[ExI] highly profitable sexual practices was RE: Feel Safer Now?

[BillK]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:57 PM, John Grigg wrote:
> I'm impressed and suprised that a women today would still acknowledge this
> fact (I used to date a woman who fiercely argued that this was no longer
> true).  I'd be very interested to get you started on this topic!  : )  The
> whole concept of "social currency" in mate selection totally fascinates me.
> I think a male with lots of resources/money can be very tempting marriage
> material even when the woman in her heart of hearts knows she is not in love
> with him.  But then we could get into a discussion of what love/falling in
> love truly is and what causes it.  I find it interesting how reaching the
> "falling in love" critical mass can be very similar and yet different for
> every person.
>

'Marrying for money' means many different things to different people.
And the meaning changes over the years and in different societies.

So, any discussion is probably headed straight into confusion.

Among the rich, marriage used to be a way of combining dynasties and
keeping the wealth within the family.
Also it used to be the case that in order to enjoy the benefits of
'marrying money', then the partners had to remain married. It is a
relatively recent legal innovation in western society that (usually)
women can make a business plan out of marriage and divorce within a
few years to cash in their winnings.

As usual it is the middle classes who end up worst off. Paul McCartney
is so rich that he won't miss the 50 million USD that he has to pay
his ex-wife. But in middle class divorce there is often not enough
money to support two separate families, so both partners become much
poorer.


BillK