Caracta:

I'm talking in terms of dependability. Not for greed, emotional robbery or whatever. Depending on someone doesn't mean you are greedy. I think you need to let us know the women you are talking about here...because you are coming down too hard and i'm beginning to see improper generalizations. Who are the "they" here?

I did not start "improper generalizations" ma'am, the OP did when she decided to lump men, women, together with hungry skanks who call themselves girls ad children who call himself boys. "They" are the women who have decided to date men based on his pocket because they will be happier. This is the issue at hand according to the OP

Depending on a friend is completely different from what we are talking of here. We are talking of a woman saying she will not date a man except he is of a certain financial status.

That is not depending, that is purposely finding the richest guy from the lot and sinking their teeth into it like a vampire.

Now when we talk of "Dependability" (wow that's a real word? Cool) it is related with you having a guy who might not even be better off but you know he is there to pick you up when you need help or even put you on an allowance.

The only way a woman can make you a millionaire in life is if you were a billionaire


[size=66pt]WORD[/size]

Dhurmynick: The only way a woman can make you a millionaire in life is if you were a billionaire


[size=66pt]WORD[/size]

The OP and her supporters just shot all the women on NL in the foot with this thread.

Dhurmynick: Never listen to what a woman says — always
pay attention to what she actually does
instead. The two are quite frequently worlds
apart, because women are masters at self-
deceit and equally adept at lying to
themselves about their own behavior.

Cross-cultural evidence from different
societies consistently reveals that what
women really want from men are economic
resources. Studies with college coeds show
that when shown photographs of men
dressed in high-status uniforms (suits, ties,
expensive watches, etc.) and low-status
uniforms, these women would be significantly
more willing to enter into relationships with
the more expensively-attired males
regardless of the man's physical
appearance .

To a woman, attraction is simple: green is
very good-looking. And these same studies
found that college men were convinced that
magnifying their status (implying greater
earning power) would lead to increased
sexual activity.

Thus men were forced to rely on such
attraction tactics as driving expensive cars,
bragging about accomplishments, and
emphasizing present or future earning power,
while women, on the other hand, packaged
themselves as commodities with make-up,
jewelry, hairstyles, and shape-revealing
clothing.
Evolution says women want more sex, not
money

I concur wt every part of this except the bolded which I will help rephrase as thus :
women want more sex, when there is plenty of money (coz then there is little else to worry about)

Mynd_44:
I did not start "improper generalizations" ma'am, the OP did when she decided to lump men, women, together with hungry skanks who call themselves girls ad children who call himself boys. "They" are the women who have decided to date men based on his pocket because they will be happier. This is the issue at hand according to the OP

Depending on a friend is completely different from what we are talking of here. We are talking of a woman saying she will not date a man except he is of a certain financial status.

That is not depending, that is purposely finding the richest guy from the lot and sinking their teeth into it like a vampire.

Uhoooohhh!

Now when we talk of "Dependability" (wow that's a real word? Cool) it is related with you having a guy who might not even be better off but you know he is there to pick you up when you need help or even put you on an allowance.

Exactly my point! We are on the same page then

Jbluv55:
I concur wt every part of this except the bolded which I will help rephrase as thus :
women want more sex, when there is plenty of money (coz then there is little else to worry about)

Most of them.

Caracta:

Uhoooohhh!



Exactly my point! We are on the same page then

A friend can call me up and ask to lend some money cos he/she knows I can afford to lend or share, that's being dependable and also my GF can do so as she sees you as some backup income she takes risk and she falls.

A skank sees not see you as backup, she sees you as her ATM card.

Mynd_44:
The OP and her supporters just shot all the women on NL in the foot with this thread.

I think you didn't understand her point 9or maybe i didn't). Anyway, let her come first and clear issues before i descend heavily on her

Jbluv55:
I concur. No two humans are equal. There has to always be a quality of one human that makes them attractive (including cash).

But somethings last longer than others ........ so you may make yourself as butiful as a peacock just so you cud chase after some man's money. If/when the beauty fades, he may chase after another.

Its still a two way thing thoh

Right brother. Na wetin i for even ask OP, unto how some naija women go take de pursue their happiness when their beauty don fade. I mean when they don dey turn smeagle. Abi dem no de need happiness then ?

Hard to argue against the op. However, there is this one small hole in there. The op happens to be talking about adults, not so? It does feel a little offensive to have to teach a grown person what matters in life and what doesn't. I will not argue that being adult means that you necessarily know everything or that people do not grow up failing to appreciate life properly. But I will argue that it is not one adult's responsibility to train another adult.

I should not need to show a woman what should make her happy or what to do about it. Happiness is just as fleeting an emotion as you claim love is too. It's an elusive thing to pursue. And a hard thing to hold. But it is obvious that the most content people and the most fulfilled are responsible people who do not fail to meet their responsibilities. Adulthood is all about responsibility. An adult woman should be a responsible woman. In relationships she should not need me to teach her that her happiness is tied to her ability to hold up her own end of the stick not to how much I've got in the bank.

None of that means that she will not need me to teach her that. She may. But it is not my responsibility. If I do it, it is because of the premium that I have placed on her not because it is my duty to. Women are allowed to pursue their happiness. If they think money can buy it, by all means they should go after money however they deem fit, but just as they have every right to pursue their definition of happiness however they please they also have the responsibility to bear the consequences or outcomes of such pursuits.

So if women, in their majority, favor men with money because they equate money to happiness, they should be prepared to bear the consequence of being called gold-diggers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For the men, all I know is that nature has designed life such that men cannot help wanting women so they will try to get and offer whatever will give them favor with the women they want. The man who doesn't runs the risk of never getting women or the woman he likes.

Finally, I believe that happiness has a relationship to money but an indirect one. Money is necessary for fulfilling responsibilities generally, although not always and not in all cases. However money itself is a responsibility. So I would not trust it to people who think it buys or is itself happiness. I might as well pile the notes and assets and set fire to them for all the good it'll do to entrust it to a woman who equates it to happiness.

Pedro JP:

Right brother. Na wetin i for even ask OP, unto how some naija women go take de pursue their happiness when their beauty don fade. I mean when they don dey turn smeagle. Abi dem no de need happiness then ?

Abi

Men this ur siggy na smtn to really ponder on

Caracta:

I think you didn't understand her point 9or maybe i didn't). Anyway, let her come first and clear issues before i descend heavily on her

Have fun. Here are some parts of the OP

Why are 'Nigerian women' money conscious?
Really the answer isn't far fetched: They are simply pursuing happiness.

Now while some may say that a woman should be happy with a man who loves her, we might want to ask ourselves: Is love really enough? Can you trust an emotion that can be so easily extinguished just as quickly as it was sparked?

Money is the next best thing after love. Seriously, lets not deceive ourselves here, money makes the world go round. And who says it can't buy you happiness?
To people who are superficial(and that's not a crime), money is happiness. Even to the less superficial ones, it does have the same effect.

please chase after your money and let the women chase after you, and stop complaining

The last part actually got me laughing

In Lawloy's words, "keep digging"

The opprobrium is an act of selfishness from a
certain class of women, mostly the educated
and troublesome unmarried lawyers and those
with feminist inclinations. The future of
marriage is now pegged on unbridled
consumerism and an unprecedented worship
of crass materialism by women.
A friend lamented recently on Facebook:
“Unlike days of yore, this Matrimonial Property
Bill 2013 is indicative of how latter day
marriages are defined: anticipating separation,
divorce, cash dividends, property settlements
et al. Sad.”
And one Ochieng Vincent aptly tweeted:
“Walking away from a marriage was never an
option during our parents’ time. That was
their winning formula.”

It escapes me. When it is the cash or the
property of men, women are very vociferous for
a 50-50 sharing arrangement in the event of
the marriage going south. Curiously when it is
the woman who has accumulated the wealth
and ended up with a stay-at-home hubby, the
rule book has to be revised.

These double standards are what the Bill is
trying to address and at least save men from
a generation of women who love men who are
tender with their legal tender.
Money has afforded women power to be
promiscuous, fool around and behave like men
at their worst when loaded.

This materialistic approach to relationships is
the bane of modern marriages. Women want
the best of both worlds. Keep their money,
while recklessly raiding the bed mate’s
account.

Women have the arcane ability to be shrewdly
generous and scarily selfish simultaneously.
A woman can burn a man’s quid with a
smack of self-righteous satisfaction. But for a
man to use a woman’s money, he must
swallow his ego, one that is normally the
size of a small planet.
When it comes to flaunting power, nothing like
Eve with cash and a title reminds Adam what
a tiny nimble he is in the food chain. Many
women still subscribe to 20th century dictum
that a man’s mullah is for ‘us’ but her purse
strings are hers alone.
Just why they were on cloud nine in the event
of a divorce, they could milk half the empire
you bruised your butt on the grindstone to
build.
While their contribution as wives is
immeasurable, we want to safeguard
individuals (male and female) who might want
to take advantage of any slight to laugh their
way to ‘benki mashinane.’
In families where the wife who is breadwinner,
the hubby dies faster than the national
mortality age dictates.

I know many middle-aged men who are
psychologically dodo and alienated from their
families because they failed to provide. They
are a relief to the woman the sooner they’re
planted Six Feet under via natural attrition or
otherwise. The Amended Marriage Bill is the
best 50th anniversary of Kenyan independence
gift for God fearing, hardworking men. This
way you only pay the spouse what is
proportionate to her contribution.

Both parties win. This will also safeguard
men, unlike in the West where women wield
unhealthy amounts of power and men are just
there to be seen, and nor heard.

Oh Mynd pls don't play dumb on this thread. We all know that when we use 'men' and 'women' on NL, it really is suppose to denote a proportion whether minute or large

Besides if you took time to understand the write up, you would obviously see i wasn't generalizing there.

Lol @ Mynd. I'll wait for her

Some Naija women like the guys for their money, some like guys because they have a fit body, some guys like girls because they have big bóobs and big yansh. It is just people perception of the world, no woman would ever date tramp for obvious reason. People have different preferences, it's just not all generalized.

Dhurmynick: The only way a woman can make you a millionaire in life is if you were a billionaire


[size=66pt]WORD[/size]

Good. One wonders y masters tell their servants after years of service to avoid women. Parents tell their male children at their "economic" ages to steer clear of women. I don't really know y they say dat yet married but sounds kinda there is sthing bad about dez women.

Someone shud tell me y they say dat if wat the OP is saying about Naija women's source of happiness bam.

Nice article


I like money, sure-- but when did society's love for money begin to trump everything else?

There was a time when the label of "gold digger" was a stigma or something to be ashamed of. "She/he is a gold digger," you would warn your pal. Nowadays, it seems dating or marrying for money is not only out in the open, but also touted as something to be proud of.

Bravo's Matchmaker Millionaire, (which I confess, I love) is the perfect example. The delightfully obnoxious Patti Stanger plays matchmaker to the affluent, usually setting up wealthy men with young Hollywood model types, who all swear that they're really searching for true love.

Yeah, okay.

Although, to them, love comes in the form of no-limit credit cards and Infinity pools. The premise of this business makes for great reality television, not a sustainable relationship. Why would anyone, millionaire or not, date someone who is so clearly motivated by a bank account?

Let's start here:

In 1994, 26-year-old Anna Nicole Smith married 89-year-old oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall. I'm not saying they didn't share some (creepy) love between them, even if their first date was a lap dance...

Their brief 13-month union lasted until dead did them part; Marshall died, leaving his buxom bride half of his $1.6 billion fortune.

What did Marshall have to lose in this deal? Well, he wasn't exactly a spring chicken if you know what I mean. Marshall wanted to spend his final months with Playboy's Miss May. At the end of his life, he didn't need to buy a new car or a new house, he just wanted some company. And Smith probably just wanted some major cash for very little time and work. Win-Win for both of them.

Now, fast forward to February this year when London's Daily Mail published a story about a woman named Kim Perez, who reinvented herself to attract and marry a wealthy man, which she did. Her incredibly blatant account (which you can read here) is both revolting and mesmerizing for a couple different reasons.

First, she is unabashedly frank about her desire for the "finer things in life" and her goal to marry someone with money. Usually, people are reluctant to admit their shallowness and superficiality, but Perez flaunts it like a Louis Vuitton bag.

For fortysomething Perez, the best way to fall in love was by eliminating her accent, lying about her past and buying hair extensions-- or you know, tricking her future husband into thinking she was something she wasn't.

But now that she's "living the dream," Perez's daily life "consists of shopping, then going to the gym or for lunch." To help pass the time, her husband has also set her up with a fake-tanning business, "because there is only so much shopping you can do!"

After she was married, Perez eventually came clean to her husband about her humble upbringing and all the changes she had undergone to become someone that might be appealing to him. He laughed it off and found it "funny."

Not only didn't he seem to mind that he was being exploited, but he also found her self-loathing humorous. Which suggests that this relationship works perfectly-- she is unabashedly superficial, while he is unforgivingly self-centered. This partnership will continue to work, just as long as the cash is flowing. Perez gets her lunches and shopping sprees, while her husband gets the ficitious dutiful and beautiful trophy wife he fell for.

But what happens if the cash stops flowing? Does anyone think that far ahead when they're in love?

As you can see, gold digging works. So, maybe that's why it's becoming more accepted and... taught.

While I was at grad school pursuing higher education, Chinese girls in my peer group were attending school in pursuit of wealthy husbands. For around $3,000, The Beijing Moral Education Centre for
Women will train young females how to become more attractive to affluent men. Students learn varied skills and techniques, which range from makeup application to tea pouring skills.

In an interview with The Vancouver Sun, the school's founder and instructor, Shao Tong, says that the school improves women by "nurturing internal qualities and developing potential." Potential for
what, exactly? Who knows?

The Centre has become a breeding ground for love connections since it opened last year, boasting more than 30 matches in just the past few months. Affluent men must pay the school around $5,000 for meet-and-greets with eligible bachelorettes.

These men go into these preconceived situations fully knowing that these women are more interested in their pocketbooks than really finding a soulmate.

Perhaps, it's easier for men to go into these setups, because they know there wont be any surprises? If you marry for money, than ostensibly, the marriage will last as long as the money does, right? There's no need to worry about falling out of love or being unfaithful, especially if that's a stipulation in your prenup.

And what exactly are these women getting themselves into? Mercedes and mansions, that's what. As long as they continue pouring tea the right way and looking the perfect part, they will always be taken care of financially. So what about love and trust? If you are so bold as to go to a school which specializes in exploiting others, then you probably don't care too much about fidelity.

Bottom line: these financially contingent relationships will work -- just as long as both parties don't actually care about being "in love." Love makes things too emotional, too messy, and it can often get in the way of any successful gold digging business transaction.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/valley-girl-brain/201107/be-the-best-gold-digger-you-can-be

uj_sizzle: Oh Mynd pls don't play dumb on this thread. We all know that when we use 'men' and 'women' on NL, it really is suppose to denote a proportion whether minute or large

Besides if you took time to understand the write up, you would obviously see i wasn't generalizing there.

I am also not generalizing, I have met some straight forward women and I even know one or two on this thread I can put my life on. I am chatting with one via whatsapp now sef so I can't do that.

Read this

Mynd_44:
"They" are the women who have decided to date men based on his pocket because they will be happier. This is the issue at hand according to the OP

Depending on a friend is completely different from what we are talking of here. We are talking of a woman saying she will not date a man except he is of a certain financial status.

That is not depending, that is purposely finding the richest guy from the lot and sinking their teeth into it like a vampire.

Now when we talk of "Dependability" (wow that's a real word? Cool) it is related with you having a guy who might not even be better off but you know he is there to pick you up when you need help or even put you on an allowance.

Ty Lannister: Hard to argue against the op. However, there is this one small hole in there. The op happens to be talking about adults, not so? It does feel a little offensive to have to teach a grown person what matters in life and what doesn't. I will not argue that being adult means that you necessarily know everything or that people do not grow up failing to appreciate life properly. But I will argue that it is not one adult's responsibility to train another adult.

I should not need to show a woman what should make her happy or what to do about it. Happiness is just as fleeting an emotion as you claim love is too. It's an elusive thing to pursue. And a hard thing to hold. But it is obvious that the most content people and the most fulfilled are responsible people who do not fail to meet their responsibilities. Adulthood is all about responsibility. An adult woman should be a responsible woman. In relationships she should not need me to teach her that her happiness is tied to her ability to hold up her own end of the stick not to how much I've got in the bank.

None of that means that she will not need me to teach her that. She may. But it is not my responsibility. If I do it, it is because of the premium that I have placed on her not because it is my duty to. Women are allowed to pursue their happiness. If they think money can buy it, by all means they should go after money however they deem fit, but just as they have every right to pursue their definition of happiness however they please they also have the responsibility to bear the consequences or outcomes of such pursuits.

So if women, in their majority, favor men with money because they equate money to happiness, they should be prepared to bear the consequence of being called gold-diggers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For the men, all I know is that nature has designed life such that men cannot help wanting women so they will try to get and offer whatever will give them favor with the women they want. The man who doesn't runs the risk of never getting women or the woman he likes.

Finally, I believe that happiness has a relationship to money but an indirect one. Money is necessary for fulfilling responsibilities generally, although not always and not in all cases. However money itself is a responsibility. So I would not trust it to people who think it buys or is itself happiness. I might as well pile the notes and assets and set fire to them for all the good it'll do to entrust it to a woman who equates it to happiness.

Thank you for understanding the post and making an intelligent contribution

Mynd_44:
False. ,en don't make money solely so women will follow them anyone who does is an infant. Men make money to better their future and prepare for the time when they have their own family. The make money for their parents, siblings and providing for their family who provided for them while they grew up.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Men make money and acquire wealth both for their responsibilities and too improve their chances of getting a mate. This is a FACT. But for this natural impulse to impress women, most men would not care to live in caves and run around in rags. Men are by definition functional or spartan. They would not know why a room should be pink or clothes should be made in layers and metals and plastics and rocks have to be woven into them unless a woman was somewhere to tell them. We make money because we have responsibility and because we want women to like us.

The same thing should be applicable to women, make your own darned money and stop being a parasite.

I totally agree. That is, if the woman thinks that more money is more happiness. She should go and make her own.

You mentioned that men don't show women their desirable qualities but you forget that showing these traits take time and in that time, they are likely to get stuck in the "friendzone" by these women they are trying to show.

In a thread recently. A lot of women here said they prefer a man who comes to them and lays it down to them that he wants to date them and not friendship first. How is that supposed to happened without showing off? How does his patience gets tested? How will he caring ability get tested?

Women are their own enemies and they keep falling victim to men who don't care about them but take advantage of their stupîdity

I totally agree. A man who ttakes relationship seriously and means to put something meaningful into it does not flash. And that singular fact is the thing that costs him the interest of the women who talk about money. Na dem plenty woman dey talk say e dull.

@jay bee: GODDAMN!

Ty Lannister:
The two are not mutually exclusive. Men make money and acquire wealth both for their responsibilities and too improve their chances of getting a mate. This is a FACT. But for this natural impulse to impress women, most men would not care to live in caves and run around in rags. Men are by definition functional or spartan. They would not know why a room should be pink or clothes should be made in layers and metals and plastics and rocks have to be woven into them unless a woman was somewhere to tell them. We make money because we have responsibility and because we want women to like us.

Please substitute "we" for "I" there. I am not making my life better so women can like me. I am making my life better to secure my future not having a higher chances of getting a mate. I will rather have a mate who is ugly and intelligent not moved my my millions than one who is moved. Hell I will rather stay single than try to impress a woman with my monetary value

I totally agree. That is, if the woman thinks that more money is more happiness. She should go and make her own.

It is so simple and easy. If she says money makes her happy, go work and make more and earn respect

I totally agree. A man who ttakes relationship seriously and means to put something meaningful into it does not flash. And that singular fact is the thing that costs him the interest of the women who talk about money. Na dem plenty woman dey talk say e dull.

The dull thing is really common hence the saying that "if you want a woman these days, you must be a jerk" it is going round a lot because more and more women don't seem to care about other factors except the "flashy" side of you and yet it is this same crop of women who will come out to condemn a man who says he does not love his wife or have sex with her, dumps her for the next skank he can find

@ Jay bee, I won't have a problem with a woman chasing money around if the OP and peep with the same reasoning don't come here to say things like "why must the man want sex" or "why is it that Nigerian men don't dedicate their lives to women"

if a woman wants money she by digging into rich men, she can as well agree that she is what she is; A Gold digger and the man does not have to be caring, loving or even faithful

Matthew briggs: *Scracthes head*

From reading this epistle I am made to understand the following.

>Nigerian women are gold diggers because they want to live a happy life.

> Nigerian Women believe the richer a man is the more the chances of them been happy with the man because Money can buy happiness.

>The happiness of a Nigerian woman is tied to money.

> To get any Nigerian woman including the op. You stand a higher chance if you spend massively on her.

> This also means Nigerian women are like properties, commodities that can be bought via proxy i.e give the happiness aka money you can have her.

> This also means as a guy all you have to freaking care about when in a relationship with a Nigerian woman is not her feeling nor her emotional need but how to make money, more money. You can cheat, abuse her, insult her and she will still worship you.

> This also means the happiness of a Nigerian women is tied to the Nigerian man. He is like a god who controls her happiness by how much he is willing to spend.

I can go on and on...
But my question is as a Nigerian women is this a very good narrative for you.

Is money truly what you see in a man that defines whether you will be happy with him.

I cannot answer this question for you.

But personally I think women women go after men with money not because they seek happiness like the OP stated but because they seek to live a comfortable life free from worries (at least financial ones), the average women loves a man who can provide her with a sense of financial security ....

This I think is a better reason.

#Mathew Briggs

LMAO!!!!

This is getting hot.

Mynd_44:
Please substitute "we" for "I" there. I am not making my life better so women can like me. I am making my life better to secure my future not having a higher chances of getting a mate. I will rather have a mate who is ugly and intelligent not moved my my millions than one who is moved. Hell I will rather stay single than try to impress a woman with my monetary value

But you see you too will have to substitute 'I' for 'men' in your own post because I know men who try to make money to be more appealing to women and men who try to make money both for that reason and for their responsibilities (shouldn't I mention that a large portion of these responsibilities come from having a woman or women too? )

It is so simple and easy. If she says money makes her happy, go work and make more and earn respect

Jay bee's article appears to show that gold-digging is becoming more and more recognized as 'work'. I know, it's crazy, right? But I wonder how long it took before prostitution and harlotry was thought of as salaried work

The dull thing is really common hence the saying that "if you want a woman these days, you must be a jerk" it is going round a lot because more and more women don't seem to care about other factors except the "flashy" side of you and yet it is this same crop of women who will come out to condemn a man who says he does not love his wife or have sex with her, dumps her for the next skank he can find

It's a bona fide crazy world we live in, bros.

Ty Lannister: Hard to argue against the op. However, there is this one small hole in there. The op happens to be talking about adults, not so? It does feel a little offensive to have to teach a grown person what matters in life and what doesn't. I will not argue that being adult means that you necessarily know everything or that people do not grow up failing to appreciate life properly. But I will argue that it is not one adult's responsibility to train another adult.

I should not need to show a woman what should make her happy or what to do about it. Happiness is just as fleeting an emotion as you claim love is too. It's an elusive thing to pursue. And a hard thing to hold. But it is obvious that the most content people and the most fulfilled are responsible people who do not fail to meet their responsibilities. Adulthood is all about responsibility. An adult woman should be a responsible woman. In relationships she should not need me to teach her that her happiness is tied to her ability to hold up her own end of the stick not to how much I've got in the bank.

None of that means that she will not need me to teach her that. She may. But it is not my responsibility. If I do it, it is because of the premium that I have placed on her not because it is my duty to. Women are allowed to pursue their happiness. If they think money can buy it, by all means they should go after money however they deem fit, but just as they have every right to pursue their definition of happiness however they please they also have the responsibility to bear the consequences or outcomes of such pursuits.

So if women, in their majority, favor men with money because they equate money to happiness, they should be prepared to bear the consequence of being called gold-diggers. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For the men, all I know is that nature has designed life such that men cannot help wanting women so they will try to get and offer whatever will give them favor with the women they want. The man who doesn't runs the risk of never getting women or the woman he likes.

Finally, I believe that happiness has a relationship to money but an indirect one. Money is necessary for fulfilling responsibilities generally, although not always and not in all cases. However money itself is a responsibility. So I would not trust it to people who think it buys or is itself happiness. I might as well pile the notes and assets and set fire to them for all the good it'll do to entrust it to a woman who equates it to happiness.

U said it all but i gbadu ur last sentence die.

She didn't say money brings happiness, did she?

Matthew Briggs: ...But personally I think women women go after men with money not because they seek happiness like the OP stated but because they seek to live a comfortable life free from worries (at least financial ones)...

What's the difference really?

Lol Matthew Briggs, very smart
But don't you think chasing money because it's a guarantee of financial security(like you mentioned) is happiness?

Please define 'happiness' ?

Clara Chime