Classic Complaint & Response - Please Discuss

Post Reply New Topic

I can't count the number of posts on this website that are mere variations of a theme of "I'm a nice guy. Why don't women like me?" Well, here's a post from Craigslist back in October of 2007, and the reply that came soon thereafter. It's been analyzed on Snopes under the title of "Fool's Gold Digger", and falsely attributed to various sources, including J.P. Morgan!

Please read through both and discuss.

@MODERATORS: If you think this post is "Spam", then please delete it. Thank you.

Now, here's the response:

So, what do you think? Do either of these people seem "Aspie-ish" to you? Both, perhaps?

Doesn't it seem like this exchange could have fit perfectly alongside of some of the "I can't get a date with the kind of person I want" WP posts?

Enjoy!

User 432279810?

smudge, is that you?

Bloody stalking me again are you?

Hell no, if this guy was me I wouldn't even suggest to "lease" you.

That economist guy talking about market forces was the most classy way of telling her she isn't that beautiful
And that website more or less said that marriage is the oldest profession in the world. Hmmm.

No-one would pick you.

I find the answer quite puzzling and strangely unsettling. It seems perfectly rational, which makes me feel compelled to agree with it whether I like the conclusions or not—I’ve never understood why this apparently doesn’t happen to most people.

In this case, I certainly don’t like the conclusions. For a start, there’s nothing in that reasoning that limits its validity to particularly wealthy men, so it seems to imply that even I, for instance, should lose all interest in women and start looking down on them as perishable goods already long past their prime. I’ve never felt at ease with the idea of dating someone much younger than me, so I wouldn’t consider “leasing” a young woman even if I could afford it. Of course, I’m no less past my prime, but this doesn’t seem to matter, because, presumably, my physical appearance was never an asset to begin with.

In fact, there seems to be no possible asset to be brought to the table other than female beauty and male money. The woman claims to be articulate, classy, cultured and capable of keeping a nice home and hearth, but I suppose this is worthless, especially if the man also has those qualities. Needless to say, this also means that a woman earning a living of her own has absolutely no reason to seek a partner and can earnestly enjoy turning her nose up at any man she finds on her way during her whole life. The right course of action for a man seems to be to keep “leasing” pretty young women—or as pretty and young as he can afford—enjoying their bodies and dumping them a few years later, only to look for younger replacements. Any deviation from this standard seems to be just irrational behavior.

There’s no mention in the text of the prospect of having children, but I don’t think there’s any serious obstacle to extending its mindset to cover it. After all, the ability to bear children only prolongs the usefulness of a woman for a short time, and then, for the same reasons as before, the man is presumably better off dumping her and raising his children on his own—perhaps with the help of young and pretty nannies, periodically replaced as they get too old. Conversely, a self-sufficient woman needs nothing more than a one-time sperm donor for each child.

I think I’ll stick to my “no sour grapes” principle, even at the risk of being irrational, until such time as I properly understand this mess, which will probably never happen.

Some people seem to believe that looks are everything, and that being 'beautiful' entitles them to wealth and opportunity.

Other people seem to believe that money is everything, and that being wealthy entitles them to anything and everything that captures their fancy.

Put them together and ... well, have you ever paid attention to the lyrics from "Life In The Fast Lane" and "Lying Eyes", both by the Eagles?

Shallow people eventually get the empty misery and loneliness they deserve.

Tit-for-tat?

I can see the comparison between women who feel entitled to a rich man and the men on WP who complain that they can't get dates if it's indeed the case that they're picky and reject women who don't fit what they want. However, what I see is that a lot of the guys who post about not getting dates complain that they don't know how to get dates at all, regardless of how low their standards are. A more direct comparison would not be a woman who complains that she can't get a "rich man" but rather a woman that doesn't care about the man's income at all who complains that she's lonely because no man wants to date her.

In any case, getting back to the original example, the reason why even rich men don't want to date women who say that they want a "rich man" or who quote the income that they would want them to earn is because, like women, they want people who are interested in them as a person, not someone who's only interested in them due to how much money they have. The very fact that this woman in your example says that she wants a man who earns 500K (or however much they want their ideal man to earn) is sending the message to men that she's a gold digger and therefore they want nothing to do with her. So, a tip to women, if you want to advertise yourself as available, never ever say that you're looking for a man who earns x amount of money because nobody will want to date you if you do.

^"She may just want me for money" is a common men fear , men are simply paranoid about it and for a very good reason.

It's the exact equivalent of the "he just may just want me for sex" common fear in women.

And sometimes the are signs less subtle than the example posted by the OP.

The other points have already been addressed by other posters so I'll just answer her question.

Those 'plain jane boring types' have an asset that's invisible to her. They are either members of old money families of high social standing or have high social standing through their own work. Their 'plain jane' looks are even a class marker. The type of man she's looking to marry will certainly sleep with a gold digger and buy her nice presents and take her to fancy restaurants. But he won't marry her. He'll marry the 'plain jane boring type' who is already in his wealth class either by birth or because she is a CEO herself/has a high status high paying job. If she's a little horse faced that's just visual proof that her blood is blue.

And then of course there are the beautiful women who were not born rich and whose looks are a big chunk of how they married a wealthy man. Anna Nicole Smith as posted upthread is a good example. But even she did not just bring looks to the table. She also brought the status of having been a Playboy Playmate,model and reality show star. So she had fame (even if mid-level fame) on her side.

The guy writing back is right: she doesn't bring anything to the table except looks. She says she could match this hypothetical wealthy man in looks (probably true) but I doubt she could keep up with the culture/sophistication/keeping nice home and hearth part. I suspect she is unaware of the social duties that such a wife is expected to be expert at: it's not knowing how to cook an excellent meal and keep a spotless home. There are restaurants,caterers and cleaning ladies for that. She is supposed to know how to hold gigantic social functions, do philanthropy just the right way, and hold down positions in various high up social clubs. Being cultured in that you can identify artists in the Met is not enough. You have to know how to network with the people who actually run the Met.

I have only ever watched one reality show in my life because nearly all of them are deadly dull. But one of them captured my interest and I watched every episode. It was one of those 'camera follows people through their lives' shows. There are plenty of them that follow around the new money kids like the Kardashians, Osbornes, houswives of (pick a city). All pretty boring. But this show followed around the kids of old New York money and the class difference was astonishing. The Kardashians act like lower middle class people who won the lottery. But the children of old New York money were different in a weird and notable way. They didn't throw money around in a showy way. Instead they moved through the world smoothly like sharks, expecting everything to just fall into place and it did. They didn't have to buy bottles of expensive champagne to show off their wealth. Their addresses, prep school mannerisms and horse faces did it for them. And even in high school they were learning how to do high-end philanthropy which is an expected skill and an art all its own. They were just so different. And the girls among them are probably already married to the men this goldigger has set her sights on. But those men would probably be willing to cheat on their wives with her.

From my perspective, the girl is pretty arrogant for her age. It was rather amusing that she had the gall to say "other girls are superficial about it, but at least I am upfront about it" She must keep company with some superficial people. But how many women can she speak for here?

This also goes to show in both responses that although love is unconditional, dating and marriage most certainly comes with conditions.