Single's Ad. Why is she single?

[diamond]

ORIGINAL INQUIRY THIS POST REALLY APPEARED ON CRAIG'S LIST

Ad:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful
(spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy.
I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at
least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind
that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out? Give me specifics- bars,
restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate? Be honest guys, you won't hurt my
feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east
side so plain? I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have
nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead
gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story
there?

- Jobs I should look out for? Everyone knows - lawyer, investment
banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they
hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend? I am looking for
MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest
way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front
about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't
able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a
nice home and hearth.

************************************************** ***************

PostingID: 4.....



THE ANSWER

Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully
about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.
Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your
bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I
see it.

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub, your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning
asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation
accelerates! Let me explain, you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty
hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35 stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following. If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then
we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way.
Classic "pump and dump." I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

 

[cydewaze]

If that's real, the reply is awesome! lol!

 

[hiphop]

If that's real, the reply is awesome! lol!

agreed. what a bitch

 

[one4u2]

I've seen that ad before, too funny

 

[diamond]

smart guys usually run from girls like these.

 

[Zoomerang96]

that's pretty good, actually.

 

[Blue Room]

smart guys usually run from girls like these.

Exactly Who wants to marry someone that only wants your money. That shouldnt be the deciding factor in any relationship. If it is, there is a problem.

 

[VintagePunk]

Exactly Who wants to marry someone that only wants your money. That shouldnt be the deciding factor in any relationship. If it is, there is a problem.

Conversely though, who would want to marry someone who is only interested in your appearance? Superficiality works both ways.

IMO, types like this deserve each other.

 

[kafrun]

Points to her for being honest, but wow..

So what if she eventually gets her man(caretaker) and gets her money and lavish lifestyle? So what if they divorce and she gets a nice, cushy settlement? Is that all it really takes to make some people happy?

 

[BonoFox1]

OH man That was great!!!

 

[anitram]

She actually wrote quite a witty reply in response to his reply. I'll try to dig it up.

 

[anitram]

Yep, here it is:

To the gentleman who called me a depreciating asset
Date: 2007-10-11, 8:23AM EDT

Dear Sir,

I must confess that I was somewhat taken aback upon reading your email. Indeed, it has taken some time for me to sufficiently recuperate from my surprise. Lest your confidence quickly inflate for little reason (as we know is the predisposition for Wall St. types), allow me to hasten to reassure you that the source of my surprise was neither your candor nor the accuracy of your perception. Indeed, it is your “claimed” success in light of your poor grasp of economics which has me baffled. If the standards required to meet with financial success on Wall St. have sunk so low, perhaps I should indeed “make my own money”, except for the fact that the effort/reward ratio is far too high for my liking - especially when so many of your ilk have displayed a far more cogent grasp of market realities than you have.

By now you are likely scratching your ever-vanishing hairline in confusion, so allow me to elaborate, dear man. To build some credibility I will tell you a bit more about yourself. Though you did not mention the details of your occupation, it is clear that you are an investment banker and not a trader, as any good trader would understand that human courtships are based upon a semi-efficient open market, and not an investment banking cartel. However, your inability to grasp the realities of the dating market is not surprising, given that you have successfully employed the tools of collusion and market manipulation rather that true acumen in your supposed wealth generation.

If your grasp of finance were not a minority partner with your ego, you would realize that the “outflows” associated with my depreciating “assets” are quite certain, and therefore subject to a low discount rate when determining their present value. In addition, though your concept of economics evidentially failed to move past the 1950s, advancement in plastic surgery is not subject to the same limitation. Thus, with some additional capital expenditure, the overall lifetime of “outflows” generated by these assets is greatly increased. Sad that Ashton Kutcher has demonstrated understanding of the female asset class which you, in all of your financial “wisdom”, have not.

You, on the other hand, are, given the uncertainty of the Wall St. job market, more of an inflation-indexed junk bond with an underwater nested call option. Though you may argue that you are more of an equity investment, my monetary minimums required from you do not change, and if you are unable to pay them, I will liquidate you without the benefit of a chapter 11, just as you would me.

Because your outflows are so much more uncertain with respect to mine, I require additional compensation in the form of a underwater nested call option on your future assets. I say underwater because, even taking into account the value of your junk bond coupon payment to me, the value of my “outflow” is in excess of the market price of your equity (which is quite low due to its riskiness associated with your poor grasp of finance and my existing claim upon your junk bond coupon).

I must thank you though for raising the question, despite the reputation cost of subjecting your weak logic to such widespread scrutiny. This took either considerable courage or ignorance on your part- and we’ll give you the benefit of doubt, just this once. My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency.

 

[Danny Boy]

So, her new boyfriend wrote a response for her, or at least dictated it to her. No way the same gold digger who made the original post authored that response.

 

[Windmilllane]

Is this Paris Hilton?



My advice to her:

Hang out outside an NBA, MLB, NHL or NFL locker room. You'll find a lot of rich dudes there.

 

[diamond]

So, her new boyfriend wrote a response for her, or at least dictated it to her. No way the same gold digger who made the original post authored that response.

precisely.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if she's posting a singles ad on craigs list she's a fat ugly whore anyway.

next.

 

[mysterious_jen]

So, her new boyfriend wrote a response for her, or at least dictated it to her. No way the same gold digger who made the original post authored that response.

thats what i thought, or she found a thesaurus

 

[maycocksean]

Unfortunately, big words are no substitute for wit. As far as I could tell (and I concede I didn't understand all the jargon) "she" failed to provide a compelling retort and resorted to financialese insults.

Personally, I'm pretty certain all three posts were "fake" anyway.

 

[randhail]

if she's posting a singles ad on craigs list she's a fat ugly whore anyway.

next.

She's probably not even a woman.

 

[VintagePunk]

Personally, I'm pretty certain all three posts were "fake" anyway.

Yeah, reading the retort, it seems kinda obvious that the same person probably composed all three of them.

 

[Blue Room]

Conversely though, who would want to marry someone who is only interested in your appearance? Superficiality works both ways.

IMO, types like this deserve each other.

Oh, I agree. Both perspectives are ridiculous.

To me, for a relationship to work there does need to be some type of physical attraction between the two people. What that is differs from person to person, relationship to relationship. Does not mean both have to be super models.

Conversely it is nice for both parties to have their crap together. I dont think anyone wants to be with someone who has no job and is living off the streets.

I guess the point is that money and super good looks do not translate to happiness. There just needs to be a deep connection between the two people (however they come to that connection) and an enormous level of trust and honestly. Those are the ingredients to a good relationship IMO.

I agree with everyone else who says these posts are fake though. Makes for interesting conversation though.

 

[VintagePunk]

Oh, I agree. Both perspectives are ridiculous.

To me, for a relationship to work there does need to be some type of physical attraction between the two people. What that is differs from person to person, relationship to relationship. Does not mean both have to be super models.

Conversely it is nice for both parties to have their crap together. I dont think anyone wants to be with someone who has no job and is living off the streets.

I guess the point is that money and super good looks do not translate to happiness. There just needs to be a deep connection between the two people (however they come to that connection) and an enormous level of trust and honestly. Those are the ingredients to a good relationship IMO.

I agree with everyone else who says these posts are fake though. Makes for interesting conversation though.

Definitely.

Pretty boys don't interest me as a rule.
With me, it's usually that once I get to know someone, a very ordinary, flawed person can become wildly attractive to me because of who they are. I don't see $$'s, either, but you're right, someone with a job and some sense of financial responsibility is good, too. And you're right, BOTH people have to have their shit together.

 

[gherman]

"My current boyfriend (a trader who lives in Central Park West, of course) and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing your response and we wish you the best of luck in your unhappy pursuit of that elusive market inefficiency." God she's such an idiot.