Log in

View Full Version : Men --- When Do You Start Spending Money on "civilian" women???



Pages : 1 [2]

Nyla19
01-12-2018, 12:12 AM
Men try to spend as little money as possible until THAT one has them by the short & curlies and and just can't resist her. Which has zero to do with whether or not she is in the industry.

Men do NOT invest into women UNLESS they are getting sex out of it. They don't do it to see her life improvement over all. Men are NOT that charitable.

Rich men have pre-nups to KEEP their assets NOT share them. When they get divorced they hide assets & expensive lawyers to get out of any kind of financial responsibility.
You seem to think marrying a rich guy is the answer, when at a certain point they will just upgrade you for a younger newer model. Very few women can marry for money & upgrade in each marriage.

Financial wealth & long term investments start with you & you investing into stock, bonds, funds and such each week & grow that nest egg all own your own by hustling men for money any way you can now.

"Diamonds are a girl's best friend" but gold is a better investment long term.

$400,000 & a Mercedes may sound like a lot of money but it isn't. Now when a fancy Mercedes can cost $75,000 or more like half that $400,000 nest egg. If you married & got half then that is only $200,000 after how many years of marriage. Let's say 10, which equals to $20,000 a year.

Now if you took $250 a week of money you made & invested it. How much would that make with interest & earning in a growth money market fund? Without having to wash some guys dirty underwear.

You're the bomb, Sam38g

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 12:13 AM
Every woman in this thread? I'm under the impression that the majority of the women in this thread have expressed disapproval at the type of relationship dynamic you keep advocating for. And no I do not consider my customers paying for me for my services at my JOB as me gold-digging. Me making money via my job is me providing for myself, having a boyfriend 'improving my quality of life' and 'economic standing' would not be me providing for myself.

I'm not advocating for anything. If I were, I'd say you should do this and here is why. Everyone has their own preferences.

Whether you provide a service, provide time/companionship, etc.......you are getting your money from men to do as you please with said money. They give you money which you use to improve your life via paying bills/saving/etc. The same can be said for wives who stay at home or girlfriends whose bf's spend on them or sugarbabies whose sugardaddies give them allowance.

My point is money is not falling from the sky - everyone on this thread derives income from other people. The 4 hours you clock in giving lap dances is no different from the 4 hours a sugar baby spends having dinner with her sd, same 4 hours a wife spends cooking/cleaning for her family, same 4 hours a gf spends on a date with her rich bf, same 4 hours an escort spends with her client.

Your hustle is no different. It's all the same.

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 12:16 AM
I don't know what rants you're talking about, I'm only talking about what I'm reading in this thread. Yes that example of the book is a very inexpensive yet helpful gift, but let's be clear in this thread you are not talking about little inexpensive, thoughtful gifts. You're talking about some pretty pricey stuff like this:





.....



Well yes...but that's not what you were talking about. You specifically said that men buy women gifts to show them what kind of generosity they could expect to receive upon marriage, I argued that that's probably not why most men buy women gifts and gave you a different example, and now you're arguing against my example by giving even me more examples that go against what you initially said. ? Like someone else said it's kind of hard to discuss this with you because you keep changing the parameters and switching back on your own words. I mean ultimately it doesn't really matter because we have very different ideas about relationships so it's not like either of us is going to learn anything from the other. Btw are you a Capricorn? You seem very materialistic and money-hungry like me and those are big Capricorn traits. I especially wouldn't be surprised if your rising sign is Capricorn.

Yes. I was referring in that post to pricier items but I'd never discount gifts given to me that are helpful yet inexpensive.

No it's hard to discuss because you hear what you want to hear and It is not easy to convey/clarify via chat.

I'd agree we just simply have differing perspectives on certain topics. And thats okay.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 12:37 AM
I'm not advocating for anything. If I were, I'd say you should do this and here is why. Everyone has their own preferences.

I'm not saying you're advocating it to us, but if women are telling you that they don't think the kind of relationship dynamic you're describing is very healthy or practical and then you argue for why it is, I would say that you are advocating for it. I feel like that was pretty obvious.


Whether you provide a service, provide time/companionship, etc.......you are getting your money from men to do as you please with said money. They give you money which you use to improve your life via paying bills/saving/etc. The same can be said for wives who stay at home or girlfriends whose bf's spend on them or sugarbabies whose sugardaddies give them allowance.

My point is money is not falling from the sky - everyone on this thread derives income from other people.

Your hustle is no different. It's all the same.

I have to disagree. Making money via a job is not the same as being financially dependent on a person. Everyone in this thread (presumably)IS deriving income from other people----however financial support received from a boyfriend is not income. I understand what you're saying that women who use men for money is more business-oriented than it is relationship-oriented, but that's not true in reverse; people who make money via their businesses and jobs are not relationship-oriented.


You are also jumping to conclusions based on your bias regarding whatever rants or whatever I posted in the past. For example, I had a dude I went out with on 1 date buy me a book about law of attraction - that is an example of a guy buying something that can help to improve goals/economic standing/etc. It doesn't always have to be extravagant but it can be. I also mentioned once that I had a very short-term goal of getting a bike. Dude I've known for all of 30 min hands me cash and was like here go get that bike you want. Both instances I was not in long-term relationship and dudes gave me something that improved the quality of my life. I also like to believe I gave them something as well (not necessarily sex/anything sexual) but just being attentive to them

Did you re-edit that to include those examples to prove I'm jumping to conclusions based on your former posts? I literally have NO idea what you are talking about and I've never read the posts where you told those stories. If you think I'm attacking you I promise you I'm not.


Also you are speaking of people who are wanting to improve in life in what seems to be derogatory way. How are you as a female who hasn't done any research on what men REALLy want to say that they would not be attracted to women of lower economic status than themselves? I actually created a thread a while back (I'll see if I can find link) but you know what? Men really don't place as much value on women's economic status/income as much as they do the woman's character. Now maybe they were lying or maybe there was some reason for them to give this response. idk

Why do you assume that I haven't done any research on said topic? 1.) it's an incorrect assumption, and 2.) I'm curious to know what research you have done? Aside from making a post on Stripperweb? I'm also willing to bet that I have a lot more personal experience with the subjects at hand as well, I notice that you tend to primarily argue from theory rather than experience. Also in regards to that thread; I didn't read much of it but I don't doubt your summarization, IME financial equality is not a major dating/relationship prerequisite for men. That being said though, just because a man is okay with a woman earning less income than him doesn't = him wanting to then financially support her. Those are 2 different things.

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 12:49 AM
I'm not saying you're advocating it to us, but if women are telling you that they don't think the kind of relationship dynamic you're describing is very healthy or practical and then you argue for why it is, I would say that you are advocating for it. I feel like that was pretty obvious.

IDK. I suppose I have seen successful examples with my own eyes - but perhaps what I've seen or experienced is rare. And perhaps my perspective is more a minority - at least among the people in this thread.

Also the thread has become very long now so it is possible people are skimming over and misunderstanding.

But different strokes for different folks I suppose.



I have to disagree. Making money via a job is not the same as being financially independent on a person. Everyone in this thread (presumably)IS deriving income from other people----however financial support received from a boyfriend is not income. I understand what you're saying that women who use men for money is more business-oriented than it is relationship-oriented, but that's not true in reverse; people who make money via their businesses and jobs are not relationship-oriented.


Hmm. well IDK. I'm not seeing it as using men/a business but maybe there is some grey area.

I would think, for example a woman has a rich bf and he gifts her 6k for say some educational trip abroad. She would take 1k to invest, and spend the rest on the trip. She would still claim the 6k on tax returns as gifts/other income.

And when you say business not relationship oriented you mean romantic/emotional?


Did you re-edit that to include those examples to prove I'm jumping to conclusions based on your former posts? I literally have NO idea what you are talking about and I've never read the posts where you told those stories. If you think I'm attacking you I promise you I'm not.


Some of my posts I edit to make better sense (if possible) or tone down some of the harshness or whatever, not to prove anything regarding jumping to conclusions. You mentioned something about wasting pussy lol - I believe I may have posted that in the past. However some of the shit I say on here is impulsive ranting and not all the way serious.


Why do you assume that I haven't done any research on said topic? 1.) it's an incorrect assumption, and 2.) I'm curious to know what research you have done? Aside from making a post on Stripperweb? I'm also willing to bet that I have a lot more personal experience with the subjects at hand as well, I notice that you tend to primarily argue from theory rather than experience. Also in regards to that thread; I didn't read much of it but I don't doubt your summarization, IME financial equality is not a major dating/relationship prerequisite for men. That being said though, just because a man is okay with a woman earning less income than him doesn't = him wanting to then financially support her. Those are 2 different things.

Oh ok. I figured you'd mention if you had.

Making a post on stripper webs asking for peoples thoughts/idea/perspectives maybe even a poll is a form of informal researching but if I had the time I could perform more formal research with a larger sample size, publish findings, etc.

And I did mention in the first page that when I asked the question is was partially based on theory.

PhatGirlDynomite!!!
01-12-2018, 12:52 AM
I'm not advocating for anything. If I were, I'd say you should do this and here is why. Everyone has their own preferences.

Whether you provide a service, provide time/companionship, etc.......you are getting your money from men to do as you please with said money. They give you money which you use to improve your life via paying bills/saving/etc. The same can be said for wives who stay at home or girlfriends whose bf's spend on them or sugarbabies whose sugardaddies give them allowance.

My point is money is not falling from the sky - everyone on this thread derives income from other people. The 4 hours you clock in giving lap dances is no different from the 4 hours a sugar baby spends having dinner with her sd, same 4 hours a wife spends cooking/cleaning for her family, same 4 hours a gf spends on a date with her rich bf, same 4 hours an escort spends with her client.

Your hustle is no different. It's all the same.

There is a difference. Family members don't consider their situations as a hustle. When you have a family and care for someone, it's not considered a business transaction. It is not the same thing. Escorts, Sugar Babies, Dancers, Camgirls, PSO's, Pornstars (did I leave anyone out?) That's entertainment. These are our jobs. When you put that aside or "turn it off" is when you go home and focus on your family and loved ones. The only thing I clock in for is the entertainment. When I'm taking care of my family I'm off the clock and living my life.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 12:58 AM
IDK. I suppose I have seen successful examples with my own eyes - but perhaps what I've seen or experienced is rare. And perhaps my perspective is more a minority - at least among the people in this thread.

I wasn't asking you why you are desirous of the kind of relationship you are.

And for the record, I said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think there is anything wrong with that kind of relationship. In fact I have always wondered why gold-digging women get demonized because in those kinds of relationships the men usually know exactly what's going on. Both parties are complicit and both parties are getting what they want, I don't see the big deal.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 01:10 AM
I would think, for example a woman has a rich bf and he gifts her 6k for say some educational trip abroad. She would take 1k to invest, and spend the rest on the trip. She would still claim the 6k on tax returns as gifts/other income.

No matter what she claims it as to the IRS, it was still given to her as a gift from a bf and was not income from an employer.


And when you say business not relationship oriented you mean romantic/emotional?

Yes. I'm saying that just because some people use relationships to make money doesn't mean that people who make money via their employment are using relationships to do it; I don't have relationships with my cam customers off of whom I make money, a waiter doesn't have relationships with the customers he or she serves and makes money off of, a chef doesn't have relationships with the customers he cooks for and makes money off of....etc. It doesn't really make sense but that's the whole point.

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 01:24 AM
There is a difference. Family members don't consider their situations as a hustle. When you have a family and care for someone, it's not considered a business transaction. It is not the same thing. Escorts, Sugar Babies, Dancers, Camgirls, PSO's, Pornstars (did I leave anyone out?) That's entertainment. These are our jobs. When you put that aside or "turn it off" is when you go home and focus on your family and loved ones. The only thing I clock in for is the entertainment. When I'm taking care of my family I'm off the clock and living my life.

I don't mean like youre hustling your family. I mean like for example, a housewife gets ready to divorce - what was her time/effort worth and how much alimony is she owed?

Well if/when these divorces occur and mf's busting out calculators, dividing up property and figuring alimony ---- marriage can be a business transaction from a numbers point of view


No matter what she claims it as to the IRS, it was still given to her as a gift from a bf and was not income from an employer.

Well, I was under the impression many adult industry careers are self-employed/independent contractor so theirs don't come from employer either


I wasn't asking you why you are desirous of the kind of relationship you are.

And for the record, I said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think there is anything wrong with that kind of relationship. In fact I have always wondered why gold-digging women get demonized because in those kinds of relationships the men usually know exactly what's going on. Both parties are complicit and both parties are getting what they want, I don't see the big deal.

IDK. I guess my idea what constitutes men spending money on civilian women is different from straight up gold-digging.

I think it is demonized because it is viewed as the woman not giving two fucks about the dude whilst getting money with no effort at all on her part.

This is not what I'm thinking about when I posted. Maybe That is why when I kept posting it was making it seem like 'advocating' but really it seems more like the posters here view dating/marrying into wealth same as gold-digging regardless of emotional connection/true intention/etc

I was thinking more along the lines of a long-term relationship leading to marriage with a dude successful in career and wise in managing finances and generous with his lady. There is mutual respect and positive emotional connection. If a family or kids is in the picture then the dude is willing to do more of the income producing activities so the finances will be available to help the kids live a 'good' life. (this is based on more 'traditional' roles)

That is all.

PhatGirlDynomite!!!
01-12-2018, 01:27 AM
Well if/when these divorces occur and mf's busting out calculators, dividing up property and figuring alimony ---- marriage can be a business transaction from a numbers point of view

Okay girly. Goodnight :)

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 01:27 AM
^^That's an entirely different situation though. You were talking about men giving money to their girlfriends just because they want to, which is what PGD was talking about.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 01:33 AM
Well, I was under the impression many adult industry careers are self-employed/independent contractor, vanilla careers most of them are via employer

So because in my job I'm an independent contractor, that means the money that I make isn't income? Interesting. Wonder what the IRS would say about that one.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 01:38 AM
And honestly, it doesn't matter. Whether or not someone's income is coming from an employer or whether they're an independent contractor, it still doesn't mean that money a woman receives from a bf is income.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 02:06 AM
I was thinking more along the lines of a long-term relationship leading to marriage with a dude successful in career and wise in managing finances and generous with his lady. There is mutual respect and positive emotional connection. If a family or kids is in the picture then the dude is willing to do more of the income producing activities so the finances will be available to help the kids live a 'good' life. (this is based on more 'traditional' roles)

Well the thing to me is that the stuff you keep wanting a guy to do or thinking a guy should do in a relationship---like being so generous to where he's heavily investing financially into his partner---is typically stuff that I think a guy is going to be more likely to do once he knows a woman is the one he wants to build a life with. It's not something I can see them doing for every chick they date, so trying to figure out how soon into a relationship is soon enough for a guy to start throwing money at a woman like she's his wife just doesn't really make much sense to me. I feel like wanting a happy marriage with a man who can and wants to be the sole provider and wanting a man who is willing to financially support you, and quickly, while you're dating are 2 completely different things. On one hand you want a generous man and a happy relationship, and on the other hand your like 'How soon into dating will a guy start financially supporting me?' Like is it all about the money or isn't it?

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 02:07 AM
And honestly, it doesn't matter. Whether or not someone's income is coming from an employer or whether they're an independent contractor, it still doesn't mean that money a woman receives from a bf is income.

I think that depends. I believe it depends on what is done with the money gifted. But I wonder if that Zofia woman knows.

Do you think the physical effort with which a woman derived her income makes one more valid than the other?

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 02:11 AM
I think that depends. But I wonder if that Zofia woman knows.

It's not income unless the gf would decide to list it as income(and then it would only be so nominally, it was still not given to her as income), which I have no clue why she would do that since I'm pretty sure that would mean she'd have to pay higher taxes on it.


Do you think the physical effort with which a woman derived her income makes one more valid than the other?

I have no idea what this means.

BondGirl007
01-12-2018, 05:17 AM
Maybe this is a crass question but I am really curious if my theory is right or not.

If you like a "civilian" woman at what point are you comfortable with investing in your lady/giving her cash if she asks/offering cash if you see it's something she needs, etc? I'm not talking about the average paying for dates, birthday gifts, holiday gifts, etc... I'm referring to more than this

I know this OP is aimed toward the M or F partner to the woman in a relationship, but I'd just like to add that in my SW/RW experiences, intimate relationships in both, I found civvie relationships to be the cheapos. Many civvie men like to financial-shame/guilt both civvie women and SWers -- especially SWers. Civvie women are easier to wrangle for the cheapos, as the civvie women don't have the experience SWers do in man management, but I have seen the cheap/shame/guilt-tripping over-and-over in civvie life, both my own & civvie friends' lives.

Bahuba
01-12-2018, 07:06 AM
I know this OP is aimed toward the M or F partner to the woman in a relationship, but I'd just like to add that in my SW/RW experiences, intimate relationships in both, I found civvie relationships to be the cheapos. Many civvie men like to financial-shame/guilt both civvie women and SWers -- especially SWers. Civvie women are easier to wrangle for the cheapos, as the civvie women don't have the experience SWers do in man management, but I have seen the cheap/shame/guilt-tripping over-and-over in civvie life, both my own & civvie friends' lives.

From the opposite corner, based on what I've seen with friends, this is true.

rickdugan
01-12-2018, 08:19 AM
My point is money is not falling from the sky - everyone on this thread derives income from other people. The 4 hours you clock in giving lap dances is no different from the 4 hours a sugar baby spends having dinner with her sd, same 4 hours a wife spends cooking/cleaning for her family, same 4 hours a gf spends on a date with her rich bf, same 4 hours an escort spends with her client.

Your hustle is no different. It's all the same.

I've seen this theory espoused before on here and I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that what a wife does for her family is the same as what sex workers do for their customers/clients. It is not. What sex workers do is transactional and the guys have no ongoing obligations to them beyond paying the current tab. Wives, on the other hands, are in partnerships and benefit from the wealth accumulation of the couple. They also derive the emotional benefits that come with being part of a family unit, which can be immense. And before someone trots out "prenups!" like they are widely used, they in fact are not the norm, but rather the exception. Most couples of a similar age start out in less than affluent situations and build from there.

Now do all marriages work the way they should? Of course not. But in theory the husband and wife are both part of something larger than themselves as individuals. Where these partnerships often break down is when one partner is stuck in his/her own head and either loses sight or stops caring about the bigger picture.

BondGirl007
01-12-2018, 08:30 AM
From the opposite corner, based on what I've seen with friends, this is true.

And it's actually fairly offensive when cheapos are not kind and generous with civvies especially, as generally these women who have their basic RW jobs and sources of income don't have the access to the kind of money & independence that SWers have available to them if they are wise -- unless the civvie woman is independent and in business for herself in one way or another, and that woman is generally too outspoken, assertive, and too threatening for cheapo man. Bottom line is that there is definitely a battle of the sexes, and it revolves around sex, power, and money.
"Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power. " ~ Oscar Wilde

miss.a.p1600
01-12-2018, 09:10 AM
I've seen this theory espoused before on here and I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that what a wife does for her family is the same as what sex workers do for their customers/clients. It is not. What sex workers do is transactional and the guys have no ongoing obligations to them beyond paying the current tab. Wives, on the other hands, are in partnerships and benefit from the wealth accumulation of the couple. They also derive the emotional benefits that come with being part of a family unit, which can be immense. And before someone trots out "prenups!" like they are widely used, they in fact are not the norm, but rather the exception. Most couples of a similar age start out in less than affluent situations and build from there.

Now do all marriages work the way they should? Of course not. But in theory the husband and wife are both part of something larger than themselves as individuals. Where these partnerships often break down is when one partner is stuck in his/her own head and either loses sight or stops caring about the bigger picture.

You said wives "Benefit from wealth accumulation"......please elaborate - because that sounds like a transactional element to me?

And I can guarantee, if money/assets/wealth is not considered via prenup on the front end, it is during a divorce, especially if the dude cheated (which many of them do), ...... It's going to be transactional.

Also while some are okay with not placing that much emphasis on economic standing of their partner, others will not marry "down" so to speak. Part of the reason they marry is to continue building family fortunes.

I think marriage does have a transactional element to it. Even in the most loving relationships....the money aspect is always there.

Genoveve
01-12-2018, 10:35 AM
^^Do you know what a 'straw man argument' is? It's when someone tries to win a debate by dismantling arguments that that their opponent never made.

sexyadrienne
01-12-2018, 11:08 PM
Marriage benefits the husband and divorce favors the wife.

Moving on -- I'm married myself and I enjoy not having to worry about the basic things such as rent, food, transportation and etc. When I was living on my own, I spent thousands upon thousands of my SW income on basic necessities. The irony in this is that SW income =/= men who were keeping a roof over my hand. Ever since I can remember, a man has always helped me out . . . as I have "helped" them.

Nonetheless, I guess the only difference now is that one man is putting a roof over my head. However, just because the bare necessities are taken care of doesn't mean that I abandon my own nest egg. My mother always told me to keep a separate checking account just for yourself and out sight/knowledge from the husband . . . just in case. In this economy, you never know and relationships don't last forever. Money changes. People change. Things change.

Oh, and for the record, (when we were dating) my husband paid for my college tuition and even helped on rent a couple of times when I couldn't make ends meet. One of the reasons why I'm with him today is because he showed that he was willing to invest in me. I bypassed cars, cash and clothes just to get the proverbial 'golden ticket' towards a better education. After all, a college degree is something that no one - not even a man - can take away.

To answer the OP's question: Get what you can out of men, but don't let that be all you know. We are living in the 21st century . . . not the 1950's. Women don't need men to survive and men sure as hell don't need women to survive either.

jack0177057
01-12-2018, 11:45 PM
When I say investing in a woman I mean someone you have a relationship (could be short term or long term) with and I mean something that would help her reach her goals and or improve her economic standing or improve her quality of life - like invest in her business/career/education/favorite charities/etc.

You use the word "invest" and I do not invest in anything, unless I expect to get a good return on my investment. You have to convince me of that. For example, if you want me to pay for your gym membership, clothes, cosmetics, etc., you have to tell me that you want to look good for me - that I'm getting the hottest version of you as a return on my investment.

I love sexy/fetish outfits, so I could invest money in your sexy/fetish wardrobe, because I get a direct benefit from it. You need a stripper pole? No problem, as long as you pole dance for me as a regular part of our foreplay.

If you have a business and want me to invest in it, I will first determine whether it has the potential to be lucrative, and then, I would ask you whether I will be receiving any shares of stock (or partnership/membership interest, etc.) in exchange for my investment. If I get an interest in the business, even if it is a nominal minority interest, I will be more interested in making the investment.

If you want a loan and offer to sign a promissory note and pay me a nominal interest rate, I would be more likely to loan you the money, than if you just asked me to hand you money as a "loan".

I need to feel that you are not taking advantage of me; that, you are offering me something in return.

miss.a.p1600
01-13-2018, 10:08 AM
^^Do you know what a 'straw man argument' is? It's when someone tries to win a debate by dismantling arguments that that their opponent never made.


Perhaps I unwittingly engaged in some straw man argument - but in regards to Rick Dugans comment what I heard him say is that marriage (especially the type when one partner is the main income earner) is - in his point of view - different from women deriving income from adult work/vanilla work (with the exception of people who draft/sign prenups) because it is not "transactional" but I provided a different viewpoint because I believe that most relationships, including marriages, are transactional.

In general, humans are inherently self-serving and do not go into situations/relationships/careers without some benefit/some form of advancement for themselves or for their current/future families. But Maybe his definition of 'transactional' is different from mine.


Marriage benefits the husband and divorce favors the wife.

Moving on -- I'm married myself and I enjoy not having to worry about the basic things such as rent, food, transportation and etc. When I was living on my own, I spent thousands upon thousands of my SW income on basic necessities. The irony in this is that SW income =/= men who were keeping a roof over my hand. Ever since I can remember, a man has always helped me out . . . as I have "helped" them.

Nonetheless, I guess the only difference now is that one man is putting a roof over my head. However, just because the bare necessities are taken care of doesn't mean that I abandon my own nest egg. My mother always told me to keep a separate checking account just for yourself and out sight/knowledge from the husband . . . just in case. In this economy, you never know and relationships don't last forever. Money changes. People change. Things change.

Oh, and for the record, (when we were dating) my husband paid for my college tuition and even helped on rent a couple of times when I couldn't make ends meet. One of the reasons why I'm with him today is because he showed that he was willing to invest in me. I bypassed cars, cash and clothes just to get the proverbial 'golden ticket' towards a better education. After all, a college degree is something that no one - not even a man - can take away.

To answer the OP's question: Get what you can out of men, but don't let that be all you know. We are living in the 21st century . . . not the 1950's. Women don't need men to survive and men sure as hell don't need women to survive either.

Thanks for sharing Adrienne. Sounds like you and other ladies here have good husbands.

And you have a point (which I did mention on a few occasions in the thread) that stacking your own coins to use how you want with your control is always the smart/wise thing to do. However I am not sure how ladies do this without the husband knowing?


You use the word "invest" and I do not invest in anything, unless I expect to get a good return on my investment. You have to convince me of that. For example, if you want me to pay for your gym membership, clothes, cosmetics, etc., you have to tell me that you want to look good for me - that I'm getting the hottest version of you as a return on my investment.

I love sexy/fetish outfits, so I could invest money in your sexy/fetish wardrobe, because I get a direct benefit from it. You need a stripper pole? No problem, as long as you pole dance for me as a regular part of our foreplay.

If you have a business and want me to invest in it, I will first determine whether it has the potential to be lucrative, and then, I would ask you whether I will be receiving any shares of stock (or partnership/membership interest, etc.) in exchange for my investment. If I get an interest in the business, even if it is a nominal minority interest, I will be more interested in making the investment.

If you want a loan and offer to sign a promissory note and pay me a nominal interest rate, I would be more likely to loan you the money, than if you just asked me to hand you money as a "loan".

I need to feel that you are not taking advantage of me; that, you are offering me something in return.

I wouldn't doubt many men share your perspective jack. And while I was more specifically referring to money given to 'civilian' women for use towards appreciating assets, I could see where bf's would give money in the other ways with the purpose you mention.

I really don't agree with situations/"transactions"/relationships/etc where people taking advantage of one another.

Genoveve
01-13-2018, 11:07 AM
Perhaps I unwittingly engaged in some straw man argument - but in regards to Rick Dugans comment what I heard him say is that marriage (especially the type when one partner is the main income earner) is - in his point of view - different from women deriving income from adult work/vanilla work (with the exception of people who draft/sign prenups) because it is not "transactional" but I provided a different viewpoint because I believe that most relationships, including marriages, are transactional.

In general, humans are inherently self-serving and do not go into situations/relationships/careers without some benefit/some form of advancement for themselves or for their current/future families. But Maybe his definition of 'transactional' is different from mine.

I keep seeing you do this thing with people's posts where you like, latch onto one piece of what someone says and then you try and try to twist it(or you just repeatedly misinterpret it, I can't tell if you do it on purpose or not) to make it suit your point of view, all while failing to grasp the overarching argument that was actually put forth. It's completely fine if you don't agree with anyone, but the counterpoints you present more often than not have nothing to do with whatever whoever you're debating with actually said. For instance with that guy; he clearly explained why he considers the stripper/customer dynamic to be completely different from the husband/wife dynamic and why he doesn't consider the latter to be transactional......then you seize 4 words from said post and say 'Wait but don't these words of yours prove that marriage is actually also transactional? And the answer is no.....and the reason why it's no was already explained in the post you took the quote from.

miss.a.p1600
01-13-2018, 02:02 PM
I keep seeing you do this thing with people's posts where you like, latch onto one piece of what someone says and then you try and try to twist it(or you just repeatedly misinterpret it, I can't tell if you do it on purpose or not) to make it suit your point of view, all while failing to grasp the overarching argument that was actually put forth. It's completely fine if you don't agree with anyone, but the counterpoints you present more often than not have nothing to do with whatever whoever you're debating with actually said. For instance with that guy; he clearly explained why he considers the stripper/customer dynamic to be completely different from the husband/wife dynamic and why he doesn't consider the latter to be transactional......then you seize 4 words from said post and say 'Wait but don't these words of yours prove that marriage is actually also transactional? And the answer is no.....and the reason why it's no was already explained in the post you took the quote from.

This isn't really about 'straw arguments' unless you make it as such.....YOU tend to think in absolutes/black and white - I do not. The answer in No to you because that is your point of view. While the answer is Yes to me (especially when 1 person significantly outearns the other) because that is my point of view.

I am aware that on the topic of "is marriage transactional" - you, rick dugans, jack, sam have a differing point of view than I do - and that is okay - I am not here to change anyone's mind.

But if people reading this they have a right to have a view a discussion with all the information from ALL sides not just the side you view or think is right.

It was not clear to me which is why I asked him to elaborate so I can make sure I understand vs. misinterpret/jump to conclusions

Besides, It's not about me or how you view my posts because that is derailing the thread.

I simply wanted to know male perspectives when they start spending on civilian women whom they are not married to. I was interested in female perspective as well if their partners/bf spend on them before marriage.

Adrienne said her now spouse invested in her education while they were dating
Jack said he would invest but only if he had some benefit/return on investment
Rick dugans said he would only invest if he were in a serious relationship heading towards marriage/in marriage
And others have chimed in with useful information

What I heard men saying was that they do not want to be or feel used so that is one reason why they/civilian men do not give money or spend on civilian whom they are not in any type of committed relationship (which I assume for them is either marriage or cohabitating)

THAT was the question and THOSE are the responses I was trying to get at --- all the other stuff and opinions of me/my posting histories is irrelevant to the topic at hand

Genoveve
01-13-2018, 02:28 PM
This isn't really about 'straw arguments' unless you make it as such.....YOU tend to think in absolutes/black and white - I do not.

You're doing it again. Where did I ever accuse you of black-and-white or absolute thinking? And if what you're saying before that is that the idea of a 'straw man argument' is only being mentioned because I mentioned it.....yes, that's true.....and?


And have you not latched onto 1 thing I said and fit it to your narrative?

No, I can't say that I have actually.


Besides, It's not about me or how I post - or you and how you chose to post/respond because that is derailing the thread.

Yeah but the thing is, if you keep trying to have a discussion where you debate other people's opposing opinions it kind of really matters that you do it in a way that shows you actually comprehended what they were saying in the first place.

PhatGirlDynomite!!!
01-13-2018, 02:41 PM
This isn't really about 'straw arguments' unless you make it as such.....YOU tend to think in absolutes/black and white - I do not. The answer in No to you because that is your point of view. While the answer is Yes to me (especially when 1 person significantly outearns the other) because that is my point of view.

But if people reading this they have a right to have a discussion from ALL sides not just the side you view or think is right.

It was not clear to me which is why I asked him to elaborate so I can make sure I understand vs. misinterpret/jump to conclusions

Besides, It's not about me or how you view my posts because that is derailing the thread.

I simply wanted to know male perspectives when they start spending on civilian women whom they are not married to. I was interested in female perspective as well if their partners/bf spend on them before marriage.

1 Lady said her now spouse invested in her education while they were dating
Jack said he would invest but only if he had some benefit/return on investment
Rick dugans said he would only invest if he were in a serious relationship heading towards marriage/in marriage

What I heard men saying was that they do not want to be or feel used so that is one reason why they/civilian men do not give money or spend on civilian whom they are not in any type of committed relationship (which I assume for them is either marriage or cohabitating)

THAT was the question and THOSE are the responses I was trying to get at --- all the other stuff/moral values/posting histories/etc. could be part of another thread.

I'm on my phone and tried to respond to this message that was last edited at 4:19 But my damn keyboard glitched and erased the response. So I go back in and it shows that the message was edited again at 4:31. This has been happening throughout the entire discussion. Thats why I exited the thread the other night. I felt like this conversation was very manipulative. Like I read something, respond to it and then it looks like I misunderstood the posters point of view? But the truth is you went back and made changes. Again its a message board and topics go sideways, backwards and forwards all the time.

miss.a.p1600
01-13-2018, 02:46 PM
I'm on my phone and tried to respond to this message that was last edited at 4:19 But my damn keyboard glitched and erased the response. So I go back in and it shows that the message was edited again at 4:31. This has been happening throughout the entire discussion. Thats why I exited the thread the other night. I felt like this conversation was very manipulative. Like I read something, respond to it and then it looks like I misunderstood the posters point of view? But the truth is you went back and made changes. Again its a message board and topics go sideways, backwards and forwards all the time.

So because I use the edit feature available on the forum and you accuse me of being manipulative?????? Thats really mature.

I have 3+ people derail the thread, taking personal jabs, jumping to conclusions, being hypocrites, misinterpreting my posts, and its somehow unheard of to use the edit feature to attempt to ORGANIZE my thoughts in a concise mature manner.

Djoser
01-13-2018, 02:53 PM
I actually encourage people to edit their posts, just so it's done to clarify, or to reduce the risk of antagonizing other members.

Though of course the editing feature could be used to throw people off or trick them I suppose--not saying that's what happened here as I just now saw the thread.

Anyway I have to go to work right now so don't have time to go through and see where discord started, so I will temporarily close the thread,