• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Melania NOT Moving

Trophy Wife
a younger, attractive woman who marries a rich man for his money.

Regret
the sensation of having made a huge mistake.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Trophy Wife
a younger, attractive woman who marries a rich man for his money.

Regret
the sensation of having made a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

Not the definition of trophy wife


Trophy wife is an informal term for a wife, usually young and attractive, who is regarded as a status symbol for the husband, who is often older or unattractive, but usually wealthy.


If I were to guess, I would say the primary reason they marry them is for love.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Not the definition of trophy wife


Trophy wife is an informal term for a wife, usually young and attractive, who is regarded as a status symbol for the husband, who is often older or unattractive, but usually wealthy.
Click to expand...

I think that's pretty close to what I said.

If I were to guess, I would say the primary reason they marry them is for love.
Click to expand...

I agree: the love of wealth and the things it can buy.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I think that's pretty close to what I said.



I agree: the love of wealth and the things it can buy.
Click to expand...

It isn't what you said. The actual definition doesn't say why they are attracted to each other.

Which is just as legitimate as any other reason. You just have to Google the phrase "he is a good provider"
 
BobTheCoward said:
It isn't what you said. The actual definition doesn't say why they are attracted to each other.

Which is just as legitimate as any other reason. You just have to Google the phrase "he is a good provider"
Click to expand...

I'm sure Trump's current marriage is as full of legitimate love as his first two marriages were. The ones that ended in divorce because of adultery.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I know a lot of failed marriages that began in love.
Click to expand...

And vows of fidelity, and to never separate until death. Those are the usual things made in weddings. Promises, oaths, swearing to forsake all others. It's almost as if someone who violates their marriage oaths is a liar and a cheat, deserving of contempt, and not at all an honorable person worthy of respect.

But I suppose I'm one of those oldfashioned people who value honesty, loyalty, keeping one's word, and so forth. "Family values" is what some people call that. Too bad there's not a political party for people who have those sort of values.
 
TragicMonkey said:
And vows of fidelity, and to never separate until death. Those are the usual things made in weddings. Promises, oaths, swearing to forsake all others. It's almost as if someone who violates their marriage oaths is a liar and a cheat, deserving of contempt, and not at all an honorable person worthy of respect.

But I suppose I'm one of those oldfashioned people who value honesty, loyalty, keeping one's word, and so forth. "Family values" is what some people call that. Too bad there's not a political party for people who have those sort of values.
Click to expand...

That is changing the subject. The subject is love...not family values.
 
TragicMonkey said:
If you love someone, you're permitted to break the oaths you swore to the previous person you loved? And then do that same thing again when the next one comes along?
Click to expand...

How someone should treat someone they loved at one point is a separate question from if someone loved someone at one point.
 
BobTheCoward said:
How someone should treat someone they loved at one point is a separate question from if someone loved someone at one point.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe love switches on and off.

If you don't, if you believe in love that's supposed to be perpetual --which is the theoretical basis of marriage in this culture-- then "falling out of love" with someone is proof they never were truly in love to begin with.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Only if you believe love switches on and off.

If you don't, if you believe in love that's supposed to be perpetual --which is the theoretical basis of marriage in this culture-- then "falling out of love" with someone is proof they never were truly in love to begin with.
Click to expand...

If it meant society viewed it as never truly in love to begin with, that society probably wouldn't have invented the phrase "falling out of love."

As it is, the definition of love only references intensity. It doesn't mention duration.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
If it meant society viewed it as never truly in love to begin with, that society probably wouldn't have invented the phrase "falling out of love."

As it is, the definition of love only references intensity. It doesn't mention duration.
Click to expand...

Except in marriage vows, where duration is traditionally "until death do us part". Clearly the sentiment is supposed to last the subjects' remaining lifespan.

I suppose we could research Trump's three weddings and see if they included that bit, or substituted "until someone better comes along".
 
TragicMonkey said:
Except in marriage vows, where duration is traditionally "until death do us part". Clearly the sentiment is supposed to last the subjects' remaining lifespan.

I suppose we could research Trump's three weddings and see if they included that bit, or substituted "until someone better comes along".
Click to expand...

Adherence to the vow at some future point is irrelevant in determining if at some earlier point a person had feelings of deep affection.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Adherence to the vow at some future point is irrelevant in determining if at some earlier point a person had feelings of deep affection.
Click to expand...

Only if you believe a mutable "deep affection" is equal to love, and that marriage is about the former and not the latter as it explicitly claims in its ceremonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom