I think the original question was “does money matter?” To me, yes, money matters. It matters most when there isn’t enough.

I would be leery of dating a woman that had a vast difference in wealth than I have. I’ve done it and it is awkward. I’ve dated both up and down the social latter and I admit that I felt most comfortable with someone on a similar rung as I am. Social interactions can be difficult otherwise. I know that there are exceptions, but this is my experience.

To marriage and compatibility issues: I think you ignore/poo poo/dismiss the needs/wants/desires of your partner at great peril. I think most of the material on this website involves the meeting of needs as a paramount ingredient for a successful marriage. Our spouses married us, at least partially, because of the way they felt when they were with us. And if you are honest with yourself, you know that you treated your spouse differently when you were dating (well I know that I did). I know for a fact that I was slower to find fault. I know that I was quicker to praise. I know that I smiled much easier then. I know that it sure felt a lot better way back then.

Of course no one else completely controls how we feel . . . we ultimately have that responsibility ourselves, but it is a lot harder to get those loving feeling for someone who is constantly nagging and withholding the things that we desire. It is hard to feel love for someone that belittles you, beats you, denies you sex, or treat you as a piece of furniture or as a nuisance that must, at least occasionally, be attended to. You know, when I can fully grasp the concept, when I become a Zen master and can be completely fulfilled in the here and now, I will be just as happy sitting in a dark closet as I would be at the symphony with a super-model with my winning Powerball ticket. I guess I am just not there yet. Being the flawed mortal that I am, I feel better when I am with someone that puts some effort into trying to meet my needs. It is my responsibility to state clearly what they are. I have found that my wife and I are terrible mind readers. I like to be told “thanks” for services rendered. I like to be shown that I matter more than the T.V.

One thing that I have learned is; it better to feel alone when you are alone than it is to feel alone whist married. Feeling alone and unwanted while your spouse sits across the table from you is a terrible thing. I'm fortunate that my situation has . . . very slowly . . . move away from this position.

Frankly, I don't really see what all the fuss is about meeting needs. If I know that my wife likes flowers, or hugs, or oodles and oodles of cash, or deep conversations,I will try to give those things to her. Why you may ask? Because I know that it makes her happy. It makes her smile and I like it when she smiles. It really isn't that complicated.

Hmm, I read part of this thread and got lost in the alimony tangent -- nice to see on the last page it got back to the original topic.

On the alimony debate, I found the notion that screening dates by whether they receive alimony, and particularly the bit about giving preference to those who chose a lump settlement over alimony, to be laugh out loud funny. Having seen up close three generations of a family suffer because one woman vindictively chose a lump sum over alimony simply because she knew the lump sum would force events that would harm a great many people, that strikes me as a truly bizarre character test. Unless, of course, you're testing for people of bad character to go on dates with, in which case, have at it.

But isn't that an illogical leap to assume that taking a lump sum is a sign of bad character?

What's wrong with preferring someone who is NOT recieving alimony?

I don't think I ever said I didn't want someone who ever got anything from their ex-spouse. I said I didn't want someone who was dependent upon their ex-spouse for their personal support.

I can certainly see where someone might take alimony or non-specified support because of tax advantages for child support, or take a pay-out over time for a buisiness or home that was a marital asset.

But I would certainly not want to marry someone who was still dependent upon their ex-spouse.

Well of course it is. Thank you for making my point very nicely.


Nothing; it's just a preference. But you talked about using it as a definitive sort for excluding some and not excluding others. I still find that laugh-out-loud funny.


So? I never claimed you said anything of the sort. What's with the non-sequiturs?


Ah, I see you're backpedalling on what you said earlier. Maybe you'd like to get your comments sorted out and post the final version.

I think this is an accurate reflection of my position.

If you don't want people to respond to posts of yours that say something different, you might want to amend those posts.

A note: I find it interesting that you seemed apologetic for the "pick up the tab" phrasing a few pages back, but here you are repeating it again.

Well, after I looked at it, I think it does accurately reflect how I feel.

Let me explain.

Getting your share of the assets is NOT having ex-H pick up the tab.

Making ex-H pay, because you are angry with him is picking up the tab.

Feeling ex-H owes you more than just your split of the assets, but support simply because you were once married to him, IS picking up the tab.

If one structures the settlement so that it is mutually beneficial is not having him pick up the tab.

I hope that claries the picking up the tab comment.

If spousal support is because of vindictiness, or a sense of perpetual entitlement, I see that as depending upon another person to pick up the tab.

So let me be clear, I'll repeat it even again.

So I'm not attracted to women who want someone else to pick up the tab, even if they were the BS.

To me, if you left the cheater and started out on your own with not a thing, and now are a financial success, that turns me on! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I still find this laugh-out-loud funny, for the reasons I stated above. It looks like it doesn't conflict with your new statement, since you list no alimony scenario that you don't equate to "picking up the tab" in your revised statement. So I'm still giggling.

I also think this is ROFL territory and also so ignorant it's pitiful:


But since you're leaving those out there as statements you stand by, there should be no problem with me laughing at them.

I admit, my position evolved over the course of the thread. I left myself an out saying I can't imagine a scenario where I would find this ok, and others filled it in.

I gave my ammended position, and even clarified "picking up the tab"

If you don't like it, then you are free to choose not to live by my preferences.

Oh, wow, thanks ever so much for your permission!

MOS,

What are you trying to accomplish?

EE,

She has a thing for baiting men and it is painful watching you choppin' at the hook. You might as well argue with the wind.

That would be my question for you, actually. What's this about?

ROFL. Funny how the women who get annoyed with me around here don't suggest I have some kind of *gasp* thing for baiting women.

Since I asked first, I respectfully ask that you answer first. I'll be happy to answer after you.

Ladies first.

Ok, let's see... I started reading a monster thread a couple of days ago because the subject line interested me. About halfway through I realized it had been on a tangent for quite a while, and I checked the last page to see if it ever went back to the original question. It did, and I posted a comment to that effect and remarked on something I'd seen in the early part of the thread and included a point I hadn't seen considered in what I'd read thus far.

All pretty simple, really. I'm still not sure what some of your responses are about, such as the non-sequitur bits.

Your turn.

I saw a thread that asked a question about does money matter, well, let's just put the original question up for those who just skipped to the last page <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


So I gave my answer, and was questioned, educated, scoffed at and agreed with by some.

So I answered, and even explained my answer. Listened to many of the other comments, conceeded points that I could agree with, and here I am today.

If you are not sure, just ask.

Perhaps start a different thread, so that your questions are not also categorized as non-sequiturs. (I love that comic strip, BTW.)

Ask about what? I posted a comment, and you posted questions to me. I started responding to you, and then we get you asking me what I'm trying to accomplish by responding to your posts when you were the one who started asking me questions. So what's that about?


This would seem to be advice aimed at yourself, not at me.

I guess we disagree. What I considered to be right on topic, since the original question asked directly about money and alimony, you consider non-sequiturs, if I understand you correctly.

We simply disagree.

Have whatever kinda day you like to have.

You seem to be making stuff up again. I was very specific about what I called non sequiturs, and you seem to be saying something about me calling topics on money and alimony non sequiturs in general. I have no idea where you're getting that from, because it's not from me.

So what's the asking me what I'm trying to accomplish about? You haven't explained that one yet.