one thing but really, things have changed since 1940 and really changed since the cave men days.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 133
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 5:28:57 PM

I have no studies or statistics to back this up


Yes, and .... ??

The whole sentence, referring to AARP,appears below. I wanted to make it crystal clear that this was my PERSONAL impression, not distorted factoids from an unverified "source."



I have no studies or statistics to back this up, simply my experience with being a member for a couple of

years.



It was a random sample (by a sampling expert) of the general single population age 40 to 69.

Link, please?
When it comest to statistics, numbers or 'trends', the FIRST question I ask is who funded the research! From an earlier post... a study done for AARP in 2004 I'm going to go out on a limb here, and presume that "done for AARP" means AARP provided the funds. A link to this actual survey would be a way to better assess what goal AARP was seeking to accomplish with this dispersal of funds.

The cited AARP survey showed 20 men of that 40+ age group VERY interested in sex for every 2 women VERY interested in sex in that 40+ age group. And 20 more men mostly interested for every 5 women mostly interested.

"interest" is not exactly the same thing as actually doing something. As for women's seeming LACK of interest,could it be influenced by the wording of the question? And keep in mind that women close to that 69 age were young women in an age where "nice girls didn't" except with their husbands.Parentally given sex education for girls born prior to 1940 was mostly designed to DISCOURAGE sex prior to marriage,NOT to help gain full appreciation and enjoyment of the act.

have some male platonic friends around my age


Not every man past a certain age still has manly feelings for a woman with womanly feelings for a man

The men I'm speaking of were never anything but platonic friends,I was simply giving some anecdotal support to the point I was making, not inviting patronization.


NObody said "women are only out for money". Nobody.

Dude, did you READ the title of the thread??? It certainly IMPLIES that unattached men of limited funds have yet another challenge to becoming UNunattached.

The original quote of this thread was an attempt to justify (dishonest) behavior not widely accepted by society (because it produces nothing of value to society). "

Did the article that prompted this topic come out and state that women were coming out and SAYING that they were marrying for money? Isn't it entirely possible that what someone wants to call a 'trend' is simply pretty much what's been going on for centuries. Did the article say that there was PROOF that all women who married men with a higher income subsequently left the workforce?
And where to you get "justify" from. The OP simply commented that HE thought it was "standard procedure" for women to marry men substantially better educated,because(and here's another "common knowledge" factoid) high education= more $$$. Most women marry due to at least an intention to have children, and marrying someone who earns more simply means a better future for her children,whether she choses to be a SAHM or returns quickly to the workforce.
Total equality is not just making the same amount of money. It's simply accepting that both the man and the woman have equal input into deciding the direction their life together will take.
I did not get any impression whatsover that either the cited study or the OP were trying to "justify" "gold digging".
Cindy O
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 134
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 5:41:41 PM

Throughout history the only way a woman could survive was to secure herself a husband that could provide for her...........so what's new about that?[/quoting]

Nothing--and I don't think anyone would claim otherwise. But the fact there were once very sound reasons for a custom or cultural practice doesn't justify continuing it when those reasons no longer exist.

To me, there's something not very pretty about the notion that a man should knock himself out studying and preparing and moving ever higher so that, as part of his reward, he can end up with a hotter babe on his arm than he otherwise could have. How's that differ from paying more and getting a more beautiful mistress? Hard to find the love in that calculation.

Why shouldn't physical qualities, or consideration, or passion, or integrity, or courage loom larger in this picture? Or, put another way, why should so many women weight income (if in fact they do) so heavily in the mix, when they have their own, and where raising children is not an issue? There's something vaguely parasitical about that.

I don't know if a few, or many, or most women--or none of then--want a free ride. But the thought that a woman might want that does nothing for me. If I *could* give one a free ride on my money, why would I want to? What would I get out of the arrangement? If having the money to support her made me more lovable in her eyes, it wouldn't be me that she loved to begin with. If she really loved me, she'd want me just for me--because of what I did for her--and not for whatever property I'd managed to accumulate.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 135
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 7:02:52 PM
Here is the study referred to : http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/2004_sexuality.pdf
However, I don't see the stat you're referencing in this survey. Perhaps you could point it out. Page 22 does separate the respondents into With/Without Partners but the 'I would be quite happy never having sex again' results do not match what you are posting. Furthermore, 'will never have sex again in their lives' is a definitive projection, whereas 'would be quite happy' is a mere speculation.


I am not sure if this is the study referred to or not, but the survey that showed up as a result of searching "AARP sex study" led me to one in which the question posed was how many men vs. women in that age group were "interested in sex". No matter, the bottom line is, without defining a specific source, it is nearly impossible to address the cited source. Fair is fair, after all.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 136
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 8:06:44 PM
here it is
Msg 87 posted by WayWardWynde 1/7/11

... a study done for AARP in 2004 showed about 75% (that's right, seventy-five percent, three out of four) single women over age 40 will NEVER AGAIN in their lifetimes have hot-and-sweaty, face-to-face sex with a man. That's SINGLE women, and the statement was made in the study (done by a woman PhD) that lack of sexual interest in a man was THE greatest reason single women over 40 never married or who had husbands who divorced them.

Tacked on to some comments about the unmarried state of 50% of ALL women in the US...which could go from 14 to 114.
I'm not going to delve into a 100 page .pdf file right now. But it might be worthwhile to note that AARP has come out with other studies since then.

However, it still puzzles me how a distortion/"spin" of a 7 yr old study about mature adults and sexuality got into a topic about women marrying men for their money. I have seen this poster trot out the same distorted information in other threads, I guess he thinks he's scaring us or something?
IF I believed for one minute that the entire population of unattached 45+ males tended to think and behave like some of the damaged,angry men and pompous asses that frequent the forums, the unlikely prospect of never having sex again would seem like a shining star. Fortunately, from both observing some of the men who come to the forums for the fun of debate, and what I experience IRL, my feelings about sex are not negatively distorted.
People marry who they marry because that's the person they want to marry. The whole equality thing is about having an equal voice in deciding the path the couple chooses to travel,it's not about cash in the wallet or degrees hanging on the wall.
Cindy O
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 137
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 8:48:35 PM
Nah, he didn't put his own special spin on it... it is in the executive summary of the 2004 The Divorce Experience: A Study of Divorce at Midlife and Beyond completed for the AARP by a reputable research firm. I haven't had the time to read the entire study in depth, but so far I find it a fascinating look at post-divorce issues and attitudes.


Many women, especially those who have not remarried (69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually. An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_h_aNRPS0BsJ:assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/divorce_1.pdf+2004+aarp+study&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShpj_LAJD7jMhLR8RKt-XdMHxLMjCw665oW7MTc8jZghSIQUQxhItYmrkdjoxngIVKwtTprXSNTQRyMj-LTTPYEJAXq__yPLZxLuqxnC7xd5fgPfnyzWcj0rLVCCbUc-UHACYFv&sig=AHIEtbTspaBksZ_kkm8ENUtEm6XU8ugRFA
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 138
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/9/2011 10:55:29 PM
^^^ In the context of this thread, which started with the unsupported claim that more and more and more women are today specifically searching out with specific intention of marrying a man "who has money" to the exclusion of all other considerations ...

... the statement was made that gold digging is a form of prostitution which is reviled by society BECAUSE gold diggers produce nothing of value to society as a whole...

... and ...

.... gold diggers as a part -- if a particularly dishonest part -- of the World's Oldest Profession have NO womanly interest in men BECAUSE they couldn't have BECAUSE gold diggers only get to sleep with ugly men no other woman wants ...

.... are therefore ...

... more common in any particular age group which has more limited sexual desire for men as a whole.

This discussion thread, because it addressed women gold diggers, addressed women gold diggers. The statement was made that should male gold diggers be included, the net conclusion would be the same.

There is no social justification for gold digging. It does not benefit society as a whole.

All else is obfuscation in hopes of justification of behavior not acceptable to society as a whole.

BTW, only fugly men appreciate a gold digger, and then only in the tiny number of cases should they "have money". Fugly men "with money" are in short supply relative to the perceived demand.
 colt8301
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 139
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 3:19:08 AM

there is a study that shows more women are marrying for money than in 1940. The author of the report, Dr Catherine Hakim, says "there is a myth that women invariably choose to have a relationship of total equality. More and more women are choosing to marry men who are substantially better educated than them, and therefore have higher earnings."



Lol personally i don't see how this makes headlines, the only difference from 1940 to now is "Material" possessions has taken precedence over just having a roof over their heads, other than that security has been around since the beginning.
 happybunny8
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 140
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 6:34:35 AM

I love men, and enjoy their company tremendously. I even believe in love. Even so, the idea that I will probably never marry/cohabit again is not something I fear. The idea that at 45, I will never have sex again? Laughable.


I hear this from many women and I feel kinda the same. The women I hear this from are leading active busy lives with social groups and continue to make new friends.

I wonder if men feel the same? Men still outnumber women in terms of seeking a mate. I see it online and in real life.

That said, I have noticed that men who are out and about involved in life (meetup groups etc.) seem to be the ones who are out there living rather than just waiting around. Their lives do not revolve around getting, being around women - that's because they are surrounded by them, but they still do not walk around desperate, they just enjoy themselves. And women are attracted to these men.

I think more men NEED to be doing what I describe above. My experience has been that most men on POF do not do this and I find them rather limited in scope.

I've tried to get some men to join this group. These men do not join and I see them complaining and bemoaning because they have no girlfriend. Gawd, get out, go live! What happened to independance?
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 141
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 7:23:54 AM


I hear this from many women and I feel kinda the same. The women I hear this from are leading active busy lives with social groups and continue to make new friends.

I wonder if men feel the same? Men still outnumber women in terms of seeking a mate. I see it online and in real life.


I have said basically the same thing for years.

I Am not seeking a mate. However if a lady comes along that turns my head to the point I want a commitment with her, I would not be against a marriage.

The thing I have been chastised about is wanting a prenup. I really don't understand why. It would protect her assets as much as it would mine.

I find it strange when threads like this come up and the fairer gender say it is not true. Yet when a prenup is mentioned that would take this problem out of the equation. Most bash that idea.

If women truly are not marrying for money why the objection to the prenup? As I said not all feel this way so I have hope one day that I will meet a lady that would see the logic in a prenup.

If not I am good dating and being single.


That said, I have noticed that men who are out and about involved in life (meetup groups etc.) seem to be the ones who are out there living rather than just waiting around. Their lives do not revolve around getting, being around women - that's because they are surrounded by them, but they still do not walk around desperate, they just enjoy themselves. And women are attracted to these men.


I agree with this.
I am attracted and date more from real life than from the net.
That is why POF for me is way more for the forums than dates.
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 142
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 9:01:54 AM

In the context of this thread, which started with the unsupported claim that more and more and more women are today specifically searching out with specific intention of marrying a man "who has money" to the exclusion of all other considerations ...

No, the OP cited a source to back up his claim...whether or not the author of his source was basing HER conclusions upon unsubstantiated presumptions might be argued on the face of things,I suppose.

The author of the report, Dr Catherine Hakim, says "there is a myth that women invariably choose to have a relationship of total equality. More and more women are choosing to marry men who are substantially better educated than them, and therefore have higher earnings."

So, the claim is NOT "unsupported",as you allege. Just how sturdy the support for the claim actually is might be the subject of some small controversy.

... the statement was made that gold digging is a form of prostitution which is reviled by society BECAUSE gold diggers produce nothing of value to society as a whole...

IF "gold-digger" applied only to women who married wealthy men and then spent their lives lounging on a chaise "reading slim French novels and eating bonbons",that might be true. But I'm sure that many women who marry "up" financially DO birth children and do support their husbands socially,emotionally and in matters of managing the household. So-what exactly IS the definition of "gold digger"? Is it any woman who marries a man who happens to earn more than she does at the time of the marriage? Is it a woman who marries a man she doesn't deeply love to provide a better life for children she may already have... if that's the case then my maternal grandmother was a gold-digger. LOL, if someone had called her that when she was alive,she would have HURT them!
I heard an interesting comment made on TV not long ago,to the best of my recollection it was made by a fictional character on a dramatic series episode..."You don't pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to go away after the sex".
I suppose you could stretch your definitions to say that a big chunk of property,alimoney,etc in a divorce settlement could be the equivalent of paying a gold digger to go away,but nobody here has pointed put a source that defines the exact terms of an exercise in gold-digging. All that the study the OP cited actually OBSERVED is that women STILL tend to marry men with more education/greater earnings or earning potential.So is any woman who marries a man with an iota more income, property,more education,a "better" employment situation, considered a "gold-digger because she didn't make a financially lateral or downward choice of life partner?

... more common in any particular age group which has more limited sexual desire for men as a whole.

So Anna Nicole Smith( meaning no disrespect to her memory)couldn't POSSIBLY have been a gold digger because she was in an age group with higher sexual desire for men.

This discussion thread, because it addressed women gold diggers, addressed women gold diggers. The statement was made that should male gold diggers be included, the net conclusion would be the same......All else is obfuscation in hopes of justification of behavior not acceptable to society as a whole.

ladyc4 respectfully asks that Mr Jack Daniels please allow Mr, WayWardWynde to come up for air?
The thread was posted to ask a question for discussion, as to whether the "findings" of this "study" was really NEWS to anybody. It did not seek to obfuscate nor justify a certain behavior.

There is no social justification for gold digging. It does not benefit society as a whole.

On the contrary, according to your own presumptions, it provides sex and companionship to "fugly" men who otherwise couldn't get a date if they rode a hurricane through a calendar factory.

I love men, and enjoy their company tremendously. I even believe in love. Even so, the idea that I will probably never marry/cohabit again is not something I fear. The idea that at 45, I will never have sex again? Laughable.


I hear this from many women and I feel kinda the same. The women I hear this from are leading active busy lives with social groups and continue to make new friends.

Add my name to this group.

That said, I have noticed that men who are out and about involved in life (meetup groups etc.) seem to be the ones who are out there living rather than just waiting around. Their lives do not revolve around getting, being around women - that's because they are surrounded by them, but they still do not walk around desperate, they just enjoy themselves. And women are attracted to these men.

Most of these men also do not FEAR being unpartnered,they are open to a partnership should they meet a woman with whom they share a broad-spectrum chemistry. But their lives are not about convincing women how much their lives are going to suck if they don't accept a man in their life based simply on his being male.

The thing I have been chastised about is wanting a prenup. I really don't understand why. It would protect her assets as much as it would mine.

I find it strange when threads like this come up and the fairer gender say it is not true. Yet when a prenup is mentioned that would take this problem out of the equation. Most bash that idea.

If women truly are not marrying for money why the objection to the prenup? As I said not all feel this way so I have hope one day that I will meet a lady that would see the logic in a prenup.
Now we have someone dragging prenups into the thread. Granted, I have not taken the link and read the entire stude that the OP cites, but I'm fairly certain that the OP did not mention prenups.
For the record, I absolutely support prenups for people when there are childen from previous relationships involved, where there is a lot of property,money or business holdings involved, or where there is a significant discrepancy in income/property within the couple,and that goes for both genders.

I am attracted and date more from real life than from the net.
That is why POF for me is way more for the forums than dates.

For me that is pretty much the ONLY reason I joined PoF. Most of my real-life friends are not single or are not looking,so this is where I come for discussion of Adventures in Modern Dating. If an interesting male approached me via PoF I wouldn't reject him based on PoF membership,but I definitely came here specifically for the forums.
Cindy O
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 143
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 9:43:29 AM


There is no social justification for gold digging. It does not benefit society as a whole.


On the contrary, ..... (ed: snipped of material not prior stated which attributes motivations not known to exist) ....., it provides sex and companionship to "fugly" men who otherwise couldn't get a date if they rode a hurricane through a calendar factory.


Ah, come on now. You're not suggesting -- are you? -- that a woman without sexual feelings towards men having sex with and/or marrying a man so fugly no other woman wants him .... is in any way good for society???

It consumes resources with WHAT payoff for society? If there IS a payoff to society, then let's institutionalize it. If it's good for society, let's make sure ALL men so fugly no woman wants them get their trains pulled by women who don't like train pulling, but will do it for money.

Write your Congressperson! There seems to be a need for a National Effort (hosted under Homeland Security, perhaps?) so that we, our children and our grandchildren can live in an improved society.
---

Keep in mind this thread was predicated on the premise that woman are more and more and more and more inclined today -- as compared to times past -- to search out and marry men --quote the headline-- "for their money" --unquote the headline-- to the exclusion of all other considerations.

It's that part about "for their money" rather than "for prudent love" that makes the entire thread about gold digging, a dishonest form of prostitution. If you would prefer to discuss marrying "for prudent love", please start a thread titled such. I'd guess you'd get nothing but a bunch of "Yeah, prudent love is better than imprudent love" posts and the thread would fade away.

Probably everyone believes in "prudent love", while only a tiny few try to justify gold digging as a way to improve society as a whole.
 cap_n_mORGAN
Joined: 7/3/2009
Msg: 144
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 9:51:30 AM

Now we have someone dragging prenups into the thread. Granted, I have not taken the link and read the entire stude that the OP cites, but I'm fairly certain that the OP did not mention prenups.
For the record, I absolutely support prenups for people when there are childen from previous relationships involved, where there is a lot of property,money or business holdings involved, or where there is a significant discrepancy in income/property within the couple,and that goes for both genders.


Now lets keep it in context.........

I said.....



I have said basically the same thing for years.

I Am not seeking a mate. However if a lady comes along that turns my head to the point I want a commitment with her, I would not be against a marriage.

The thing I have been chastised about is wanting a prenup. I really don't understand why. It would protect her assets as much as it would mine.

I find it strange when threads like this come up and the fairer gender say it is not true. Yet when a prenup is mentioned that would take this problem out of the equation. Most bash that idea.

If women truly are not marrying for money why the objection to the prenup? As I said not all feel this way so I have hope one day that I will meet a lady that would see the logic in a prenup.

If not I am good dating and being single.


See when in context my statement is not just about prenups. It shows how a prenup is one answer to this problem.

However it is one that is met with resistance. Why is that?
If written well and kept current it would remove any financial reason to marry. Isn't marriage about love?

Even in your rebuttal you say you think a prenup is a good idea for some while at the same time you seem to not want them in the conversation.

Supporting my statement that they are shunned by some.......When they could be a answer to the question at hand.

EDIT>>>>


Nothing newsworthy here. After all, prostitution IS the oldest profession, and it's here to stay---especially in this economy.


I went back to see if anyone else had posted about prenups.
I found this on the first page posted by a woman.

Now it seems to me this is further off topic than my suggestion of a prenup being an answer to this dilemma.
Where was the outrage then?
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 145
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 10:04:40 AM

Ah, come on now. You're not suggesting -- are you? -- that a woman without sexual feelings towards men having sex with and/or marrying a man so fugly no other woman wants him .... is in any way good for society???

It consumes resources with WHAT payoff for society?

So you are saying that fugly men with money should not 'buy' a wife...that they should do what?Spend their money on some noble cause? Do you think that if fugly rich men are out of the picture that women who,according to you don't even LIKE sex, will somehow be forced to date men of moderate appearances and means? The topic of the thread certainly was not about fugly men or women who dislike sex.
It was about an observers' surprise that there was not a huge trend of women marrying men who were on exactly the same educational and financial level as an functional manifestation of equality. Personally I think the observers' understanding of the equality concept is flawed. Equality in a marriage doesn't mean that the 2 people earn exactly the same amount of money,that household and family chores are perfectly divided 50-50,that they both have exactly the same level of education. All that equality in a marriage means is that both persons have an equal say in the path of their marriage.
I don't understand why you keep trying to make this thread be about gold-diggers and what a pimple on the ass of society they are. It's about the OP's question as to whether or not this 'observation' is actually NEWS.
IF we speak with the current economic situation in the forefront of our thoughts, a woman who wants to be a mother MIGHT be giving more consideration to her intended spouse's greater potential for keeping paid employment,which higher education OR intensive training in specialized skills usually affords.
Cindy O
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 146
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 10:45:00 AM

I don't understand why you keep trying to make this thread be about gold-diggers and what a pimple on the ass of society they are.


I'm ------NOT------ "trying to make this thread be about gold-diggers. It --IS-- about gold-diggers as witness this thread's headline "increasing numbers of women are marrying men ---FOR--- (emphasis added for clarity) their money".

And, yes, society distains gold-diggers as a drain on resources who produce nothing of value to society as a whole.

There is no justification for gold diggers who "are marrying men ---FOR--- their money".
 verygreeneyez
Joined: 3/15/2006
Msg: 147
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 10:53:49 AM
~OT~ I'd say my BF and I are reasonably equal in the financial end of things. He recently decided to venture into a part-time career that would truly make him happy. Much happier than his life-long career. If I came to it? And we are still together, I'd happily make up the difference in income so he could do what he loves, versus what pays his bills. That's what makes life worth living: doing what you love, vs. what doing what you have to. I know he'd probably never allow what I think is worthy, but the offer stands. He is who he is, I'd much rather he be truly happy than doing something that he finds unrewarding personally. But that's just me, many won't agree, and that's OK with me. JMO
 ladyc4
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 148
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 11:43:22 AM
What the study observed is that there seemed to be a noteable tendency for women to be marrying men who are better EDUCATED than themselves,inferring that "better education=more $$$$" Now, the inference itself, generally speaking, is probably fairly accurate. But this is nothing more than an extension of the possibly hard-wired female instinct to choose the best provider for future offspring. Over time, we've tempered that instinct to put as much, if not more,emphasis on social compatibility, enjoying one another's company..love, if you will. But there is still a very strong tendency to condition our daughters to choose mates with good prospects of earning power. And men are starting to look for not only traditionally desireable qualities in their mates, but also a willingness and ability to contribute to family income.

Now that someone else provided the link, I finally took an opportunity to go check out this AARP "survey"
and it is NOT

Sorry, you're sure you're sure, but that's not the case. It was a random sample (by a sampling expert) of the general single population age 40 to 69. No AARP membership needed, or inquired about.

It was conducted with people who had experienced divorce in middle age that's HARDLY a "random sampling" of "single people"...in fact the information in the suervey indicated that the sampling included people who had since remarried,or people who had remarried and been widowed. It was not just 'single people".
It also specifically mentioned that "women usually initiate divorce,many times surprising their spouses". that doesn't line up with a previous post where it was stated that these women had been divorced by their husbands because the women weren't giving them sex.

At the end of the summary AARP states
"while older divorceesmay rely on friends, family and religious faith,they do not go to organizations in the community, government agencies, and national organizations representing older persons. This study is an effort to heighten awareness,advance the dialogue and inspire more research. More importantly we hope that communities and institutions will be better able to help meet the needs of people who divorce at midlife or older".
So basically AARP wants people who divorce at midlife or older to have greater awareness of community, government and national organizations/services that offer support to them. While it is certainly NOT a bad thing, what AARP is trying to do is to get seniors to organize, and one way to do that is join AARP. Even though it is a non-profit organization dedicated to serving people over 50,the study WAS done to support AARP's agenda. It certainly doesn't sound like what some were trying to infer, that for older unpartnered women life was going to suck because these women aren't rushing out to marry the first over-40 male that approaches her. Of course older unpartnered women are cautious about getting involved with a man who hasn't got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of-and I doubt that they are holding out for men who have a better income because they don't like sex. Indeed, one of the more challenging aspects, IMO, of dating in middle age is to keep sex in perspective and not get entangled with a man who is detrimental to one's overall happiness and security simply because he supplies excellent sex.
Cindy O
 Vannili
Joined: 7/8/2008
Msg: 149
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 12:17:19 PM
Is there a study about women marrying for their poverty ?


I have not heard yet women marrying for poverty, but I have heard women marrying for sex all the time, and they want to be labeled as HONEST,DECENT WOMEN.........
 Gwendolyn2010
Joined: 1/22/2006
Msg: 150
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 12:29:36 PM
Let’s return to WWW’s original assertion:

... a study done for AARP in 2004 showed about 75% (that's right, seventy-five percent, three out of four) single women over age 40 will NEVER AGAIN in their lifetimes have hot-and-sweaty, face-to-face sex with a man.

He did not say that 75% of women were not engaging in sex at the time they took the survey, but “NEVER AGAIN in their lifetimes” will have sex. Please note this claim.

Honeybreeze wrote:

Here is the study referred to : http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/2004_sexuality.pdf
However, I don't see the stat you're referencing in this survey. Perhaps you could point it out. Page 22 does separate the respondents into With/Without Partners but the 'I would be quite happy never having sex again' results do not match what you are posting. Furthermore, 'will never have sex again in their lives' is a definitive projection, whereas 'would be quite happy' is a mere speculation.


If this is the report, I can’t find WWW’s assertions, either. The 75% figure doesn’t match the figures on page 22. I might not be reading the chart correctly, but it appears that 11% of women with partners do not care if they have sex again; on women without partners, 29%. However, if you look at the breakdown on page 21, the greatest proportion of the women who say this are 70+. While I still plan to be sexually active at 70, I can still understand why the proportion rises.

Itsmargo quoted from another study:

Many women, especially those who have not remarried (69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually. An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried.


Ah, but this says 77% do not engage in sexual activity; one cannot presume that these women plan to “NEVER AGAIN” plan to have sex! It is a reflection of their sexual activity at the time of the survey,

If this is the report to which WWW refers, by his calculations, then we are to assume that the 49% of men do plan to “NEVER AGAIN” have sex. Gee, that's 2 out of 4 men who will NEVER AGAIN have hot and sweaty face-to-face sex with a woman!

Ladyc4 wrote:

It was conducted with people who had experienced divorce in middle age that's HARDLY a "random sampling" of "single people"...


Bingo, again!

While WWW might be speaking of another report that no one has found, his original claim is an example of how people twist “stats” to fit an agenda. In asking for the primary source for his claim, I was making this exact point. When one makes a claim based on a survey, report, or study, if the primary source is not given, it is a moot and baseless claim. Neither of the reports given substantiates a claim that 75% of single women over 45 will “NEVER AGAIN in their lifetimes have hot-and-sweaty, face-to-face sex with a man.”

In addition, there are always women with whom a woman can have hot and sweaty face-to-face sex.
 WaywardWynde
Joined: 5/19/2007
Msg: 151
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 1:21:31 PM
The report was called ~~"Lifestyles, Dating and Romance, A Study of Midlife Singles"~~ and ~~"describes the Singles Lifestyles Study conducted for AARP The Magazine in June 2003, a survey of 3,501 single men and women ages 40-69"~~

In the Executive Summary, it was stated ~~"large proportions (of single people age 40 to 69), especially of older women, take a pass on dating and sex"~~.

It was also stated in the ES ~~"There is a VAST (emphasis added) chasm between men and women in their dating attitudes and sexual desire" ~~

and it states .....

~~"Furthermore, the attitudes that divide single men and women at this age may
have partly caused them to remain single or revert to single status."~~

It also stated that few single women in that age group wanted a partner again, yet it stated and showed by graph that what one in three (32%) of those single women age 40 to 69 ~~"LIKED LEAST (emphasis added) about being single"~~ was ~~"NOT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY (emphasis added)"~~

That's in the Executive Summary. Reading the report for its details tells an even grimmer story, if you are a normal man (few interested women available), though perhaps a GREAT! story if you are a normal woman (lots of interested men available).

After reading the report, I -- who far and away prefers women my age -- figured out my social life ops would be greatly increased (an order of magnitude? (*) ) by not worrying about the age of the women, by "going outside the tribe".

My daughter, bless her soul, said "Dad, don't limit yourself. If a (young) woman wants you ..."

(*) Mathematically, "an order of magnitude" means "about ten times, but there's a small chance of as little as 5 times and an equally small chance of as much as 50 times.
 ItsMargo
Joined: 4/24/2007
Msg: 152
view profile
History
increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money
Posted: 1/10/2011 1:36:08 PM
LadyC4, admittedly I have been too busy on lifestuff this past week to delve into the various mysteries of these studies being thrown about, including the one I threw into the mix. BUT, I'd say with my cursory glance at them, the sample *is* a random sample of divorced people aged 40 to 69.

It was conducted with people who had experienced divorce in middle age that's HARDLY a "random sampling" of "single people"...in fact the information in the suervey indicated that the sampling included people who had since remarried,or people who had remarried and been widowed. It was not just 'single people".

I believe WW's point was it wasn't a survey of AARP's membership. Sure, some "single, never married" people are excluded but I'd say a sample of divorced people captures the majority of single (non coupled) people over age 40. Again, from my quick flip through the various studies, it appears the researchers have grouped sub-sets of their respondents for some questions. This is a common and acceptable method; all people for more general questions and excluding a sub group (say married people) when the question relates to attitudes of currently single people.

Further, I see no problem with AARP's intent to get more information about the populations they serve. Professionally conducted research - as these various surveys - are the best way to find out people's attitudes.

Regarding comments made by someone on projection: Of course it is projection; the only possible way to get a glimpse into the future is to ask people their intent. Asking: "Do you intend to marry again?" would give us results of people's intents on the day they responded. They might well change their mind next week or next year. As it pertains to sex, no, one cannot say these people will *never* have sex again, but it would be fair to say they currently accept or anticipate a life with no-sex.
Show ALL Forums  > Relationships  > increasing numbers of women are marrying men for their money