🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 2 May 1996, Brad Templeton wrote:

> In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960502002845.8866D-100000@mv.mv.com>,
> -=Weezel=-  <louise@mv.mv.com> wrote:
> >YOU took it and said, "yeah, some women are after money, and those of us 
> >with truely ugly mugs appreciate this fact as it's the only way we can 
> >get laid." 
> >
> >(I believe that's a fairly direct translation of what you said...)
> >
> >My point... maybe it's the only way you can get laid on the first date by
> >barbie dolls who want big bucks. But you're missing the point. I've dated 
> >"cute" guys and I've dated guys whose looks would not win any awards. And 
> >those between. You do not have to be something that looks like it should 
> >be on television to interest women... nor do you have to buy us.
> 
> 
> Actually I don't think that is what he said.   

Brad, he made a reference to it being the oldest form of transaction
between a man and a woman. This is (unless it was accidental, which I
don't think is likely) a direct reference to "the oldest profession", ie
prostitution. Money exchanged for sex. 8zHN

 There are two forms in
> which women (and men) are attracted to wealth in a partner.
> 
> There are those who want some of that wealth, whom you describe.  But that
> is not the full picture.   There are also those who simply respect and
> admire a person's success and lifestyle, and there is nothing wrong with
> being attracted for that reason.

I agree with this. Respect for someone's ability *can* be more than skin 
deep, or wallet deep. It can be respect for the tenacity it took to get 
where you are. The brainpower. The endurance of hardship. The sheer 
stubbornness. Whatever it was that it took you to claw out your place in 
society or business or science or art or whatever place it is you found 
success.

> Indeed, given a choice between some woman desiring me because she thinks
> I'm physically attractive and a woman desiring me because she admires
> how I have made myself wealthy, I will take the latter.  It's more "me"
> in a way, the skills that got me where I am in business are more intrinsic
> to me than the curve of my nose or the colour of my eyes.

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? 

> Of course there are those who have both feelings -- admiration for the
> success and a desire to partake of it.  They'll be disappointed, at least
> with me, not because I am a skinflint, but because I dislike anything
> being one-way in a relationship, including the sharing of material things.
> -- 
> Brad Templeton, publisher, ClariNet Communications Corp.	 info@clari.net
> The net's #1 E-Newspaper (1,300,000 paid sbscrbrs.)  http://www.clari.net/brad/

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

I've been told, on a date, "gee, a guy who hooked up with you would be set
for life!" (re finances, and I'm not wealthy, actually.) It really ticked
me off. I would rather live to be 80 or more with only cats for company,
and seem to be well on my way to doing so... rather than being a money
source for someone who saw me as such. And I would give (and have) to
someone who didn't expect something for nothing... even if I ended up
getting nothing in return. It's that expectation part. 

My response to this guy was to never see him again. Too bad... he was
young (27), cute, and might have made a good pet if I were into that. 
Heck, if he wanted to be kept, maybe I should've offered to buy him a nice
collar, a food bowl, and a VERY short leash. Shoot! I missed my chance! 

;-)

--L