This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

This dude is my new hero — Brooklynian

This dude is my new hero

The following exchange was forwarded to me via e-mail. Supposedly it transpired on CraigsList. (Have any of you seen it? Is it just another cyber-urban legend?) There was an # id but I chose not to post it here to avoid any potential problems for this board.
This kind of materialistic b.s. makes me sick but regardless of whether or not the scenario is real, the guy's answer is on the money. (No pun intended.)


THE INQUIRING POST:

What am I doing wrong?

Okay, I'm tired of beating around the bush. I'm a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25 year old girl. I'm articulate and classy. I'm not from New York. I'm looking to get married to a guy who makes at least half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don't think I'm overreaching at all.

Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a business man who makes average around 200 - 250. But that's where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000 won't get me to central park west. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she's not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?

Here are my questions specifically:

- Where do you single rich men hang out?
Give me specifics- bars, restaurants, gyms

-What are you looking for in a mate?
Be honest guys, you won't hurt my feelings

-Is there an age range I should be targeting (I'm 25)?

- Why are some of the women living lavish lifestyles on the upper east side so plain?
I've seen really 'plain jane' boring types who have nothing to offer married to incredibly wealthy guys. I've seen drop dead gorgeous girls in singles bars in the east village. What's the story there?

- Jobs I should look out for?
Everyone knows - lawyer, investment banker, doctor. How much do those guys really make? And where do they hang out? Where do the hedge fund guys hang out?

- How you decide marriage vs. just a girlfriend?
I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY

Please hold your insults - I'm putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I'm being up front about it. I wouldn't be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn't able to match them - in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.



THE ANSWER

Dear Pers-#########:

I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament.

Firstly, I'm not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said here's how I see it:

Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here's why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here's the rub: your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity...in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won't be getting any more beautiful!

So, in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates!

Let me explain: you're 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35, stick a fork in you!

So in Wall Street terms, we would call you a trading position, not a buy and hold...hence the rub...marriage. It doesn't make good business sense to "buy you" (which is what you're asking) so I'd rather lease. In case you think I'm being cruel, I would say the following: If my money were to go away, so would you, so when your beauty fades I need an out. It's as simple as that. So a deal that makes sense is dating, not marriage.

Separately, I was taught early in my career about efficient markets. So, I wonder why a girl as "articulate, classy and spectacularly beautiful" as you has been unable to find your sugar daddy. I find it hard to believe that if you are as gorgeous as you say you are that the $500K hasn't found you, if not only for a tryout.

By the way, you could always find a way to make your own money and then we wouldn't need to have this difficult conversation.

With all that said, I must say you're going about it the right way. Classic "pump and dump."

I hope this is helpful, and if you want to enter into some sort of lease, let me know.

Comments

  • Spot on!

    I'm as annoyed as the guys are by the gold-diggers because they make it hard for the rest of us women who *don't* want to be regarded as so much meat (just like guys don't like being treated as a wallet). Seriously, her attitude belongs back in the stone ages. I'm not property waiting to be bought. (And I've had rich men try to "buy" me, and it's NOT a pleasant experience. I just wish it were that easy to make that much money so I would never have to be subject to such boorishness ever again!)

    Furthermore, the "plain Janes with nothing to offer" probably bring a hell of a lot more to the table than she ever could.

    Hell, I wish I had her number. I'd introduce her to my ex who makes about that much in a year. They deserve each other. :twisted:
  • lilbangladesh wrote: Spot on!

    I'm as annoyed as the guys are by the gold-diggers because they make it hard for the rest of us women who *don't* want to be regarded as so much meat (just like guys don't like being treated as a wallet). Seriously, her attitude belongs back in the stone ages. I'm not property waiting to be bought. (And I've had rich men try to "buy" me, and it's NOT a pleasant experience. I just wish it were that easy to make that much money so I would never have to be subject to such boorishness ever again!)

    Furthermore, the "plain Janes with nothing to offer" probably bring a hell of a lot more to the table than she ever could.

    Hell, I wish I had her number. I'd introduce her to my ex who makes about that much in a year. They deserve each other. :twisted:
    I was on a date last night and this topic somehow came up. My companion told me she once had a roommate just like the girl above. (So did one of my exes, as a matter of fact. She didn't see anything wrong. Man, talk about a red flag.) "They have a name for those women," my date said. "Prostitutes." Ouch!

    If the above chick is for real she is also spectacularly clueless, otherwise she'd know where the kind of man she's looking for hangs out, not to mention she'd be aware that many of those "upper east side 'plain jane' boring types" she refers to come from money themselves.

    She'll probably find some idiot looking for a trophy wife. Hopefully before then she'll get played a few times by some smart dudes like the one who responded. What a waste.
  • Well, if she wants someone young, she's almost too old for that. At her age, she's only going to get the old, rich guys.

    And trust me, they're no prize!

    What's scary is that if you go anywhere on the Upper East Side, people do not really find this wrong. I had a rich, older man try to trap me into marriage by using my poverty against me and all these older women were like, "You should have married him. You would have been rich." And shit up a creek for a divorce lawyer because none of that money would have been mine. Clearly, something didn't get taught in Hebrew school when they were growing up. (These were women I met at synagogue.)
  • lilbangladesh wrote: What's scary is that if you go anywhere on the Upper East Side, people do not really find this wrong. I had a rich, older man try to trap me into marriage by using my poverty against me and all these older women were like, "You should have married him. You would have been rich." And shit up a creek for a divorce lawyer because none of that money would have been mine. Clearly, something didn't get taught in Hebrew school when they were growing up. (These were women I met at synagogue.)
    You know what? I think there is a significant amount of people out there who are taught that marriage is about everything but love; that the romantic aspect of that relationship is the icing on the cake: "if you've got that, well even better."

    I frequently hear people debating about being financially ready to have kids but rarely, if ever, whether or not they are emotionally there. Yes, having kids is expensive but from experience I can tell you I'd rather see poor loving couples procreate rather than well-off, indifferent ones. I've met people who come from both groups, respectively, and deep down the latter seem to have a wee bit more than your standard amount of issues regarding family, relationships, money etc.

    Or maybe it's just the folks around me. :smile:
  • Well, personally, I want to be financially AND emotionally ready to have kids, which is the main reason why I have opted out of single motherhood. That, and the realization that while I might be a really good mother with the right sort of husband (i.e. someone more nuturing than me. I tend to nurture on an emergency basis and a kid shouldn't have to fling himself out a window to get some nuturing.) I would be a DISASTER as a single mom. And this is not a slight against single moms, because I know a few really good ones. I just know that *I* don't have what it takes.

    I think I'm just about emotionally ready to mother, having resolved my parental issues in the past year, but financially, I'm a disaster. Gotta solve that soon. Oh, yeah, and the husband issue. Gotta find a man that I wouldn't want to kill with a fork. (You'd be surprised how hard that it is to find! :twisted: )

    At this rate, there is a good chance I may not end up being a mother.

    Oh well.

    But to return to your point, much of the attitudes toward marriage that you discuss is rather antiquated, dating back from when women were considered property and brood mares. And that is the worst thing about dating rich men is that they treat you like property. I don't know why these men think I'm trophy wife material, because I wasn't raised like that.

    I once had to choose between marrying a rich man or homelessness. He had manuevered me into a bad spot financially and I was living with a psychotic woman who put me in physical danger and I had to move fast! (Do not EVER use RoomFinders!) His whole line to me was, "Well, you're too old to be loved for yourself, so you may as well marry rich!" :shock: Holy shit! I felt like I was being put on the auction block! I told him that he couldn't afford me and I would rather fling myself off the Williamsburg bridge than marry him. He was shocked. "How can you leave me? I'm rich!!" :roll:

    So I walked out into what I thought would be a bout of homelessness, but a friend bailed me out and gave me money to move. After that whole drama, I told my family about it, and EVERY SINGLE ONE told me, "Good for you! You made the right move."

    It's not to say that my daddy wouldn't like me to marry someone rich if I could. He wants to make sure that I'm taken care of, but not at the expense of my dignity, happiness, or autonomy. I was raised to expect to have my own career and make my own money (oy! Is that hard!). Even if I should marry a rich mensch, I would never give up my career or working, because it's too much of who I am and I get too much satisfaction from it.

    I don't judge men by their salaries because it's just as degrading to them to have me view them as a wallet, as it is degrading to me to be viewed just as a piece of meat. To me, the only financial criteria I look for in a man is if he is capable of paying his own bills and whether he's financially responsible with what he has. It's not how much a man has that matters to me, but what he does with it that counts.
  • lilbangladesh wrote: ...much of the attitudes toward marriage that you discuss is rather antiquated, dating back from when women were considered property and brood mares.
    You'd be surprised by how many people in this day and age look at marriage as "find the one who annoys you the least" and not "wait 'til you find 'the one' for you". I know because I was like that and ended up marrying the wrong person. It took subsequently meeting a couple of extraordinary women--with whom things didn't pan out, unfortunately, but that's another story--for me to realize that one does not have to settle for less and the right person is out there. And none of it had to do with money.

    The last serious relationship I had was with a girl who was raised in a household with very little love or encouragement--there was no abuse, either--where things were financially taken care of. (For the record, I grew up with parents who cared for our financial and emotional well-being.) Yet, she was way more concerned about the financial ramifications involved in us having a family than the emotional ones. Needless to say, this was mind-boggling to me. You would think someone raised under those circumstances would put a premium on the emotional connection in a parent-child relationship. Nope. After all, the way I see it, money is out there to be made. Self-realization and the readiness to be a loving parent is much harder to come by.

    I've frequently come across couples who want to make more money, not to better provide for their eventual children but, to make sure their offspring don't interfere too much with the lifestyle they've accustomed themselves to. "Can't let Johnny's tuition keep us out of our yearly trip to Europe." I'm sorry but that just does not jibe with me.
    And that's what I was getting to. I think that sort of reasoning leads to more children growing up with distorted values like my aforementioned ex girlfriend. There's already way too many screwed up people out there as it is for us to unnecessarily breed some more.

    Just a thought.

    (Btw, just imagine the kind of values the girl in the OP would--willingly or not--instill in her children.)
  • Well, yeah. Your girlfriend would of course put a premium on the financial side of things because that's all she knew. Imagine how the OP was raised. Yikes!

    It's unfortunate that most people tend to reproduce what they grew up with. I guess I'm different because I pretty much had to raise myself while trying to raise my parents (Kids should be easy after that!) so I had to decide early on what my values were going to be.

    Not that the values that my parents instilled in me were all that bad. They just tend to be a bit narrow-minded in the possibilities of what's out there. The one thing I'm grateful for is that I've had almost no pressure to marry from my parents whatsoever. In my family, being a spinster is no shameful thing (which is why my family is so small; we don't tend to reproduce). My parents are even delusional enough to think that they are too young to be grandparents (even though the day that I might be too old to be a parent isn't too far off!) I get an occasional nudge, though. My dad will say that someone who turned out to be inappropriate is "not that bad". But ultimately, I think my family would rather I stay single rather than marry the wrong person.

    Divorce is the big shanda. No one in my family has ever been divorced and while if I really make a mistake, I would get a divorce, that would be REALLY hard to live down. In my family, it's better not to get married than to marry the wrong person.
  • Subject: Re: This dude is my new hero

    MichaelKeys wrote: The following exchange was forwarded to me via e-mail. Supposedly it transpired on CraigsList. (Have any of you seen it? Is it just another cyber-urban legend?) There was an # id but I chose not to post it here to avoid any potential problems for this board.
    The original was for sure on Craig's List. As for whether it was a serious post or just something a shut-in whipped up because he knew it would get a lot of responses, well...
  • MichaelKeys wrote: You'd be surprised by how many people in this day and age look at marriage as "find the one who annoys you the least" and not "wait 'til you find 'the one' for you"
    Call me a non-romantic if you'd like, but I don't buy in to the idea of 'the one' - I believe in the middle ground, somewhere. I think that the idea of someone that's perfect for you is dangerous and naive - EVERY good relationship requires constant work. Too few people (at least that I know) seem to grasp this.
  • That's a good point. While I do believe in such a thing as "soul mates", I don't believe in "the one" as I think we each have several potential soul mates in a lifetime. And even then, it still requires a lot of work. And if one end doesn't do his share, well, it isn't going to work. I have a soul mate in England like that. And by his refusal to do his share of the work in the relationship, he pretty much guaranteed that we'll never be together again. Oh well.

    The most bashert relationship I know is my best friend and his wife. They went through hell to be together. And they work HARD to make their relationship work.

    I think the notion of "soul mates" can be useful if it is used as a motivation to make a relationship work through difficult times. There's a notion of it all being worth it in the end that can cause people to stick it out, like my best friend and his wife. Unfortunately, most people take "soul mates" to mean that they don't have to do any work at all and once there is work to be done, it must mean that they actually aren't soul mates. I think my guy in England thought that if I was his soul mate, I shouldn't make any demands on him at all, so my getting upset after two weeks of no contact was apparently unreasonable. :roll: He may be my soul mate, but he's an ass.

    So I'm off to find one who isn't.
  • WhyFi wrote: [quote=MichaelKeys]You'd be surprised by how many people in this day and age look at marriage as "find the one who annoys you the least" and not "wait 'til you find 'the one' for you"
    Call me a non-romantic if you'd like, but I don't buy in to the idea of 'the one' - I believe in the middle ground, somewhere. I think that the idea of someone that's perfect for you is dangerous and naive - EVERY good relationship requires constant work. Too few people (at least that I know) seem to grasp this.
    Nothing worthwhile comes easy. So, yes, I agree that you need to work at it. No argument there. But what I'm referring to is settling for less than what you want in a relationship. That can be quite dangerous as well. A romantic relationship in which the love part of it is given not enough importance, but everything else is functional--for lack of a better term-- feels to me like having a great roommate you have sex with. (Yes, that's an oversimplification but I'm trying to illustrate my point.) It seems to me like that would be a breeding ground for all kinds of resentment. I come across it all too frequently. Hell, as I stated above, I've been guilty of it myself.

    One of my best friends once observed that people generally get married not when they find the ideal person for them, but when they are ready to take the plunge. I--and plenty of others--have proved him right: Years ago, I felt I was done with my wayward single life and married not the next woman I met, but the next one I got seriously involved with. I thought the ideal woman for me did not exist so, I married what turned out to be the wrong one. After all, I wasn't going to find what I wanted in a mate so I settled for a little less than the next best thing. (Thank God we didn't have kids; what a nightmare that would've been.) Of course, it bit me on the ass. But it didn't sour me on marriage. (Not too much, anyway. :smile:) And like I stated before, I've since been in relationships with women that were my ideal or very close to it--which is above all about compatibility for me--so I know they are out there. I'd rather wait for that kind of person to come along again, or be alone, rather than settle and be miserable in the end. Life's too short to spend it dancing to the wrong tune. "Mejor solo que mal acompañado" (better lonely than in bad company), as the saying goes. But that's just me.

    IMHO the key is to be clearly cognizant of what you are getting into and with whom. Pardon me for a using a sports analogy, but I want to go into the game knowing there's a chance for us to succeed. Not in the 7th inning, down 6-2 and hoping to rally for a victory.
  • Interesting things here. Regarding the whole multiple soulmate thing, I liked that. To put it crudely, it isn't so much Ms. Right, it is Ms. Right Now. I'm not soured on marriage, but I have definitely tilted more towards an impermanence vibe. In terms of the Buddhist view. When you get married, they say forever. But it doesn't always work that way because there are two people involved, and as they grow and change, even though they both meant forever when they said it, one or both can, well, change their mind. Making it not so committed after all. Impermanent. Better to enjoy what you have when you have it, and recognize that things can change without introducing suffering into your life by trying to hold onto something "just like this, forever." Even if no one wants out, the relationship and life will change over time anyway. The one that is your soulmate now, may not be your soulmate in the future. The present is fleeting, and subject to change. Well, at least that is what has been tossing in my head while reading this. And it is subject to change! :mrgreen:

    As far as the craigslist posting, I definitely saw it there earlier last week. But like someone else noted, there is no way of telling whether it was serious or a put up. It was amusing, in any case. Not to out myself as trolling craigslist, mostly for amusement, but you never know. You could _find_ someone. Haha. Too much Fountains of Wayne, not enough Nick Cave.
  • Actually, a friend of mine told me that the post was a hoax, but what an interesting discussion it has sparked!

    I think once a soulmate, always a soulmate, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the relationship will always work. Two to tango and all that.

    And people could say forever and think they mean it, only they are confused because they are out of touch with themselves and don't know what they want. I've been accused of lying by guys ("You said you loved me! Wah! You're a liar!") when the fact was, I was confused. It doesn't help when the guy is literally harassing you into marrying him. It makes it really hard to know what I want, and for some reason, men tend to treat that as irrelevant. (This has happened to me a lot.)

    I do believe it's better to be single and happy than miserable with the wrong person. I don't know if I'll ever marry. Do you guys remember about twenty years back when they came out with that statistic that a woman would more likely to die in a terror attack than get married after 35? It was later debunked, but I'm beginning to think it is true, though not for what people think. It certainly isn't for a lack of suitors. I probably have more men chasing me now than I ever did. It's just that I don't *care* about being married anymore. When I think about having to plan a wedding, I just want to lie down. My last fiance was the Bridezilla from hell. He had STACKS of wedding magazines in his house. I bought ONE and ended up on the floor in a conniption fit because I couldn't cope. :?
  • lilbangladesh wrote: I do believe it's better to be single and happy than miserable with the wrong person. I don't know if I'll ever marry. Do you guys remember about twenty years back when they came out with that statistic that a woman would more likely to die in a terror attack than get married after 35? It was later debunked, but I'm beginning to think it is true, though not for what people think. It certainly isn't for a lack of suitors. I probably have more men chasing me now than I ever did. It's just that I don't *care* about being married anymore.
    Exactly. I've seen this a lot in friends. When they are unhappy and looking for someone to "make them happy" nothing ever seems to work out. And then when they are content with themselves and at peace, suddenly they have suitors crawling out of the woodwork. Or when someone gets into a happy relationship, and suddenly people are ready to pick them up left and right. There is a reason for this.
  • lilbangladesh wrote: My last fiance was the Bridezilla from hell. He had STACKS of wedding magazines in his house. I bought ONE and ended up on the floor in a conniption fit because I couldn't cope. :?
    Pardon my ignorance, but there are straight dudes like that?

    Anyway, my plan was to get married at City Hall and have the big wedding celebration on our 5th or 10th anniversary. The first part we did, but we never made it to either anniversary so my Mom ended up saving a nice chunk of change. (She offered to pay for it when we got hitched, since my fiancée, her family or I could not afford a 'real' wedding. "Thanks, Mom. But no: first let's see if it lasts." Good call, huh?)
    daver wrote: Or when someone gets into a happy relationship, and suddenly people are ready to pick them up left and right. There is a reason for this.
    Speaking from a male perspective and definitely not a spiritual vantage point, it seems we are never more attractive to women than when we are involved with another woman. Especially if the woman we are with is attractive. 97% of the time a woman has chatted me up, my date/girlfriend/wife has just stepped away to go to the bathroom, get us a drink, etc. Very rarely, if ever, has a woman approached me when I was alone. (Chris Rock has a crude but hilarious take on this in one of his HBO specials.) And this phenomenon occurs not only with strangers but acquaintances as well: One night I was at one of my regular watering holes sitting with this very attractive girl and 4 different girls who were regulars as well--and who in the past had never mustered much more than a wave hello my way--each made a point to individually come over to where I was sitting with this girl and flirt with me. Since I'm absolutely no George Clooney--or Bill Gates, for that matter--it seems to me like a case of "Wait, she's hot--why is she with him? Am I missing something here?"

    I'd like to think that when you are at peace with yourself your demeanor attracts people to you. I'm sure that happens. But I would assume the above examples outnumber them by a very large margin.
  • MichaelKeys wrote: I'd like to think that when you are at peace with yourself your demeanor attracts people to you. I'm sure that happens. But I would assume the above examples outnumber them by a very large margin.
    Eh, well, shit. :lol:
  • from New York magazine:

    "Though no one has yet identified the would-be trophy wife who wrote the Craigslist post looking for tips on finding a husband who makes $500,000 a year, 'because $250,000 won't get me to Central Park West,' the author of the awesome rebuttal to the post, which made e-mail rounds late last week and which we printed here on Thursday, was believed to be one Rob Campbell, an investment banker at J.P. Morgan Chase. This seemed like a safe assumption — after all, the e-mail was signed:

    Rob Campbell
    J.P.Morgan Diversified Industrials Investment Banking
    277 Park Avenue, 16/F
    New York, NY 10172

    By late last week, Campbell was being hailed across the Internet as a sort of American Folk Hero, giving a voice to exploited, um, rich dudes across the land. But after today's Times article on the kerfluffle, it looks like he's in some shit at work."

    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2007/10/rob_campbell_accidental_sexist.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/business/media/08golddigger.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin
  • Michael Keys, I can bring out the estrogen in any guy. :lol:

    I did think that the guy's response was sexist and offensive, but it seemed to be no more than what that women deserved, her original post also being sexist and offensive.

    I'm certainly not "done" yet. In my family, women don't hit their peak of beauty until 50.

    You make your own value. If you base your value on shallow things, then people will value you in a shallow way. The fact is, if all you have are your looks, then you ARE a depreciating asset. Women get more beautiful as they age only if they have character and wisdom to back it up.
  • lilbangladesh wrote: You make your own value. If you base your value on shallow things, then people will value you in a shallow way. The fact is, if all you have are your looks, then you ARE a depreciating asset. Women get more beautiful as they age only if they have character and wisdom to back it up.
    Amen, sister.
Sign In or Register to comment.