Women: Before there can be sex, show me the money!

Le Jacquelope

Loves Spam
Joined
Apr 9, 2003
Posts
76,445
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=15210972&src=news
(video)

Hold up now. Don't get mad at me - get mad at Barbara Mitchell and these news reporters who dug up this trend.


http://wcbstv.com/local/money.vs.sex.2.1142750.html

Aug 25, 2009 6:09 am US/Eastern
In Slow Economy, Financial Concerns Trump Sex

NEW YORK (CBS) ― With the economy still not back on track, relationship experts say that these days, more and more Americans are tightening their belts – in more ways than one.

They say couples are concerned with making more money, and are reportedly making a lot less love.

Passion or profits – which do you prefer right now?

"More money on that," Floral Park resident Christina Garcia said.

"I'm getting a little bit less sex, but getting a lot more money," Midtown resident P.J. Jacobowitz said.

It's an age-old question: for love or money.

But in tough economic times, relationship experts say more and more people, especially women, are finding out their true love is the latter.

"Many women feel as though they've been betrayed – they certainly feel short-changed," relationship therapist Barbara Mitchell said. "Sex is just not something they want to give."

Mitchell, who specializes in money matters in marriages, says couples have always had conflicts over cash, but in today's times feelings toward money run much deeper.

"What the money represents is security, both now and in the future – college educations, retirement," Mitchell says.

When that security becomes threatened, sex goes out the window.

"People are contracting, they're scared," Mitchell says. "When they're scared, we have no interest in being vulnerable or being open to taking risks or allowing other people in."

Back on the street many women agreed, saying that, before there can be sex, show me the money.

"The economy is really bad, so I guess money would be more important," Orlando resident Stephanie Sotto said.

"Once you have all the money in the bank, see what kind of a love life you get right away," Brooklyn resident Vicky Ross said. "It all ties in."

So how do men feel?

"Mostly women go for the money," one resident said.

"That's ridiculous," said another.

But just because you desire the security of money, Mitchell says that doesn't mean you're a gold digger. In fact, couples who deal with money dilemmas more openly and honest, she says, will grow a lot closer.

"By helping somebody talk about their relationship with money, and or their relationship with se,x you can really help somebody understand fairly quickly what is important to them, what their needs are, what that reflects about who they are," Mitchell says.

For those of you whose bedrooms are having more activity than your bank accounts right now, take heart – medical research shows sex is actually healthier for you than money.
 
So...half the article stipulates that couples and relationships are concerned with money over sex, and at about two point the article emphasizes that women "especially" are. But you title this "women" and ignore that it involves men as well.

Does this tell me that women and only women are mercenaries, or does it tell me something boring and tiresome about you? Hmmm :rolleyes:
 
So...half the article stipulates that couples and relationships are concerned with money over sex, and at about two point the article emphasizes that women "especially" are. But you title this "women" and ignore that it involves men as well.

Does this tell me that women and only women are mercenaries, or does it tell me something boring and tiresome about you? Hmmm :rolleyes:
It wasn't a guy who said "show me the money".

Yeah, I pointed out the emphasis. Because the article did.


See, you're getting mad at the messenger here when your ill will should be directed at the woman reporter and therapist that took that giant misogynist crap all over the concept of the flawless saintly female.

Tiresome? You don't even know what tiresome is. Tiresome is watching this gender dynamic play itself out so reliably that I knew what this story would say as soon as I saw the headline. Tiresome is knowing you'd see this and go on your little jihad.

If you saw any point in that article where some guy said "show me the money before there can be sex", please by all means beat me over the head with it.

Until then I will continue to accurately predict gender relations and I may even challenge you to a bet or two if you dare to put up some quid. But that's one thing about you - you don't like being wrong.... especially when it can cost you.


Oh yeah, and I am so not intimidated by your she-ra posturing. Or anyone else's.
 
So...half the article stipulates that couples and relationships are concerned with money over sex, and at about two point the article emphasizes that women "especially" are. But you title this "women" and ignore that it involves men as well.

Does this tell me that women and only women are mercenaries, or does it tell me something boring and tiresome about you? Hmmm :rolleyes:

**coffee spew** :D
 
**coffee spew** :D
I love y'all and your spin control.
This forum is a giant bastion of tiresome male bashing but you sure don't like the truth to come out if it isn't so flattering to the "victim" gender.

It's actually entertaining to watch you react like this.
 
Gender bias isn't news. The examples you provided are merely attempts to find the point-of-view you want to suit your own ideas and then pass them off as valid. It's not new. It's actually pretty old and tired.
 
Gender bias isn't news. The examples you provided are merely attempts to find the point-of-view you want to suit your own ideas and then pass them off as valid. It's not new. It's actually pretty old and tired.
O'rly, now.

Well, if you feel that is the case, then by all means find some contradictory facts.

Oh I already know you all too well. You won't do that, because you can't. Oh I'm sure you'll say you don't care to - but the reality is, you can't, with any amount of intellectual honesty, say that what I cited was factually wrong or in any way invalid. It's kind of funny considering the male bashing rants that I have observed on here that had no basis in fact whatsoever, aside from... *ack* personal anecdotal experience!

The simple truth is, you're a woman and you do not want anyone telling you that you're no better than male-kind. That stings. But you won't admit it, even though it is true. :)
 
Oh and I will repeat - don't get mad at me, ladies. Get mad at Barbara Mitchell and the news reporters and female interviewees who came up with this story. These are the women who made the offending comments.

But then they're all women. Which is why you're so scared of tackling what they said. You can't go after them since you can't play the misogyny witch hunt card - so you avoid them altogether.

Again, you're so predictable. You're like an open book. I'm set to win a fifty dollar bet on you.
 
I don't see the lust for money as being gender-specific. However I do see a gender-specific trend for guys to be more willing to have meaningless sex than women. I wonder if that plays into the lust for money scenario? In other words, would a guy be more willing to "buy" love than a woman?
 
I don't see the lust for money as being gender-specific. However I do see a gender-specific trend for guys to be more willing to have meaningless sex than women. I wonder if that plays into the lust for money scenario? In other words, would a guy be more willing to "buy" love than a woman?
Wait, are we talking about love, or meaningless sex? The issue of men buying love is a classic chicken vs the egg question - is the guy willing to buy love, or is it actually being demanded of him? That question is easy to answer with a little experiment - how many guys with no money can find love?

As for the lust for money not being gender specific, it appears to me that, in keeping with the spirit of this news story, women desire security before they want sex - and guys are required to provide said security. I've never seen that rule broken... at least not successfully.

You do have a good point about the meaningless sex thing. Few headwinds are less productive pissing into than working the meaningless sex gene out of men. Hell, I'd reduce the male sex drive to once in 7 years if I could. :D
 
The article puts a ridiculous, sensationalist spin on something that looks pretty commonsensical and entirely human. So existential stresses have a way of negatively influencing people's sex lives? What a novel idea. Who'd have ever imagined preoccupied, tired, anxious people lose some of their horniness. The spin was necessary, I suppose, because without it, it would have been just "duh".

As for a gender difference, provided there is one, it doesn't look as though it's about sex and money at all. It seems to be about sex and stress, or sex and optimism, or sex and a feeling of safety. It's not impossible, though the article certainly doesn't give us a way of knowing, that women's libido suffers more than men's under certain circumstances. That's as different as it can be from making it a willful, greedy thing, where women gleefully refuse to 'put out' until presented with cash.
 
It wasn't a guy who said "show me the money".

Yeah, I pointed out the emphasis. Because the article did.

See, you're getting mad at the messenger
I'm not mad at you at all. I'm rolling my eyes at someone who cherry picks and endlessly posts messages that "seem" to uphold his point of view, with sensationalist titles that don't usually support the message of the article, and who tends to interpet articles in a certain way even if they don't, when read, really say that...and who then defends himself by saying, "Oh, don't get mad at me! See, I'm just reporting the facts...."

Yeah. With no spin at all on them. Right. :rolleyes:

here when your ill will should be directed at the woman reporter and therapist that took that giant misogynist crap all over the concept of the flawless saintly female.
And, yet again, I say, does this report a "fact" or does it present something boring and tiresome about you. Did I say anything about "flawless saintly females?" I pointed out that the article talks as much about couples as women.

Don't get mad at the messenger.

Tiresome is knowing you'd see this and go on your little jihad.
*MY* Jihad? Am I posting articles on gender inequality? Where are all the articles I've posted casting women as good and men as evil? Which one of us, simply in articles posted on this topic, with an eye to pointing out one side only, is on a jihad?
 
and I may even challenge you to a bet or two if you dare to put up some quid. But that's one thing about you - you don't like being wrong.... especially when it can cost you.
I will happily make a bet with you that will cost. It's called the "Who's posturing and on a Jihad?" bet.

You list all the articles you've posted here in AH on gender inequality that show how good men are and how evil women are. Then list all I've posted here in AH that say that women are good and men are bad.

I bet you that you have not only posted more articles than me, but that you've posted a lot more than I have and are therefore the one posturing and on a jihad. If I lose this bet, I will stop responding to your posts and you will never have to deal with me again. If you lose this bet, you have to stop posting gender inequality articles and never mention the subject again.

Bet?
 
Well I, for one, had no idea you were She-ra, 3113.

Can I come over and play at your house sometime?
 
Just read checked the links and I think that they missed the obvious.

In my experience secure and comfortable women give fewer blow jobs, anxious up tight women may sometimes be more accommodating.

IMHO The cost of a woman is worth the expense, and sometimes the most expensive can be a lot more fun! :devil:
 
I'm not mad at you at all. I'm rolling my eyes at someone who cherry picks and endlessly posts messages that "seem" to uphold his point of view, with sensationalist titles that don't usually support the message of the article, and who tends to interpet articles in a certain way even if they don't, when read, really say that...and who then defends himself by saying, "Oh, don't get mad at me! See, I'm just reporting the facts...."

Yeah. With no spin at all on them. Right. :rolleyes:
It's only cherry picking if you can come up with facts that contradict me.

So far, you have failed to do that.

And, yet again, I say, does this report a "fact" or does it present something boring and tiresome about you.
It's only something tiresome about me when you disagree and cannot come up with contrary evidence.

I pointed out that the article talks as much about couples as women.
Factually wrong again.

Don't get mad at the messenger.
In your case I'm not mad. I'm snickering.

*MY* Jihad? Am I posting articles on gender inequality? Where are all the articles I've posted casting women as good and men as evil? Which one of us, simply in articles posted on this topic, with an eye to pointing out one side only, is on a jihad?
You sat there and laughed while people like ElizabethT bashed men. You and a buncha other AHers got hopping mad when I came by and debunked her stereotyping. Fact of history. Definitely qualifies as a jihad.
 
I will happily make a bet with you that will cost. It's called the "Who's posturing and on a Jihad?" bet.
I'll counter you with another bet. It's called "How many AH male bashers did you call out for their bullshit vs how many you gave a free pass?"

How about that?


So far you have absolutely failed to produce any citations that actually counter the citation I posted. As I said before, you're not very bright at all.
 
Where are these facts you speak of? I was generous in speculating there might be a grain of truth in the article that got twisted out of shape through bad reporting. Actually, there's little to suggest even that.

Whatever could be said about the reporter, the source, i.e. the therapist lady, has little credibility herself. She's not a scientist and she's not commenting on results of a scientific study. She seems to be a therapist, 'reporting' anecdotal evidence from her practice. The terms in which she does so say all that needs to be said about her credentials. She's about as much a scientist as televangelists are holy men.

It's pretty silly to even discuss an article of this level, as if it actually deserved attention.
 
To a large extent, this is what "society" expects: in a consumer economy, women become commodities like anything else, and I suspect the women quoted in this article are of a certain "class" i.e., educated Twentysomething's, the demographic towards which much of journalism of this sort is directed.

Women scoff at LJ here, but if your best friend was dating a guy who lived in his car as opposed to a doctor, how many of you would raise your estimation of her?

Nah, we shake our heads and wonder what got into her - women are expected to be headhunters even, maybe especially, in the chattering classes.

It's just the flip side of guys dumping their old fashioned brides to squire around the latest model "Trophy" wife - our spouses in some sense, become status objects and fashion accessories in a fashion and status conscious culture - I think it probably says less about women than about our cultural assumptions.

For that matter, how often do you see couples on television who aren't both beautiful and financially successful? Albeit, there has been some small attempt in more recent years to apply some cinema verite, the "big shows" have traditionally been Dynasty, 90210 (everybody complained abotu Tori Spelling being on the show, as she was less than the ideal of physical perfection), Friends (note that the "underachievers" on this particular show, Joey and Phoebe, are depicted as frankly mentally retarded), etc., i.e., pretty and successful people, the people we all want to be - which leaves all of us who prefer The Addams Family to Leave to Beaver a bit cold.

Before you decide I'm being shallow, it's pretty well established that the rise in the crime rate in the Fifties, Sixties, and Seventies, correlated with the spread of network television - it's called "perception of inequality", i.e., and it wasn't "sex and violence", it was economic security: people who are used to getting by suddenly see the easy affluence of the Cleavers, for all that we might see it as a quaint, middle class cliche of life, felt "shortchanged" by the comparison.

Anyway, traditionally, "well bred" women simply did not associate with men who didn't have "prospects", you had to have the resources to start a family before engaging in sexual relations, there were no reliable methods of birth control, or other means of determining paternity.

Once married, both partners pretty much had to work their asses off, unless they were in the truly upper crust and could afford servants.

This, in some sense, is the historical "norm", many of the details have changed, but the core reasoning hasn't changed all that much even when many of the externalities no longer apply: women who date homeless guys are up against it if they want to suddenly date a doctor, people tend to get typecast, often quite aggressively, given that it's highly competitive environment, all your transgressions get put on your "social resume" - unless "everybody is doing it".

When you're dealing with people who put paperwork above all else, you are your resume, and that doesn't tend to incentivize creativity in relationships or much else; people do what is "expected" of them - peer pressure doesn't end with high school, unfortunately.

For a while, in the Seventies, under "free love" ideals, women maintained their ideals of marriage, i.e., once married, they selflessly put everything into it, and a lot of these women ended up having their good will taken advantage of - not surprisingly, the next generation was a bit more mercenary.

It's the same reason relying on "market dynamics" doesn't appear to work especially well - people in heavy social competition tend not to take the long view, they hope to make the "big score" and not have to play anymore.

Too bad, because two heads are often better than one, and plenty of guys owe their success, or much of it, to their more politically savvy partners, and I think LJ is right about one thing; male ambition is often less about them than than the women in their lives - we don't all actually aspire to toiling behind a desk until we drop dead of a coronary - back in the day, men did it because if they didn't, your spouse was going to end up pushing a shopping cart down the alley if you didn't.

Anyway, I see it as one more thing in a long list of the contradictions between fantasy and reality in social idealization - you do have to eat, but beyond that, what's it all about?
 
Last edited:
Where are these facts you speak of? I was generous in speculating there might be a grain of truth in the article that got twisted out of shape through bad reporting. Actually, there's little to suggest even that.
Oh give me a break. The only reason you call this bad reporting is it doesn't agree with how you feel. Or it's embarrassing.

What that article said can be easily demonstrated in real life. It is easily demonstrated that most women desire their man to be a provider and if he can't do that, the sex usually gets cut off. Guaranteed result most of the time. You can almost set a clock by it.
 
To a large extent, this is what "society" expects: in a consumer economy, women become commodities like anything else, and I suspect the women quoted in this article are of a certain "class" i.e., educated Twentysomething's, the demographic towards which much of journalism of this sort is directed.

Women scoff at LJ here, but if your best friend was dating a guy who lived in his car as opposed to a doctor, how many of you would raise your estimation of her?

Nah, we shake our heads and wonder what got into her - women are expected to be headhunters even, maybe especially, in the chattering classes.

It's just the flip side of guys dumping their old fashioned brides to squire around the latest model "Trophy" wife - our spouses in some sense, become status objects and fashion accessories in a fashion and status conscious culture - I think it probably says less about women than about our cultural assumptions.
Yup, the stone cold truth... even Mel Gibson fell for that.
 
She has written a wealth of staunchly feminist books.

But it appears old age may even have mellowed Fay Weldon.

The veteran author, 77, now claims woman have unrealistic expectations of men and would find life easier if they picked up the socks and cleaned the loo themselves.
'The definition of a good man has become ridiculous. I just think that as long as you have a sort of semi-good looking, able-bodied, intelligent man, you should have his baby.'

Fay Weldon: 'Women would find life easier if they picked up men's socks and cleaned the loo'

Lol, comments on this? Philosophy or spin?

Interesting script here: the a "read more" link to the article was automatically added when I copied the text. Shame on you unattributed quoters, making work for coders to come up with these scripts, and for me, to steal it.
 
Oh give me a break. The only reason you call this bad reporting is it doesn't agree with how you feel. Or it's embarrassing.

Nope. I have precious little interest in gender-finger-pointing topics, from whichever side they may come. The only reason I responded was that the article belongs to the "Sodomized by Aliens!" style of reporting yet you asked us to accept it as 'facts'. You also added your own spin on top of the article's spin, so I was tempted.

The article talks about a relationship therapist noticing a growing preoccupation with money among her clients and speculating about the way that preoccupation affects intimacy in their relationships. Nothing more, nothing less.

That's worlds away from saying that women bail out when the money's gone, and a completely different issue from "What do people look for in a prospective partner?"

But if you want to make it about that, I still don't see anything particularly embarrassing to women. Xssve says most women would rather date a doctor than a homeless person. If that's supposed to be incriminating, I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Would a guy rather date a doctoress or a bag lady? How about a beautiful woman or an ugly one? One who loves sex or one who doesn't? One he could rely on as a partner or one that couldn't be trusted not to burn down the house? Etc, etc.

It seems to me we all choose, according to what matters to us. But women should be somehow ashamed for having any kind of preference. Whether it's for situated guys, handsome guys, funny guys, or guys with big dicks, she's being 'mercenary' if she chooses. As if every woman should find all men equally attractive, and as if every man finds all women equally attractive.

Of course, I'm not reducing attractions and commitments to some list of universally approved features. That's about as far from my thinking as it could get. So far as such criteria play a role, though, if financial security matters a lot to someone, consciously or subconsciously, I'm not going to call that morally inferior to "shared tastes in music" or "a right kind of body".
 
Back
Top