She’s Mad About Money

Do you remember the term mad money? More common in the vernacular of 50 years ago, mad money is cash a woman carries on a date so that, if she and her escort quarrel and separate, she has the means to return home. Ask any woman about this, and she’ll reminisce about her formative years and her mother’s insistence that, while with a man, she must have enough money for an emergency—not for generosity.

Consider the impact on male-female relationships of mothers teaching their impressionable daughters to equate money with mad: it has socialized women to spend money, in the context of men, only in times of anger and self-preservation—and only on themselves. Evidence abounds that this value remains deeply embedded in our culture.

A woman’s expectation that a man would be her primary provider was logical in the days when she was mainly a babymaker and had no chance to become a self-made billionaire (Oprah Winfrey), CEO of Xerox (Anne Mulcahy), president of MIT (Susan Hockfield), or speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi). So, in those times, it was widely accepted that a woman ’s sole duty on a date was to be ready on time.

When you think about traditional dating customs, they instruct women in how to be takers. Women always worked as secretaries, nurses, teachers, librarians, and receptionists. So, for them to have felt entitled to fully paid nights on the town, with no obligations to reciprocate—in proportion to their incomes—with treats to movies or softdrinks or hotdogs, is total nonsense. But, reciprocation was taboo. The thinking was: if a woman ever opened her wallet in public, with a man present, she was considered a loser, he a cad.

Men Are the Enablers

Fast-forward to 2007. Women, according to Allianz Group, now control the lion’s share of American wealth (Allianz projects 60% control by 2010). Also, 33% more women than men graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and 50% of shareholders are women.

In addition to professional earnings, women boost their portfolios by becoming widowed, divorced, and unwed mothers—especially when the fathers of their out-of-wedlock babies are star athletes. Finally, add the free meals, jewelry, and vacations women enjoy during dating—wow, do they have a solid path to wealth.

So, in our era of unprecedented female power and wealth, mad money seems obsolete, doesn’t it? The phrase may be passé, but not the concept: most women still expect the man to pay for dinner. Even Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and pseudo-feminist who questions the necessity of men, expects it. This double standard, this hypocrisy, this female nonsense should outrage all men. It doesn’t. With resignation, these men are the enablers.

Why do most men still choose to be voluntary default financiers of dating, marriage, and divorce? Three reasons. One, they are largely unaware of female-wealth statistics. Two, they find “the female as peer” to be very threatening. Three, they are ignorant about and/or uncomfortable with the lustful female libido. Reason one is easily cured through education. Overcoming reasons two and three, however, require both education and complete attitudinal changes.

Cash Kills Arousal

Last weekend, I made a repeat guest appearance on The Deborah Rowe Radio Program, broadcast from ABC Radio’s WLS in Chicago. Ms. Rowe is a well-known luminary in the City of Big Shoulders and an engaging host who attracts a loyal audience. I enjoy the hunger Deborah’s listeners have for my way of thinking, as evidenced by the e-mails they send me.

The show’s callers, however, are a different story. Most of them seem to feel conflicted about the emancipated woman. To wit: Here is the comment of caller Vicky, a Chicago wife whose attitude about sex and money underscores the chief reason for relationship dysfunction:

“Where I think Marc takes it too far is where you get to the intimacy between a man and a woman. I think that, to respect the capability of women, to be equal, is perfectly fine. But, he’ll be great buddies with whoever he pairs up with. But, when you get to intimacy, women need to be encouraged or enticed into sexual intimacy, and a man always wants it. So, it’s a man’s job to woo the woman.”

Wow! So much useful information packed into her words. First, Vicky claims to like equality for women—until the dinner check arrives. That’s nonsense, not equality. Second, Vicky is not attracted to her husband. If she were, she wouldn’t need him to encourage, entice, or woo her into sex, and she wouldn’t abdicate to him sole responsibility for the mating ritual.

Finally, Vicky equates a reciprocal relationship with friendship, bereft of intimacy. In other words, Vicky provides “intimacy” in exchange for meals—a transaction known as legal prostitution. To Vicky, intimacy is a service, deliverable within the “mart of seduction.” One problem: in the mart of seduction, there is no seduction—only solicitation.

As I’ve written extensively in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women and Under the Clitoral Hood, seduction has nothing to do with money. In fact, money behind the wining & dining inhibits seduction and sexual arousal. This is why Vicky isn’t attracted to her husband, and she doesn’t even realize it!

Recently, Woman’s Day magazine and AOL surveyed 3,000 married women. According to this survey, more than half of these women were unsure they would marry their husbands again—with more than a third saying they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses. Also, more than 75 percent of them fantasize about other men, and 39 percent constantly flirt with other men.

This survey has Vicky’s name all over it. Even though women are the libido champs, a lot of men don’t want to believe it—frequently grousing that women are uninterested in sex. To each disbeliever, I say: Women aren’t uninterested in sex; they’re uninterested in sex with you—because you pay to bed them. They disrespect you for your lack of game and feel obligated to share your bed. How exciting and erotic can that be?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

In Under the Clitoral Hood, I assert that women go to bed with men for two reasons: raw attraction and wining/dining obligation. Because most women demand to be wined & dined, they will continue to be sexually unfulfilled, fake their orgasms, and flirt with and fantasize about other men. Therein lies the paradox: wining & dining, traditionally tantamount to romance, predetermines that women will end up with men to whom they are not wildly attracted. And, consequently, men will lose two-fold: in the wallet and in the bed.

Yet, as fundamentally flawed as this dynamic is, as emotionally and financially destructive as it is, men and women are not rushing to alter it. Any man who believes that dating is all about entertaining her, about buying her like a hooker, is begging to be taken and will, obviously, attract takers.

Men always have believed that money gives them power, because it helps them attract the hottest women. Big deal. For the right price, anyone can buy a woman—most of them are for sale.

Why, then, does a man feel proud and virile when a woman just wants his money, not him? Because he’s unaware that money, ironically, doesn’t give him power. In fact, the more he flaunts his money, the more women will view him, disdainfully, as an unskilled and easily manipulated target.

If you’d prefer to engage in the art of seduction, rather than the mart of seduction, remove the M (hint: M is for money). If you don’t take away the M, she’ll take it away for you.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 40+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com/

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

She’s Mad About Money

Do you remember the term mad money? More common in the vernacular of 50 years ago, mad money is cash a woman carries on a date so that, if she and her escort quarrel and separate, she has the means to return home. Ask any woman about this, and she’ll reminisce about her formative years and her mother’s insistence that, while with a man, she must have enough money for an emergency—not for generosity.

Consider the impact on male-female relationships of mothers teaching their impressionable daughters to equate money with mad: it has socialized women to spend money, in the context of men, only in times of anger and self-preservation—and only on themselves. Evidence abounds that this value remains deeply embedded in our culture.

A woman’s expectation that a man would be her primary provider was logical in the days when she was mainly a babymaker and had no chance to become a self-made billionaire (Oprah Winfrey), CEO of Xerox (Anne Mulcahy), president of MIT (Susan Hockfield), or speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi). So, in those times, it was widely accepted that a woman’s sole duty on a date was to be ready on time.

When you think about traditional dating customs, they instruct women in how to be takers. Women always worked as secretaries, nurses, teachers, librarians, and receptionists. So, for them to have felt entitled to fully paid nights on the town, with no obligations to reciprocate—in proportion to their incomes—with treats to movies or softdrinks or hotdogs, is total nonsense. But, reciprocation was taboo. The thinking was: if a woman ever opened her wallet in public, with a man present, she was considered a loser, he a cad.

Men Are the Enablers

Fast-forward to 2007. Women, according to Allianz Group, now control the lion’s share of American wealth (Allianz projects 60% control by 2010). Also, 33% more women than men graduate from college, 60% of female MBAs outearn their husbands, and 50% of shareholders are women.

In addition to professional earnings, women boost their portfolios by becoming widowed, divorced, and unwed mothers—especially when the fathers of their out-of-wedlock babies are star athletes. Finally, add the free meals, jewelry, and vacations women enjoy during dating—wow, do they have a solid path to wealth.

So, in our era of unprecedented female power and wealth, mad money seems obsolete, doesn’t it? The phrase may be passé, but not the concept: most women still expect the man to pay for dinner. Even Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and pseudo-feminist who questions the necessity of men, expects it. This double standard, this hypocrisy, this female nonsense should outrage all men. It doesn’t. With resignation, these men are the enablers.

Why do most men still choose to be voluntary default financiers of dating, marriage, and divorce? Three reasons. One, they are largely unaware of female-wealth statistics. Two, they find “the female as peer” to be very threatening. Three, they are ignorant about and/or uncomfortable with the lustful female libido. Reason one is easily cured through education. Overcoming reasons two and three, however, require both education and complete attitudinal changes.

Cash Kills Arousal

Last weekend, I made a repeat guest appearance on The Deborah Rowe Radio Program, broadcast from ABC Radio’s WLS in Chicago. Ms. Rowe is a well-known luminary in the City of Big Shoulders and an engaging host who attracts a loyal audience. I enjoy the hunger Deborah’s listeners have for my way of thinking, as evidenced by the e-mails they send me.

The show’s callers, however, are a different story. Most of them seem to feel conflicted about the emancipated woman. To wit: Here is the comment of caller Vicky, a Chicago wife whose attitude about sex and money underscores the chief reason for relationship dysfunction:

“Where I think Marc takes it too far is where you get to the intimacy between a man and a woman. I think that, to respect the capability of women, to be equal, is perfectly fine. But, he’ll be great buddies with whoever he pairs up with. But, when you get to intimacy, women need to be encouraged or enticed into sexual intimacy, and a man always wants it. So, it’s a man’s job to woo the woman.”

Wow! So much useful information packed into her words. First, Vicky claims to like equality for women—until the dinner check arrives. That’s nonsense, not equality. Second, Vicky is not attracted to her husband. If she were, she wouldn’t need him to encourage, entice, or woo her into sex, and she wouldn’t abdicate to him sole responsibility for the mating ritual.

Finally, Vicky equates a reciprocal relationship with friendship, bereft of intimacy. In other words, Vicky provides “intimacy” in exchange for meals—a transaction known as legal prostitution. To Vicky, intimacy is a service, deliverable within the “mart of seduction.” One problem: in the mart of seduction, there is no seduction—only solicitation.

As I’ve written extensively in The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women and Under the Clitoral Hood, seduction has nothing to do with money. In fact, money behind the wining & dining inhibits seduction and sexual arousal. This is why Vicky isn’t attracted to her husband, and she doesn’t even realize it!

Recently, Woman’s Day magazine and AOL surveyed 3,000 married women. According to this survey, more than half of these women were unsure they would marry their husbands again—with more than a third saying they definitely wouldn’t pick the same spouses. Also, more than 75 percent of them fantasize about other men, and 39 percent constantly flirt with other men.

This survey has Vicky’s name all over it. Even though women are the libido champs, a lot of men don’t want to believe it—frequently grousing that women are uninterested in sex. To each disbeliever, I say: Women aren’t uninterested in sex; they’re uninterested in sex with you—because you pay to bed them. They disrespect you for your lack of game and feel obligated to share your bed. How exciting and erotic can that be?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

In Under the Clitoral Hood, I assert that women go to bed with men for two reasons: raw attraction and wining/dining obligation. Because most women demand to be wined & dined, they will continue to be sexually unfulfilled, fake their orgasms, and flirt with and fantasize about other men. Therein lies the paradox: wining & dining, traditionally tantamount to romance, predetermines that women will end up with men to whom they are not wildly attracted. And, consequently, men will lose two-fold: in the wallet and in the bed.

Yet, as fundamentally flawed as this dynamic is, as emotionally and financially destructive as it is, men and women are not rushing to alter it. Any man who believes that dating is all about entertaining her, about buying her like a hooker, is begging to be taken and will, obviously, attract takers.

Men always have believed that money gives them power, because it helps them attract the hottest women. Big deal. For the right price, anyone can buy a woman—most of them are for sale.

Why, then, does a man feel proud and virile when a woman just wants his money, not him? Because he’s unaware that money, ironically, doesn’t give him power. In fact, the more he flaunts his money, the more women will view him, disdainfully, as an unskilled and easily manipulated target.

If you’d prefer to engage in the art of seduction, rather than the mart of seduction, remove the M (hint: M is for money). If you don’t take away the M, she’ll take it away for you.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 40+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com/

Copyright © 2007 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.