🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960502224643.19850A-100000@mv.mv.com>,
-=Weezel=-  <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:
>Ummm. Ok. But those aren't the only possibilities. Perhaps they are for 
>"most" women and I am again proving I'm incredibly weird. Oh well. 
>
>Would you consider it really weird for a woman to expect you can at least 
>be self sufficient and have, perhaps, a *little* extra (due to being 
>capable of living within your means) but not to require you to be *either* 
>wallowing in wealth or a GQ model? 

Ok, that's a 3rd but strongly related vector.   Ie. if this were your factor
you would not be bothered by success in your partner.  But there are those
who want their partner to be self sufficient but would be bothered or
intimidated by too much success so you are correct there are many facets.

>So, does that mean you would require someone to be your financial equal? 
>Or simply not a leech?

Well the chances of meeting a woman who meets my other desires and is also
my financial equal are very slim, so I can hardly require that,
in particular when the other desires are more important.  But it does
mean that it creates the fear that somebody wants to be kept, which is
not my interest.   I would be bothered if any facet of the relationship
were effectively one-way on a full-time basis.  That things fluctuate
from person to person is fine, even good.

And if you end up supporting somebody totally, it can create the nagging
question of whether that support might be part of what they are in the
relationship for, rather than just a consequence of it.
-- 
Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	 info@clari.net
The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,400,000 paid sbscrbrs.)  http://www.clari.net/brad/