For Love Or Money?
I’ve been in a bit of a Jane Austen reading mode lately, mostly Pride and Prejudice as it’s one of my favorites. But, in reading the books and watching the films, it struck me that we’ve come a long way in terms of marriage. In Austen’s time, marriage was simply a business arrangement. People married for money and the family connections it provided, very often foregoing any sort of affection for one another. The result was infidelity.
Having love, and not money, be the basis of a marriage is actually a fairly new concept. Although it did happen in Austen’s time, that was not the norm and was certainly frowned upon in polite society. But, if such arrangements are entered into today, the benefiting party is often referred to as a gold digger. This seems to suggest that polite society has flipped it’s assessment of marriage and now frowns upon marrying for money – though I’m sure it still happens in family circles that have something to offer one another.
In any event, I came across a story not to long ago that talked about an ad from Craigslist. To paraphrase, a woman who is a self-proclaimed beauty is frustrated by her lack of being able to find a husband who earns at least $500k per year. She has recently noticed that women much less pretty and intelligent than herself have managed to land these rich husbands and wants to know what it is she is doing wrong. Her particular story is the classic case of making a business arrangement as a marriage rather then seeking love. But, she got one response to her ad that seemed to garner a lot of attention, and it’s something I wanted to share with you here to discuss.
The Response
Dear Pers-431649184:
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.
Ok, so after reading this response, do you think he was being too hard on her? What are your feelings in general about marrying for money, is it wrong? Can affection and love grow from a relationship that began merely as a business deal?
My Thoughts
The idea of marrying for money alone has always been something I’ve looked at as impossible for me to commit to. The idea of not having love seems heartbreaking to a romantic such as myself. However, I think there’s something to be said for finding a partner with similar attitudes toward money.
When choosing a marriage partner it is best to find someone compatible with you in all things, money included. Otherwise it makes the relationship harder and sometimes not even love is enough to sustain it. I’m a big believer in communication and working on a relationship before just throwing in the towel; however, I’m practical in that I believe sometimes you have to realize a dead venture when you’re faced with it. That’s the business side of me coming out.
In regards to the reply on the CL ad, I don’t think he was out of line. Women who offer nothing more then their looks in trade for money are asking for such responses because he’s absolutely right, she’s bringing nothing else to the table. When the money is gone, so is she. Her looks will fade over time and the rich guy is left holding a depreciating asset he can’t trade in for a newer model because divorce is expensive and she’d take half his money anyway. That “transaction” needs to go both ways.
I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact that, while I love the period in which Austen wrote – the manners, the address, the formalities, and style – I would not have made my family very happy. I would be too headstrong and willful, and I would refuse to marry for money alone.
So there are my thoughts on the matter. What are yours?
Related posts:
Wow, Kristy, you are coming up with some pretty interesting stuff lately.
I have not read Jane Austen but coincidentally, I was doing genealogical research lately and found something about some ancestors of mine who lived during what appears to be the same time period Austen wrote about.
Joshua Belitha Tilghman, born 1762, who fought in the revolutionary war, married Patsy Taylor and the one child produced by that marriage is my great-great (times I forget how many) grandfather. But sadly, Patsy died almost immediately after giving birth and within one year Joshua married Chloe Taylor, Patsy’s sister.
I thought this was strange and wondered if he just happened to love Patsy’s sister and that made a remarriage choice easy. But (correct me if I’m wrong) I suspected that given the social customs of that time (and this is what Austen wrote about, I guess) it might have been more a matter of families making alliances in ways that benefited both of them, more than a matter of who was smitten with whom.
Joshua and Chloe went on to have a huge number of children, by the way… let me look it up… ten more. At least one descendant of whom I have contacted; he’s about my age and wrote something about this on the interwebs and I guess we’re cousins, from way back (six great-grandparents back, I think I counted), through the half-siblings (my ancestor and his ancestor, who was one of the ten.)
Arranged marriages, because that is what we are really talking about here, have been known to work and work very successfully. In fact, they have a lower rate of divorce, although whether that is because of the cultural stigmas around it or whether they just find way to fall in love later, is up for question. Many cultures still practice this all over the world, including some Orthodox Jews right here and now in New York. They are based on family ties and improving social/economic status.
All that said – would I want it for myself? Heck no! And that is not just because I don’t trust my family’s taste! If I ever chose to marry again, it will be for love. However, I do think that the points you make about being on the same page financially are extremely important. They are a lot more important than I knew when I married. I married a man who offered me practically every material thing I ever wanted… little did I know it was all paid for with huge piles of debt. Never, ever, again.
Great post!
I’d say the CL response was spot on!
My wife has a friend who also thinks her looks should be able to fetch her a “successful” man. She’d routinely thumb her nose at guys with “normal” jobs while holding out for something better.
She is now starting to come back to earth after having been single for a long time. But she is having trouble finding a taker. I find the irony to be quite entertaining. But I keep that to myself.
Times HAVE changed indeed. My perception has changed a lot, being married 3 years. I am a provider by nature. I was raised to be the person that puts a roof over the head. I never saw my parents being affectionate, however they love each other deeply and are very happy together. They are PERFECT for each other and I can’t imagine them not being together.
In my case, I am a very primitive provider. I want my wife to be cared for on a needs level. Aside from that, I am extremely despondent. She knows this and has accepted that about me. From a basic level I am just not built for “love.” I am a misanthrope so it makes it hard to forge human relationships.
That aside, I just think some PEOPLE in general look at life differently and place different values on what they think marriage is. I think if two people want it to be a business deal, that is fine. If their 2 neighbors married out of pure love and have a very even 50/50 deal going on, that is also great. I personally believe people are so complex and so different, some people are simply built to do things differently in life than others.
LOVED his response.. Totally spot on.
A marriage is always a business transaction. Any relationship you’ve ever had in your world is a transaction of some sort.
But a transaction doesn’t always mean it involves money. It can involve love or personality as a trade (think: parents, friends)..
A woman who only offers looks and not brains, is not someone (in my opinion) worth having. It’s why I’m so harsh on girls who dress slutty or think that being beautiful and *giggle* slightly dumb to their superior man is a good strategy.
In some cases.. yeah. But in 99.999% of the cases, they end up alone, still hoping at the age of 40 that someone will put a rock on their finger but their main asset (beauty, not their brains), has already deteriorated.
I see SO MANY of these women here in Montreal (no kidding…) and it’s sad to hear how high the divorce rate is among the french-canadians. But they all have the same stupid strategy. Beauty for money.
That being said, I think it’s TOTALLY FINE to trade beauty for money. As long as both sides understand what they’re getting out of the relationship. I’ve seen many relationships where beauty for money, has lasted more than relationships based on love.
So.. to me, as long as they’re both happy then kudos. The CL guy is clearly looking for beauty AND brains, which is what I think we should all try and teach women to obtain. And if I were to pick one of the two, I’d keep my brains and not my beauty.
*shrug* Sorry for the mini rant.
Oh and my last point was that if every woman had the same strategy (beauty for money), there are plenty of men out there who have a different frame of mind, so these women are self-selecting down into a smaller pool of men who are into trading beauty for money.
Most of the population is NOT rich. So if you’re beautiful, how do you gauge who is “rich enough” for your beauty? :)
These are tough questions women have never had to ask themselves until they wake up at the age of 40, alone, and wishing they had said yes to that guy in high school or college who now has a beautiful family and a solid but not super-rich job.
I think what I was trying to get at is what others have said: While it seems crass to marry for money today and I would think most people don’t operate that way, it was probably routine to marry for political reasons in the past, and the bride and groom probably got little, if any, say in the matter.
I suspect the reason behind anyone wanting to marry for money alone is that they have no confidence in make a living on their own.
The CL guy was right on. Beauty isn’t everything — as this woman will soon find out if she hasn’t already. Perhaps if this woman would put as much effort into making herself happy through meaningful work, volunteering, etc. that she seems to into whining about not finding a sugar daddy to take care of her I get she would be a lot happier — and find someone she has something in common with.
I love it when you post about this stuff!
Loved the financial arguement and the idea of leasing… you know if I were her, I’d go on a date with him just to meet this dude…