Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Well, if you have the material things you want _now_, it sounds like
    you're more interested in "not marrying a liability" than "marrying
    money" (for whatever that's worth). Is the problem that you fear having
    to assume his debts, or just that he can't provide any income and you
    don't think you can support both of you? If the former, there may be
    legal steps you can take to avoid liability for his debts; if the
    latter, then it's a very personal choice, to which you'll have to apply
    your own values. You're the only one who knows whether you're talking
    about the difference between owning a small house vs. a big one, or
    eating one meal a day instead of three - and, whichever it is, you're
    the only one who knows whether you can stand it.
    
    Do keep in mind that "financial security" doesn't guarantee that you'll
    live long enough to enjoy it - and that "forsaking all for love"
    doesn't guarantee eternal bliss, either. Make the best decision you
    can, and if you decide that security's more important to you than
    romance in a hovel, don't kick yourself - you wouldn't be doing your
    partner any favors by trying to sacrifice for his sake. [You might get
    a good novel out of it, though.]
    
    -b
    
    p.s. On the cynical side, the classic technique is for a young person to
    find a wealthy, elderly person to marry. When the senior spouse kicks
    off, the survivor is then, presumably, wealthy enough to marry for
    love. There are a few little problems that need to be ironed out, of
    course...

	"This person is in no way capable of providing any type of financial
   	security.  He is very much in debt."  
	
	I don't think there is too much emphasis on money,  I think you are 
	being honest with yourself about what you want in your future.  
	It looks like no simple choice between the satisfaction you get
	from the relationship now and the security you look forward to 
	in the future.  

	"... I feel I deserve to someday own a nice home, have a nice car, 
	take vacations, etc.  I have all these things now why should I have 
	to give them up? " 

	If you decide that you want to keep the relationship for the future 
	and to marry someday,  would some kind of pre-nuptual agreement 
	provide you with financial protection and some security?

	If you decide to move on,  you might explain your reasons.  If I 
	were the guy in that situation,  I would feel better knowing the 
	differences were financial rather than personal.

						good luck

    I would be concerned about why this guy was in debt, and whether
    I looked like a meal ticket plus medical insurance to him, if
    I were you.
    
    I'd look for answers to the following:
    
    o	Does he have a plan for getting out of debt?
    
    o	Is he following the plan?
    
    o	Does he have a history of living off other people?
    
    o	Does he have a history of successes in the past before
    	the debt was incurred?
    
    o	Is his life-style appropriate for his situation?
    
    If it looks like he is the cause of his own problems, and looking to
    someone to solve them for him, you don't want him.
    
    Further, if he passes your tests, you still have to find out whether
    he wants the same car/house/etc. things that you do.  If you want
    a middle-class life and he wants a mountain hut with goats, you 
    may have some difficult choices to make.
    
    It's also true that a relationship based on one partner giving up
    something very important is far weaker than if no sacrifice were
    involved.
    
    		-John Bishop

    Always marry for money, you'll have fights anyway.

    Jamie.

    Sounds very dangerous to me.  You don't have to marry The Donald, but
    this guy seems very flakey, and a sure recipe for eventual disaster.
    
    Many of these guys are also really very likeable until challenged on
    their lack of responsibility in financial areas.  Try something...push
    back on him once when he can't do something.....and see how he reacts.
    Bet he won't be so "nice" then.
    
    Dick

Re: .4 by HOO78C::ANDERSON,

>    Always marry for money, you'll have fights anyway.

I remember a different quote:

	"Never marry for money. Or without it.".

-- Ron

    re .0
    
    Are you expecting your (future) husband (whether or not he should be
    the man in question) to provide you with financial security?  If so,
    then we are far from equality of the sexes.  The Oprah show presented
    women that, to me, do not fully believe in equality.  In a relationship
    in which both partners are equal, both contribute to the best of their
    abilities for all kinds of security.
    
    
    Rich

I'm not sure that I can relate to the bulk of the responses so far to this
note. I know this isn't the Dejavu Notesfile but I can't help feeling that
there are other ways of reacting to this, other than getting hung up material
concerns and Testing your future partner to make sure he's good enough for you.

Although I'm not one for Romantic Love (and its attendant dangers), I do believe
in  spiritual love and the ability of individuals to Know what's right for them
both in terms of material posessions and companions on the path. Ask Yourself
some basic questions, and quietly listen for the answers. 

Good Luck,
Brian

    RE: -1
    
    Yeah right. And that'll pay the bills then....
    
    Laurie.

Re.9
Strangely enough, yes it does.

To explain in detail would take us outside the remit of this note, but when
certain attitudes pervade your life then bills do indeed get paid.

Brian

PS   the style of your reply doesn't promote understanding, for me it closes
	rather than opens debate

Two people's financial and emotional circumstances are hardly ever "equal"
when they meet.  The important thing is whether your attitudes and goals
are compatible.  And whether you are comfortable with the difference in
your circumstances now and in the forseeable future.  There is nothing
wrong with looking for someone who will offer financial security.  Your
needs are part of what you bring to a relationship.  They are part of
who you are.  And presumeably, you also bring a bunch of stuff to the
relationship that your partner enjoys and benefits from (emotional,
physical, and otherwise).  If your ideas and needs around "security"
don't fit together, then there will always be stress and strain present.
And I believe that one characteristic of a "good" relationship is that
it reduces stress.

You can carry "equality" too far.  If we always insist on only considering
"equals" as potential partners, we'll miss meeting a lot of interesting
people.  Sounds pretty dull and restricted to me....

    re. -.5: ( The guy in love with Rush Limbaugh.  
    
    
    	I don't think we have enough information to know why this guy 
    	doesn't have money.  Could he be irresponsible?  Could he be
    	a struggling artist ( who doesn't put a value on future security)?
    	Could he be responsible but have lots of debt from a business 
    	failure or a divorce settlement?
    
    	If the basenoter decides to test her friend on an issue,  keep in
    	mind that we all react in different ways depending on the 
    	circumstances.  Test me on a day when I've been fighting a cold or
    	heavy traffic on 128 and I may react one way.  Test me on a 
    	Saturday morning when I've got the whole weekend ahead of me or 
    	when I've just achieved a balance checkbook, and I will react in 
    	a different way.
    
    	
    						

    Many men select their partners almost purely for their physical
    attractions, this is taken as quite normal. Others choose on financial
    attractions, this is considered slightly immoral. Most choose for
    emotional reasons, they are madly in love. Here we have at last a
    "perfect" reason for marriage. 

    Well the mad passion of love fades fast. Sometimes you end up with two
    compatible people and other times you are left with two who cannot
    stand the sight of each other.

    I am not going to stand in moral judgment on how anyone selects a mate.
    The whole thing is very hit and miss anyway.

    Jamie.                        

RE:         <<< Note 1223.10 by AYOV27::BCOOK "the only dance there is" >>>
                            -< Wondrous things... >-

� Re.9
� Strangely enough, yes it does.
    
    Sorry mate, it doesn't. Hard cash does. For that one has to have a job,
    go to work, and save for rainy days. If one partner is so incapable of
    fulfilling the last of those three (including managing money), then no
    amount of effort by the other in the first two is going to keep the
    boat afloat.

� To explain in detail would take us outside the remit of this note, but when
� certain attitudes pervade your life then bills do indeed get paid.
    
    No need to explain, anyone with the faintest grasp on reality knows
    it's not possible, unless you a) scrounge from society, or b) live in a
    shack. What happens if one partner wants children?

� PS   the style of your reply doesn't promote understanding, for me it closes
� 	rather than opens debate
    
    Just because it's a bald fact, not wrapped in pretty packaging
    doesn't make it any less a truism. Just harder to swallow maybe.

    

I am currently in a similar position - my boyfriend earns about the same as me,
but has a number of debts - not particularly large, but its his attitude to them
that I find disconcerting.

I had a relationship a couple of years back where money became a major issue - 
my ex-fiance had a really well paid job, and together we were clearing �3000 a 
month - he still managed to get into debt and when we split up I paid him 
�5000 and it didn't cover his debts...

Since then it has took me some time, but I am finally in a position where the
only debts I have are two interest-free credit agreements, and an ACCESS bill
that I pay off completely every month...

I have explained to my current boyfriend that I do not wish to get into a
committed relationship until he is in a similar position.  We want to go
skiing and I have told him that unless he makes inroads into his debt I will
go on my own, rather than encourage him into more debt.

This may seem hard, but its what I need to feel secure, and to enjoy the holiday
without worrying how it will be paid for.

He also agrees with me to an extent, the difference is that he thinks his debts
aren't that great and isn't too worried about borrowing a 'bit' more to go
on holiday.  He was completely confident about paying the debts off although he
had no plan of how...


We have sat down and planned how he can pay them off, and he seems happy to
work with that.

We both want the same things from life, so at least we are aiming for the same
thing... 

I think this can be worked out, the real thing is telling your other half how 
you feel about money, and finding out why he's in debt, and planning for the
future.

The problem I had in my last relationship was that I couldn't respect someone 
who didn't care about money to the extent that my ex didn't...



Xtine

Yea, I feel people make to much out of the money scene.

People strive to earn more money so they can have more "stuff."  It becomes the
very value of one's self-worth, to many people.  Most won't admit it though. 
For example...

Got to have more "stuff."  Got to have the shirts with the gator on them.  Got
to have the sneakers with the pumps.  Got to have name brand jeans.  Got to
have the sports car. Got to travel to Europe.  Got to go to lavish schools. We
live in a world of "name brands."  If I make more money than you... I'm better
than you.  If you want to take me out, it's gonna cost you.  I love you and you
love me... and that's nice... but how much do you make?  This has to be a 50-50
business type of love affair, got it?  If you lose your job, or fail to
contribute financially any other ways... the honeymoon is over. Why? Because
I'm a self-centered, worthless, baby-booming, back stabbing, ego driven, prep
minded, 90's kinda, PC foolish, moron.

    I fully agree with your "stuff" diatribe, Dwight. I don't think that
    the stuff-phenomenon is making too much out of money, though; it's
    making too much out of stuff! The person who spends his/her way into 
    debt acquiring stuff is a victim, IMO, of too much advertising and too
    little spiritual development.
    
    There's a distinction between not making any money and running up
    debts. I hold that the person earning $X should be living on a little
    less than $X, saving something toward that inevitable rainy day. Those
    who spend $X plus $Y are in trouble, and that trouble takes down lots
    of marriages.
    
    I like the comments a couple replies back, suggesting that the
    relationship shouldn't take a more serious turn until the SO had
    managed to shed his debt. Having the discipline to do so is an
    important test of an important character trait, IMO.
    
    If the basenoter's SO has some college (say) debt and is otherwise
    living a break-even life-style, then I'd suggest that she gets to make
    a choice: him and no house and no fancy vacations, etc. It might be
    worth it. Lots of happy families grew up in apartments and drove the
    station wagon to the beach for vacations.
    
    - Hoyt

re .13 and others

From a purely abstract point of view, here's an explanation of "love and
marriage".

1) People are complex bundles of character and physical traits, habits and
preferences, possesions, potentials, capabilities and weaknesses.

2) People who plan to form a "pair" should think about the stability of the
pairing.  You will be exposed to physical and character traits until the
pair breaks up, if ever.  Shared habits, preferences, possesions tend to
draw you together.  Conflicting habits, preferences, possestions, and shared
weaknesses tend to weaken the pair.  Complementary habits, possesions,
potentials, and strengths and weaknesses tend to strengthen the pair by
mutual dependence.  That also makes breaking up very hard to do.

fwiw,

Dick

    I hope the guys out there are smart enough to demand a prenup.
    agreement to stop gold diggers from living off a man's life work.


    Contrary to some peoples belief, men do not owe women the goodies of
    life.
    
    			HAND
    			Wayne

    Jamie,
    
    	You should read Phil Roths book, "Letting Go". There are a few
    other points made why people marry each other. And not just the man,
    being the rascle that your making him to be.
    
    	One of the more tragic points I got out of the book was that people
    will marry out of pitty of the other. And pitty can get in the way of
    love. A some what quote, 'a terrible struggle goes on in the hearts of
    men and women where pitty is mistaken for love'. 
    
    	I think that marry for money is very much the wrong attitude. I can
    tell you first hand that when the money dries up in a marriage. Death
    till you part is a hollow jesture. Hummm... I hear 'God Bless the
    Child' playing in my head. Heard it by Blood, Sweat, and Tears. Ironic?
    
    
    
    George

    re:.19
    Wayne,
    Do you know any women gold diggers?  I don't.  Almost all the
    women I know work outside their homes and spend much of their
    off hours on household related work.  The few women I know who
    don't work have small children and work hard at home taking care
    of them.  Your reply struck me as just more senseless women
    bashing. 
    
    Sue

    There is a string in MENNOTES with the title "Do *you* like being
    treated as an income object?" A lot of good observations are made
    there, corroborating the phenomenon of men-as-income-objects. Warren
    Farrel, my oft-quoted hero, characterizes "the primary female fantasy"
    as being the _wealthy_ man who takes her away from the drudgery of her
    job and/or housework. The primary male fantasy is a Playboy centerfold,
    says Farrell.
    
    It's hard to argue that either is a particularly good basis for
    selecting one's love-object.
    
    - Hoyt-object

    Sue I agree with you.
    
    Wayne, I have been a single parent for 15 years now. During the 1st 12
    of those years I struggled, yes struggled, to support my son and
    myself.  Without the benefit of a college education or child support. 
    No man, including my ex-husband, has ever supported me.  I have
    achieved what I have achieved through my own hard work and pure
    determination.  So, where does the coin fall now?  My son is now living
    with his father and *I* am paying child support.  Because of the child
    support and other financial hits I have taken this year, I have to sell
    my condo and find a cheaper place to live.  Am I turning to a man to
    take care of me?  Hell no.  I've survived this long and I will get
    through this too.
    
    Don't lump all of us into the bucket of gold-digging b*tches.  Some of
    us are very hard working, fair minded women.  Your resentments towards
    women are sometimes overwhelming to me.
    
    Karen

    The gold-diggers are participating in this notes conference. They don't
    work at DEC. They don't work. They're at the tennis club, playing
    tennis or complaining about how their spouses don't pay attention to
    them, having affairs with the tennis pro. Or they are at the mall,
    working hard to make certain the bank balance never exceeds the
    designated "depletion threshold."
    
    - Hoyt

    
    re .24
    
    How can they participate in this conference if they don't work at DEC?
    
    bonnie

re .25,

Through the wonders of typos. :-)  Read the first sentence
as "are not".

Dan

    Righto, Dan. Sorry about that. (Reread... looks OK... reread again...)
    
    - Hoyt

    Re: Hoyt
    
    Sorry, but I don't buy this gold-digger stuff - it sounds like
    the sort of nasty anti-women stereotype that some men like to
    swap because they don't really like women anyway.  
    Maybe in some place like Beverly Hills, there are women
    running around tennis courts, planning who to have an affair with
    next, and how to spend as much of their husband's money as possible,
    but these women are hardly representative of women in general.
    
    If there was a general discussion about relationships between
    the sexes, and I volunteered that women should watch out
    for men who raped, I think someone would point out that
    the majority of men are not rapists.  If I persisted in
    talking about rapists as if men=rapists then I think people
    might rightly conclude I had a problem.  I think that
    men who consistently talk about women=gold-diggers have a
    problem.
    
    Sue 
     

    I agree with you, Sue: someone who characterized women-as-a-group as
    gold-diggers has some issue going.
    
    I didn't do that, though! Not me! If you look at my .24, I don't
    mention women at all! I even pointed out in the title the care I took
    to avoid using pronouns which indicate gender. Please look again.
    
    Truth be told, women are my favorite gender. I don't have much truck
    for competitive, cattin' around, unsupportive men types. I once wrote a
    poor SF story about a future in which dirt-cheap space travel led
    humanity to the stars in all manner of splinter groups, including
    one-gender planets of both varieties: the men planets were shortly
    extinct. No, I like women. Men are OK, but women rool.
    
    And not to diminish my protestations that your inference is way off...
    but look around the next time you're at a tennis club or the mall at
    10:00 on a week day. Women::men = 10::1.

    Oh Oh, 
    here we go.............
    'Look who goes shopping at 10:00 o'clock'
    Well I would say mostly women with children, if men would stay home
    after birth of a child than maybe that scene in the mall and on the
    tenniscourt would change.
    But most men, have an ego about staying home and doing that job, which
    according to the average American is not even supposed to be called
    job.
    
    SIlvia

    -1 Sylvia:
    
    I'll credit you with being not grossly insensitive but merely ignorant.
    
    Referrals to "male egos" like your -1 have the same validity and value
    as remarks about "women's intuition" -- they are ancient stereotypes,
    indicate intellectual laziness, and are at base plain old insulting.
    
    If you credit this reply to male ego, then I repeat in advance:
    intellectual laziness (my anticipation is based on men's intuition).
    
    - Hoyt

    Hoyt,
    
    my female ego is not offended......;-)
    
    ...but many men, and still I did not say ALL MEN (read carefuly),
    do think of womens work at home, as of having fun ect.....
    To them it is not work.
    I really do not think that this statement has anything to do with being
    intellectual lazy, also I did not want to insult anybody.
    
    
    Silvia

    re. .29
    
    Hoyt,
    
    You're right, your earlier reply did not specify gender.  I assumed
    that you were talking about women being gold-diggers because you
    mentioned the gold-diggers having affairs with tennis pro's and
    all the tennis pro's I've ever heard of have been male.  I suppose,
    all things being possible, that there are female tennis pro's out there
    having affairs with male gold-diggers.  I think you'd
    have to admit though that the vast majority of people on hearing
    "look at that gold-digger with the tennis pro" would make the
    same gender assumptions that I did.
    
    I don't agree with you that women are superior to men. In my 
    experience, virtues and vices are remarkably evenly distributed
    among the population.  For every every horrible man I've met,
    I can think of a matching horrible woman.  For every good woman,
    I can think of a good man.  I'm a feminist because I think
    men and women are equal, not because I think women are superior.
    
    As I get older, I find myself less tolerant of the sexism
    around me.  I watch my daughters growing up and see how
    little negative attitudes about women have changed.  When I
    can find the energy, I try to respond to what I see as knee-jerk
    put-downs of women (and women are as likely as men to say
    negative things about women; I think our whole culture is a
    little screwy on the subject).
    
    If the previous discussion about gold-diggers was not aimed
    at women more than men then I'm glad to know it.
    
    Sue
    

    Thanks Roberta,
    
    that's what I was am trying to say in my reply......I guess being
    german I write things the way the come into my mind and than people
    take it differently.
    
    Back to the subject............things like the last reply I see them
    happening every day over here.
    So I believe they must be changed.
    Why for instance don't women get payed for housework ?
    But instead they have to ask their husband for the needed $$.
    Why don't you have a "Babyyear" ?
    Over here in Germany if you give Birth you will be able to stay home
    with the child for 3 years, you will get 750,- (500 $), and your job
    will be open for you after those 3 Years.
    Now over here a lot of couples think about this, they look on who makes
    more money and in some cases it is the women (not too often).
    THan the man can stay home and receive the same benefits as the women.
    This helps on the situation, because it is one way closer to equalty.
    
    Sil
    
    Ps.: I hope I did not offend anyone now.....

    Roberta,
    
    I don't think you should count on your husband changing his
    mind after a baby arrives.  If he didn't, that would be a 
    difficult time to be discussing it.  I think you need to
    work out this disagreement now, maybe with a marriage counselor,
    because this is a major issue not something that could be
    easily overlooked like toothpaste caps.
    
    The reasons your husband has given for wanting you to work after
    a baby don't seem real to me.  If it was only a matter of lack
    of intellectual stimulation, you could easily take courses at
    a local school.  My hunch would be that something else was
    bothering him - maybe fear that the baby would change your
    relationship, or maybe anxiety over money (even if you could
    afford to live on his salary you'd certainly have more if
    you continued working).  If these are concerns of his, I think
    you need to address them before having a baby.
    
    good luck.
    
    Sue
       

re .34

   I think I know where your husband is coming from.
   
   1) He believes that only intellectual work is worthy of an intelligent
   person.  I see this attitude often in Latin America where educated people
   refuse to do yard work, pick fruit off their own trees, wash their own
   cars, etc.
   
   2) He does not believe that housekeeping is "fun", but that it is
   drudgery.  He would probably share the attitude of many latins of a
   previous generation that nursing was too degrading to permit a "women of
   quality" to engage in that profession.
   
   3) He obviously enjoys the current relationship.  I would examine his
   real interest in having children before the issue becomes mute.
   
   You have some real issues to work through.
   
Good luck,

Dick

    re: .22
    
    Hoyt, if you really believe yourself to be free of gender bias,
    why not try writing that it is a universal fantasy that sudden
    wealth will bring us out of drudgery?  I've heard as many men
    wishing they could find a rich woman, as women wishing for
    rich men.  Unfortunately, I've known few non-rich people who
    got their wish.  The rich seem to have a clever way of marrying
    other rich.
    
    Sue