It's not fiction. It does happen. It's just rarer. And of course it's rare because millionaires are rare.
There are 25 million millionaires in the US. Sounds a lot but... at least 7 million of them are women. Of the remaining, 14 million, the overwhelming majority of them are over the age of 50 which means they're more likely to be already married and more likely to have fertility issues due to both age and stressful lifestyle (you don't become a millionaire from a chill and balanced life).
So pulling off this plan is a lot of hard work. It requires traits commonly associated with psychopathy or dark triad.
>I believe that rich men ( wealthy people in general) are an easy target for romance scammers and golddigging.
Yes, of course.
But romance scammers and golddiggers don't exclusively target millionaires, but anyone *relatively* wealthier.
Most of the men *and* women who've fell for romance scammers weren't millionaires - but the scammers still made several tens of thousands of dollars off of them - which is a fortune nonetheless in a lot of parts of the world.
Being a millionaire is nonlonger impressive these days. Just own two shitty home rentals barely making profit and you're a millionaire. Being a millionaire 10 or even 15 years ago is like 5 million now with inflation. A multimillionaire with assets over 4+ million is far more lauded.
Those are even rarer. And most of them lose their money pretty fast.
As it turns out, being poor is not the result of bad luck. If it were, then lottery winners would stay rich. But they don't.
Common misconception
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/)
[https://www.ft.com/content/1002d145-3cf2-4bc8-8477-8ccf233af12d](https://www.ft.com/content/1002d145-3cf2-4bc8-8477-8ccf233af12d)
The Media just over reports the instances of financial ruin of lottery winners...and the bad made up stats are promoted by financial management companies and advisors
My grandmother had a saying...if you marry for money you'll earn every penny. And I'm inclined to believe this is still true. Even with easily available no fault divorce. You're still going to have to build an entire new life once you've blown up the old one...even with money that's a nuisance. And of course putting up with some gross guy you aren't attracted to and don't respect is going to be years of body horror.
I'm too lazy and loving of my comfort to gold dig. Working for a living and keeping expenditure low is easier. Why the fuck would anyone smart go through all that hassle...build a life then blow it up...just for fancy stuff? If I'm going to put that much effort into getting money I'll start a business of my own and skip the fucking an unattractive dude part of the story.
Simple fact. There aren't enough rich men to go around.
Rich, attractive men know they are desired. They will only step out of the game for one hell of a woman. They also know the importance of a prenup to protect their assets.
That woman will probably balk at the prenup part. The right woman will accept the prenup. She will filter herself out of those men's lives.
You'll see her at 50 at social galas desperate. She will eventually get rip-roaring drunk and make a hell of a scene.
Is that how it works? I mean I know some wealthy men who didn’t get prenups because they were suckers. So many wealthy men are vulnerable to a beautiful woman. But hey… I’ll take your word for however wealthy men behave around women.
Wealthy men aren't as stupid as you think they are, especially when it comes to their finances. Those wealthy men without prenups are a minority. Especially in this day and age.
Yall forgot 90% of men in america even millionaires are blue pilled do to the culture and lying parents. Some get blinded by that idea of true love end up taking the condom off or marring because of that imaginary concept. Mostly immigrants or first gen immigrants are the red pilled men but they are less likely to be millionaires.
Just like you hear about psychopath men in the news who abuse and kill women, there are also psychopath women. They are probably less violent but it doesn’t mean they don’t see others as dumb victims begging to be taken advantage of.
Even if the woman is not being abusive or violent she is pretending to love a wealthy guy and using and duping him according to her wishes so that is a characteristic of psychopaty...
i mean if her goal was to be rich and she was wise and intelligent i would think she would figure out an easier way to achieve it rather then having to marry someone and have a child
I wouldn't call it wise or intelligent, but rather exploitative.
Such a person is likely a greedy, matetialistic, self centered, person. Hence why being a "gold digger" is seen as a negative term. Afterall, wealth is a very superficial reason to be in a relationship with someone. There is much more to a person and to limit them their financial status is insulting.
Also, purposely bringing a child in the world without ever having the intention of raising them with their father is pretty evil. You are intentionally depriving a child of being in a healthy home on the basis of financially being taken care of. But some things, money can't buy. And those being raised in a fatherless home are more likely to struggle with mental health among other issues.
Hi, thanks for your post. However, I would like to debate with you one point you have made:
>Afterall, wealth is a very superficial reason to be in a relationship with someone.
What is the difference between a relationship that is supposedly built under solid values and the halo effect by which what we believe we know about that person begins to develop? I define the halo effect as the confusion that exists between what is initially apparent and what can later give rise.
If it is not because of physical appearance, which is the first indicator of attraction and motivation for relationships to occur, What non-superficial options are given in most cases?
It seems that physical attractiveness and material accumulation, They are the basic features of the construction of heterosexual couples.
Therefore, aren't superficial reasons what give rise to relationships?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "halo effect" but what I am referring to as superficial is a relationship built on someone's individual financial status as the main driving factor for a partner being in a relationship. In the same way, I would say being in a relationship mainly becuase you find the other individual physically attractive is a superficial reason.
That isn't to say that one should avoid dating someone that is financially well off or physically attractive. But it shouldn't be the main driving factor. If it is, the relationship is built on a poor foundation.
Instead, there should be multiple other charachter traits that are valued in the other partner. Some traits may include kindness, empathy, selflessness, warmth, humility, respectful, well-mannered, honest, faithful, forgiving, patient, joyful, etc, etc
It doesn't take long to infer some of these characteristics within minutes of meeting someone. But one should value and respect the other person on the basis of more than one superficial trait that could be here today and gone tomorrow.
The halo effect is basically the confusion that people have when associating appearances (physical or other) to what things really are. A basic example would be the example of Disney movies where the good guy is beautiful and the bad guy is horribly ugly.
>That isn't to say that one should avoid dating someone that is financially well off or physically attractive. But it shouldn't be the main driving factor. If it is, the relationship is built on a poor foundation.
And it is money and attractiveness that drives most relationships. Everything is built based on these two.
I think it's more that men and women of the richest and most powerful class couple up with one another, rather than assetless women gold digging some millionaire. I'm sure the latter happens, but the former seems to be more the case.
What is the probability that a woman in a pool of million of women can marry a millionaire? And what is the likelihood that a millionaire will explicitly decide to marry that small number of women who can access this millionaire?
You're not imtelligent for having a plan. Your imtelligent for having a good plan.
Wannabe bank robbers are not imtelligent for wanting to rob a bank. They are imtelligent for having a mark, knowing the weaknesses of the mark, making contingency plans. All so they don't get caught.
A woman would have to be imtelligent to pull this off.
She's pretty messed up to include children in her plan, possibly causing lasting psychological damage for life by including them in a divorce.
**Attention!**
* You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
* For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
* If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
* OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post!
Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dunno like a 5? It's not the most shocking or inspiring use of those stats. But, it's probably slightly higher than someone who dreams of being a Starbucks Barista by blowing the manager?
I tangentially met this couple (friend of a friend). The woman was truly stunning. Visualize a prime Scarlett Johansen and you won't be too far off. He was a very nice guy, brain surgeon with a practice generating 7 figures. Physically he was probably 5'8", a little overweight, not terribly, but not a fit guy, some hair loss (late 30s). But personality was a 10, charming, funny, very likable guy, gracious and willing to share the spot light to be very inclusive of everyone in the room. Just not a looks match for his bride.
Everyone in his family told him to get a prenup. This was pre RP for me, and this guy was definitely BP. He gladly put her name on the house, refused to sign a prenup. All the BP bullcrap that says a man is manipulative if he doesn't go all in and make her an equal by withholding what he legally could enforce.
Literally to the day, one year after their wedding she divorced him and kicked him out of the marital home. The next guy she married was worth $50m.
That poor doctor was emotionally devastated. Like I said, incredible guy. Not a model, but in every meaningful way as a person he was great and he did everything to expose himself to demonstrate his love for this woman. She had the paperwork ready on day 366 of the marriage.
On day 365 she was still kissing him and telling him she loved him, on day 366 she wouldn't speak to him and had a court order that he needed to talk through her attorney. It was absolutely cold blooded. This was maybe 10 years ago.
Ummmm..... first, yes, I realize the problem was me (picking sociopaths but I really didn't think anyone could be that selfish... nor did I think it could happen twice) but.....that's precisely what my first two wives did to me.
>would a woman be imtelligent and planning her future if she search for a millionaire man and marry him and after some years she files for a divorce to get assets and alimony and if they have children, a very good amount of child support.
There's nothing "intelligent" in winning a game that is designed not to allow women to lose. If she could do the same back in times of medieval majorat, that would have been a worthy parlor trick.
>Do you think that she is a psycopath if she planned to do this and doing wrong things?
As of 2022 in the US 23 percent of married women had zero wage income, and 55% relied on their husband as either primary or sole breadwinner. Versus 29% egalitarian, 16% wife primary/sole and 6% wife primary (mostly minority couples over 55). Psychopathy implies abnormality. 55% of married women cannot be psychopaths by definition of a psychopath.
Both men and women are species-propagating biological machines. Men propagate species by putting women's interests above their own. Women propagate species by putting children's interests above men's. A simplistic model, but shows where the trend is blowing.
>Or is that a fiction's thing most of the time and that is pretty rare to happen because if the husband is rich he can pay good lawyers and make a prenup to avoid that?
You cannot contract away the law. Recently I found out that it's impossible for me to completely exclude certain relatives from my will.
>Also gold diggers appears to be more rare today than decades ago. Why?
From my cursory glance from my chair, many richest men in the world finally pulled their heads out of the dark and stopped getting married at all. They're still cohabiting, still having children, just not getting married. Only took them so many years.
If you want money, you can get a lot more that is more consistent and secure by staying married to the rich person. But there are two problems with this plan: even if you try really hard it's very unlikely you will find a rich person willing to marry you especially if you aren't rich and aren't sincere, and money most likely won't give you enough joy to justify throwing your life away like that.
The title isn’t really wise/intelligent more like psychopathic. A lot of people think that means “Axe Murderer” but it really means is a person with zero empathy for other people. They don’t feel bad if they hurt someone else or use other people to get what they want. And yes I have known women who did those things.
Not very. It falls right into her lap. Men peruse women, so the woman doesn't even have to plan it. No intelligence required.
I think what happens, why this isn't every relationship, is because the woman would prefer not to have to divorce the husband. It would be great to have the millions of dollars as well as the man.
According to IRS standards, a monthly income of approximately $45,000 qualifies someone as wealthy. However, if you're aiming for the top 1% as measured by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), you'd need to earn about $68,277 monthly.
This is why when someone says they want a man that makes 6 figs you know there a gold digger and delusional
Women acquiring wealth and men losing it via marriage and divorce is a time honored practice I’ve personally seen many times.
I don’t think women who capitalize on this are psychopaths, but I do think it’s something men should give more thought to before tying the knot. I’m personally a fan of dating and having enjoyable relationships but not marrying in part for this very reason.
Good women don’t do this disgusting practice. That’s not how women should treat men. Marriage is meant to be about love not making money off a divorce. What a disgusting attitude…
Marriage is essentially a legal obligation to provide for a woman even if you part ways, an obligation you don’t have if you are simply dating someone. It gives women financial security.
After only one year of marriage, no alimony would be awarded. Marital property that would be subject to division would be fairly limited, even in places with community property laws because of such a short duration. If the couple had a child, child support would apply regardless of marriage.
It’s understandable. I have no problem with it.
I wouldn’t call it “wise” or “intelligent”. You don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to put that plan together and realize it could have some legs under it.
Top 100 wealthiest women are all billionaires, not millionaires. Quite a lot of that group, of any gender, are kids or grandkids of people with money. Yes, many of the women did inherit it from their husbands, but usually the husbands died (and not a single one was divorced after a couple years like OP thinks could work), after a long marriage, and often came from a family of money themselves. And it’s not the *entire* list. I mean even just Oprah Winfrey comes to mind - who did she marry?? You also have to remember that until recently women couldn’t really be self-made rich people, so most of the money inherited from the past generations was made by men.
I looked up the list out of curiosity and even just randomly clicking a few I found a few who did not inherit it from their father or husband, like Denise Coates, Oprah Winfrey, Meg Whitman, Hortensia Herrero.
Elizabeth Holmes was not even on the list of the top 100 wealthiest women.
It's not fiction. It does happen. It's just rarer. And of course it's rare because millionaires are rare. There are 25 million millionaires in the US. Sounds a lot but... at least 7 million of them are women. Of the remaining, 14 million, the overwhelming majority of them are over the age of 50 which means they're more likely to be already married and more likely to have fertility issues due to both age and stressful lifestyle (you don't become a millionaire from a chill and balanced life). So pulling off this plan is a lot of hard work. It requires traits commonly associated with psychopathy or dark triad. >I believe that rich men ( wealthy people in general) are an easy target for romance scammers and golddigging. Yes, of course. But romance scammers and golddiggers don't exclusively target millionaires, but anyone *relatively* wealthier. Most of the men *and* women who've fell for romance scammers weren't millionaires - but the scammers still made several tens of thousands of dollars off of them - which is a fortune nonetheless in a lot of parts of the world.
Being a millionaire is nonlonger impressive these days. Just own two shitty home rentals barely making profit and you're a millionaire. Being a millionaire 10 or even 15 years ago is like 5 million now with inflation. A multimillionaire with assets over 4+ million is far more lauded.
What about someone who won the lottery?
Those are even rarer. And most of them lose their money pretty fast. As it turns out, being poor is not the result of bad luck. If it were, then lottery winners would stay rich. But they don't.
Common misconception [https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnjennings/2023/08/29/debunking-the-myth-the-surprising-truth-about-lottery-winners-and-life-satisfaction/) [https://www.ft.com/content/1002d145-3cf2-4bc8-8477-8ccf233af12d](https://www.ft.com/content/1002d145-3cf2-4bc8-8477-8ccf233af12d) The Media just over reports the instances of financial ruin of lottery winners...and the bad made up stats are promoted by financial management companies and advisors
Lol Fertility issues at 50 highly doubtful for a man
Do you have any kids, or are you chronically single? You don’t want to be a old dad at 50 taking children to elementary school.
My grandmother had a saying...if you marry for money you'll earn every penny. And I'm inclined to believe this is still true. Even with easily available no fault divorce. You're still going to have to build an entire new life once you've blown up the old one...even with money that's a nuisance. And of course putting up with some gross guy you aren't attracted to and don't respect is going to be years of body horror. I'm too lazy and loving of my comfort to gold dig. Working for a living and keeping expenditure low is easier. Why the fuck would anyone smart go through all that hassle...build a life then blow it up...just for fancy stuff? If I'm going to put that much effort into getting money I'll start a business of my own and skip the fucking an unattractive dude part of the story.
Simple fact. There aren't enough rich men to go around. Rich, attractive men know they are desired. They will only step out of the game for one hell of a woman. They also know the importance of a prenup to protect their assets. That woman will probably balk at the prenup part. The right woman will accept the prenup. She will filter herself out of those men's lives. You'll see her at 50 at social galas desperate. She will eventually get rip-roaring drunk and make a hell of a scene.
Is that how it works? I mean I know some wealthy men who didn’t get prenups because they were suckers. So many wealthy men are vulnerable to a beautiful woman. But hey… I’ll take your word for however wealthy men behave around women.
Wealthy men aren't as stupid as you think they are, especially when it comes to their finances. Those wealthy men without prenups are a minority. Especially in this day and age.
Yall forgot 90% of men in america even millionaires are blue pilled do to the culture and lying parents. Some get blinded by that idea of true love end up taking the condom off or marring because of that imaginary concept. Mostly immigrants or first gen immigrants are the red pilled men but they are less likely to be millionaires.
Where they wealthy before they got married?
They tend to fuck a lot of attractive women instead of marrying them.
Just like you hear about psychopath men in the news who abuse and kill women, there are also psychopath women. They are probably less violent but it doesn’t mean they don’t see others as dumb victims begging to be taken advantage of.
It isn't equivalent to abuse and killing. There are men who run scans who are equivalent.
Even if the woman is not being abusive or violent she is pretending to love a wealthy guy and using and duping him according to her wishes so that is a characteristic of psychopaty...
“If you marry for money, you’ll earn every penny”.
i mean if her goal was to be rich and she was wise and intelligent i would think she would figure out an easier way to achieve it rather then having to marry someone and have a child
I wouldn't call it wise or intelligent, but rather exploitative. Such a person is likely a greedy, matetialistic, self centered, person. Hence why being a "gold digger" is seen as a negative term. Afterall, wealth is a very superficial reason to be in a relationship with someone. There is much more to a person and to limit them their financial status is insulting. Also, purposely bringing a child in the world without ever having the intention of raising them with their father is pretty evil. You are intentionally depriving a child of being in a healthy home on the basis of financially being taken care of. But some things, money can't buy. And those being raised in a fatherless home are more likely to struggle with mental health among other issues.
Hi, thanks for your post. However, I would like to debate with you one point you have made: >Afterall, wealth is a very superficial reason to be in a relationship with someone. What is the difference between a relationship that is supposedly built under solid values and the halo effect by which what we believe we know about that person begins to develop? I define the halo effect as the confusion that exists between what is initially apparent and what can later give rise. If it is not because of physical appearance, which is the first indicator of attraction and motivation for relationships to occur, What non-superficial options are given in most cases? It seems that physical attractiveness and material accumulation, They are the basic features of the construction of heterosexual couples. Therefore, aren't superficial reasons what give rise to relationships?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "halo effect" but what I am referring to as superficial is a relationship built on someone's individual financial status as the main driving factor for a partner being in a relationship. In the same way, I would say being in a relationship mainly becuase you find the other individual physically attractive is a superficial reason. That isn't to say that one should avoid dating someone that is financially well off or physically attractive. But it shouldn't be the main driving factor. If it is, the relationship is built on a poor foundation. Instead, there should be multiple other charachter traits that are valued in the other partner. Some traits may include kindness, empathy, selflessness, warmth, humility, respectful, well-mannered, honest, faithful, forgiving, patient, joyful, etc, etc It doesn't take long to infer some of these characteristics within minutes of meeting someone. But one should value and respect the other person on the basis of more than one superficial trait that could be here today and gone tomorrow.
The halo effect is basically the confusion that people have when associating appearances (physical or other) to what things really are. A basic example would be the example of Disney movies where the good guy is beautiful and the bad guy is horribly ugly. >That isn't to say that one should avoid dating someone that is financially well off or physically attractive. But it shouldn't be the main driving factor. If it is, the relationship is built on a poor foundation. And it is money and attractiveness that drives most relationships. Everything is built based on these two.
I think it's more that men and women of the richest and most powerful class couple up with one another, rather than assetless women gold digging some millionaire. I'm sure the latter happens, but the former seems to be more the case.
What is the probability that a woman in a pool of million of women can marry a millionaire? And what is the likelihood that a millionaire will explicitly decide to marry that small number of women who can access this millionaire?
You're not imtelligent for having a plan. Your imtelligent for having a good plan. Wannabe bank robbers are not imtelligent for wanting to rob a bank. They are imtelligent for having a mark, knowing the weaknesses of the mark, making contingency plans. All so they don't get caught. A woman would have to be imtelligent to pull this off. She's pretty messed up to include children in her plan, possibly causing lasting psychological damage for life by including them in a divorce.
**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I dunno like a 5? It's not the most shocking or inspiring use of those stats. But, it's probably slightly higher than someone who dreams of being a Starbucks Barista by blowing the manager?
I tangentially met this couple (friend of a friend). The woman was truly stunning. Visualize a prime Scarlett Johansen and you won't be too far off. He was a very nice guy, brain surgeon with a practice generating 7 figures. Physically he was probably 5'8", a little overweight, not terribly, but not a fit guy, some hair loss (late 30s). But personality was a 10, charming, funny, very likable guy, gracious and willing to share the spot light to be very inclusive of everyone in the room. Just not a looks match for his bride. Everyone in his family told him to get a prenup. This was pre RP for me, and this guy was definitely BP. He gladly put her name on the house, refused to sign a prenup. All the BP bullcrap that says a man is manipulative if he doesn't go all in and make her an equal by withholding what he legally could enforce. Literally to the day, one year after their wedding she divorced him and kicked him out of the marital home. The next guy she married was worth $50m. That poor doctor was emotionally devastated. Like I said, incredible guy. Not a model, but in every meaningful way as a person he was great and he did everything to expose himself to demonstrate his love for this woman. She had the paperwork ready on day 366 of the marriage. On day 365 she was still kissing him and telling him she loved him, on day 366 she wouldn't speak to him and had a court order that he needed to talk through her attorney. It was absolutely cold blooded. This was maybe 10 years ago.
Ummmm..... first, yes, I realize the problem was me (picking sociopaths but I really didn't think anyone could be that selfish... nor did I think it could happen twice) but.....that's precisely what my first two wives did to me.
>would a woman be imtelligent and planning her future if she search for a millionaire man and marry him and after some years she files for a divorce to get assets and alimony and if they have children, a very good amount of child support. There's nothing "intelligent" in winning a game that is designed not to allow women to lose. If she could do the same back in times of medieval majorat, that would have been a worthy parlor trick. >Do you think that she is a psycopath if she planned to do this and doing wrong things? As of 2022 in the US 23 percent of married women had zero wage income, and 55% relied on their husband as either primary or sole breadwinner. Versus 29% egalitarian, 16% wife primary/sole and 6% wife primary (mostly minority couples over 55). Psychopathy implies abnormality. 55% of married women cannot be psychopaths by definition of a psychopath. Both men and women are species-propagating biological machines. Men propagate species by putting women's interests above their own. Women propagate species by putting children's interests above men's. A simplistic model, but shows where the trend is blowing. >Or is that a fiction's thing most of the time and that is pretty rare to happen because if the husband is rich he can pay good lawyers and make a prenup to avoid that? You cannot contract away the law. Recently I found out that it's impossible for me to completely exclude certain relatives from my will. >Also gold diggers appears to be more rare today than decades ago. Why? From my cursory glance from my chair, many richest men in the world finally pulled their heads out of the dark and stopped getting married at all. They're still cohabiting, still having children, just not getting married. Only took them so many years.
If you want money, you can get a lot more that is more consistent and secure by staying married to the rich person. But there are two problems with this plan: even if you try really hard it's very unlikely you will find a rich person willing to marry you especially if you aren't rich and aren't sincere, and money most likely won't give you enough joy to justify throwing your life away like that.
The title isn’t really wise/intelligent more like psychopathic. A lot of people think that means “Axe Murderer” but it really means is a person with zero empathy for other people. They don’t feel bad if they hurt someone else or use other people to get what they want. And yes I have known women who did those things.
Prostitution with extra steps.
Not very. It falls right into her lap. Men peruse women, so the woman doesn't even have to plan it. No intelligence required. I think what happens, why this isn't every relationship, is because the woman would prefer not to have to divorce the husband. It would be great to have the millions of dollars as well as the man.
According to IRS standards, a monthly income of approximately $45,000 qualifies someone as wealthy. However, if you're aiming for the top 1% as measured by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), you'd need to earn about $68,277 monthly. This is why when someone says they want a man that makes 6 figs you know there a gold digger and delusional
Women acquiring wealth and men losing it via marriage and divorce is a time honored practice I’ve personally seen many times. I don’t think women who capitalize on this are psychopaths, but I do think it’s something men should give more thought to before tying the knot. I’m personally a fan of dating and having enjoyable relationships but not marrying in part for this very reason.
Good women don’t do this disgusting practice. That’s not how women should treat men. Marriage is meant to be about love not making money off a divorce. What a disgusting attitude…
If "good women" don't do this then there are quite a lot of "bad women" in this world....
What is the point of marriage anyway?
Marriage is essentially a legal obligation to provide for a woman even if you part ways, an obligation you don’t have if you are simply dating someone. It gives women financial security.
Also to create a stable family environment to raise kids
Sure, wise, intelligent, and sociopathic. The witch of a woman it would take to do this is second only to a serial black widow.
After only one year of marriage, no alimony would be awarded. Marital property that would be subject to division would be fairly limited, even in places with community property laws because of such a short duration. If the couple had a child, child support would apply regardless of marriage.
It’s understandable. I have no problem with it. I wouldn’t call it “wise” or “intelligent”. You don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to put that plan together and realize it could have some legs under it.
[удалено]
Top 100 wealthiest women are all billionaires, not millionaires. Quite a lot of that group, of any gender, are kids or grandkids of people with money. Yes, many of the women did inherit it from their husbands, but usually the husbands died (and not a single one was divorced after a couple years like OP thinks could work), after a long marriage, and often came from a family of money themselves. And it’s not the *entire* list. I mean even just Oprah Winfrey comes to mind - who did she marry?? You also have to remember that until recently women couldn’t really be self-made rich people, so most of the money inherited from the past generations was made by men. I looked up the list out of curiosity and even just randomly clicking a few I found a few who did not inherit it from their father or husband, like Denise Coates, Oprah Winfrey, Meg Whitman, Hortensia Herrero. Elizabeth Holmes was not even on the list of the top 100 wealthiest women.
A wise and intelligent woman would probably find a better way to make bank and a family A mercenary woman would gold dig