GF / SO vs Hobby activities

[luv2fress]

If you do the math on the Paul McCartney-Heather Mills divorce.

After 5 years of marriage, he lands up giving her around $49 million, give or take for exchange whatever.

Lets assume (LOL) he actually fucked her every night during their 5 year relationship, it ends up costing him $26,849 per SOG, not counting lawyers etc etc.

Eliot Spitzer's hobby girl Kristen ONLY charges $4,000 an hour. Seems expensive but...

If McCartney hired Kristen full time for 5 years,
he would've paid in total only $7.3 million based on an hour of sex every night for 5 years.

The advantage & benefits of Kristen are,
a 22 year old really hot babe, no havingto beg
never a headache, wide open PSE, no bitching
and complaining blah blah we all know the routine.
Best of all, if you want, she out the door when you're finished,
and comes back the next day, ready for another round.
All this at 1/7th the cost, with no legal fees unless you use Gov money, planes, etc.

Whats the better deal, and the moral of the story is

Don't shit where you eat

 

[S.C. Joe]

What about these men who get married and their wife WORKS-at a normal job- and helps pays the bills?

Many women 25-50 years old have normal jobs today, so a guy who's married to them doesn't have to "pay" her, she earns money too. Thanks to them putting their money together they can buy a nicer home to live in, take more vacations, etc.

Its very short slighted to think that dating SP's all your life is cheaper than having a wife who went to college and has a good job in banking, sales, marketing.

Now the downside is she doesn't stay 25 years old forever, lol. Some talk back too

 

[luv2fress]

hey

It was just supposed to be a little humor for the day, not some well thought out piece with in depth thinking attached to it. As for you don't shit where you eat, it has to do with Spitzer..........never bring anything from work into your private life like doing your secretary, using the biz jet to fly them around etc.

 

[fuji]

This math only works for relationships where the woman does not contribute financially to the marriage. These relationships may have been common 50 years ago, and there are still some backwards people around who live this way. There are also exceptions like McCartny who is so rich that anyone he marries is likely to be poorer than he is.

In my marriage my wife pays half the bills. She will get half the house if we ever split, and half our assets, but that's fine, because she paid for half of the house and half of the assets. In fact my half will add up to more than I'd have saved if I were single because I saved a lot by having someone to split the bills with. If I were single I would spend less on my home, but more than half what I pay now.

Not everyone has a 19th century marriage. Some of us live in the 21st century.

 

[Bud Plug]

This math only works for relationships where the woman does not contribute financially to the marriage. These relationships may have been common 50 years ago, and there are still some backwards people around who live this way. There are also exceptions like McCartny who is so rich that anyone he marries is likely to be poorer than he is.

In my marriage my wife pays half the bills. She will get half the house if we ever split, and half our assets, but that's fine, because she paid for half of the house and half of the assets. In fact my half will add up to more than I'd have saved if I were single because I saved a lot by having someone to split the bills with. If I were single I would spend less on my home, but more than half what I pay now.

Not everyone has a 19th century marriage. Some of us live in the 21st century.

Fuji, you have a bit of a point, but you lose me with your exaggeration! There are far more than "some" people still living in relationships where the woman's financial contribution to the marriage is far less than the man's!

The stats don't support your point of view. Women assert that a significant "wage gap" persists. Now, whether you think that there's any unfairness at the root of the gap or not (I happen to think there are legitimate factors which contribute to the gap, and that it's not evidence of unfairness), it's nevertheless a fact that working men, on average, continue to make significantly more than working women (who make 68% of male wages). This gap doesn't even take into account women who don't work, and there are considerably more of them that stay at home than their male counterparts.

As a result, a "no fault" 50/50 split continues to work to the disadvantage of men in the vast proportion of relationships.

Your relationship appears to be the uncommon one. Congratulations (I think).

 

[S.C. Joe]

What about the "work" wifes do around the house? Cook meals, go shopping, help raise the kids-if any.

Some wifes play "nurse" too when the kids get sick, need to go the doctor office, dentist, etc.

If people did not split up, there be no split in the money.

Its the women who get married, have a few kids, then want out and have the guy pay for everything afterwards that gives marriage a bad name--same with the men who kiss their girlfriends butts until she saids "I do" Then he gets drunk every night, blows all his money, doesn't help out around the house.