silktricks Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 (edited) There was no community of property there either. These were all men who M, and were attracted to, independent women who earned well and kept their finances separate - aside from one W who worked part-time only, because she had inherited from her parents, but in that case too finances were separate as it was second Ms for both of them and there were kids - and inheritance issues - involved. Sorry - I don't buy it. Keeping separate finances is much more difficult than you are implying - and much more rare. Based upon the numbers of affairs that you've claimed - the idea that these all kept their finances separate - and that you gave a rip whether they did or not - it doesn't wash. And before you start talking about "your country" and or "wealthy people" please just don't bother, as I have familiarity with both, and it still doesn't wash. So, let's just drop it as a good effort on your part, but really quite ineffectual . Edited June 22, 2010 by silktricks Link to post Share on other sites
Author bananalaffytaffy Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 LOL...your MM spits out a litter of 6 kids with his wife and then uses the MORALS 'clause' for staying married to raise them - while screwing around on the side? :laugh: :laugh: Priceless.If I'm not mistaken, she's referring to lack of morals... or perhaps disregard of morals... or the current favorite, relative morals... or maybe the "split self" stuff give license to have selective morals... Link to post Share on other sites
Author bananalaffytaffy Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 Sorry - I don't buy it. Keeping separate finances is much more difficult than you are implying - and much more rare. Based upon the numbers of affairs that you've claimed - the idea that these all kept their finances separate - and that you gave a rip whether they did or not - it doesn't wash. And before you start talking about "your country" and or "wealthy people" please just don't bother, as I have familiarity with both, and it still doesn't wash. So, let's just drop it as a good effort on your part, but really quite ineffectual .I agree, the arguement is getting quite old, and the only ones that buy it are the ones that think they benefitted from it. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Sorry - I don't buy it. Keeping separate finances is much more difficult than you are implying - and much more rare. Based upon the numbers of affairs that you've claimed - the idea that these all kept their finances separate - and that you gave a rip whether they did or not - it doesn't wash. And before you start talking about "your country" and or "wealthy people" please just don't bother, as I have familiarity with both, and it still doesn't wash. So, let's just drop it as a good effort on your part, but really quite ineffectual . Actually, getting M COP is very rare among the more educated and more affluent in my country (whether you know anything about it or not!) and I certainly do know about those MMs because the subject ALWAYS came up. Though, frankly, you're quite right that I didn't care what the financial basis of their Ms were - and why should I have? The Ms were their business, not mine. Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 I agree, the arguement is getting quite old, and the only ones that buy it are the ones that think they benefitted from it. Since that was clearly directed at me - your quoting Silk's response to my post would indicate - I'd love to know how you think I benefited? Link to post Share on other sites
Author bananalaffytaffy Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 Since that was clearly directed at me - your quoting Silk's response to my post would indicate - I'd love to know how you think I benefited?That's a joke, right? Link to post Share on other sites
OWoman Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 That's a joke, right? No, it's a serious question. Link to post Share on other sites
Mimolicious Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 many of the OW on here don't get all the goodies, they want HIM and they don't get him, the wife does He still goes home to the wife every night, plans a life with her, does things with her and in many cases, only sees the OW a couple times a year. No thanks, I will take my full-time guy vs a guy who keeps me hidden, doesn't want anyone to know about me but will pay a few bills for me ANYWAY! I didn't say anyone here was in this kind of situation. I said that in my parents country (2) this was norm and even in our family there are a few that live the stereotype. OW are arm candy and trophy side pieces to powerful/ wealthy (even to the not so wealthy) men. They have multiple OW set up in supped up apts, give them cars, cc's, etc... usually much younger chicks too. Spanish soap operas can give you a better insight. BTW, some spanish soaps are real life stories, so it's not exactly fiction. From the dozens I have watched, the OW is not a character that is in an A just for the sake of love. The character is usually portraited as the "gold digger" and being in these kind of relationship mostly for the financial support that a MM can offer in exchange of passion, affection, attention, etc... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts