I heard a radio talk show host named Glenn Beck citing some reseach of online dating services that seemed to indicate that men were becoming “gold diggers”. Supposedly something like 50% of men had specified a minimum income that their prospective dates/wifes must earn in order to be considered. He basically asked if any of these “scum bags” might not wish to call in and explain themselves.
I say SO WHAT if someone dates someone else for their money. Why is this any less deserving of respect than dating someone for their looks, their car, the way they dance, or any of the myriad of other reasons that people date each other. I met my wife for casual sex and frankly wasn’t attracted to her physically whatsoever. My friends denigrated, and belittled me for staying with and ultimately marrying her because I saw other qualities in her that I came to love (such as her loving nature, extreme wit, and the fact that she would put up with my shit). Who is to say that one persons reasons are better than anothers for being with someone.
Not any less. As those are also pretty superficial reasons for dating someone and not nesscessarly deserving of respect either.
But of course you don’t need a respectable reason to date someone. “Cuz he/she’s so hot” is perfectly acceptable. But I guess I’d hope you’d have another reason for getting into an actual realtionship (marriage being a pretty big relationship) than one of those superficial reasons. Like careing about and connecting with them as a person. The funny thing is, you’re asking the question, but it sounds like that’s exactly what you found with your wife. If you hadn’t, would it make sense for you to be with her?
I guess what’s wrong with dating (or marrying!) someone for their money is they might mistake it for a real human connection. Of course if they know what you’re about (and maybe they’re just marrying you for your big tits or whatever) then fine. Sad, but fine.
I’m not sure that men having a “minimum income” requirement in looking at potential partners neccesarily means they are gold-diggers. It may just be that a man is looking for a woman who has some financial security and independence and isn’t looking to be “taken care of” financially.
I was helping a man do his profile for E-Harmony (internet dating service). He owned his own successful business and, while not in the “millionaire’s circle”, he was well-off financially and had worked hard to get there. He was very responsible and wanted a partner that would be equally knowledgable and responsible with finances. He had been burned in a previous relationship by a woman who had taken advantage of him and made bad financial decisions of her own. He wanted to avoid a repeat of that performance.
I can see where some men (and women!) are concerned about someone looking for a free ride and that is one way they may feel they can lessen that likelihood. It’s certainly no guarantee, but in weeding out the strangers on the train, it might just be a way to start.
And then there are the Scum-Bag gold-diggers who are looking for their own free ride.
Why is it wrong? Because typically it would involve lying. Can you picture honestly telling someone “I don’t find you attractive, I don’t like your personality, but in marrying you I appear to have the opportunity to spend half of your money. Sounds like a good deal–I’m in!”
Anna-Nicole Smith and that old guy seem like the test case. Perhaps they were honest with each other. I can’t imagine that either genuinely had the other fooled.
If it doesn’t involve lying, I can’t say I find it terribly wrong. But to say “I’m marrying you because I love you” when that’s not true, that IS terribly wrong.
I once heard of a study saying women thought a mans income was the no. 1 thing they look for in a potential mate, and men found a woman’s income to be the no. 2 after looks.
God, we suck as a species. Anyway, wanting someone with a minimum income isn’t gold digging, esp. if its just a preference. It just means you prefer someone who can help pay the mortgage and the car payment, so neither of you have to spend the nights sleepless and worried about creditors.
Yesterday I was having this conversation at work with a younger woman. She’s all about the love and doesn’t understand why an older single woman (not OLD, only 36, but older than her at 25) would see income as a deciding factor. As I attempted to explain to her, money does matter. Not that I want a millionaire or anything even close to that, but as a single mother, I would like to know that my man could “take care” of me and my children. And by “take care” I don’t mean that I’d want to stay home and be totally dependent upon him, but rather that I feel obligated to provide security for my children. And I would NOT marry a man that couldn’t do that for us.
Yes, love is grand and all that, but it doesn’t pay the bills. And a marraige with money problems is not a happy marraige, in my experience. It’s quite stressful and often leads to divorce. And what if something happened to me? I’d like to know that my husband, if I had one, could take care of my/our kids on his own.
My point is, as a single mom who dates alot, I’m not looking for a wealthy man to live off of, but I AM looking for a financially secure and responsible man that would be able to provide security. Hell, I can be poor by myself.
Well personally if a woman that I found attractive said “look I like you for your money, but will have sex and do generally what you want” I wouldn’t care that much that it was for my money. My money (if I had any) like my body, and even to an extent my personality are all extrinsic aspects of my being.
Yes, but if a woman said “I love you Roland, let’s get married” and later on she said “Love you? Are you kidding? I’m just glad not to be living in my mom’s dumpy trailer anymore,” you’d be ticked.
I don’t know that it’s inherently wrong in and of itself–if you’re open and upfront about only being attracted to someone’s bank balance or whatever other superficial criteria and are both okay with that, it’s not hurting anybody. I don’t find it particularly admirable to settle for someone who doesn’t love you, but it’s no skin off anybody’s ass but your own. It’s the deception that often follows along with such things that’s wrong, imo. Telling someone you love them when you’re just after their money/body/whatever is what hurts people. People who deliberately hurt others for their own gain are indeed scumbags.
Men won’t marry a woman for money, usually, but I’ve seen lots of them marry 'em for looks. We’ve all seen unattractive middle aged men with gorgeous wives 20 years younger than them, haven’t we? What did she see in him? He’s a lawyer with a successful practice. What did he see in her? She’s beautiful, and her being with him will show the world that he was “good” enough to get a fine looking woman. Plus a beautiful woman is likely to produce healthy offspring (supposedly).
She wouldn’t have given him the time of day had he been poor, and he never would have considered marrying her had she been ugly.
I’ve seen arrangements like this in which the marriage was very happy and the two of them were actually in love. I’ve seen other marriages that were just depressing. She’s stuck with him because she needs his money, he’s stuck with her because she’s wife #2, she still looks great and besides, if they divorce he’ll lose half his stuff.
As long as both people agree to the arrangement, I don’t have a problem with it. Money was pretty much the only reason people married up until about 150 years ago or so. I don’t see it as the ideal reason to marry but I can think of much worse reasons, too.
And yes, money is an important criteria, I think. trublmakr is dead on when she says that a marriage with money problems is not a happy marriage.
I’d love go to to the courthouse sometime with a bunch of $5,000 checks in my hand. I’d stop the couples that were about to file for no-fault divorce before they signed the papers and asked them if they would wait 6 months to file for divorce in exchange for the money.
I bet at least some of them that took a check and agreed to wait would end up staying together and working things out. Money problems put soooooo much stress on a marriage, and it exacerbates the little problems in a marriage that could be worked out if both partners weren’t so freaked out over how to pay the bills.
I’ve never heard evidence that this is actually true.
However, as I understand it, evolutionary biology speculates that the physical traits (in men as well as women) that make people ‘attractive’ were originally selected by our Stone Age ancestors to maximize the probability of healthy offspring.
And just to clarify MY post- I would never marry a man regardless of how much money he had if I didn’t love him. Yes, love is a prerequisite. I’m just saying that I personally feel that it’s also a prerequesite that he be financially secure and responsible.
The problem with marrying someone based on their income is that wealthy people acquire wealthy tastes. Inevitably one will want to stop working, but perhaps might not be so ready to give up the expensive lifestyle.
I would urge anyone getting married to take a look not at their partner’s income, but at their debt levels and spending habits. Do not marry any man or woman before you arrive at an agreement regarding spending and debt. If you are in harmony on frugal spending, you and your partner can be happy on a surprisingly low income.
I think Trublmakr has the root of it all. Women have traditionally placed a prospective husband’s earning power high on her list because she knows that at some point she and her children might be totally dependent on his income. It’s not “looking for a free ride,” rather it’s, on some deep level, being a responsible mother – even if it’s a few years before the actual birth of her children.
Men, on the other hand, don’t have that unselfish reason-- there’s no chance that they’ll have to quit work and stay in bed for nine months with a problem pregnancy. I don’t buy the reasoning that a good income on her part indicates that she won’t squander his hard earned cash. There are plenty of two-income yuppie couples going bankrupt. If that’s his worry he would be better off noting her maturity and spending habits than demanding an income that could stop at anytime.
We’re an enlisted military family, so we know what all our friends earn. The ones who seem to be well set-up for retirement are not the ones whose spouse earned the most but the ones who knew how to live within a budget. Not too surprising to us – the couples who were able to retire out with enough money to pay cash for their final house and have plenty to live on without taking another job, were the ones whose wives didn’t usually work outside the home. They hadn’t had the expenses of a second car, a second work wardrobe, child care, extra taxes, etc. Note; this only makes sense if the wife’s earnings are fairly low, as is the case with most enlisted wives’ jobs.
