women and their jewels.. who cares about the slave labor to get the worthless rocks
women and their jewels.. who cares about the slave labor to get the worthless rocks
I have a 3 step filter for girls before getting serious:
1. Girl agrees that Valentine's Day is a commerial fabrication and not only doesn't expect a present, but would rather not get anything on that day simply because it is V-day.
2. Girl expresses some level of disgust on the current trend of elaborate weddings and engagement gifts/parties/rings.
Makes fun of wedding invitations which include all the different stores the couple is registered at and brides to be that have 4 or more wedding showers.
3. Has a sense of humor.
Awesome. This one deserves a bookmark.
Does this fit you? wrote:
ahem
Just so we are very clear.
For arguments sake, let us define the "Position", P, as your standard 20 something "hot runner chick" on her knees, top off, mouth wide open ready to recieve a standard male member.
The rate at which said 20 something reaches the "Position" is a function of the man's physical attractiveness( A), wealth (W), and perceived power/ influence (I) ( CEO/ politican/ or outlaw biker factor) and has pratically nothing to do with intelligence, morals, values how nice he is. This relationship can be derived via classical ladder theory and is expressed as:
dP/dt = aA+bW+cI
Where a, b and c are weighting factors. Emperical studies show that in general for all women c>b>a, so power and wealth more strongly influence dP/dt.
Escorts, who assume the Position for any guy regardless of age or looks for an agreed upon fee can be fit into this theory if we generalize that the wealth term W, is really an expectation of wealth transfer over a given time frame, delta t. Then we see that there is an equivlence to a wealthy man that will transfer money and gifts over a long time period in return for many servicings and an ordinary man who pays the fee for one hour of servicing, implying:
W = (Money Transfered)/t or
W = (MT/t)
So the theory holds.
The formula can be generalized to all women by adding a term that tends to decrease dP/dt with age for the woman, but for now we can keep it simple by assuming that all women under the age of, say , 32 can be described as essentially escorts, trading sex for status and stuff.
Now, if we assume that the definition of creepy is dP/dt => O, or infinite time for her to achieve position P, then
0= aA+bW+cI
A=-(bW+cI)/a
A = (-b/a)W + (-c/a)I
This implies that if the guy has even a modicum of wealth or perceived power (either outlaw or legitimate) then for him to be considered creepy he would have to lack teeth and muscle tone, weigh 400 lbs, and smell like a diseased farm hog. You're probably OK there.
This then explains the original poster. Before she met her cuckold to be, say he was on a subway train, where she has no way of ascertaining either W or I from simply looking at the guy who is looking at her, so she assumes worst case low values. Since she assumes W and I to be low to non existant (where any guy making a middle class living is considered to be at 0 for both W and I), A would have to be very large (male Calvin Klein Model type) to get dP/dt positive. Hence, the guy is considered "creepy."
However, if the same cuckold to be were met, let's say, at a reception at an art gallery and was introduced as a very successful corporate sales executive driving a late model imported sports car, obviously earning $400K per annum, he might find it a tad embarrassing explaining why there was a half naked young woman on the floor in front of him tugging on his fly.
It also explains the guy on the subway train. He knows he has money and or influence, and from experience knows that girls just like her are avaialable to him almost at a whim. But he has no way to communicate his W or I accurately, and since his A is never usually a problem, he does not understand the impact of its low intrinsic value.
So we can see, the definition "creepy" is really a non existant concept, instead simply the result of an inability to communicate proper W and I values in a public setting, or the unfortunate consequence of the rare man who has low A, I and W values, in which case the original poster just likes bashing the unfortunate.
Watch Blood diamond.
And then say you want a diamond.
If you do your a lil sick.
That movie is fiction. Don't believe everything Hollywood tells you.
There is legitimate white-market diamond export from Africa, and those countries need the money. If we all boycott diamonds, people will starve.
LeonardoD wrote:
Watch Blood diamond.
And then say you want a diamond.
If you do your a lil sick.
Watch dr. doolittle then tell me I can't talk to animals. If you do you are stupid.
His world does not revolve around your ring finger and how you love to shop.
Get a life.
Moron Patrol wrote:
kaitainen wrote:we all get your point, but why be such a jerk?
she didn't say she wanted a $20,000 honeymoon. here's what she said:
"I don't want an engagement ring. I'd rather go on a great honeymoon ..."
she wants a great honeymoon instead of any engagement ring. that's a tradeoff that leads to less consumption on her part. you think the OP is going to forego a honeymoon because the ring is pricey? and now you bash someone who wants to forego some material luxury that she thinks is a waste?
also, there is a meaningful difference between spending money on material, tangible things that one soon realizes have little real value, and spending money on experiences, such as travel, that provide a lifetime of memories. not to mention that this woman sounds as if she is socially aware, so maybe her honeymoon will take her to a location that allows her to spend money in a way that directly benefits those starving orphans. what is going to trickle down to a poor child in a less developed country to a greater extent? (a) the purchase of a diamond mined by a multinational at slave wages or (b) the purchase of food, lodging and transportation from local businesses as part of a vacation to a less developed country.
you can make your point without being a jerk.
I put you in the ranks with her. Her objection was spending a lot of money on a luxury when people were suffering, yet a great honeymoon is acceptable. What if its to Hawaii or France? That's not Africa. Even if it was to Africa, a vacation does not help as much as a donation of food.
If you can't live with yourself for spending $20k on one luxury because kids are dying, its mindlessly hypocritical to say you'll spend it on another one.
your contradicting yourself over and over again. Just shut up while you still can. Nothing you said makes any sense anymore.
Does this fit you? wrote:
For arguments sake, let us define the "Position", P, as your standard 20 something "hot runner chick" on her knees, top off, mouth wide open ready to recieve a standard male member.
LMAO
MAYEROFF wrote:
If you really LOVED him, you would not care if he was a janitor at McDonalds or was the CEO of Google.
Hey!
Does McDonald's really have a janitor? The place didn't seem too clean the last time I was there. I assume that whatever 15 year old they hire to avoid minimum wage laws has to mop the floor after making the day's worth of fries at 8:00 AM.
I don't know. Actually I'm pulling down $350K at an asset management co. And my wife didn't want a diamond. True!
$350K? Bull ... cough ... shit.
Goldmine Sachs wrote:
Too many poor, complaining, subpar people on this board that can't conceive $400k annual salaries. $20k is nothing for the dermatologist and ensures a happy home. On that salary, this couple can also take a memorable vacation and donate more to charity than most people here. Some people make more money and have more options. Deal with it.
Sure. On that salary, this couple can take expensive vacations, buy an outrageously expensive house, have all the toys and new cars and boats and on and on -- if they want to never build up real wealth over time. $400,000 a year isn't so much that a person can just spend spend spend. It also depends on where they live. Put them on a coast in an expensive city and that $400,000 is worth maybe $300,000 in Central Ohio. Add in a more expensive car and house and diamond ring and clothes and liability insurance and on and on, then they really don't have much more than I do.
The United States is filled with people with large incomes who have no savings at all. You can get yourself into a trap by relying on a large salary -- tell yourself that you can spend spend spend and that the money will always be there. Fine, spend that $400,000 every year and never save. Get to age 65 when while you'd rather continue working, you get cataracts or arthritis or you just find you'd rather take a break. See that the only thing you have is the house you've bought over time (if you've even done that -- studies show that people with decent incomes tend to trade up and trade up and trade up so that their house they are living in at retirement age still isn't paid off), and no retirement savings at all. NICE.
What most people here have a problem with is not a large income, but the attitude that a $25,000 ring is reasonable based on that income. Looks like the diamond industry has this person by the nose. Who says you have to pay 2 months salary for an engagement ring? Ridiculous! Again, if she has this attitude about the ring, then she'll have that same attitude about everything else -- a sense of entitlement. Spending and having "nice" things will be part of her daily life, and a person like that can go through $400,000 or $500,000 or $1,000,000 with no problem at all. Trust me that my wife and I will have more retirement income than most people who make 3 or 4 times what we make, and we'll retire sooner too.
I actually CAN conceive of a $400,000 salary. I think it's you who can't if you think they can spend freely. It's not THAT much money.
The median income for a dermatologist is a little under $200k (75% percentile is $298k). Logically speaking, since his salary is off the scale, this derm must be in private practice, which means he has to pay for his own health insurance and his own malpractice, and practicing in a big city, where the cost of living is also higher. After the ~40% tax liability, that $400k is cut into majorly.
As a result of job changes in the same career, I've gone from nearly $200k to about $100k. It sucks not making as much money, but I can tell you that I am only making half as much before taxes, not after.
hypnotoad wrote:
an engaged xc chick wrote:Why do all of these people care what others spend their own hard earned money on?
If they didn't, you wouldn't have that diamond, sister.
Hahahaha. So true. And that itself is the crux of this discussion.
Flagpole it's nice to see you back to posting narcissistic rants. Does it annoy you that the dermatologist buying his woman a 25k rock and driving a new 7 series could also be saving more than you and retiring earlier?
1) Probably more like $225k in Central Ohio. Have you seen how much a 1200 sq.ft. 2BR apartment costs in Manhattan?
2) Simple example. Let's say they're $500k combined and $250k goes to taxes, 401(k)'s, IRA's. Maybe they put another $100k toward long term saving? Maybe they rent and live on a coast which probably makes you recoil just thinking of the money going down the drain? Say $50k for a really really nice apartment with amenities. There's still $100k left for whatever else. It's not "Goldmine Sachs" money but it still leaves for some nice possibilities.
3) Go back to 2. They've still saved $100k/year + 401(k)'s and IRA's. This will leave a nice nest egg in 35 years.
Truthiness wrote:
Flagpole it's nice to see you back to posting narcissistic rants. Does it annoy you that the dermatologist buying his woman a 25k rock and driving a new 7 series could also be saving more than you and retiring earlier?
Nope. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. Good for them if they do it. I have my doubts though. I have no doubt that he's driving a luxury car and that she wants a $25,000 ring. She will want to be driving a super expensive car too, and if kids come along, she says she'll still want to work, but we'll see. If she doesn't work then she loses her (just under) $100,000 a year salary, and if she does then she'll have to pay for day care, or if I've got her pegged, a nanny -- possibly even a live-in nanny, just sucking away even more money.
He's already 34 and with paying for medical school and liability insurance and the few years he's been working since becoming a doctor, I bet I have more saved than he does, and my money's been working for me since day 1. Now, since he makes a little more than 4 times what I do (but, as we know, he lives in a more expensive area, so that amount could be just the equivalent of a little more than 2.25 times more), he has the ability to save more and invest more, but if he does statistically what most people do and if his wife-to-be's wish for a $25,000 diamond is any indication of future spending by both of them (and I think it is) then I think he'll get to age 65 and be living in a $4 million dollar home that isn't anywhere near paid off with next to no savings or retirement income. Hopefully he really does love his job and wants to continue until he's 80. All this based on the want of a $25,000 enGAGement ring by his fiance? YES. Indicative of future wasteful spending.
Goldmine Sachs wrote:
1) Probably more like $225k in Central Ohio. Have you seen how much a 1200 sq.ft. 2BR apartment costs in Manhattan?
2) Simple example. Let's say they're $500k combined and $250k goes to taxes, 401(k)'s, IRA's. Maybe they put another $100k toward long term saving? Maybe they rent and live on a coast which probably makes you recoil just thinking of the money going down the drain? Say $50k for a really really nice apartment with amenities. There's still $100k left for whatever else. It's not "Goldmine Sachs" money but it still leaves for some nice possibilities.
3) Go back to 2. They've still saved $100k/year + 401(k)'s and IRA's. This will leave a nice nest egg in 35 years.
DUDE! You didn't leave anywhere near enough money for them to pay for insurance, cars, clothes, trips, stuff for the walls of the home, babies, day care or nannies, etc. They won't be saving $100,000 a year -- not with the attitude of that wife to be. No way, no how.
Besides, this guy is already 34 years old. In 35 years, he'll be 69 years old. I'll be retired for 9.5 years before you think they'll have a nice nest egg. NICE.
Pretty sure this thread is all from a troll, but I'll take any opportunity to talk sensible finances with just the off chance that someone will perk up their ears and listen. Invest early and often -- that is the key to serious wealth building. A large income is not necessary and can be a crutch.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion