The dinosaurs are stomping loud and proud as their extinction looms

Women voters: Among the following options, which attracts you the most?

  • Your potential partner's wealth and his ability to present it tactfully

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • His good looks and excellent body

    Votes: 2 20.0%
  • His sense of humor and good cheer

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • His porn collection (aka other)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    10

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
This bunch is just going to get louder, more brash, and viciously superficial as rising women's incomes and an increasing shortage of rich males threatens to starve the majority of gold diggers out of existence.

That won't stop these freeloaders from making themselves larger than life and ever larger thereafter and generally making the whole dating and mating game seem a lot more machiavellian and emotionally/romantically desolate than it already is...



http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/290782p-248703c.html

Panning for a partner

Want to land a rich guy? Here's how the city's gold diggers do it

BY BRITTANY SCHAEFFER

When Erica, 25, steps into a bar crowded with businessmen, she sees more than pressed suits and polished Italian leather shoes. She envisions a beach house in St. Barts A wardrobe stocked with Louboutins and Choos. Ten-carat Harry Winston diamond earrings - all over-the-top luxuries out of reach of most people. But Erica (who, like all the women in this story, requested her last name not be used), wasn't born with a trust fund. And she doesn't let a low-paying public relations job keep her from expecting such fineries one day. She exclusively dates men with money, and her exes include a roster of men in finance with degrees from top business schools.

And she's not alone - scores of New York women who weren't born rich are cashing in on free drinks, dinners and yes, even diamonds, by seeking out wealthy men.

"Some say that it's the desire to continue to live in the lifestyle they were brought up in," says Erica, "Others say it's about getting power in what's generally a man-friendly economic climate, others that they simply want nice things. I think it's about all of the above."

Sarah, 27, who works in publishing and waits tables on weekends to make ends meet, generally hits up exclusive bars and clubs like Frederick's and SoHo House two or three times a week with a group of girlfriends for cocktails, and to find cute, wealthy guys.

"I'm not getting any younger and I need someone who is going in the right direction in life," says Sarah. "I will not date an artist of any sort."

Tricks of the trade

At a charity ball at Jazz at Lincoln Center last week, Sarah dressed in a stunning floor-length gown, sipped Champagne and attracted the attention of scores of tuxedo-clad men. They complimented her faux-diamond earrings ("I wish they were real," she laughs), and one man, who recently relocated from London, proclaimed that she was the first woman he intended to date in NYC. While he, and some of the others got blown off (too young, not straight, balding), she chatted up many of them, and ended up landing a dinner at Union Square's chichi Strip House the following week, courtesy of one of her suitors.

The trend is nothing new (and perhaps not surprising in the face of a burgeoning luxury market and glossy magazines that advertise just how well the other half lives). The difference now is that for many young, educated women, dating rich doesn't have as much to do with social standing and security as it does with experiencing the finer things in life. Women like Sarah even see scoring free dinners at fancy restaurants and gifts like an Hermes scarf (which she promptly sold on eBay) as engaging in a reverse feminism, of sorts.

"If a guy can go out and use a girl, why can't a girl do the same thing?" says Sarah. "Especially when you know he doesn't want anything more from you than to just take you to a restaurant, show you off, try to sleep with you and call you up in two weeks for another dinner - solely because he has nothing else to do and no one else to go out with that night."

While desperate guys are infamous for throwing one-liners at pretty girls, these ladies rarely approach men, and favor the more subtle tactic of winning attention simply by looking hot. Beyond keeping every hair in place, they squeeze into body-hugging jeans and dresses, and often wear identifiable designer pieces - a Gucci clutch, a pair of pricey Hudson jeans. But girls like Sarah and Erica know that the real secret to landing a wealthy man, is location, location, location.

"Frederick's, Biltmore Room, SoHo House, steakhouses or any private club that I cannot get into," says Sarah. "And any bars across from investment banks."

Sarah, who has been compared with Brooke Burke and frequently is mistaken for a model, is often asked out by older, wealthy men. On a Monday evening at the Bull & Bear - the Waldorf-Astoria bar - a few 40-plus men approach her as she sips a glass of white wine. They hand her their cards - a move intended to impress, as it immediately conveys the bearer's important title and financial status.

Erica says she sees plenty of guys doing the same thing, aware now more than ever that some girls are impressed by high rollers.

Show her the money, tactfully

"If he announces how well-off he is, I'll think he is a real Neanderthal and that no matter how big his bonus is, he'll never have enough money to buy himself a modicum of class," says Erica. "But, I'll still flirt outrageously with him because I know he will at least buy all my drinks for the night."

But while some men seem comfortable playing sugar daddy, others, like Alex Valerio, a 26-year-old in fashion marketing who divides his time between New York and Paris, say that they like to keep their cash under wraps.

Valerio, whose parents own a pure-bred Arabian horse farm and an international housewares company, recently ended a six-month relationship after he began to feel that his girlfriend was using him for his dough.

"We'd travel everywhere together, and I'd buy her gifts," he explains. "But I began to realize that she didn't like me, so much as she liked the life I could provide her with."

He promptly dropped the girl, and now waits several months into a relationship before revealing that he's got so much money that he doesn't have to work at all. He says he wants to find someone who's in love with him.

But many gold diggers say that just because they want a guy who's wealthy doesn't mean that they don't want a happy, meaningful relationship, too.

"You can have it all," says Sarah.

Of course, women like Sarah and Erica are not only acutely aware of not only the stigma, but also the possible reality of dating and marrying for money.

"Marrying a man for money is a gamble at best," says Erica. "You trade yourself for someone you don't love, a lifestyle that will probably be vacuous, with friends who don't care about you."

And although the label "gold digger" is an ugly one, Erica doesn't mind.

"It's more acceptable, indeed even expected, for a woman to want a man with money. It's a consumer-based society - the biggest house, the fastest car, the most extravagant vacations," she says. "This is a culture that revels in excess and hardly ever advocates moderation on any level, and we all buy into it."

* * *

Where the 'Diggers' go

Location is everything in New York - especially when it comes to landing Richie Rich - and these spots are known for attracting wealthy, eligible men. Happy hunting!

FREDERICK'S 8 W. 58th St., at Fifth Ave., (212) 752-6200. Good-looking women and guys with bucks are welcome.

THE BULL & BEAR 301 Park Ave., at 49th St., (212) 872-4900. Attracts wealthy older men.

MARQUEE 289 10th Ave., at 27th St., (646) 473-0202. You either have to be a somebody or a rich man to get into this exclusive club.

ULYSSES 58 Stone St., at Hanover Square, (212) 482-0400. Frequented by Wall Street types.

DON HILL'S 511 Greenwich St., at Spring St., (212) 219-2850. Bankers line up at the bar here Thursday nights.

HOTEL GANSEVOORT BAR 18 Ninth Ave., at 13th St., (212) 206-6700. In the middle of the Meatpacking District, this is where hip hunks hang out.

Celebs who struck gold - big time!

These gals secured luxurious lifestyles when they married money. While all claim they wed for love, when saying "I do" comes with a bank account that allows for jet-setting, millions in baubles and homes wherever they'd like, who'd question their motives?

When former Guess? model Anna Nicole Smith, then 26, wed oil magnate J. Howard Marshall in 1994, tongues started wagging. Not surprising, given that Marshall was a wheelchair-bound, 89-year-old billionaire. When Marshall died, Smith became embroiled in a lawsuit with Marshall's son, who claimed the former stripper didn't deserve a dime of his dad's estate. The case is ongoing, and Smith - who has $88.5 million at stake - vows to take her fight to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Melinda French was a Microsoft marketing exec when she met the company's founder, Bill Gates. The pair wed in 1994, and it's fair to say that French's stock value increased exponentially, Gates being the richest man in the world and all.

Sure, 34-year-old Slovenian Melania Knauss was a model before she married Donald Trump in January. But it's unlikely that her mannequin salary even came close to Trump's multimillions.

Marrying Jets football player Mark Gastineau landed Lisa Gastineau big bucks and media exposure. Now divorced, she and daughter Brittany have finagled their own reality TV show, "The Gastineau Girls," documenting their search for money - er - love.

Originally published on March 17, 2005
 
Screw that. I'll stick to impressing the chicks with my cool, dry wit.
 
You may be closer to reality than you think.

The cruel reality that is being covered up by articles such as this is that women are earning more money than ever, and their need for a sugar daddy is on the wane. Women-owned businesses are rising in number, too.

What's cruel about it? The fact that money and the "tactful" ability to show it off, is not a winning card anymore. It's not a trump card, and if it's even still a face card it's a Jack at best. For men seeking women? Humor and good looks are the trump and face cards of today. A lot of guys can't hack it in this area.


Plus, there's an explosion in the number of scumbag males gold digging for rich wives that no one's talking much about right now...
 
LovingTongue said:
Plus, there's an explosion in the number of scumbag males gold digging for rich wives that no one's talking much about right now...


Shhh!
 
I can't select any one of those answers. They're all a little bit important. One guy I'm attracted to may be really hot, where the other is average and makes up for it with charm. Still another guy may be really hot and charming and funny, but he's a loser with no prospects in life and no common sense. You can't pick any one "most important" part in selecting a mate. A smart woman looks for a balance of it all.

Edited to add: The point I may have missed here is that though money should never be a primary decison maker in choosing a mate, financial sense and the ability to get and hold a job are still important.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ourladyofthehighways said:
I can't select any one of those answers. They're all a little bit important. One guy I'm attracted to may be really hot, where the other is average and makes up for it with charm. Still another guy may be really hot and charming and funny, but he's a loser with no prospects in life and no common sense. You can't pick any one "most important" part in selecting a mate. A smart woman looks for a balance of it all.
That's why I put "other". :) (The "porn collection" part was just a joke.)
 
ourladyofthehighways said:
I can't select any one of those answers. They're all a little bit important. One guy I'm attracted to may be really hot, where the other is average and makes up for it with charm. Still another guy may be really hot and charming and funny, but he's a loser with no prospects in life and no common sense. You can't pick any one "most important" part in selecting a mate. A smart woman looks for a balance of it all.

Edited to add: The point I may have missed here is that though money should never be a primary decison maker in choosing a mate, financial sense and the ability to get and hold a job are still important.


I agree, I go for the whole package. I also agree about the money issue. He doesn't have to be wealthy but being financially independent is an essential factor.
 
Pardon my confusion, LT, but the last 20,000 threads you started strongly indicated the sky was falling.
Now you're telling us women are making big bucks, and it's happening with a Republican in the White House. These women must be either federally subsidized or part of a monopoly - how else can you make money these days?
 
Bridget69 said:
I agree, I go for the whole package. I also agree about the money issue. He doesn't have to be wealthy but being financially independent is an essential factor.

Why's that?
 
Ham Murabi said:
Pardon my confusion, LT, but the last 20,000 threads you started strongly indicated the sky was falling.
Now you're telling us women are making big bucks, and it's happening with a Republican in the White House. These women must be either federally subsidized or part of a monopoly - how else can you make money these days?
Incomes are falling, but women's incomes are still rising against men's. It could just as well have a lot to do with the rise in unemployed men, ya know. Women are just getting a bigger share of the pie.

Lemme guess... you've now devolved from being ignorant of the danger of monopolies, down to the level of denying the shrinking of the middle class?
 
LovingTongue said:
Incomes are falling, but women's incomes are still rising against men's. It could just as well have a lot to do with the rise in unemployed men, ya know. Women are just getting a bigger share of the pie.

Lemme guess... you've now devolved from being ignorant of the danger of monopolies, down to the level of denying the shrinking of the middle class?

Rather than hinting about the evil danger of monopolies, why don't you go ahead and name one that isn't sanctioned by the government.
 
Ham Murabi said:
Rather than hinting about the evil danger of monopolies, why don't you go ahead and name one that isn't sanctioned by the government.
Are you saying there are private industry monopolies that are supported by the Government? Tell me it ain't so!
 
LovingTongue said:
Why's what? That he has to be financially independent?

Yes. I mean, are you going to fuck his bank account or something? Who cares what a person has in their check book?
 
marshalt said:
Yes. I mean, are you going to fuck his bank account or something? Who cares what a person has in their check book?
I suppose she means a man who is not financially stable is a loser who cannot support himself.

That's not as bad as saying she wants to fuck his bank account. In fact that's not even in the same galactic quadrant as that.

But there is a point to be made in that a woman has not typically been rejected by a man for being financially unable to take care of herself. That is a double standard that I suspect is also being eroded, although a lot more slowly than other traditional male/female mating trends.
 
Actually I should correct that... stay at home dads are verifiably on the rise, rising proportionally along with the rise of "alpha earners" (women who earn more than their husbands).

You could say those men are financially unable to take care of themselves. But on the other hand they fulfill the same role that financially disabled housewives do...
 
This kind of thing has been happening almost as long as humans have been making money. Before that it was probably meat or some other commodity.

As long as their are multi-million dollar musician, actors, Sports players etal, there will be male and female gold diggers.

So if I were financially independent but only brought home 20,000 a year, would I be "good enough"? In other words how much money is considered financially stable?

Would a woman that makes 75,000 a year be completely content with a man that only brings home 18,000? He may rent an apartment, have a clunker car, and wear in-expensive fashion but he may still be finacially independent.

In my view it's rare that a women meets a man that makes so much less than her and has a long term relationship/marriage with him. I only say women because this never seemed to be much of an issue with men.

For a long time I believe all a woman really wanted in a man, as far as this post is concerned, is that he could provide for her and their family.

That lasted up until the sixities for the most part. Beaver Cleaver for example. Part of the reasoning as I am sure you all know is that women were oppressed. Another part is that it was how we were raised to believe a marriage should be.

If a woman is a stay at home mother/wife most everyone thinks that's great. If a man is a stay at home dad/husband it's still fairly taboo and frowned upon by most men and perhaps women as well. Even in todays atmosphere of women with higher paying jobs and everything else I still don't see that stereotype changing anytime soon.

Now that the shoe is getting on the other foot so to speak, do women that are financially independent want a man that will be a stay at home dad? Even if these same women could easily take care of all their finances. I don't think so but I'd be interested in hearing a few womens views.





Note: This I am sure is in no way a majority of men or women issue. I know women that have stay at home spouses and are quite happy. Still it's rare and I venture to say will always be rare unless men keep losing more and more jobs and it becomes so bad women have little or no choice in picking a mate with financial independence.
 
hydrex said:
Note: This I am sure is in no way a majority of men or women issue. I know women that have stay at home spouses and are quite happy. Still it's rare and I venture to say will always be rare unless men keep losing more and more jobs and it becomes so bad women have little or no choice in picking a mate with financial independence.
Changes are afoot.

More Dads Staying at Home
March 16, 2005, 01:07 PM

An increasing number of men are choosing to stay at home with their kids. According to the Census Bureau, the number of stay-at-home dads rose more than 18 percent since 1994, while the number of stay-at-home moms rose 13 percent.

Bruce Cantrall of Green Bay was recently recognized as the "Daddy of the Year" by Northeast Wisconsin At-Home Dads.

A typical morning at Cantrall's home includes sending his six-year-old daughter off to school then packing lunch for his two sons, four-year-old Bobby and two-year-old Marcus.

"It's a lot of work to stay at home and take care of the house, and the kids need a lot of attention," he says.

The 40-year-old computer engineer left the working world about five years ago to take care of the kids. It's a decision that seemed practical to him and his wife, Sue Ellen, who works out of the house as a systems engineer.

"She had a job that had travel involved. It was a better pay, better company to work for, so it just worked out that I could stay at home and I enjoyed it," Cantrell said.

But perhaps a stay-at-home dad is not exactly an accurate name for Cantrall. "I'm a stay-at-home dad but my wife likes to say I'm a get-out-of-the-house dad because we do a lot of things outside of the house."

He packs the kids' schedules with many activities like trips to the zoo or museum and joining play groups.

"I feel like I can be a good parent because I spend a lot of time and they know me and they know their boundaries and we work pretty well together as a team."

He helped start the Northeast Wisconsin At Home Dads Organization in 2001 for support and frienships, "and the group is one of the ways we reach out because we reach out to other guys in that way."

There are about a dozen men in the organization. It's free to join and there are no attendance requirements.

Why it's dad's turn at home

By SHARON LABI
March 6, 2005

MORE Australian men are staying home to care for their children while their wives climb the corporate ladder.

Australia's 18,000 stay-at-home fathers are hailed as pioneers of their time. And that number is set to increase as women earn more.

"A lot of it is attributed to the ability of mothers to be family breadwinners now," said Alison Morehead, deputy director of research at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Dr Morehead said middle-class men were more likely to stay home because their partners earned enough to support the whole family.

"We know that men in Australia aspire to spend more time with their kids," she said.

"And these dads are actually being pioneers, just as women were pioneers in the workplace 30 years ago," she said.

A recent British study found there were now three times as many stay-at-home fathers than a decade ago.

Dr Morehead said the figures were likely to be similar here.

Dr Michael Flood, a research fellow at The Australia Institute, said the traditional image of fathers as breadwinners and disciplinarians had changed.

They were now seen as more nurturing.

"The second factor is that as women's participation in the workforce has increased, there are a growing number of couples where it's the mother who earns more than the father," Dr Flood said.

Despite the rise, she said there were fewer services and networking opportunities for stay-at-home fathers than those for women.

Relationships Australia chief executive Anne Hollonds said the take-up rate of paternity leave was low, but more men were taking an extended break from work to spend time with a young child. Fiona Rae, a Network Nine publicist, returned to work full time last year, leaving husband Matt Shillington at home to care for George, four, and Ivy, two.

Ms Rae had been at home with the children for three years, but it was better for the family financially for her to return to work.

"I definitely will have bonded with my kids in a way many blokes haven't," Mr Shillington said.

The Sunday Telegraph
 
LovingTongue said:
Are you saying there are private industry monopolies that are supported by the Government? Tell me it ain't so!

No, what I'm telling you is that monopolies don't exist unless they are allowed to by the government. You claim, though, that is a government subsidy is withdrawn and industry - such as the dairy industry - would soon be taken over by one giant company. Yet you can't prove it by citing any example of that happening.
 
I am not really bothered by money. This is partly because when I see my future, I see myself, kids but no man. I attract a lot of very financially secure guys, a couple from influential backgrounds- but I think that was because I don't come across as desperate or the type of person who is looking at their wallets. I am very ambitious, and in short, I would hate to become materially dependent on a man. My sisters are also the same, probably the way we were raised.

Here is what I like:

- Sexy appearance.
- Wit and intelligent conversationalist.


oh yeah and

- good sex.
 
Ham Murabi said:
No, what I'm telling you is that monopolies don't exist unless they are allowed to by the government. You claim, though, that is a government subsidy is withdrawn and industry - such as the dairy industry - would soon be taken over by one giant company. Yet you can't prove it by citing any example of that happening.
Standard Oil, anyone?
 
GirlMidnite said:
I am not really bothered by money. This is partly because when I see my future, I see myself, kids but no man. I attract a lot of very financially secure guys, a couple from influential backgrounds- but I think that was because I don't come across as desperate or the type of person who is looking at their wallets. I am very ambitious, and in short, I would hate to become materially dependent on a man. My sisters are also the same, probably the way we were raised.

Here is what I like:

- Sexy appearance.
- Wit and intelligent conversationalist.


oh yeah and

- good sex.
That pretty much describes the face of the future. Now if only we could make the future happen a lot faster...
 
Back
Top