Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: alexander_busek

Yup—I mentioned the money issue for a couple of reasons.

Many young women have insane college debt.

That has got to be a couple of points negative for anything more than a one night stand.

That is like starting a horse race with a cement block on the jockey.

As for female wealth—what it means long term is that if things go south the man will not be the one paying alimony and/or child support—long term that has got to be a plus.

For one night stands the SMV is almost all about looks.

Anything with longer time horizons has to take all other factors into account.


171 posted on 02/16/2025 10:07:08 AM PST by cgbg (The Democrat Party is a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies ]


To: cgbg
As for female wealth—what it means long term is that if things go south the man will not be the one paying alimony and/or child support—long term that has got to be a plus.

But it rarely comes to that (i.e., to a woman being milked dry in the divorce courts), because women - on a "gut" level - understand that they (as the richer partner) would be at a disadvantage, and would be unable to squeeze resources out of the man, so they avoid such scenarios from the get-go.

To underscore the truth of this position, consider the statistics: 1) Women expect the man to make 157% of her salary, and 2) If a man (even through no fault of his own) suffers a sudden, medium-term drop in earning power, women will quickly develop an aversion towards the man, resulting in a break-up or divorce.

Regards,

176 posted on 02/16/2025 12:13:09 PM PST by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson