RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers?

RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:25:15 AM)
Yeah people make all sorts of assumptions and most don't bother to check out whether it's true. Careful about letting her sleep in, people will think you've gone soft [;)] [8D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:33:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Careful about letting her sleep in, people will think you've gone soft [;)] [8D] Hey! That a riff off my "Penis Map" thread ....? [:D] Firm

imperatrixx -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavidLee44UK imperatix people start threads for all sorts reasons if you want to talk about tea you dont talk about coffee its firms point you wanna make a point start a thread and some women are gold diggers look at all the bimbos in uk who purposively go after footballers remember watching a tv prog where a bunch women said they only go out with footballers look at posh spice she was only in spice girls because was a fabricated band and since has been seen and ridden on coat tails of beckham brand but then it does make sense for him to been with a pretty (cough) girl on his arm A study that says that 65% of women would not get married if they were unemployed doesn't exactly inspire the question "are women gold diggers" to me.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:38:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Careful about letting her sleep in, people will think you've gone soft [;)] [8D] Hey! That a riff off my "Penis Map" thread ....? [:D] Firm that depends, what answer will keep me from getting my ass beat?

imperatrixx -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:41:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: I fully comprehend the fact that you thought it would be more interesting to discuss women being gold diggers than it would be to discuss that the majority of women expect to live in two income households when they are married. Well, if he did think that, he'd pretty much be right, don't you think? I mean really, how many pages do you think the "two-income" thread would go?[:D] I guess I just honestly can't comprehend how a study that says that the vast majority of women expect to have a marriage where both they and their spouse work would make someone question whether women are gold diggers unless the idea of women gold diggers was so strongly ingrained in their mind that it colors their perception. The percentage of women who would marry an unemployed man is more than double the difference between women who would not marry an unemployed man vs. women who would not get married if they were unemployed themselves. It blows my mind that anyone could read that article and think that it would support that women marry solely for financial advantage.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:42:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth that depends, what answer will keep me from getting my ass beat? If I were single ....? Probably none .[:D] But seeing as how I'm not, you're likely safe either way. [:@] btw, I've answered your question about penis sizes in Texas, in the other thread. Twice! Firm

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:45:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth that depends, what answer will keep me from getting my ass beat? If I were single ....? Probably none .[:D] But seeing as how I'm not, you're likely safe either way. [:@] btw, I've answered your question about penis sizes in Texas, in the other thread. Twice! Firm Likely safe? In any case I'm glad you aren't single. Geez you're an impatient one aren't you?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:48:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: zephyroftheNorth Geez you're an impatient one aren't you? Probably goes along with the small penis ... [:D] Firm (that oughta give imperatrixx gist for her fantasies ...)

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:50:07 AM)
<--------glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that. [:D]

DavidLee44UK -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:54:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: imperatrixx quote: ORIGINAL: DavidLee44UK imperatix people start threads for all sorts reasons if you want to talk about tea you dont talk about coffee its firms point you wanna make a point start a thread and some women are gold diggers look at all the bimbos in uk who purposively go after footballers remember watching a tv prog where a bunch women said they only go out with footballers look at posh spice she was only in spice girls because was a fabricated band and since has been seen and ridden on coat tails of beckham brand but then it does make sense for him to been with a pretty (cough) girl on his arm A study that says that 65% of women would not get married if they were unemployed doesn't exactly inspire the question "are women gold diggers" to me. lol imperatix YOU DIDNT START THREAD as i said in my previous thread about split testing threads/posts/videos which insight negative and positive comments more successful and if we all thought same life would be boring

GreedyTop -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 7:57:54 AM)
so what if she didnt start the thread? she has just as much right to post here as any PRAT does. thats the beauty of CMChat... anyone, regardless, has the right to post ANYWHERE. (sometimes, to the detriment of the venue)

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 8:11:01 AM)
quote: I guess I just honestly can't comprehend how a study that says that the vast majority of women expect to have a marriage where both they and their spouse work would make someone question whether women are gold diggers unless the idea of women gold diggers was so strongly ingrained in their mind that it colors their perception. I think he already explained that quite adequately. He's trolling. quote: Maybe "the OP's issues" is that he thought it would be an interesting, thought-provoking, and perhaps mayhem filled thread.

imperatrixx -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 8:44:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DavidLee44UK lol imperatix YOU DIDNT START THREAD as i said in my previous thread about split testing threads/posts/videos which insight negative and positive comments more successful and if we all thought same life would be boring ... i never said i started the thread, i never said everyone should all think the same, and i seriously need an english translation of that middle sentence because i have no fucking idea what you are trying to express with it.

imperatrixx -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 8:45:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: I guess I just honestly can't comprehend how a study that says that the vast majority of women expect to have a marriage where both they and their spouse work would make someone question whether women are gold diggers unless the idea of women gold diggers was so strongly ingrained in their mind that it colors their perception. I think he already explained that quite adequately. He's trolling. quote: Maybe "the OP's issues" is that he thought it would be an interesting, thought-provoking, and perhaps mayhem filled thread. heh yeah probably. OH LOOK A STUDY SAID THAT MOST WOMEN WOULD NOT GET MARRIED IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB I WONDER IF THAT MAKES THEM GOLD DIGGERS

GreedyTop -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 8:45:46 AM)
good luck with THAT.... ETA: in re: to that 'middle sentence' bit

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 9:11:50 AM)
Women should be in the kitchen baking pie, wearing lingerie, putting together pretty outfits, suckling babies, having sex with their man, cleaning the house, going to PTA meeting, working on the flower bed or buying stuff at the grocery store, so they aren't supposed to work for money. So, obviously they should be looking for an employed man. It is just the nature of things. [:D]

LadyPact -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 9:12:57 AM)
Channeling Eric Cartman this morning, are we?

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 9:15:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Channeling Eric Cartman this morning, are we? Don't question me woman, you need to RESPECT MY AUTHORITY!

SternSkipper -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 9:16:04 AM)
quote: That's not work! that's a self-supporting hobby. Ah ... kinda like a VERY dark lemonade stand, eh?

lockedaway -> RE: Women: Realistic or Gold Diggers? (7/9/2011 9:17:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou Women should be in the kitchen baking pie, wearing lingerie, putting together pretty outfits, suckling babies, having sex with their man, cleaning the house, going to PTA meeting, working on the flower bed or buying stuff at the grocery store, so they aren't supposed to work for money. So, obviously they should be looking for an employed man. It is just the nature of things. [:D] Exactly!!!! BUT...not only does the man have to be employed, he needs to be pulling down around $250,000 per year as well. He also had better be ready to lose 50% of his assets and 55% of his income if that marriage ends after the 15 year mark.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125