lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Money Trumps Love

2009-01-09
By

House in Malibu

On a February 28, 2008, appearance on Fox & Friends, I said that a woman meeting a man at a party will assess his value to her based purely on his profession: “If he says ‘I’m a doctor,’ she thinks, house in Malibu; if he says, ‘I’m a teacher,’ she thinks, Chevy Malibu.” Men encourage women to behave this way.

For the most part, relationships begin, endure, and end over money — because people don’t know the meaning of love. Just look at those parting gifts: alimony and child support. Even though our parents taught us that love trumps money, the setbacks we sustain in dating, marriage, and divorce don’t reflect that teaching. Maybe that’s because our parents didn’t walk their talk.

Every Valentine’s Day, which I urge all men to boycott, De Beers goads us into measuring a man’s “love” for his woman by the number of karats he places on her finger. Listen to women and men bragging about those karats, proving De Beers’s success.

And, by the way, have you ever noticed that people attribute the twin sobriquets of generosity and stinginess only to men? Just think about the last time you heard anybody accusing a woman of being cheap with a man. Do men challenge this? No.

Finances Are Private

People don’t know the meaning of love, but they do know the meaning of money. So, here are three familiar examples of how money trumps love:

  1. Because a divorce can cause a man to lose his kids and 75% of his wealth (property, pension, securities, cash, legal fees, child support, and spousal support), in almost every case, he’ll stay in a caustic marriage — sacrificing personal happiness — rather than sustain financial loss. Instead, he’ll irrationally wait for his wife to divorce him (wives initiate 70% of all divorces) and ultimately lose more.
  2. Manhattanites (for example) will, without hesitation, drive or fly many miles for business or job opportunities, or to purchase paintings, but won’t “inconvenience” themselves to pursue romances — regardless of their merits — in Long Island or New Jersey. It’s amazing that those who constantly complain about lacking love in their lives would rather be alone or settle for nearby booty calls than disturb their comfortable routines to find worthy, albeit geographically undesirable, partners.
  3. When total strangers meet on a blind date or at a party and find themselves hot for each other, they will — in a heartbeat — find a bed, expose their genitals, and exchange bodily fluids. Would they so hastily expose their finances and exchange balance sheets? Of course not. Finances are private; genitals (normally called private parts) are not.

Many men have told me that their ex-wives had threatened divorce unless they received Jaguars or diamonds or vacations or new homes. And, these men, in every case, relented to such extortion, deciding to delay their inevitable divorces, which ended up costing them more in the long run.

Is such extortion predictable? Absolutely. When a man flashes his cash to attract a woman, she’ll wave it back at him — after she takes it. So, when you hear a man say that his relationship or marriage is based on love, look more closely. Just ask him how his girlfriend or wife is handling his new-found frugality in this economic downturn — if she’s still there.

The NoNonsense Bottom Line

As long as men and women allow money to trump love — an unfortunate fixture in our culture — they’ll find it impossible to have functional, healthy, and happy relationships and marriages.

The reality is, most of them don’t care. And, they prove this by how they live: women equate their femininity to how much money men spend on them; men equate their masculinity to how much money they spend on women — just ask the ones who feel emasculated when women pay for dinner.

Three signs that money does not trump love in your life:

  1. Spending money is never, ever the “man’s role”
  2. Money — given or received — is never tied to self-worth, masculinity, or femininity
  3. When necessary, both man and woman will inconvenience themselves — through time invested, sleep lost, and distance traveled — to be with each other.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is a globally known radio/TV personality, relationship coach, and author of 90+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth (ISBN 0974501719). Mr. Rudov, the 2008 recipient of the National Coalition of Free Men’s “Award for Excellence In Promoting Gender Fairness In The Media,” is a regular guest on Fox News Channel’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and The O’Reilly Factor.

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, radio/TV archives, and podcasts are available at TheNoNonsenseMan.com.

Copyright © 2009 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

667 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    Did I attribute my views to Marc, VA? No. A General Principle usually has corollaries and I was simply pointing out that men need to value themselves more than their wallets. Or at least as much. Would you disagree with that or think that Marc would disagree? Did I mention anything about condemning pre-marital sex? No again. Did I suggest that anything about not having sex with women? No yet again. What is your point? I can't see it. Poor IQ probably.

  • Veterans Abroad

    A similar class exercise happened when I was in high school. Everyone was asked to write about what they thought about others in the class including who was the smartest and the sexiest, etc. The teacher said the results would never become known. As a result I committed the only crime I ever committed in my life: I rigged a window to appear like it was closed and locked and, after school, I broke into the classroom and into the teacher's desk. I read what everyone wrote. It turned out that every female listed me as the smartest…but none of them listed me as the sexiest. I did not know at the time that other cultures had women who thought brains equaled sexy. In another country I would have been mobbed by the girls. Years later, although I would probably fare better on such an exercise in the US, I am no longer living in the United States largely because US culture teaches women not to want to mate with the smartest males, but to look for other qualities (car, house) instead. Sadly, one would think that enough women in the US would equate IQ with future wealth, but the culture goes on the idea of "Show me the money now". My last US girlfriend had her friend at my bank check my account.

  • Veterans Abroad

    Marc was not condemning premarital sex Amfortas. You know his position is for a Reverse Roe vs Wade. There is no logical connection between men's rights and some supposed need to have women NOT have sex with us. ;-)

  • Veterans Abroad

    Exactly. And that guy Nick at that blog pointed out that what feminism does is it raises the value of nice women by creating a ton of rude paranoid women.

    By creating discord between men and women in the USA, and turning millions of women into unpleasant people, the feminist movement has significantly decreased the supply of decent dating prospects for men while demand has risen.

    Thus the US market price for a nice woman has risen and Marc is facing an uphill battle getting the point across that paying at all is outrageous (because women, even 20 year olds, need sex and companionship as much as men).

    Sadly, the US market price for an obviously bad woman has also risen.

    In Western Europe it is worse. An Italian model just put her virginity up for sale for 1 Million Euros and is getting offers at that price. The willingness of the eunuch customers to inflate the price WILL rub off on virgins across western Europe in their general behavior with men. Do a google search for italian model selling virginity.

    Meanwhile, if older men think that a "return to timeless values" is the answer to this "liberalism", they are at best covering up the true men's rights issue, which is that the women shouldn't be valuing themselves over men in the first place. At worst, these men would be using religion to put women back up on a pedestal and giving them astronomical value over men…which is what I saw men doing at that blog above.

    I have solved the problem personally because I live in the former Soviet Union where women vastly outnumber men.

    When women vastly outnumber men, a man can walk into a bar and expect to be hit on.

    And then the man can expect to be well fed because they often cook very well over here.

    Men need to migrate to where they are in short supply.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    The examples you give of these rich fellows like Spitzer with some civil power who douse prostitutes with a waterfall of money are a worry. It is a worry that people like that get votes and kudos. They 'buy' women and I am sure others might see a concern over price-inflation. But I am not here to quibble over price. I am quite unable to impose a specific moral code on anyone but I can point to the obvious corollaries of paying for sex, and do that in my manner. And that manner – here – is simply to point out value. Value of Character and Integrity foremost.

    My view on 'Price' is not confined just to the prostitution issue but encompases a similar totality of behaviours that Marc articulates and professes. And I see your point about American (I see that as Western ) women demanding far too much for far too little. It is material goods and money that they demand, but thems are the women's rules. Men are far too eager to pay a price, whatever that price might be. And the cost is far more than simple material goods and money. The cost is Male Integrity.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    Now, not everyone is going to agree with either the general or the specifics of that, but we must seek areas of agreement between even the most divergent attitudes that 'knits' the MRM together in a single, but multifaceted tapestry with a shared objective.

    We must all 'lead' as well, with effort to move Men and the MRM up the evolutionary chain a bit. While we all like sex and we all want our ends away and would happily bonk with the right women, we do have to recognise who is making the 'Rules' and who has since the Lord harry knows when. In that recognition lies our opportunity to stop playing the game by those rules altogether and develop Men's Rules instead; rules which contain elements of Integrity and Character and more. Authenticity for added example. The bonking aspect will still be there and women will want sex as much as ever with our rules rather than theirs.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    Bugger, it won't let me continue. It keeps telling me that it is too long – even though it is shorter than yours. I had a lot more to say. (It a problem having a long one)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    Jim. I wondered. I think that the 'rifts' can be made too much of (and exploited) and we all need to make more effort to seek that which we agree with in other MRA's stances and make room for a broad base of differing emphases.

    There are some who stick to a quite easy-to-accomodate point that can easily dovetail into a broader perspective. Marc is one of those articulate chaps who sticks to his points and is admirable for it. I know you do too. There are some who are older men and some of those who take a perhaps more moral view and some much younger who amongst them perhaps have a more accepting attitude toward matters that I (for example) might find contentious. There are people here with a very wide range of experience at 'home' (wherever) and abroad. But there will always be matters that individually we find contentious and we are very good in the MRM in expressing critiques. This is a strength, but we do have a tendancy to try to steal other chap's armour. This is not.

    (I see there is a limit to comments – More to come…….)

  • Veterans Abroad

    Amfortas, this is Jim. This browser has me under another account somehow. We're online friends. Or at least I considered the MND community to be that way until about a month ago when I published an article saying, among other things, that the Republican Party will be destroyed by the single male bloc if it continued to imply that premarital sex is bad. I was dead-on and many agreed, but what scared me was that, after only 2 guys objected, the publisher asked "Why do you want to expose this fault-line in the MRM"? Answer: If there is a fault-line this bad in the MRM, it needs to be dealt with or the movement might come down along it later.

    Anyway, to the topic at hand: Sure, there is a problem of men in the USA valuing themselves so lightly that they will go to bed with an ugly or diseased woman because the best looking and cleanest women have rejected them (often without good cause). Look at Eliott Spitzer. He valued a tramp at $4000 plus train-fare. A man like that should have been able to get a better experience with an Ivy League 22 year old (if he wanted to pay for one) with an expensive dinner and train-fare. Do young Democrat women really fail to flirt with Democrat politicians these days?

    Marc is correct to point out that men should not pay at all…but my beef with eunuch American men is that they pay too much when they do pay. They act too desperate.

    Take a look at Natalie Dylan of California who is auctioning her virginity and now has bids for $3.7Million: http://guanabee.com/2008/09/natalie-dylan-to-sell

    Leaving aside your antipathy to prostitution itself, what "rich American business man" would think so litte of himself that he would pay that kind of money when sex is only worth $200-$500 worldwide?

    In the comments of the blog I linked to above, note that only ONE guy makes the point that feminism and the acrimony it has caused between men and women, has caused the price of American women to go way too high. The guy was dead-on and I will try to recruit him for MND. But the other male commenters were mainly just saying that she was sinning against God.

    We cannot allow the acrimony caused by feminism to actually RAISE the demand for American women and spur men to pay more as compared to not pay at all. The opposite has to happen or feminism will win and women will instinctively keep feminism alive in order to maintain a percieved market advantage.

    American men have to reduce the demand for American women in order to reduce the price.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/amfortas amfortas

    Few with their eyes open will argue with that, Marc. And if anything useful has come from Feminism it is the opening of eyes. Unidirectional Money transfer is 'Women's Rules'. Men have to give money to women. But their rules extend further and with just as much male compliance.

    For instance – "When total strangers meet on a blind date or at a party and find themselves hot for each other, they will — in a heartbeat — find a bed, expose their genitals, and exchange bodily fluids." Women are the arbiters of who gets to jump into bed. Women's rules again.

    You righly point out that men should not 'buy' women; they should value their genitals as much as their wallets too.

  • Carl Euting

    Marc, as usual you're right on. This got me thinking of when I was in high school (mid-1960's) and the teacher had a class exercise whereby each person had to list 5 things they wanted in the opposite sex. The boys listed things like looks and nice personality and the girls did the same, except every girl, without exception, listed that the guy have a car. I remember thinking, what did a car have to do with the qualities one looks for in a person? When it came to my turn, I listed the usual things, but I added a car, since I didn't have one and it seemed to be an important thing (I was a bit of a smart ass back then). I got a few puzzled looks from the girls, but no one said anything.

    I guess it was at that time that I realized the truth about girls/women. It reminds me of a song with a refrane "girls don't like boys, girls like cars and money". Oh well.
    Carl

  • http://www.even-so-life-goes-on.blogspot.com Dabir Dalton

    To hell and back with women…My only goal in life is too please myself…

  • Denis

    Marc-

    exactly right. Unfortunately America men think pleasing women-female happiness-is their role. American women believe this also. The net result is that we have a feminized nation. Any American man who has done some traveling rather quickly sees that women outside America are, in many cases, better. I don't have any respect for American women-and I'm not one bit afraid to express that in my daily life if warranted. American men, sadly for me, are not far behind.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search