Smart "Girls" Marry Money? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-09-2009, 08:23 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
I love the way girls is in inverted commas.
I'm not a girl anymore and most women who get married aren't . It's not any feminist thing, if that was the issue. Some women just prefer woman to girl, unless you're not a girl/not yet a woman. Just like some men don't want to be called boys.

I get it, girl is a much more cutesy book title than women. I just don't refer to women as girls, unless they're 20 or teens or younger. They can title their book whatever they want. Doesn't mean I can't make it my own, especially given some of the thread titles seen in good ole fym.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 12:52 AM   #62
Refugee
 
A stor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.A. East Coast
Posts: 2,464
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_smee View Post
I love stories like your Inis... I just got engaged, and I have nothing but respect for you
Thank you! I wish you all of the best. Sometimes, when a couple has little in the way of material things. They work together and get it. And they appreciate it so much more. My husband and I, laugh at pre-nuptials. We had nothing to fight over. What? The vintage bedroom furniture, I bought at a thrift store and his electric guitar!

Now we own a town home (paid for). Have two fantastic, grown kids, we are very proud of. Did I mention the grand daughter? Grand mom's little angel!

Life is good.
__________________

__________________
A stor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2009, 11:03 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 08:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
My requirements in women are - and I'm trying to be objective here - fairly unrealistic. I like them to be both submissive and very intelligent with high earning capability.
One out of three wouldn't be so bad.

(Submissive is a bad word to some. They think it means you're a chauvinist.)
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 04:59 PM   #64
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Local Time: 07:03 AM
What if your endownment is really small, do women then divorce the guy after awhile, I think they do.
__________________
Abycka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-2009, 06:43 PM   #65
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 12:03 PM
A great blog find -

All Women Are Fat, All Men Have Small Penises.

(and everyone with an email address has erectile dysfuntion)

Quote:
The harsh truth is that an obsession with inches and pounds is wholly determined by perception, which in the subjective mindstates _ where we spend roughly 95 percent of our waking hours _ ultimately overrides this concept known as "objectivity" as defined by fashion magazines and porn films.

So, you're saying, "Doc, this oddly smells like bullshit." But the fact remains: by nature, if you are a woman, you are fat, and if you are a man, you have a small penis. And if one worries about these things by going on fad diets and buying penis pumps, then these perceptions of inferiority will be amplified to the individual worlds of subjectivity around you.

To illustrate this point I have come up with the "Subjectivist Theory of Weights and Measures*" Conceptually similar to Einstein's "General Theory of Beer Gogglery," or Planck's paper on the "Airbrush Phenomena Resulting From Genuine Affection." Allow me to demonstrate.

Whenever a woman comments negatively on her weight, she gains 5 pounds. Now, does she really gain 5 pounds objectively speaking? Of course not, unless she ingests a Virginia Ham while making the declaration. However, when a woman tells her man, "I'm fat," despite the man's insistence that this is not the case (as he is merely following a survival instinct deep inside his reptilian brain), the notion of "fat" will be deposited in the man's subconscious, and alter his perception, so in his eyes, he will see 5 pounds added.

The converse of this phenomena applies to men. While men as a rule do not go around saying "My penis is small," (although this would make for a funny comedy sketch) they exhibit behavior like buying cars they can't afford, chasing tail, hooting at the WWF Smackdown or shopping at The Sharper Image, which conveys to the female of the species that there is not much to be found in those Calvin Klein slingshot briefs. Every time a man exhibits one of these behaviors, he loses inches in the eyes of femaledom.

Using the formula of Favorable Spatial Perception = Love divided by Annoyance (squared), I offer a few real life examples:
  • Every time a man is late by more than 15 minutes, he loses half an inch.
  • Every time a woman answers the question "What's wrong?" with "Nothing" when this isn't the case, she gains 5 pounds.
  • Every time a man buys flowers, he gains half an inch. If they're really nice flowers for a special occasion, 1 inch.
  • Every time a woman takes the initiative to play "porn star" with her man, she loses 10 pounds.
  • Every time a man offers to help around the house with chores, he gains 1.5 inches. If he fixes something that's broken, 2 inches.
  • Every time a woman offers to give a blowjob during a boring football game, she loses 5 pounds. If she doesn't offer but just launches into it, 10 pounds.
  • Every time an ex is brought up in conversation: 7.5 pounds gained by the woman, 1.5 inches lost by the man, depending on who brought it up. If the context is one of derision, adjust favorable values by only 50 percent respectively as no one wants to hear about who you used to fuck even if you're slamming them.
  • Telling a man you've just had the best sex of your life sheds 15 pounds for the woman. If it is sincere, then add 1.5 inches for the man (You go, Buddy!) and double the woman's loss (reward yourself with some ice cream).
  • Telling a woman you love her sheds 20 pounds, adds 2 inches for you. If the comment is a baldfaced lie, she loses 30 pounds and should find herself a real man because you not only lack a dick, but balls as well.
  • The mere act of going to a gym perceptually sheds 10 pounds for a woman, adds 0.5 inches for a man. Actually working out increases these levels favorably.
  • Every time a man looks at another woman while out on a date, he loses 1 inch, although a woman gains 5 pounds for commenting on it.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2009, 01:37 PM   #66
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:03 AM
SYDNEY (Reuters Life) – Living happily ever after needn't only be for fairy tales. Australian researchers have identified what it takes to keep a couple together, and it's a lot more than just being in love.

A couple's age, previous relationships and even whether they smoke or not are factors that influence whether their marriage is going to last, according to a study by researchers from the Australian National University.

The study, entitled "What's Love Got to Do With It," tracked nearly 2,500 couples -- married or living together -- from 2001 to 2007 to identify factors associated with those who remained together compared with those who divorced or separated.

It found that a husband who is nine or more years older than his wife is twice as likely to get divorced, as are husbands who get married before they turn 25.

Children also influence the longevity of a marriage or relationship, with one-fifth of couples who have kids before marriage -- either from a previous relationship or in the same relationship -- having separated compared to just nine percent of couples without children born before marriage.

Women who want children much more than their partners are also more likely to get a divorce.

A couple's parents also have a role to play in their own relationship, with the study showing some 16 percent of men and women whose parents ever separated or divorced experienced marital separation themselves compared to 10 percent for those whose parents did not separate.

Also, partners who are on their second or third marriage are 90 percent more likely to separate than spouses who are both in their first marriage.

Not surprisingly, money also plays a role, with up to 16 percent of respondents who indicated they were poor or where the husband -- not the wife -- was unemployed saying they had separated, compared with only nine percent of couples with healthy finances.

And couples where one partner, and not the other, smokes are also more likely to have a relationship that ends in failure.

Factors found to not significantly affect separation risk included the number and age of children born to a married couple, the wife's employment status and the number of years the couple had been employed.

The study was jointly written by Dr Rebecca Kippen and Professor Bruce Chapman from The Australian National University, and Dr Peng Yu from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 10:54 AM   #67
War Child
 
AnnRKeyintheUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not coming down
Posts: 603
Local Time: 06:03 AM
Well, all I can say is, I am sorry to say I know girls I went to school with who are marrying or dating some very ugly much older men just because they have money and will give them nice gifts and security. Then they probably hope he'll die while they're still young enough to enjoy his money. Sorry but I'd rather have a guy my own age who may not have money but is fun and loves me.
__________________
AnnRKeyintheUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 01:29 PM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:03 AM

I'm still trying to process a pair of shoes costing 10 grand. Will not ever process.

Talk about 99 problems...




Husband takes stand in $99M divorce trial

Flustered, he says that marriage to countess 30 years younger ‘was dead’
By Mike Celizic
TODAYShow.com contributor
Wed., July 15, 2009

He was 60, urbane and exquisitely upholstered in tailored suits and starched shirts. She was 30 and Swedish, as in drop-dead blond gorgeous. He was the fabulously wealthy former CEO of a high-powered manufacturing firm. She was a countess.

It was a match made in rich people’s heaven. But the divorce is straight from the ninth circle of relationship hell.

George David is 67 now, an older if no wiser man. Marie Douglas-David is 37, still in the prime of life and perhaps financially savvier. There is no question that both want to go their separate ways — she to a life of luxury, he to the arms of his current girlfriend. The question being debated in the democratic venue of a Hartford, Conn., family court for all the world to hear with voyeuristic delight is who gets how much.

$99 million, please
The couple had agreed to separate in 2007, their marriage irreparably broken. He said that she was bossy and imperious (imagine that from a countess) and even tried to force sex upon him. She said that he, the longtime CEO of United Technologies, was often off canoodling with one Wendy Touton, whom he admits lavishing with gifts — including a $13,000 fur and a $10,000 pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes.

In 2005, three years after their wedding, Marie Douglas-David signed a postnuptial agreement giving her $43 million in stock, hedge fund shares, jewelry, and properties in Sweden worth $4 million. But she says that because the couple reconciled for six months after they broke up, the agreement is void. And besides, she says, the postnup shouldn’t apply anyway because she was deceived into signing it.

David is worth a reported $300 million, and, as Peter Alexander of NBC News reported Wednesday for TODAY, Douglas-David wants $99 million of that. Nothing else, she maintains, can support her in the style to which living as David’s wife has accustomed her.

Douglas-David’s needs are not simple. She ticked off her expenses for the court: $53,000 a week just to pay the bills, which include $8,000 for travel, $4,000-plus for clothing, $1,500 for restaurants, $1,000 to keep her hair perfect and her skin glowing, $600 for flowers to make the Park Avenue penthouse worth walking into.

David’s unwillingness to pay is evidenced by his willingness to take the stand in Hartford in front of the unwashed world and talk about what some would consider the embarrassing details of his life.

R.I.P. wedded bliss
Still, he did that for the fifth time Tuesday, testifying that his marriage was “dead” long before he became heavily involved with another woman. “We had no relationship. This marriage was dead,” David testified.

David, who until last year was the chief executive of UTC, has appeared flustered during his past two days on the stand. Reluctantly, he has acknowledged spending thousands on gifts for a mistress, Wendy Touton of Manhattan, during a 2007 trip to London.

The gifts included the Manolo Blahniks and clothing from La Perla, an upscale lingerie and swimwear store. Also, he testified, a 2007 Christmas Day shopping trip included the purchase of the fur coat and $1,500 worth of La Mer beauty products.

Douglas-David’s legal team pointed out travel records that show David jet-setted with Touton to locations that include Argentina, Paris, Frankfurt, Sardinia and St. Tropez, France. They contend that Douglas-David was kept in the dark and tried to reconcile with her husband.

“He was dishonest with her on multiple levels,” her lead attorney, William Beslow, said.

Douglas-David sent an e-mail Nov. 11, 2007, addressed to “my pumpkin and signed “jag alskar dig,” which means “I love you” in Swedish.

“I know you think the odds are low but I wish you would give us another chance of being happy with the very strong love and bond I still hope that we have between us. We can be an amazing couple,” she wrote, a copy of the e-mail filed with the court shows.

David’s lead attorney, former appellate court judge Anne C. Dranginis, argued that the gift-giving and travel were irrelevant because they took place after the divorce proceedings started.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 03:13 PM   #69
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
I'm still trying to process a pair of shoes costing 10 grand. Will not ever process.

Talk about 99 problems...

.
Douglas-David’s needs are not simple. She ticked off her expenses for the court: $53,000 a week just to pay the bills, which include $8,000 for travel, $4,000-plus for clothing, $1,500 for restaurants, $1,000 to keep her hair perfect and her skin glowing, $600 for flowers to make the Park Avenue penthouse worth walking into.


__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 03:17 PM   #70
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Jaysus. I just want a measly grocery store bouquet and a few baseball games. Anyone?
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2009, 03:49 PM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Well, that was the standard of living she experienced when she was with him, she's just following precedent in asking for these expenses.

It's not uncommon to have men paying huge sums of money in spousal and child support. I once read a case where I believe the ex-husband was paying in the neighbourhood of $46K/month in just child support, largely to support the stable of ponies that the two kids had.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2009, 04:23 AM   #72
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
A great blog find -

All Women Are Fat, All Men Have Small Penises.

(and everyone with an email address has erectile dysfuntion)
  • Every time a man is late by more than 15 minutes, he loses half an inch.
  • Every time a woman answers the question "What's wrong?" with "Nothing" when this isn't the case, she gains 5 pounds.
  • Every time a man buys flowers, he gains half an inch. If they're really nice flowers for a special occasion, 1 inch.
  • Every time a woman takes the initiative to play "porn star" with her man, she loses 10 pounds.
  • Every time a man offers to help around the house with chores, he gains 1.5 inches. If he fixes something that's broken, 2 inches.
  • Every time a woman offers to give a blowjob during a boring football game, she loses 5 pounds. If she doesn't offer but just launches into it, 10 pounds.
  • Every time an ex is brought up in conversation: 7.5 pounds gained by the woman, 1.5 inches lost by the man, depending on who brought it up. If the context is one of derision, adjust favorable values by only 50 percent respectively as no one wants to hear about who you used to fuck even if you're slamming them.
  • Telling a man you've just had the best sex of your life sheds 15 pounds for the woman. If it is sincere, then add 1.5 inches for the man (You go, Buddy!) and double the woman's loss (reward yourself with some ice cream).
  • Telling a woman you love her sheds 20 pounds, adds 2 inches for you. If the comment is a baldfaced lie, she loses 30 pounds and should find herself a real man because you not only lack a dick, but balls as well.
  • The mere act of going to a gym perceptually sheds 10 pounds for a woman, adds 0.5 inches for a man. Actually working out increases these levels favorably.
  • Every time a man looks at another woman while out on a date, he loses 1 inch, although a woman gains 5 pounds for commenting on it.
[/ End scary quote]

That's bloody frightening, if a guy did all those wrong things his pee pee would be like MINUS 10 inches It would be like stuck in his body by the lower intestine How's he gonna explain that to the chick ? haha
__________________
Abycka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-17-2009, 05:13 AM   #73
The Fly
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 179
Local Time: 07:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Well, that was the standard of living she experienced wand of living then she was with him, she's just following precedent in asking for these expenses.
I've just never understood that concept that the man or woman (who has less money) deserves to have enourmous amounts of money because 'that was the standard of life she experienced'

To me this is the reason why gold diggers exist. The rich spouse finds a person that satisfies them sexually or just by being their wife or husband with legitimate love, or just being a beautiful person to be for the rich person to take out to social functions.

But just because that is the persons standard of living does not mean they deserve such incredible amounts of money because to me I see that so many people take advantage of this opportunity and play a game and then divorce just so they can get a vast amount of money. Maybe some people deserve forking out that money but I think many others are being duped.

If this was not allowed by the legal system there would no gold diggers. The legal system would award the divorced spouse (less rich) with an amount of money that they have contributed to the fortune and also how much time they spent with the rich spouse and if they have children then a decent amount of money for taking responsibility of those kids an agreement should be made between both spouses how much it takes to raise those kids in a normal decent way. If the poor spouse needs to find employment then that should be taken into account but giving ridiculous amounts of money like $45,000 a month is just too much I think.

If I had that kind of money I would have to have a pre-nup.

What do you think?
__________________
Abycka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 10:52 PM   #74
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Slate, Nov. 15


...Though the Netherlands is consistently ranked in the top five countries for women, less than 10% of women here are employed full-time. And they like it this way. Incentives to nudge women into full-time work have consistently failed. Less than 4% of women wish they had more working hours or increased responsibility in the workplace, and most refuse extended hours even when the opportunity for advancement arises. Some women cite the high cost of child care as a major factor in their shorter hours, but 62% of women working part time in the Netherlands don't have young children in the house, and mothers rarely increase their working hours even when their children leave home.

...Dutch women could be considered extremely progressive when compared with most other women in the world—they have enviable reproductive rights and rates of political participation. But they are often responsible for only a small portion of the family income—25% of Dutch women do not even make enough money to be considered financially independent. The gap in pay between genders is among the highest in Europe, but because women are working only part time, this is not fodder for gender wars. Instead, women are more concerned with protecting their right to part-time work. In 2000, a law was passed mandating that women have the right to cut back hours at their jobs without repercussions from employers.

"We look at the world of management—and it is a man's world—and we think, oh I could do that if I wanted," says Maaike van Lunberg, an editor at De Stentor newspaper. "But I'd rather enjoy my life." Jacob Vossestein's book "Dealing With the Dutch" echoes that sentiment. He argues that people in the Netherlands view the hierarchical work environment with skepticism and do not generally envy those who climb its ranks.

Dutch women's refusal to seek longer hours has long bewildered economists. In the spring, the United Nations, suspicious that there was something keeping women from full-time jobs, launched an inquiry to see whether the Netherlands was in compliance with the women's rights treaty. A comprehensive 2009 study by Alison L. Booth & Jan C. Van Ours looked at the amount of time women in the Netherlands spend at work compared with women in other European countries. The authors assumed that part-time work was less desirable but ultimately confirmed that Dutch women don't want to spend more time at work. The NIS News Bulletin interpreted the results of the study as: "Attempts to get more women working full-time are doomed to failure because nobody has a desire for this. Both the women themselves and their partners and employers are satisfied with the Dutch part-time culture for women."

When I talk to women who spend half the week doing what they want—playing sports, planting gardens, doing art projects, hanging out with their children, volunteering, and meeting their family friends—I think, yes, that sounds wonderful. I can look around at the busy midweek, midday markets and town squares and picture myself leisurely buying produce or having coffee with friends. In a book released several years ago called "Dutch Women Don't Get Depressed"—a parody of "French Women Don't Get Fat"—Dutch psychologist Ellen de Bruin explains that key to a Dutch woman's happiness is her sense of personal freedom and a good work-life balance. But it's hard to transplant that image to the United States, where our self-esteem is so closely tied to our work.

...More than 75% of American women who are employed work full-time jobs. As our responsibilities increase at work, they do not shrink at home. We give up time with our families for our careers, and after work we give up other interests for time spent with our children and spouses—because there are only so many hours in a day. Because of part-time work, Dutch women are able to develop themselves and their relationships in ways many of us simply don't have the time for. How many times have you heard a woman brag about all that she juggles or seen her flush with self-importance when describing a hectic day? How many magazine sidebars have we all read telling us how to "simplify," "streamline," and "manage" our time, implying that this everywoman time-shortage problem is something we should embrace? We make fun of the '80s notion of the Superwoman, who was supposed to do it all. And yet she is still our ideal.

The problem for American women isn't just the amount of time we spend working; it is the notion that we need to be perfect at everything we do. TV shows, advertisements, and articles from women's magazines have formed this composite of a perfect woman who is successful at work, nurturing at home, always optimistic, and impeccably dressed. She dominates the boardroom and rushes in her pencil skirt to collect her well-groomed toddler. The ideal American woman doesn't just putter around in the kitchen or dabble in knitting. She opens a cake shop and knits scarves for fashion shows. She appears on Oprah. She follows her dreams.

Even though I'm almost positive that even if I am able to become this mythical woman I won't be happy, part of me still wants to be her. It's hard to shake the way I was raised. ...
I highlighted that next-to-last paragraph because its implication, in context, struck me as being quite similar to the OP in this (old) thread, i.e., "Memo to women: forget that pie-in-the-sky stuff about equal partnerships allowing you breathing time for both career and home'n'family--men won't go for that, and let's face it, you don't want them to anyhow, so cut back your hours, pull out your easel and your gardening tools, and enjoy letting your partner support you in pursuing recreational interests half the week."

Full-time homemakers with young children are a different story, since childrearing is a full-time job (hence the need for childcare when both parents work). I can also understand part- (or full-)time volunteering, in cases where you and your (employed) partner both believe strongly in the social good thus provided, even if it doesn't pay. But being happy to support your partner for years on end in just pursuing recreational activities half the week--that I do find hard to understand.

It may be that the article is misrepresenting things somewhat; I wouldn't know.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2010, 10:58 PM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 07:03 AM
I am a professional woman.

I don't think that I, or my friends, are trying to be that mythical woman. We don't keep perfect houses - most of us live messy, the others have cleaning women. We mostly don't have toddlers, much less perfectly groomed ones. Almost nobody I know cooks on a regular basis, nevermind makes a rack of lamb for the husband on a nightly basis.

I don't know which women they are talking about to be honest.
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(01-20-2006) U2 Tops Billboard's Money Makers Chart - Billboard HelloAngel U2 Tour News 2 01-27-2006 02:18 AM
Bono - Nobel Peace Prize!? PopTart, Pamela Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 21 03-04-2002 06:00 PM
U2 & Money Saracene Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 9 03-04-2002 05:02 PM
negativland candyfloss Everything You Know Is Wrong Archive 6 02-08-2002 03:29 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com