... light in the wallet.  If you had to choose an SO - not a client - and he had to have one of these two deficiencies, which would you choose?

Honestly?

"Everyone says" sex becomes less important as the relationship ages. Data also proves the odds of divorce go up with time.

Given that, light in the pants matters less in the long run (sorry for the play on words) and the money would mean more when I'm old(er). I'd rather be awarded half of a big wallet than half of a big cock.


HH

Money is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Guys with less don't really do all that worst statistically. With all of the new drugs for above the neck and below the waist, I suspect that any of us could  have anything we want with the right amount of money. The first provider I met was married to a guy with a pencil dick and she loved him to death. It turned out his dick and brain were in a close race and she was tired of being poor and liked to fuck. Translation: money can't buy you everything, but it usually gets you want or at the very least, what you want right now.

-- Modified on 7/23/2006 9:15:18 AM

I wouldn't make a choice based on either of those two.  I never have and I can't see me starting.

I'd choose an SO who gets me hot mentally and physically.  One who loves me and respects me as much as I do him.

The wallet and the pants really don't impact on whether I fall in love - and stay in love.

-- Modified on 7/23/2006 9:34:42 AM

Personally, for me -- right now because of my age -- money could make a whole lot of difference. And I don't mean using someone for their money or that they have to be stinking rich. I mean that being able to go out and enjoy a nice dinner when we want and not have to cook, being able to take a trip or two a year (vacation), not being tied to a house payment with no money left over, and not being able to pay medical bills if one of us gets sick. The latter one is the most important, I think.  

So, the answer for me would be:

1)  If we were both really young and healthy and lived in a cabin on the beach and surfed all day, then "NO" money would not be important.

2)  If I were taking care of someone sick (which I've had to do several times in my life), then "YES" money is important.

3)  Is it my goal to meet someone with money? "NO"!  I hope I can have my own money. However, two paychecks certainly help.

Hugs,
Ciara


-- Modified on 7/23/2006 9:35:28 AM

I teach squirting with one small finger.  lmao
Seriously, i could overlook both if he has a heart and brain.
thesquirt,
Lacinda (Tacoma)

If they want both

Thank You

Will money get you through times of no sex better than sex will get you through times of no money?

I've lived through both, so I'd have to choose the sex.

You can always find a way to get money if you think and work real hard.

Sex has always seemed more elusive.

As long as he is hard, I can get off and assuming he is pretty good looking and 5"10 or taller.

So size doesn't do much for me & I despise disproportionally big penises.

Although,I would prefer a pretty penis over an ugly one.

A medium size one will do me fine, plus I would like to love him too.

I would like a bigger than average wallet - but not too RICH as there is something romantic in two people struggling together.

If he was too rich we would solve that by giving to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation as I heard they were in desperate need of a cash infusion.

xo Lisa

-- Modified on 7/23/2006 6:09:10 PM

lol!  perhaps in all of the answers you have ever given!  this one is the most interesting.  probably one that encapsulates a lot of realistic thoughts!  in  a very polite manner.  However, most of the women that I dated when young (with few exceptions) really were selecting a mate who could "provide"!  perhaps it was that I went to grad school in a med school... and mostly nursing students were chasing the med students... and the poor grad students came in 3rd!!!!  I kid you not.

Mind you - there is nothing wrong with that!  heck... even I married an MD! lol!  

Much as it pains me to say that I agree with you, more than I would wish to admit!... I also say that it should be tempered... with the comment that if talking of marriage or similar SOs.... the goal of the relationship should be cooperation.... and not competition....  and I found myself married to someone who sees EVERY human relationship, including marriage, as a competition....

My salary is bigger than yours...
I am smarter than you...
I can run faster and or longer than you....
I do more sports than you...
I am better looking than you...
I dress better than you....
I, I, I, I,
and for that it is worth - I half expected her to say, I'm a bigger dick than you! lol!

so, a lot of things in your post here, that really hit home with me... but not on the hobbiest side.... on the civie reality side.  Think that others may feel the same.  Sadly, this has done in a lot of marriages.

-- Modified on 7/23/2006 8:40:52 PM

I'm not talking about competition for Heaven's sake.  I think you read that part wrong. I'm talking about "love alone does not make you happy."  I found that out the hard way. It sounds like your situation is completely different than what I'm describing, but I understand your plight. It also sounds like you're always talking about your ex and the negative years you had with her. It's also perceived that you may think a post relates to your life (which mine doesn't). But that's okay. I appreciate your honesty.

For years I only went for the poor guy because I loved him -- quite the opposite of your ex-wife. Unfortunately, finances are the number-one reason for failed marriages. Read the stats. After that, it's just boredom or cheating.

I also stated different options depending on what the situation is at the moment. I don't think anyone can answer this question honestly until they're put into this particular  situation. I will only marry if I love someone and not just because of money. But I'm also more aware that I can make it on my own, too. I'm just saying that at my age why would I want to marry a bum -- someone who only depends on me for finances (unless, of course, he gets sick -- different story)? No thanks! Been there, done that. I'm too independent. I'd rather be alone. Two people in love that can live comfortably is much better than two poor people in love (once the infatuation wears off) that live miserably and resent each other for it.

Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 7/23/2006 10:10:57 PM

there is pretty vs. ugly?  What,sil vous plait, are the attributes of a pretty boner?

I await your reply and until then please know that 'I feel pretty'....  

-- Modified on 7/24/2006 9:07:35 AM

If he were just a lover, someone I wouldn't have a family with, marry, etc. I guess a great penis would be favorable, as long as he knows how to use it.  

If I were looking for someone to have a family with, the size of his penis would not support our family (unless he had a "traveling freak of nature penis") so I guess money would be more important in this case.  

Penis size does not dictate a person's skills in the bedroom, by the way, unless he is unusually small or large.  It's like saying the size of a woman's breasts makes her better or worse in bed.

A fantastic lover without money vs. a terrible lover with money, that would require much more thought.

Kate Bishop

You wrote 'It's like saying the size of a woman's breasts makes her better or worse in bed.'

Kate, I get the overall gist of this part of your message and your point about size and skill is well taken (and appreciated).  However your analogy above is somewhat off-point because breasts are not genitals.  A more valid analogy might be the relative tightness of a women's vagina.  Some guys might say that this is important just as some women will say that penis size is important.  Others, from each gender, will argue that neither is the most important thing but it is how our respective parts are used that really matters.    

In any case, just an observation from my perspective.  The penis size/breast size comaprison is apples/oranges when the subject is engaging in skillful sex.  

Point taken . . .

But, isn't the tightness of the vagina relative?  I mean, a guy can't (well, he shouldn't) go around saying the woman he was with is loose if his penis is the width of a number two pencil.  

Kate

The tight pussy thing is another BS concept borne of ubiquitous bad porn!  

I was with a provider once who kept on nattering on about the relative tightness of her quim.  I never noticed, even through a 4 hour session (her idea not mine)  It's a squishy area my tool likes to visit- I am not too concerned about whether she can constrict my anaaconda- but how good the sensation feels...

But then again, I think we overthink alot of stuff here...

The tight pussy thing is another BS concept borne of ubiquitous bad porn!  

I was with a provider once who kept on nattering on about the relative tightness of her quim.  I never noticed, even through a 4 hour session (her idea not mine)  It's a squishy area my tool likes to visit- I am not too concerned about whether she can constrict my anaaconda- but how good the sensation feels...

But then again, I think we overthink alot of stuff here...

you can always oil up the breasts, squeeze them together as tight as you like and voila.

Works for me.

A woman has 100 times more stuff on her than you'll ever use.  Sort of like Windows XP.

It drives you crazy, but unlike Windows, it does it in a nice way.

women don't need two guys standing around your 10" to 19" monitor to figure out how to alleviate your virus. Wink!

Hugs,
Ciara

-- Modified on 7/24/2006 4:29:56 PM