# TV Show Mob Wives & Rammona Rizzo



## Writ (Jun 16, 2012)

I don't know if anyone on here watches Mob Wives? I've just started catching up on the many episodes I've missed via the help of the internet. This has got to be the best show I've ever seen on TV.

These Italian women from New York go hard. They verbally fight and go to fists more than any adult females I've ever seen. In a way they remind me of Black-American teenage girls or Black-American women in their very early 20's. 

Rammona Rizzo came in during season two. She's a good dresser and has always been around money. She married a rich Arab man and moved to the Middle East with him until that became a problem apparently. Her current boyfriend is in prison now I guess. Anyways... she has said (in an radio/youtube interview I won't show her because women in bikinis are posted on the walls) that "a real man" never tells a woman his business. Suggesting her boyfriend that's locked up is a "real man" because he has never fully disclosed his life to her and has kept her in the dark. 

*Question: *From farmers to barbers to machinists do all "real men" refrain from fully disclosing themselves to their significant others? 

For personality insight and a physical look at Rammona Rizzo here she is in an interview:

[video=youtube;_KEePskiKiM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KEePskiKiM[/video]

P.S. The toughest woman on the show was Drita an Albanian woman. Karen and Rammona have their good qualities but I think their flaws is that they came up from money and families with power and they're like their bully families that like to intimidate people. A lot of "Wise Guys" are bullies that never go out in a blaze of glory against Federal Agents but instead act servile to them and allow them to arrest and enslave them in prison. But they want every average hardworking Joe to fear them. Hence, the constant yapping about "what they'll do" and all the threats and *reasons *you should fear them. :roll: That's Karen and Rammona right there.

P.P.S. All the episodes of season two are good that I've seen so far. The Hell on Hells episode had three of the girls tussling again but the big Italian guys got involved in the end and were going to beat up some poor guy. One of those Italian men, ex-husband to one of the ladies on the show, turned out to have been a "rat" wearing a wire on her father! 

The Reunion part 1 and 2 provides more insight into the ladies and Rammona. She can dress very well. Very good looking woman too. I give her credit for sticking by her friend Karen when her father Sammy "The Bull" Gravano ratted. Karen has a black man and mulatta daughter too. Rammona's father disowned her for marrying an Arab man. All interesting twists and turns. 

Mob Wives 2 | Videos | VH1.com


----------



## JosephB (Jun 16, 2012)

Writ said:


> Anyways... she has said...that "a real man" never tells a woman his business.



I'm betting that has more to do with denial on her part. She just doesn't want to know. That way she doesn't have to think about how she gets her stuff and who gets hurt in the process. 



Writ said:


> From farmers to barbers to machinists do all "real men" refrain from fully disclosing themselves to their significant others?



"Real men" don't keep things from their wives. Or lie by omission -- which is more like it. That goes both ways, of course. If you’re not telling your spouse about something, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.


----------



## Writ (Jun 17, 2012)

My impression of her is that her view stems not from denial but from what she believes are gender roles.

I don't entirely agree with her although it might be unwise to tell your wife or girlfriend certain things. But even though I don't entirely agree with her in the real world she does have a point. For good or ill observation would suggest 99% of the female sex has a preference for males that exhibit what are regarded as attributes of the male gender: lies, promiscuity, and lack of full disclosure.

She does well for herself romantically and financially - and socially as well - so, she must know something about what she's talking about. Something but not everything. 

I'm impressed with all the big and nice houses (and apartments) the women on the New York show have. Drita the Albanian woman had an engagement ring with a big diamond in it appraised at over $100,000 dollars. Their men seem to make money hand-over-fist. According to Big Ang and Drita *all men cheat on their women. *

Where do you fall into that underlined part, Joseph? :lol:


----------



## JosephB (Jun 17, 2012)

Writ said:


> For good or ill observation would suggest 99% of the  female sex has a preference for males that exhibit what are regarded as  attributes of the male gender: lies, promiscuity, and lack of full  disclosure.



Who’s observation – yours? I can’t speak for 99% of women – but in my experience it’s about the opposite. I know some women are attracted to bad boys, but most of the women I know want a decent man.

I don’t know why you’re impressed these women or with any of their stuff or why you would put any value in what they have to say. If they married men in the mob, they don’t have any scruples. And their men don’t have any integrity -- so it’s no surprise that in their world all the men cheat. These are not good people. Why do people even watch this garbage?


----------



## Writ (Jun 17, 2012)

I don't want this to stray into a debate. And I'm not particularly "impressed" by these women, although I'm impressed with how tough that little Drita woman is and I think Ramona looks pretty fine. I'm impressed with the big and nice homes they have. I'm not the only one. Actually, I think I'm more in a minority of Americans or humans that would be critical of them or their mafia husbands and fathers or mafia associated husbands and fathers.

But I can be fair. "Bad men" can have their admirable or attractive qualities too. I also have to temper my judgement about the women of the show by reminding myself I neither grew up in their world nor stand in their shoes. 

What I meant by observation was just that most females complain about men being "dogs" and it logically follows they dated and found themselves attracted to men of those qualities. Or put it this way... womanizers and men the most successful with women always tell you women like men with X, Y, Z qualities. Basically "bad boys." And "bad boys" are regarded as "decent men." 

Most women aren't attracted to St. Francis of Assisi but to Clinton Eastwood Dirty Harry types and men hard to get because other women are after him and he needs not one of them because there are always "one of them" around to have in bed. 

And my point was - whether I fully agree with her or not - is that Ramona (she used to work for a prestigious law firm too) dates and marries rich, alpha males, and combined with the fact she's socially and financially successful she must know something about what she's talking about. Or would you listen to a dirty, homeless man, that can't get a woman and has never really made any "real money" about how to become financially successful and what traits a good woman has? No, you wouldn't. 

So, I was not as much impressed with Ramona as much as simply acknowledging her success in life and love. Drita is successful in this regard too. She was originally raised in the projects. Look at her now, she has a beautiful home and was filming in a rap video.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Here, these people post supportive comments about the people on the show and their values, by downing Junior for turning into a "snitch."  Five Families of New York City: Bonanno rat Hector Pagan Jr pulled trigger in recent murder of a Lucchese family mobster

On the other hand, I regard Junior's former pals to be bullies. I know they're dangerous men and have lots of money, but I don't care for them as bullies. *They want* people to be intimidated by them. Even the big, dumb ones with muscles all over their bodies. They would regard me as a big loser. So what. They also wouldn't be intimidating me. Today I prefer to develop a simple, honest, honorable life.



> The ex-husband of “Mob Wives” star Renee Graziano may have to answer   for a Mafia murder carried out just months before he assumed a featured   role in the show, sources told The Post.
> Hector Pagan, then a  Bonanno crime family associate, took part in the  robbery-murder of James  Donovan, a Lucchese family associate, in the  Gravesend section of  Brooklyn in July 2010, according to sources and  official documents.
> Roughly a year later — while the VH1 reality series was still taping — Pagan secretly became a DEA informant and taped wiseguys.





> *107 comments:*





> AnonymousMarch 25, 2012 9:52 PM
> 
> I  worked very hard as a nurse.now I'm on disability.I wish I had the  lavish homes and clothes and hair and cars as the mob wives but no  money. I hope jr. Gets what he deserves. I love carla and drita and  would love to meet the ladies someday.love the show.





> AnonymousMarch 27, 2012 8:27 PM
> 
> Speechless...  Poor Renee... She is already a hot mess and now Junior ratted on her  dad and skipped town... Probably gonna live next door to Karen's baby  daddy and their daughter in Arizona!!





> AnonymousApril 2, 2012 10:58 AM
> 
> I  hope that snitch rat scum get his telling tounge cut out and they rip  his still beatting heart out just like he did his ex wifes family how do  u tell on blood thats the lowest



Of course this was this too:



> AnonymousApril 9, 2012 10:37 PM
> 
> Whats  funny is I grew up on Staten Island. The Italian's that live on the  island are the worst people on earth. Since they are young children they  are told they are better than anyone because they are Italian.  Meanwhile they are NOTHING like real Italians from Italy. In fact "real  Italians despise these creatures. In Staten Island it is socially  acceptable to be involved in some way to organized crime.  "I gotta feed  my family". Is something that your bound to here if your unlucky enough  to be around these rat bastards...


----------



## JosephB (Jun 17, 2012)

Based on what you’re saying here, I don’t think you have any idea what most women want in a man. And I think it’s an insult to women to suggest 99% of them are looking for men with all those negative qualities. Maybe you need to stop taking your cues from movies and TV and get out more.

And not many people need to look to some tacky looking gold-digger on a reality show for advice on what it takes to be successful in life or have a successful relationship. What a load of nonsense.


----------



## Writ (Jun 17, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Based on what you’re saying here, I don’t think you have any idea what most women want in a man.



It's not simply coming from me but from womanizers. President Bill Clinton was a great womanizer and many if not most women in the United States (perhaps the world) regarded him as a sex symbol and ideal mate. 

I've been on this earth quite a long time and I'm familiar with the traits heterosexuals of both sexes find attractive in one another. "Alpha males" would not exist and be an oxymoron if you were correct.

Meek, poor, men like St. Francis of Assisi would be all star sex symbols with women chasing after them instead of the so called "rock stars" if you were correct. 

But you're not correct. And you're also placing a value judgment on male promiscuity. Perhaps it is an amoral trait? But regardless, females are more attracted to men that are promiscuous than men that are either virgins or rarely "get any." 

That's life on life terms. 



> And I think it’s an insult to women to suggest 99% of them are looking for men with all those negative qualities. Maybe you need to stop taking your cues from movies and TV and get out more.



#1. You assume those are "negative qualities." Perhaps they are actually positive qualities from a stand point of sexual selection if members of the opposite sex favor them? 

#2. I'm drawing from women themselves when they complain men are dogs etc. Because it logically follows that these women are not praising men as being great people with admirable fidelity and a rarity that a woman ever makes the choice of dating promiscuous men. 

#3. Rather than trying to make subtle personal insults towards me you might want to inform yourself on some of the science behind all of this.

#4. What constitutes a "decent man" can differ from culture to culture or subculture to subculture. 



> And not many people need to look to some tacky looking gold-digger on a reality show for advice on what it takes to be successful in life or have a successful relationship. What a load of nonsense.



I never said I looked to Ramona or the hit show _Mob Wives_ for advice on any of those things. In fact, I stated clearly, I don't entirely agree with Ramona. 

And my initial question didn't have to do with "success in relationships" but it was a question about Ramona's comment on what constitutes "a real man." 

Going back to my point #4 above here is Big Ang's son stating a guy spending over 20 years in prison for murder does not make him a bad guy. Actually, my Italian-American teacher, and practicing lawyer, that taught my contract law class told me just because someone goes to prison it does not make them a bad guy. 

I can tell you, having been raised in Black-America, and most Black-Americans being Protestant, that most of them have similar views. In fact, among my generation and younger, a "decent man" is regarded as having all of those things you regard as "negative traits." Working two low paying menial jobs does not make you a "decent man" in that culture but a sucker and loser. Murdering a person for $20,000 would make you a decent man and not being a "snitch" makes you decent man. In that culture (Black-American Hip Hop culture). 

*Note:* I did not say I subscribed to all those views. Nonetheless, I accept them as part of reality. Not much different than a returning Vietnam Vet during the late 1960's accepted anti-soldier and anti-Vietnam War views as part of American reality. 

Big Ang's son: "AJ" | Show Clip | VH1.com

Carla's man did 6 years in prison and is promiscuous openly. He's 43 years old and dating a 20 year old woman.

[video=youtube;r55b3H3hh4Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r55b3H3hh4Q[/video]


> Uploaded by     forwomeninscience  on Jun 10, 2010
> 
> "What is" - scientific questions series -  with 2007 For Women in Science International Fellow Venetia Briggs, who  explains what sexual selection is.


----------



## Writ (Jun 17, 2012)

^I'll start a thread on sexual selection - on the Debate Board - since this thread is derailing into a debate over "what women want in a man" etc. 

I was originally more curious about what others thought of Ramona's view on "real men" not fully disclosing themselves. That was not necessarily about what women wanted (though interrelated) as much as traits of a so-called "real man." The show is also entertaining. I love it. 

For the record, I really don't subscribe to notions of "a real man" at all. As far as I'm concerned a real man is a person with XY chromosomes.


----------



## Trilby (Jun 18, 2012)

Writ said:


> It's not simply coming from me but from womanizers.* And of cause they would know (not)* President Bill Clinton was a great womanizer and many if not most women in the United States (perhaps the world) regarded him as a sex symbol and ideal mate. *What woman would see a 'womanizer' and cheat as an ideal mate?
> *



I have no intention of being drawn into this thread, suffice to say, I agree with everything JosephB has said.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

Writ said:


> President Bill Clinton was a great womanizer and many if not most women in the United States (perhaps the world) regarded him as a sex symbol and ideal mate.



There’s a big difference between what a woman might see as sex symbol and an ideal mate. The fact that you can’t tell the difference sums up why discussing this with you is a waste of time.

Bill Clinton was powerful and had charm and charisma. That’s what made him attractive. He’s also was a cheater, a known liar and a deeply flawed man who couldn't control himself. Given that, I doubt seriously that most women in the United States or the world would consider him an ideal mate.



Writ said:


> Perhaps it is an amoral trait? But regardless, females are more  attracted to men that are promiscuous than men that are either virgins  or rarely "get any."



Like those are the only two options? Ha ha.

It seems like you've formed your  opinions on all this based on the cultural attitudes of a  narrow slice society, a smattering of science that mostly doesn't apply in this day and age -- along with a good dose of fantasy. Like I said, get out more -- and maybe talk to women about what they want in a man. I’m guessing most women want a man to whom they’re physically attracted, who can support a family, (if that’s what she wants) or with whom they're otherwise compatible in some way. Who knows? But don't be shocked if they also say a man who can be trusted, who can keep it in his pants -- and who has somehow managed to stay out of prison.


----------



## Writ (Jun 18, 2012)

Trilby said:


> I have no intention of being drawn into this thread, suffice to say, I agree with everything JosephB has said.



Why do you have to respond inside the quote boxes? Makes it slightly difficult to follow your responses sensibly.

I've asked women why it is women like men that are already with one or more women. The answer usually is the same: _if they're with another woman or a bunch of women are having sex with them than you figure their must be something about the guy women like. _

I could say "Men only want a decent woman." And? How accurate is that vague claim to reality?

Any man you point out idealizing a certain type I can counter with another guy liking an opposite type. There are men that like obese women and the majority of men will date and marry average Janes. 

Invariably, your objection to my comment is that it is a generalization about women (social sciences generalize, in fact statistics giving "averages" is a type of generalization) and that you have observed the majority of women will date and marry average Joes.  So what. No different than men.

Actually, the theory of natural selection says women have almost no problem finding mates among men, but rather the great struggle is among men, and the mathematical statistics used backs it up.


----------



## Writ (Jun 18, 2012)

JosephB said:


> There’s a big difference between what a woman might see as sex symbol and an ideal mate. The fact that you can’t tell the difference sums up why discussing this with you is a waste of time.



You can never admit when you are wrong. I've never seen you admit in any debate that you've ever been wrong.

Your commentary - with respects to the theory of sexual selection - is the equivalent creationism.

Yes, women like the strong, the powerful, and the promiscuous (alpha males) among men. The exception being when alpha males impregnate them and then abandon them and their children, then according to the *science of biology* you are more likely to see females seeking a male mate that will help her raise the child she had with another man. This would be the male with more altruistic behavior - sacrificing himself for the benefit of the woman and the alpha male. 



> Bill Clinton was powerful and had charm and charisma. That’s what made him attractive. He’s also was a cheater, a known liar and a deeply flawed man who couldn't control himself. Given that, I doubt seriously that most women in the United States or the world would consider him an ideal mate.



Bill Clinton was adored by many women. I've had numerous women online defend him as an ideal mate. Yes, *ideal*. 




> Like those are the only two options? Ha ha.



Yes, they are the two options. Either you are promiscuous or you're not. 



> It seems like you've formed your  opinions on all this based on the cultural attitudes of a  narrow slice society, a smattering of science that mostly doesn't apply in this day and age -- along with a good dose of fantasy. Like I said, get out more -- and maybe talk to women about what they want in a man. I’m guessing most women want a man to whom they’re physically attracted, who can support a family, (if that’s what she wants) or with whom they're otherwise compatible in some way. Who knows? But don't be shocked if they also say a man who can be trusted, who can keep it in his pants -- and who has somehow managed to stay out of prison.



All most men want is a decent woman. Or basically we can say all most men want in a woman are those characteristics you just gave.

Problem solved. Men are awesome in general and not very "superficial."

I've been around plenty and have met plenty of women. Human beings in general are not all that complicated. A pot of gold is in the water. Male or female 99% of them will take it. I would too. A man sees a beautiful woman and he wants her. A woman comes across a wealthy, well dressed, good looking man with 3 or 4 women hanging on to him and she wants him. 

Not brain surgery. 

Not to mention that simple list of characteristics you gave that women want in a man defines about 99% of all men on earth. Excepted the part about cheating. But then married women cheat at close to the same rate as married men. At any rate, logically it follows there is more going on in the great competition to secure a mate, and in the process of discrimination, than what your simplistic suggestion suggest.


----------



## Baron (Jun 18, 2012)

> You can never admit when you are wrong. I've never seen you admit in any debate that you've ever been wrong.



Pots and kettles but better that the personal comments desist.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 18, 2012)

Writ said:


> I've had numerous women online defend him as an ideal mate. Yes, *ideal*.



I just ran that by a few women at work and it got a good laugh. A woman with an iota of intelligence and some self-esteem can evaluate someone  like Bill Clinton and realize he's not going to be faithful or make a suitable partner -- based on  his track record -- even if she's initially attracted to him. She doesn't have to wait until she's "impregnated" and he's run off. That's not to say some women just wouldn't care or have some ulterior motive.



Writ said:


> A man sees a beautiful woman and he wants her. A woman comes across a wealthy, well dressed, good looking man with 3 or 4 women hanging on to him and she wants him.



Sure. But do you realize there are people who actually choose a partner based on some vetting process – and not solely by first impressions? Yeah -- it’s true. The beautiful women might be a first-class b*tch. The man may be in debt up to his eyeballs.

It's quite possible to be initially _attracted_ to someone based on outward characteristics or the *"science of biology" *-- and then at some point, make an informed decision about whether or not he or she will make a suitable partner -- for a variety of reasons -- including attitudes, values, and common interests -- even things like faith or sense of humor. It happens all the time.

"Not brain surgery."


----------



## Writ (Jun 18, 2012)

Really, Joseph, I think you're getting all extra animated over nothing. 

According to a past sociology class of mine - as well as my own personal observation - the majority of people of both sexes end up marrying in their own socio-economic class. 

Take your condition of a man needing to be able to financially support his family. It's akin to the Social Justice Teaching of the Catholic Church that employers need to pay their employees "family sustaining wages." And knowing your on the political conservative end of economic issues I'm sure you would challenge the Church with the question: exactly how many dollars constitutes a family sustaining wage?

So far as I can see here in Milwaukee working poor people, middle-class people, upper-middle-class people, and rich people all support their respective families. 

So, you (Joseph) need to come up with a dollar amount per annually that these selfless women are looking for. Is it $16,000 annually? $20,000? $60,000? $100,000?

A friend of mine on disability has two kids with a woman. We're all friends. I think she's on food stamps but she's rarely ever employed. He has a crack (and alcohol) problem and she an alcohol problem. To be honest he does not take much interest in the day to day concerns of his kids. I remember she berated him one day when we were crossing a busy street and I grabbed his daughters hand. She felt that was suppose to be his job, his responsibility.

Anyways... she likes me. She wants to have sex with me. She would like to be my woman. Essentially, she views me as an upgrade on the significant other she has now.

Females are no different than males in making calculated choices as to what is their best option given X, Y, Z choices. The fact is most women are average in almost all respects and therefore will never secure a rich, handsome, powerful man chased by women. Most women will hold out for a certain amount of time, but as time begins to get closer to where they loses their competitive edge (e.g., late 20's, 30's, 40's) they will pick a man *that they can get* but one they view as the best among those within their options. 

Not too hard. Your own condition that women want a man that can support a family is *sexual selection*.

You're upset that I don't "hate" on Ramona or the other Mob Wives. But why should I? I'm rather amazed Big Ang - who looks like a tall man or drag queen - has been able to date mob men that lavished her with expensive gifts and houses. If she can get these alpha males then what's the excuse of the millions of women that look 100 times better than her? 

I would say most women would prefer to share a rich man with several other women than be the one and only of a faithful poor man. I don't care if that pisses you off. I don't care if some women deny it. Not going to change fact.

And during my grandmother's time on earth soap operas were big things. Shows like General Hospital. But reality shows like Mob Wives, while not 100% real, are far more real than those past soap operas. Ramona romances are real and not fiction. Junior betraying his ex-wife, son, and ex-father-in-law is real not fiction. These women dating and marrying ex-cons with money is real and not fiction. Their big and nice houses are real and not fiction. And mind you, Ditra, Carla, and most of those women all said they are looking for "decent" guys in so many words. I think Ditra said she just wants a man that has a wallet rather than uses a rubber band around his money (New York mobsters carry their money that way, and those associated with mobsters). But Ditra and the rest of the women are not totally honest about what they're looking for in a bloke. Plenty of men in the U.S. that work "square" jobs and that don't carry their money in a rubber band. 

But as for Ramona - her comment that _real men _keep their women out of their business - is an attitude more applicable to sexual selection in so far as attractions to behaviors or attitudes are concerned. So, while I don't entirely agree with her, I understand where she is coming from as 99% of men and women like to speak about what "a real man" is. Like I said, a real man to me is just a person with XY chromosomes. But I understand I live in a world or social environment where women like strong and promiscuous men and they like to yap about what "a real man" is. 

And to that extent Ramona must know something of what she's talking about given she is financially successful and has zero problem attracting, dating, or marrying alpha males. You can call her a "gold digger" but she simply raises the bar higher for the quality of man she'll date or marry than most women, in large part because she can given her physical beauty. All women try to get the best they can attract. Just like all men do the same. So, I can't hate on Ramona. I'm not a player hater.


----------



## Writ (Jun 18, 2012)

Just watched episode Omerta. How can anyone not _like _this show? I love it. The best show possibly ever to hit TV. That Ditra chick? How can you not like her? Teddy Atlas, the famous boxing coach, says in his book about his life that his wife is Albanian and tough as nails, and that some author he mentioned always goes on about how tough the Albanians are.

The Drita woman is Albanian. But she's just a tough little woman anyways. She keeps it 100% about those she has no love for. And Ramona - aka "Lucifer" - is a stunning looking woman with the confidence of a thousand queens. I don't know if her reputation as being Lucifer is deserved or not but from a male point of view I can see why she'd be difficult to say no too. She has a way with her eyes that makes you want to say yes.

I think I like Ditra's personality better though. She's so much more down to earth and homey.

The Chicago Mob Wives are more "trashy" or "greasy" compared to the New York cast. But both towns are full of savages and miscreants. Which makes this show all the more entertaining. Coming from Milwaukee with more refined, gentlemanly, and lady like Eye-Talians... we are pampered with amusement watching New Yorkers, Chicagoans, or Mississippians on TV. It's like watching animals in a zoo. :lol: 

My homie says he can always tell someone from Chicago because they lack a certain class. He also says they're big, 'black,' and ugly. He's black himself. Of course, there are white people in and from Chicago too, as evident by _Mob Wives._ 

When he said he can tell when they're from (in Milwaukee) Mississippi, I interrupted him, because it's a no-brainer, and said, "Because they run around outside with no shoes on."

Omerta: "Omerta" ( Ep. 217 ) from Mob Wives 2 | Full Episode | VH1.com


----------



## JosephB (Jun 19, 2012)

Writ said:


> According to a past sociology class of mine - as well as my own personal observation - the majority of people of both sexes end up marrying in their own socio-economic class.



That's pretty obvious.



Writ said:


> So, you (Joseph) need to come up with a dollar amount per annually that these selfless women are looking for. Is it $16,000 annually? $20,000? $60,000? $100,000?



At least partly based on the above,  it varies -- of course. It also varies depending on the expectations of the individual.  People want and expect different things. So, no - - there's no reason for me to have to answer that. Why don't you tell me? You claim to know what 99% of women want -- I don't have that gift.




Writ said:


> Your own condition that women want a man that can support a family is *sexual selection*.



Yes. Evolution 101.



Writ said:


> I would say most women would prefer to share a rich man with several other women than be the one and only of a faithful poor man. I don't care if that pisses you off. I don't care if some women deny it. Not going to change fact.



That's not "fact" Mr. Science -- that's an assumption based on who knows what. It's also based on the notion that women can't contribute to the income and can't support themselves or their children without a man. Of course, that's ridiculous. It also assumes that "most" women are as impressed by material things as you seem to be. If the alternative was homelessness or if they couldn't feed or clothe their children -- well, maybe. Otherwise, it's my opinion that you vastly underestimate "most" women.



Writ said:


> You're upset that I don't "hate" on Ramona or the  other Mob Wives. But why should I? I'm rather amazed Big Ang - who looks  like a tall man or drag queen - has been able to date mob men that  lavished her with expensive gifts and houses. If she can get these alpha  males then what's the excuse of the millions of women that look 100  times better than her?



I don't hate them. I'm just not impressed by them in the least. The opposite really. The only reason anyone is paying attention to these women is because of some tenuous connection to the mob -- which is always an easy sell. And I understand why women glom on to powerful and/or wealthy men -- but I don't see it as any kind of noteworthy accomplishment. Especially if the men are criminals. So my reaction is -- so what? I'm far more impressed by people who actually accomplish things.

You also seem to be impressed by your idea of this "alpha male."  I personally know men who are very successful and have a good deal of accumulated wealth -- yet they were never promiscuous. They never felt the need to strut around in expensive suits with women hanging all over them. (Probably because men who are really successful don't feel the need to make such a big, public show of it.) Plus, they've stayed with one woman -- some of whom are successful in their own right. 

I think YOU are impressed by your version of the alpha male -- so you  assume that "most" women are too -- and that's a pretty big leap. My guess is there are plenty of women who would be turned off by someone like that -- regardless of how much stuff they might get out of it. I know most of the woman in my life would be. I'm married to an lovely, amazing woman -- a great wife and mother -- and she married me when I didn't have two nickels to rub together.

The things is, I admire people who do amazing or noteworthy things and do them with integrity and understatement. Some people would call that class. If you're "amazed" by  tacky looking, foul-mouthed chicks on a reality show -- hey -- whatever. I watched part of the Omerta episode -- what a freak show. Do you realize this is on primarily so people who have nothing better to do can laugh at these women?


----------



## Writ (Jun 19, 2012)

JosephB said:


> At least partly based on the above,  it varies -- of course. It also varies depending on the expectations of the individual.  People want and expect different things. So, no - - there's no reason for me to have to answer that. *Why don't you tell me? You claim to know what 99% of women want* -- I don't have that gift.



That's a no brainer. Like men, women want what they perceive is their best obtainable object among the options they are presented. Similar - but not totally analogous - to people purchasing homes or cars. The more money they have the better product they now they can obtain. 

People of the two sexes do not make their choices based upon unconditional love towards total strangers. They have wants and agendas. The love if it does come evolves afterwards and after they've made their choices based upon initial attractions. 




> That's not "fact" Mr. Science -- that's an assumption based on who knows what. It's also based on the notion that women can't contribute to the income and can't support themselves or their children without a man. Of course, that's ridiculous. It also assumes that "most" women are as impressed by material things as you seem to be. If the alternative was homelessness or if they couldn't feed or clothe their children -- well, maybe. Otherwise, it's my opinion that you vastly underestimate "most" women.



Oh, that's fact. It's as much fact as putting pedophiles around children likely will result in at least one child being sexually molested. In both cases I don't need men with Ph.D.'s or psychiatrists to tell me that.

Most women are impressed with material things as are most men. Otherwise we would not have a consumer society and corporations would not spend as much money as they do on advertisements. People like more than just the basic needs of life. We could live like Indians of the 1700's with no problem. Few Americans want to though. 

And females have a time in their life when they don't have children. They usually pick males that other females want and have sex with those males. Sometimes they get pregnant. So, it's not about poor, meek, women that give virgin births looking for a man simply with enough small income to provide a hut, one or two meals a day, and a few articles of clothing for their children. 




> I don't hate them. I'm just not impressed by them in the least. The opposite really. The only reason anyone is paying attention to these women is because of some tenuous connection to the mob -- which is always an easy sell. And I understand why women glom on to powerful and/or wealthy men -- but I don't see it as any kind of noteworthy accomplishment. Especially if the men are criminals. So my reaction is -- so what? I'm far more impressed by people who actually accomplish things.



Here's what I have noticed about men in general. They look down their noses at men below their rank and envy or "hate on" men above their rank. 

People like to feel secure and self righteous in their own rank and position in life. That's why men in general have no issue with the phrase "a real man" but will apply to it what they wish.

The fact is your rank (Joseph) is too low to attract certain women. You would apply the term "gold digger" to them but not to the woman that snubs the guy making $8 an hour. 



> You also seem to be impressed by your idea of this "alpha male."  I personally know men who are very successful and have a good deal of accumulated wealth -- yet they were never promiscuous. They never felt the need to strut around in expensive suits with women hanging all over them. (Probably because men who are really successful don't feel the need to make such a big, public show of it.) Plus, they've stayed with one woman -- some of whom are successful in their own right.



Has nothing to do with me being impressed with alpha males. I simply accept them as part of life. 

And few men - very few - that are financially wealthy are faithful to their wives. Even among the working class I think I've only met 1 or 2 men in my entire life that has been totally faithful to their spouse. Men cheat. So do women. Rich men cheat for sure. That does not mean they're going to tell you. 



> I think YOU are impressed by your version of the alpha male -- so you  assume that "most" women are too -- and that's a pretty big leap. My guess is there are plenty of women who would be turned off by someone like that -- regardless of how much stuff they might get out of it. I know most of the woman in my life would be. I'm married to an lovely, amazing woman -- a great wife and mother -- and she married me when I didn't have two nickels to rub together.
> 
> The things is, I admire people who do amazing or noteworthy things and do them with integrity and understatement. Some people would call that class. If you're "amazed" by  tacky looking, foul-mouthed chicks on a reality show -- hey -- whatever. I watched part of the Omerta episode -- what a freak show. Do you realize this is on primarily so people who have nothing better to do can laugh at these women?



I don't know what your point about your wife is. Refer back to my point members of both sexes usually end up with average Janes and Joes. 

Now, there are exceptions, some men will turn down gorgeous looking women for a homely looking woman. And some women will turn down rich men for poor men. But they are more the exception than the rule. Usually given the options - before a relationship or love has formed - the man will pursue the gorgeous woman and the woman will pick the rich man.

I mean... after I became a crack head is when I began attracting women to me. That right there told me women are as superficial as men. Being a hard working, income deriving, dependable, and potentially faith man and U.S. Marine had zero impact on females. Later, after I became a crack head and developed in my looks then I had attractive looking American women flirting with me and approaching me. People are shallow. Face it.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 19, 2012)

I'm a woman. I don't go for 'bad boys' and I would never put up with anything that this woman has. What have you got to say to that Writ? Not all women go for guys like that.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 19, 2012)

How about this -- would you rather share a rich man with a bunch of other women than marry a poor one? Because Writ claims it's a FACT that most women would.

Of course, that ignores that possibility that a woman might have some other way to support herself -- like a job.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 19, 2012)

> How about this -- would you rather share a rich man with a bunch of other women than marry a poor one? Because Writ claims it's a FACT that most women would.



Ah, Writ and his 'facts' 

I don't think I've ever dated a man who isn't poor.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 19, 2012)

But let's assume you have that actual choice. 

Would you share a man with a bunch of women -- just for the stuff -- or because you're impressed with material things?


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 19, 2012)

> Would you share a man with a bunch of women -- just for the stuff -- or because you're impressed with material things?



Not at all. For one, I'm not really impressed with material things and two, I have my own money. It might not be much money but it's enough to have principles.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 19, 2012)

Writ has already stated that he doesn't care if women deny it. He knows -- it's FACT. Just like all rich men cheat FOR SURE!


----------



## Writ (Jun 19, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> I'm a woman. I don't go for 'bad boys' and I would never put up with anything that this woman has. What have you got to say to that Writ? Not all women go for guys like that.



I have a slim uncle married to a woman over 300 pounds and I've courted a woman born with disfigurements (missing hands, one leg significant shorter than the other) and disabilities. What's your point, that men usually don't judge or pursue the females and women that are hourglass shaped or otherwise fitting of the accepted beauty standards?

No. That's not your point. Exceptions are not the rules.

I fit almost none of the perceptions women have of "men." Or a "real man" for that matter. You don't see me crying tears in a bucket over it. I realize the majority of men fit X, Y, Z characteristics. Men being very visual creatures tend to place disproportionate value on looks. With women they place more value on a males social status and the resources he has.

Women like Halle Berry can marry a poor man. But 9 out of 10 of them won't and never will. Although they are rich they will either get a younger, good looking man as boy toy, or they will marry a man their age that is up in their socio-economic bracket.

It's far more likely for rich men to marry women that are impoverished.


----------



## Writ (Jun 19, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> Ah, Writ and his 'facts'
> 
> *I don't think I've ever dated a man who isn't poor.*



Writ's facts included: most people marry within their own socio-economic group. 

Writ's facts included: a woman like Ramona from New York _Mob Wives_ can - and does - attract with little problem rich men, alpha males. 

Now, if I were to act like a *woman* as women do over men that only pursue physically beautiful women, then I would be crying about how unfair it is that Ramona does not pick poor men.

A woman or man - generally speaking, I'm not talking the 1% exceptions to the rule of thumb - dates and marries those they perceive as the best catch from among the options they have.

What does that mean? That means rich, beautiful women like Halle Berry are out of reach for men like Joseph and myself. Period. And most average looking or below average looking women in Milwaukee's inner cities are limited to low-income men. They can not attract handsome and rich men like a Denzel Washington. They can not attract the more successful alpha males in Milwaukee. Those males will go for the best looking women in the inner-cities or in the better off areas. 

Sorry, but that's just life.


----------



## Writ (Jun 19, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> Not at all. For one, I'm not really impressed with material things and two, I have my own money. It might not be much money but it's enough to have principles.





JosephB said:


> Writ has already stated that he doesn't care if  women deny it. He knows -- it's FACT. Just like all rich men cheat FOR  SURE!



Amber is a champion of welfare. Material things impress her. 

I'm poor by U.S. standards but I live like a king compared to those in abject poverty in developing nations. I have a nice 550 square foot apartment. Apparently, most Western women are impressed by material things if they desire a man with more material wealth than I have. Women in the inner-city with small incomes have no problem with my "family sustaining wages." However, American women earning say... $60,000 annually would not find my current $12,000 a year income sufficient for helping her "raise a family." If a woman earns $200,000 a year she'll be looking for a guy that earns in the six figures. 

And don't point out the exceptions to me of the minority of stay at home dads. 

I'm just keeping things real. 

(I also benefit from a welfare system via non-service connected pension from the V.A.)

And yeah, rich men cheat, Joe. When I was a child I believed in child things and was naive. As an adult I had to face and learn the hard cold facts of life. And it's pretty Darwinian.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 19, 2012)

Sounds like too much television to me.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 20, 2012)

Writ said:


> That means rich, beautiful women like Halle Berry are out of reach for men like Joseph and myself. Period.



Wow. Really? I had no idea. I'm crushed.



Writ said:


> Writ's facts included: a woman like Ramona from New York _Mob Wives_ can - and does - attract with little problem rich men, alpha males.



A relatively good looking woman (with the aid of ten pounds of makeup) can attract a rich man -- or an alpha male -- who by your definition would be promiscuous. Another startling revelation. Please keep the fascinating facts flowing, Writ.



Writ said:


> Writ's facts included: most people marry within their own socio-economic group.



Again, fairly obvious.



Writ said:


> $60,000 annually would not find my current $12,000 a year income sufficient for helping her "raise a family." If a woman earns $200,000 a year she'll be looking for a guy that earns in the six figures.



That doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that MOST women would rather share a rich man with other women than marry poor one -- and that you said it's a FACT -- which is what Amber and I were discussing. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. So what? Again, it ignores the more likely possibility that a women is capable of earning her own money -- and that she might have a little integrity and self-esteem.



Writ said:


> And yeah, rich men cheat, Joe. When I was a child I believed in child things and was naive. As an adult I had to face and learn the hard cold facts of life. And it's pretty Darwinian.



Of course rich men cheat, Writ. I never said otherwise. Some percentage of all men and women cheat and rich men are no exception. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a higher percentage  of rich men cheat because they probably have more opportunity*. *I doubt you know what that percentage is. I doubt you know with any certainty what the percentage is overall -- despite that you've talked to some people who told you they cheated. I've seen figures anywhere from 12% to 40%. Studies rely on surveys -- obviously -- so it's hard to say how reliable they are. But I doubt there's anything out there that shows most people cheat or that all rich men cheat FOR SURE.

So from what we've seen in the thread -- "Writ's facts" are a mixture of the obvious, along with a good deal of opinion and guesswork -- like that MOST women in the WORLD would see Bill Clinton as the IDEAL mate, for example. Ha ha. Right. And I'm the one who's naive.

Anyway -- I don't know how we got on all this. I just came in to say I thought the show was stupid and that the women come off as tacky and loud-mouthed and they don't seem to have much going for them other than some tenuous connection to the mob or the ability to bag "alpha males." Of course, reality producers go out of their way to edit and set things up to make people look bad -- so who knows. (Although I read the chick you think is homey and down-to-earth started a fist fight with another woman in a bar. Classy.)


----------



## Writ (Jun 20, 2012)

JosephB said:


> Wow. Really? I had no idea. I'm crushed.



Yeah, really. Has nothing to do with you being crushed. It's merely a matter of coming to terms with reality. And I'm not intending to make any offensive comment about your wife, so, don't take this the wrong way, but he has not found a cure for cancer or ended famine and thirst on earth or stopped wars from happening. In all likelihood she is as average a person and woman as the millions of "average" Americans or American omen throughout the United States. That you view her as amazing is no different than the millions of other people that say the same about their significant other, including women on welfare with their unemployed male S.O.'s that are in and out of prison. Not to mention the women on Mob Wives that once thought their former husbands were amazing.




> A relatively good looking woman (with the aid of ten pounds of makeup) can attract a rich man -- or an alpha male -- who by your definition would be promiscuous. Another startling revelation. Please keep the fascinating facts flowing, Writ.



Not all women can attract alpha males. Sorry, you're wrong. And I'm not talking about one night flings. However, I will concede that rich men discriminate less against women than beautiful women discriminate against men. 




> Again, fairly obvious.



If it's fairly obvious why are you complaining? Your contention was all any woman really wants is a man that provides the most basic necessities of life (cars, air conditioning not required, and only the most basic foods and one meal a day) or what you suggested was "able to support a family." 

That most people marry into their own socio-economic group evidences that is not the case. It evidences my point that both men and women struggle to get what they perceive is their best possible mate, and they try to draw from pools of the opposite sex they believe are the best pools they have access to draw from. 

A woman raised middle-class will seek a male mate that is rich and if not rich then at least one that is not in a socio-economic group below the comforts and standards of life she's used to. 

Has jack to do with "being able to raise a family." You and your wife could raise a family in my one bedroom apartment that is 550 square feet and both of you could go without a car like I do rather than having a house and mortgage (and at least one automobile) as you two do. The two of you could raise a family off of my single income of a little less than $12,000 a year. 

But the two of you want more. As most people do. As I do in fact. 




> That doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that MOST women would rather share a rich man with other women than marry poor one -- and that you said it's a FACT -- which is what Amber and I were discussing. Does it happen? I'm sure it does. So what? Again, it ignores the more likely possibility that a women is capable of earning her own money -- and that she might have a little integrity and self-esteem.



That response I made, I don't even think had anything to do with that specific question.

And yes, most women would prefer to share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a poor man. Hell, when Ebony Magazine interviewed several college educated young Black-American women all of them said they rather share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a working class plumber, let alone a poor man. 

A woman would prefer a a rich man that would be totally faithful to her. But if she can't have that then she would prefer to share a rich man with other women than be the one and only of a faithful man. 

However, a rich man is not obtainable by the vast majority of women. So, they have the option of not having a man or settling for less. They almost always settle. And in settling they will settle for the man earning $60,000 a year before they settle for the man bringing in $12,000 a year. Makes sense. I'm not too mad at it. People always try to improve their situation in life and it's normal for people to want the most comfortable life they can get. 

Women are not weaklings with no mind that calculates odds and simply give out unconditional love to any and all male strangers that approach them with sincere smiles and kind hearts. Life is more Darwinian than that.




> Of course rich men cheat, Writ. I never said otherwise. Some percentage of all men and women cheat and rich men are no exception. I think it would be reasonable to guess that a higher percentage  of rich men cheat because they probably have more opportunity*. *I doubt you know what that percentage is. I doubt you know with any certainty what the percentage is overall -- despite that you've talked to some people who told you they cheated. I've seen figures anywhere from 12% to 40%. Studies rely on surveys -- obviously -- so it's hard to say how reliable they are. But I doubt there's anything out there that shows most people cheat or that all rich men cheat FOR SURE.
> 
> So from what we've seen in the thread -- "Writ's facts" are a mixture of the obvious, along with a good deal of opinion and guesswork -- like that MOST women in the WORLD would see Bill Clinton as the IDEAL mate, for example. Ha ha. Right. And I'm the one who's naive.
> 
> Anyway -- I don't know how we got on all this. I just came in to say I thought the show was stupid and that the women come off as tacky and loud-mouthed and they don't seem to have much going for them other than some tenuous connection to the mob or the ability to bag "alpha males." Of course, reality producers go out of their way to edit and set things up to make people look bad -- so who knows. *(Although I read the chick you think is homey and down-to-earth started a fist fight with another woman in a bar. Classy.)*



I like that Ditra. I like the way Ramona looks and dresses more than Ditra in that way. But I like Ditra's personality much more than Ramona's. 

Ultimately, if I had to make my choice, I'd rather have Ditra. I especially got a kick out of her when she said, "Karen, who you going to square up with? with your little alligator arms."

Plus, Ditra could be my bodyguard when we'd go out. 

But if you've got a problem with Ditra take it up with New York. That's just New York being New York. 

The Chicago cast is more "grease ball" than the New York cast. But that's just Chicago being Chicago. Like I said... we're cut from better cloth or at least raised to a higher bar in Milwaukee. So, I find it entertaining watching New Yorkers and Chicagoans. Like, if I wanted to watch Gremlins I'd tune into Atlanta.

Mob Wives Chicago cast in episode 2: "The Aftermath" ( Ep. 102 ) from Mob Wives Chicago | Full Episode | VH1.com


----------



## JosephB (Jun 20, 2012)

Yawn.

I long ago "came to terms with the reality" that I can't have Halle Berry and that I would simply have to settle for someone who I personally think is amazing. Boo hoo.

Not all woman can bag an alpha male. I'm sure that's true. There are also women out there who could, but they don't want or need to. So what?

Show me where I said support a family meant providing only the most basic necessities. You can't -- because I didn't say or even imply that. Just more guesswork and jumping to conclusions on your part. It’s obvious that “most people marry within their own socio-economic group” so it stands to reason that “support”  is relative. Duh. You typed all that stuff for nothing.

And of course, an interview of SEVERAL women in Ebony magazine shows without a doubt that MOST women would rather share a rich man than be married to a faithful working class man. (Or more likely, just live off their own income until they find someone suitable.) Too funny. There are all kinds of women and it's a big world. Not really a good idea to extrapolate based on your little slice of it -- or on articles in magazines with such a narrow demographic.

This is already tedious. You're just repeating yourself -- which means I have to repeat myself. Have fun watching your ultra-lame reality show.

Later.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 20, 2012)

> More guesswork and jumping to conclusions on your part.



JoesphB - this kind of behaviour is exactly why I keep all discussion with Writ and Capulet down to a minimum.


----------



## Writ (Jun 20, 2012)

JosephB said:


> I long ago "came to terms with the reality" that I can't have Halle Berry and that I would simply have to settle for someone who I personally think is amazing. Boo hoo.



My comments had nothing to do with bemoaning the fact wealthy and beautiful women like Halle Berry lay out of the reach of men like you and I. My points about that had to do with the fact women of that caliber and sociology-economic group do not date or marry average Joes or poor men. Which is what you have consistently  suggested rich and beautiful women do: marry average Joes and poor men.

You can personally think your wife is amazing all you want. You could never have gotten a woman like Halle Berry or any of the other rich and beautiful alpha women. 



> Not all woman can bag an alpha male. I'm sure that's true. *There are also women out there who could, but they don't want or need to. So what?*



No. If they can they do. If they don't then they can't. The vast majority of people don't turn down a million dollar contract for a two dollar contract when the job is the same for both. 

You're no different than any other male really. You think you are but you're not. You just have a bloated opinion about yourself. I'm no different than any other male either. In general I'm no worse or no better.

It's all a trick of perception, aside from basic biological drives of attraction. 

When I had a face plagued with acne, a job, car, no drug addiction or drinking problem, and thought naively like you that most women just want "a nice guy," I was no different than I am now or when I became a drug addict about the same time my face cleared up from acne. The perception of women was that I was different, ergo they would lean back on walls and giggle at my stupid jokes whereas before they didn't want to be in my presence. 

I'm no better than a toothless bum, laying drunk and dirty in the street, and stinking of urine. This is the attitude I have. It keeps me humble. And it's the attitude I have whenever I'm speaking socially with other women or men. At the same time I don't think I'm really any worse than the millions of knuckle heads running around the streets of the United States banging women all over the place. 

And yeah, I like nice looking things be it clothing, jewelry, architecture, art, cars, or women. 



> *Show me where I said support a family meant providing only the most basic necessities. You can't -- because I didn't say or even imply that.* Just more guesswork and jumping to conclusions on your part. It’s obvious that “most people marry within their own socio-economic group” so it stands to reason that “support”  is relative. Duh. You typed all that stuff for nothing.



You didn't state it explicitly but you implied it. And it's what I inferred from your comments.

You think I'm stupid like I don't know what your motivation is or what you've been trying to get around at. You think I've spent my years only going after the most beautiful women in the U.S. that were in college or otherwise on the straight course to success. That I'm bitter because women of that caliber saw a sufficient number of things lacking in me and snubbed me for better men like yourself. 

Psychologists say severe acne often destroys the lives of people that suffer with it. In some ways, ironically, I'm glad I did have it that bad. It allowed me to learn more about the true depths of people. 

I've courted obese women to deformed women. Very few college women did I ever court. Although I did court a few of those. Almost all the women I courted in my younger years were on welfare. Most no more than average looking. Been rejected by all of them. Interesting enough, today I have some of these same caliber of broads telling me things like, "I think you're an *amazing* man." Same stupid ass word you used. 

In general - for good or ill - we humans like the superficial substance of things. I could date Halle Berry and call her "amazing." Why? Because I find her attractive. Other than that she has not discovered any cure for a disease or worked out some mathematical equation no one could figure out, and it's not like she created Facebook or the internet or something. She has sex with me. She might cook. She cleans. She's a mother of your children. Things any crack head woman can do and does. Things any 300 pound woman fighting obesity can do and does. Yet Halle is "amazing" to me. Like your wife is amazing to you. And like you think you're something particularly special.



> *And of course, an interview of SEVERAL women in Ebony magazine shows without a doubt that MOST women would rather share a rich man than be married to a faithful working class man.* (Or more likely, just live off their own income until they find someone suitable.) Too funny. There are all kinds of women and it's a big world. Not really a good idea to extrapolate based on your little slice of it -- or on articles in magazines with such a narrow demographic.


 
Yeah it does. It provides some evidence at least. But I would not need that article to know that today anyways. It's as common sense as you shouldn't leave pedophiles around children. Once you know women and once you know pedophiles. 

Kind of like if Halle Berry walked into a a big room full of men. It does not take rocket science for me to figure out more than one man is going to court her and try to go to bed with her. Men automatically think with their little heads anyways. Common sense.



> This is already tedious. You're just repeating yourself -- which means I have to repeat myself. *Have fun watching your ultra-lame reality show.
> *
> Later.



I will.


----------



## Writ (Jun 20, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> JoesphB - this kind of behaviour is exactly why I keep all discussion with Writ and Capulet down to a minimum.



Yeah, and instead of giving moral support to busters in England with no ambition but to wait on the government to improve their lives, and instead of only dating poor men, then maybe you ought to consider learning a thing or two from Big Ang or Ditra on _Mob Wives_. Then maybe you won't have to complain about the rich screwing the poor. 

Condos, houses, and architecture can be a little analogous to men and women. I was tripping when I saw on TV a house that looked liked the one my white grandparents had lived in, going in California for a crazy price of over a million dollars. But that small house was located in some expensive area of California. Some place in metro L.A. I think.

This Condo in the video is like a woman, or a man, and here in Milwaukee this one might cost $500,000 or at most maybe a million. It's far larger, far more modern, and far more attractive looking than that tiny house my grandparents lived in. I'm materialistic enough that I like nice things like this and I aspire to have something nice like this one day, if all goes well. Hopefully. But if I don't rob or commit crime to get it but purchase it through money made legitimately, then what's your beef? I should rather be a buster complain and waiting for Obama to improve my life? Not.

[video=youtube;puHIpV6jzT0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puHIpV6jzT0[/video]

A lot of rich people in Milwaukee live in luxury condos on the East side or in one of the many mini-mansions throughout the East side and along Lake Dr. 

Examples:

1. Villa Terrace Decorative Art Museum (used to be the home of industrialist CEO of A.O. Smith)
2. 3220 N Lake Drive, Milwaukee, WI 53211 - House for Sale in Milwaukee, WI - HotPads
3. 3002 E Kenwood Blvd, Milwaukee, WI 53211 MLS# 1249413 - Zillow
4. 3365 N Summit Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53211 MLS# 1257806 - Zillow
5. 3316 N Lake Dr, Milwaukee, WI 53211 MLS# 1250778 - Zillow
6. 2825 E Newport Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53211 MLS# 1256288 - Zillow
7. EXQUISITE MEDITERRANEAN REVIVAL VILLA | MILWAUKEE LUXURY HOMES
8. SENSATIONAL LAKE VIEWS | FOX POINT LUXURY HOMES
9. 

Then there is Lake Geneva the former home to the original Playboy Club and well known vacation spot for Chicago mobsters going all the way back to Al Capone who used to own property out there. 

Seems to me the rich in Lake Geneva consume far more resources than I do and even if I bought that $500,000 condo in Milwaukee one day, they still would consume far more resources than myself. Look at the size of some of their homes.

1A. Lake Geneva Mansions | Lakefront Real Estate Lake Geneva, WI - YouTube

And that is nothing compared to the mega mansions in Atlanta, Colorado, Florida, California and some other places in the United States. 

1B. Le Belvedere - Sold - LuxuryRealEstate.com™ (costs $72 million dollars)
2B. Emerald Bay Laguna Beach Home For Sale - LuxuryRealEstate.com™ (costs over $19 million and covers an area of several blocks dollars)
3B. 1520 Tiehack - LuxuryRealEstate.com™ (costs over $9 million dollars and covers enough square feet area to make the condo I like look look a midget) 

So, my owning a sterling silver ring with Marine Corps emblem, that I bought for $270.00 and a stainless steal watch (Diesel brand) with gold tone for I think a little over $100.00, and finally owning a suit with two dress shirts hardly quantifies as being so materialistic as having single handedly destroyed all the natural resources in the United States or in the world. 

And yeah... I'd like to eventually buy a car. Preferably a brand new one and one not over $15,000 or maybe $20,000. Given the auto industry in the U.S. constantly comes out with new models every damned year, most Americans must at minimum be as materialistic as me. Otherwise no need for new models of cars to be marketed. Not to mention few people would be buying cars. And I don;t think me wanting a car one day makes me a bad guy or "materialistic." And yeah... if I could afford it I would like a Mercedes or BMW. So the hell what. 

I plan on buying me a gold pinky ring with diamonds when I finally obtain my bachelor degree. Don't care if you wouldn't wear one. I like it and want it. And that is my reward to myself for accomplishing getting my B.A. And what I'll be able to reasonably afford will be under $2,000 and likely between $500 - $1,500. I hardly see that as constituting extravagant wealth in the United States. Especially when people live in $72 million dollar homes, have yachts and planes.


----------



## Baron (Jun 21, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> JoesphB - this kind of behaviour is exactly why I keep all discussion with Writ and Capulet down to a minimum.




:rofl:


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 21, 2012)

> you ought to consider learning a thing or two from Big Ang or Ditra on _Mob Wives_



It's about as likely to happen as you are to stop taking crack and going on paranoid rants on the internet.


----------



## Amber Leaf (Jun 21, 2012)

> :rofl:




Yes, almost as funny as your thread about a blatantly photo-shopped conspiracy theory.


----------



## Baron (Jun 21, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> Yes, almost as funny as your thread about a blatantly photo-shopped conspiracy theory.



](*,)  :cookie:


----------



## JosephB (Jun 21, 2012)

Writ said:


> You could never have gotten a woman like Halle Berry or any of the other rich and beautiful alpha women.



You’re wrong Writ. It could happen. If I could just see her -- I’d tell her I’ve seen all her movies -- and that I think she’s like really, really beautiful and I’d smile at her and there would be like this spark. You know? Like a connection. And then she’d be mine. Mine!!!!!



Writ said:


> No. If they can they do. If they don't then they can't. The vast majority of people don't turn down a million dollar contract for a two dollar contract when the job is the same for both.



What you’re saying is attractive successful women never marry men at their own income level. That’s nonsense. You're assuming that no one cares about any other compatibility factors other than money. Sounds like guesswork from someone who doesn’t have any -- and who imagines that people who do aren't motivated by anything else.



Writ said:


> You're no different than any other male really. You think you are but you're not. You just have a bloated opinion about yourself. I'm no different than any other male either. In general I'm no worse or no better.



I disagree. When it comes to what you’re talking about – I am “different” than other males.  (Although not all that remarkable.) And different than you. There aren’t just alpha males or super rich guys and everyone else. There are degrees of wealth and success, obviously.

 I come from and upper middle class background. I have a college degree. I am without a doubt upwardly mobile. Because I’ve made good career and business decisions, I make more and more money every year and I’ve nowhere near reached my earning potential. The partners at my agency have vacation homes, really nice cars; send their kids to private school etc. Not ultra-wealthy -- but they do really well. I’m on pretty much the same career track -- if I don’t mess up. I'm already in profit sharing -- along with just two other people at the agency. Plus, I already started and ran my own business for 4 year and did pretty well -- so I have that experience. I also have connections with successful, wealthy people -- including friends. I have friends at all income levels -- so it's not something I cultivate -- it's just worked out that way. I'm not bragging. Nor do I have a "bloated opinion of myself." Although I'd like to know what I've said that makes you think I do. (More assumptions on your part.)

I don’t think that necessarily makes me a “better” person than you or anyone – but by your standards, and in the context of this conversation, I’m in a different league than you. (Plus -- add my amazing good looks and charm.) If I was in the market -- that would put me in the position to attract wealthier and better looking women. No???



Writ said:


> You think I'm stupid like I don't know what your motivation is or what  you've been trying to get around at. You think I've spent my years only  going after the most beautiful women in the U.S. that were in college or  otherwise on the straight course to success. That I'm bitter because  women of that caliber saw a sufficient number of things lacking in me  and snubbed me for better men like yourself.



This is all in your imagination. Weird.


----------



## Writ (Jun 22, 2012)

Amber Leaf said:


> It's about as likely to happen as you are to stop taking crack and going on paranoid rants on the internet.



:lol: That was actually pretty funny. Kudos.


----------



## Writ (Jun 22, 2012)

JosephB said:


> You’re wrong Writ. It could happen. If I could  just see her -- I’d tell her I’ve seen all her movies -- and that I  think she’s like really, really beautiful and I’d smile at her and there  would be like this spark. You know? Like a connection. And then she’d  be mine. Mine!!!!!



Well, at least you have some humor in all this. 




> What you’re saying is attractive successful women never marry men at  their own income level. That’s nonsense. You're assuming that no one  cares about any other compatibility factors other than money. Sounds  like guesswork from someone who doesn’t have any -- and who imagines  that people who do aren't motivated by anything else.



No, I'm saying they don't marry significantly below their income level.  The occasions they do it's usually either a woman getting a young,  handsome stud as boy candy or a boy trophy for a husband, or it's an  older woman dating a younger man relative to her age who has something  about him she likes - including his greater youth than her (he might be  middle aged and she in her late 60's or 70's). Situations like the  Prophet Mohammad how he got his initial wealth. I think my boy  Wallenstien, if I remember correctly married a rich older woman too and  that's how he started his initial wealth. 

A poor woman still in her early 20's *tries* to marry a wealthier man too. At lest she *hopes* for it and *desires* it. I  don't care if she's obese at 300 pounds. Same story. I've never ran  across a single woman in the United States throughout all the many  states I've been in and throughout my 40 years existence that was not  like this. Fat, thin, short, tall, poor, rich, ugly, beautiful they're  all like this. With rare exception. And I've only read about women like  that, like Mother Tereas, and have never met them. Wait... I take that  back. I was partly reared by nuns. Nuns abandon all the womanly pursuits  of men that typical women have. And they take vows of poverty. Mother  Teresa even nursed, homeless, emaciated non-white men that lived in  filth, rejection and humiliation. That's not a typical woman. A typical  man would not associate with men like that either. And your typical  white woman in Europe or the United States is not dreaming of take her  butt over to sweltering hot nation full of dark skinned people like  India to commit herself specifically to the service of buster men. 




> I disagree. When it comes to what you’re talking about – I am  “different” than other males.  (Although not all that remarkable.) And  different than you. There aren’t just alpha males or super rich guys and  everyone else. There are degrees of wealth and success, obviously.



Yeah,  every human on earth is different from one another. That's not what I'm  talking about though. Not in that degree. What I'm saying is that the  notion a woman is a woman regardless of any of personality traits,  career accomplishments, social standing etc., really logically follows with men as well although mot people don't think so.

Most  people are under the assumption today that with rare exception there  are no bad women. And that discriminating men are just superficial.  That's why there is a social movement promoting the beauty of women  addicted to food that are overweight and attempting to indoctrinate  males at earliest of ages to overlook the obvious vice and character  trait of gluttony in these women and the negative impacts it has had on  their physiques. But that is a hard mountain for that social movement to  climb because base male instincts are drawn to healthier looking women.  And overweight people regardless of their sex are subject to public  ridicule and humiliation. I don't envy them.

And I know there are  degrees of success. There are also different values in different  cultures and different subcultures. In the Hip Hop culture gangsterism  and thuggish behavior are prized attributes in a male and males pursuing  those paths gain prestige within their own environments and the Hip Hop  culture in general, which transcends just music. But you can glean the  value system from listening to the music. Very few cats commit drive-by  shootings (originating with Italian mobsters in Chicago decades ago with  the Tommy Gun) while listening to Bach or Mozart or Protestant Gospel  Music. 

And gangsterism is increasingly going mainstream in  acceptability. When I was a boy rap music was an insular world that few  white people listened to. Gangsta rap had not emerged yet and all our  clothing was cheap material like flight pants and studded bracelets. I'm  amazed how far Hip Hop has come into the mainstream with even the  clothing now selling for very expensive prices. White people in well off  suburbs even listen to it. Even younger Italians, in and out of prison,  associated with mafiosi emulate to some degree those of us bred up  under Hip Hop. They sport the tattoo of blacks and Latinos from prisons.  Even John Gotti and Sammy the Bull used the term "bo" (meaning "bro")  Gotti picked up in prison (according to Teddy Atlas who was an associate  of Sammy's), which I'm pretty sure started with blacks in prison. I  have black cats addressing me as "bo bo"  or "big bo bo" at times. I  never knew where that stupid ass expression came from till I read Teddy  Atlas book on his life. 

So, you see Drita, a white  Albanian-American woman of about my age, pretty well-to-do financially, a  mother of a daughter, and married to a mobbed up white Italian-American  man in prison, making a hard core gangsta rap song in in a recording  studio. 

Women really don't care if a man has been in prison.  Actually, I'm not sure they should. Prison can build character  sometimes. And just because a guy has been in prison does not make him a  bad guy. Prison can crush people too. Or make them worse. But most  women in the U.S. could care less if a guy murders or robs banks or has  been to prison more than once. This is especially so if he fits the  criteria of an alpha male. He'll have women flocking to him. They'll  connive and fight for his attention as he ignores each at separate  times. 



> I come from and upper middle class background. I have a college degree.  I am without a doubt upwardly mobile. Because I’ve made good career and  business decisions, I make more and more money every year and I’ve  nowhere near reached my earning potential. The partners at my agency  have vacation homes, really nice cars; send their kids to private school  etc. Not ultra-wealthy -- but they do really well. I’m on pretty much  the same career track -- if I don’t mess up. I'm already in profit  sharing -- along with just two other people at the agency. Plus, I  already started and ran my own business for 4 year and did pretty well  -- so I have that experience. I also have connections with successful,  wealthy people -- including friends. I have friends at all income levels  -- so it's not something I cultivate -- it's just worked out that way.  I'm not bragging. Nor do I have a "bloated opinion of myself." Although  I'd like to know what I've said that makes you think I do. (More  assumptions on your part.)



Yes, I was vaguely aware of  most of that about you. For good or ill you have fiscal conservative  views. Like most people your views of what's "right" service to promote  and confirm your views about yourself. And in the great male competition  - which always is at work even at the subconscious level - to secure a  mate or draw the respect and attention of women, we like to rank males.  And we give women accolades of rarely having superficial members among  them but rather of most women just wanting a "decent guy." Some nonsense  like that. Between men and women women are hands down the greatest  discriminators. But in biology and sexual selection they say sperm is  cheaper than eggs and that is why. Females expend a lot of energy and  risk in getting pregnant and giving birth to children. It makes sense.  Males - especially alpha males - can impregnate several females and keep  moving on. Giving their sperm to create a child does not incur as great  a cost as women incur giving up their eggs to create a child. I just  accept that part of it *as an amoral issue* and  just a part of life. Even if it's a part of life that does not favor me  or does not provide the best odds for me in terms of sex and mating. 



> I don’t think that necessarily makes me a “better” person than you or  anyone – but by your standards, and in the context of this conversation,  I’m in a different league than you. (Plus -- add my amazing good looks  and charm.) If I was in the market -- that would put me in the position  to attract wealthier and better looking women. No???



Yes,  it would put you in a position to attract wealthier and better looking  women. Of course you know that already. And yeah, you do think you're  better than me and you do think you're better than many other men.

What  particularly frustrates and angers you is that you'd wish I'd get it  through my thick skull that I'm really a loser and the good women of the  earth logically and morally would not want to be with a buster like me.  That women only want "a decent guy." 

My friend - childhood  friend we're damn near like family - staying rent free at my apartment  pissed me off the other night. He was cock-blocking for a female friend  of his up visiting from Arizona. She's up her with his daughter. She's  his daughter's aunt. He's going to tell the broad I'm a crack addict.  Automatically, that is a huge *social stigma* and you'd  be better off being identified as a rapist. Anyways, I had to hold my  tongue some, I knew he was drunk, but I checked him a bit. I was about  to say something much more sharp and critical, like, "When you take care  of your child then come and talk about me how bad of a person I am." 

But I guess his baby's momma had a baby with him because he's only "a decent guy." 

I think one reason he does not want to get a job is because his wages will get taken for child support.


----------



## Writ (Jun 22, 2012)

Doing a yahoo search I was surprised to find a U.K. news source was reporting on the _Mob Wives _reality show. They put up a good trailer of the New York cast at the bottom of the article and I see some posters commented under the article. The trailer shows an episode where the usually reserved and civil Carla gets into an altercation with the more dramatic Renee. 

I didn't think people in the U.K. would have even been aware of this show given the subject matter and that it's an American reality show.

So, Baron, how popular if at all is _Mob Wives _in the U.K.? You and your ol' lady watch it?

U.K. news source: Mob Wives: Bank robber's wife Drita Davanzo chokes Renee Graziano | Mail Online








> Training with the heavies: Carla Facciolo's 'soon-to-be ex-husband' has  been jailed for stock fraud, which she thinks isn't a bad crime. Her  father and uncles are also in jail



Radio interview with Carla. I don't know how you can't like this 4 star show, Joe, it's the best thing since sliced bread. 

[video=youtube;GNBL-rc-Q-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNBL-rc-Q-I[/video]


----------



## JosephB (Jun 23, 2012)

Writ said:


> What particularly frustrates and angers you is that you'd wish I'd get it through my thick skull that I'm really a loser and the good women of the earth logically and morally would not want to be with a buster like me.


This is funny – and a little delusional -- that you really believe you have the power to frustrate and anger me. Your posts are a momentary and sometimes amusing diversion – otherwise I don’t care what you think or do. You’re giving yourself way too much credit.



Writ said:


> And yeah, you do think you're better than me and you do think you're better than many other men.


Wrong. I don’t think I’m a “better” human being based on my background, education or income. I evaluate people based on how they treat other people and on things like integrity and work ethic. I’ve had some advantages and I’ve tried to make the most of them. That doesn’t make me better than anyone else. More guesswork on your part .



Writ said:


> But most women in the U.S. could care less if a guy murders or robs banks or has been to prison more than once. This is especially so if he fits the criteria of an alpha male. He'll have women flocking to him. They'll connive and fight for his attention as he ignores each at separate times.


“Most women in the U.S?”  Do you really believe this nonsense? I’m betting “most” women would see prison time for murder as kind of a red flag. Ha ha ha. What women are you talking about specifically? Women you know? Women in movies and on TV? 

Courtship and selection is not that complex. Practically on sight, a man will pick a woman based on physical criteria. Once he makes that selection, there will be other factors that overlay those instilled by instinct -- things like intelligence, sense of humor – and things like common interests or perhaps faith etc. Not rocket science.

For women, we both know the underlying motivations: The best genes for her children – and the best situation for her children to eventually pass on those genes. Simple. Her “alpha male” is going to be the man she comes across – probably by chance – who’s best suited to provide for that. The attributes she’ll likely consider include income (or potential income) good health, intelligence etc. Naturally – she’ll also consider good looks, sense of humor, faith etc. (Of course, there is romantic love – and that goes for both sexes.)

What else does she look for? I’d contend a “decent guy” -- the attribute that you mock. By that I mean someone who’s more likely to be honest, trustworthy and faithful. This is where you get it wrong. In this day and age -- the best situation to pass on genes -- a stable marriage -- is more attainable and sustainable if the man possesses those qualities. 

“Most women” aren’t going to be attracted to your notion of the alpha-male -- who runs around having indiscriminate sex and who then “moves on.” She might be superficially attracted to that kind of man – but I would contend that in most cases – she would recognize he’s not a suitable partner. It may be different within your limited experience and in your corner of the world, of course. (Also, there is no accepted scientific definition of alpha male as it might apply to humans.  That’s pop-science. It means different things to different people. Ask around – that is if you can get opinions from people outside your immediate surroundings.)

One of the few things you’ve said that makes sense is that people with similar socio-economic backgrounds tend to marry. Obviously. That’s true of wealthy people too, of course. So whereas the middle class couple might meet at a bar or party, the wealthy couple might meet at fundraiser or the country club. (Or just as likely, they attained wealth after they were married.) My guess is, only small percentage of women set out to deliberately marry wealthy men. (Gold diggers.) People meet mostly by chance – including the wealthy and powerful. Bill Gates met his wife, a Microsoft marketing executive, at a company event. Do you think Melinda Gates was out to bag a rich guy? I doubt it. Do you think she was so totally bamboozled by his wealth and power that she was willing to ignore other compatibly factors? I doubt that too. If you think so, you’re just guessing.

I can’t identify a percentage, but I’d certainly go so far as to say “most women” aren’t going to just go for dollar signs alone. Especially if she’s educated and successful in her own right. In that case, it’s just as likely she’ll find someone suitable at her own income and social level. (I never said any large percentage of women marry men who make substantially less. Although a recent Pew study says 1 in 5 women marry men who make less money.)

Other than the obvious underlying motivations that have to do with evolution, I don’t think you have any idea what women want. Yes – they do want a decent man -- that’s a concept that eludes you. They consider many other things besides wealth -- and in most cases, since people marry in their late 20’s or so -- it’s just the potential of future wealth anyway.

“Most” women are probably not going to overlook prison time for committing violent crimes, nor will “most” see a promiscuous man as an ideal mate. That’s just stuff you’ve made up -- or you’re extrapolating from what goes on around you, what you read in some magazine or saw it on a reality show -- and you’re applying it to the world.

I also don’t think you have a clue as to what wealthy people want in a mate and I don’t think you know anything about wealthy or powerful men in general other than what you see on TV. I know men who make a million plus in salary and bonuses easy -- and have a lot of accumulated wealth. And more who make in the 250,000-500,000 range. Some are clients, some I know from church or from when my wife taught private school. One of my best friends is a plastic surgeon who could buy and sell me ten times over. Some are still married to the women they met in college or early in their careers. Some are divorced -- and they’ve essentially married younger versions of their first wives. Their criteria is not as specific as you imagine. Even so, I doubt any of them would look twice and any of your “Mob Wives.” Class does seem to be a trait most of them look for -- from what I’ve seen. If you think Ramona Rizzo could snag even your average corporate CEO, you’re dreaming.

I’m not claiming these wives weren’t attracted to the wealth – but I’m betting they weren’t specifically after it either. Aside from being attractive, (and not all them are) there’s nothing all that special about them either. (Yes – wealthy men simply settle for a good looking woman with no other special qualities.) It’s just as likely that these women would have married a man who makes 150,000 – but they happened into a relationship with someone worth more. (I’m also not claiming that some of these men don’t cheat or have mistresses -- but I’ve covered that.)

In my book, women who pursue men purely for money are gold diggers -- at any level of wealth. It’s not an admirable quality in my estimation. Yes – some women dream of marrying wealth – perhaps some high percentage – but you’re assuming that “most” women will automatically sacrifice their integrity to bag a wealthy man -- or that “most” are even willing share that man with other women – and I don’t see that there’s any basis for that. If you have evidence that shows otherwise – I’d like to see it.

So there are these men you call “alpha men” and some women are attracted to them and can bag one. So what? It’s so inconsequential to the majority of men and women out there – rich, poor and in between. Just some notion you’ve latched on to and can support with a smattering of science. And what are your alpha men anyway? NBA players? Rock stars? Mob guys? If it's a leader -- or a wealthy, influential man (what some might consider an alpha man) why would he flaunt his sexual liaisons, be indiscreet or go around impregnating women? He wouldn't, of course. Even Bill Clinton didn't want his exploits to be public -- and went so far as to lie to a Grand Jury about it. You're all over the place on this.

Yes -- women want a decent man. It’s not my problem if you don’t know that -- or what makes one.


----------



## Writ (Jun 23, 2012)

JosephB said:


> This is funny – and a little delusional -- that  you really believe you have the power to frustrate and anger me. *Your posts are a momentary and sometimes amusing diversion* – otherwise I don’t care what you think or do. You’re giving yourself way too much credit.



More  failure to come to terms with yourself. It's not uncommon for people to  get frustrated or angry with other people on the internet. And you can  often tell by their diction and tone.

For instance, your above I  placed in bold and underlined is meant to be condescending as if you are  talking down to me perched high on some superior throne. 



> Wrong. I don’t think I’m a “better” human being based on my background,  education or income. I evaluate people based on how they treat other  people and on things like integrity and work ethic. I’ve had some  advantages and I’ve tried to make the most of them. That doesn’t make me  better than anyone else. More guesswork on your part .



You wouldn't have made your condescending comment about my *posts* (plural not singular) if you didn't think you were better than me. 

You "evaluate people"  based upon X, Y, Z like every schmuck on earth. Doesn't matter on the  traits you evaluate them on. The point is 99% of people on earth do that  and 99% of people on earth view themselves as de facto Popes of some  sort. That includes mafia members, pedophiles, embezzlers, and every  woman looking for a "decent guy." 

On rare occasion I come across  people with so low self esteem that they truly think they're worse than  most other people. But that's a rarity. Even most of those with low  self esteem find a mental way to confirm to themselves they are part of  the elite "righteous" on earth. Every whore on earth is like that. Every  damned bank robber.

You know... mafia men are so-called "Men of  Honor." Each one of them are Popes. The women that love mob men evaluate  them based upon integrity and work ethic. 

Most of us like to  think God is impressed with us. Like He wants to high-five us. The rich  man that came to Jesus had integrity and work ethic too. Hence, his  motivation to approach the new and often distrusted cult leader Jesus of  Nazareth. But Jesus was not impressed with him. He told him to follow  the 10 commandments if he wanted to enter heaven. Do the minimum. But if  he wanted to be perfect than give up everything and follow him. More  than the minimum. An anti-American, to be anti-American dream.

I  want to have the American dream which means I don't want to be perfect.  If I wanted to be perfect and impress God then I'd vow to give up sex  forever, beg for money, and commit myself to Church and man, which includes pedophiles, busters, those lacking "integrity" and good work ethic. 



> “Most women in the U.S?”  Do you really believe this nonsense? I’m  betting “most” women would see prison time for murder as kind of a red  flag. Ha ha ha. What women are you talking about specifically? Women you  know? Women in movies and on TV?



Yeah I really believe  it. And I know it's fact. It's as much a fact as most Americans want a  car to drive. And not only do most Americans want a car to drive most  want a nice looking car they can afford, rather than an old beater. 

To  be an American is to have an insatiable appetite for things. To want  more and to want everything increasingly larger. All you can eat meals.  SUV's. Houses bigger and bigger. That's why so many of the richest  Americans during this recession are suffering depression. Even remaining  multimillionaires over they are more depressed than me because they've  lost some millions rather than gaining more millions so they can by one  more thing or increase their property by one more acre. 

While  poor Americans like me merely live in relative poverty and enjoy  material comforts of life the rich of the erath throughout most human  history wold have loved to have had (e.g., microwaves, running water,  electricity, air conditioning) the inequality of wealth distribution in  the U.S. is dramatic. The wealth some married couples have, some single  individuals have, per percentage of national wealth, is spectacular. So,  great is it, that I doubt most Americans even realize how poor they are  relative to these few and mighty. These rich people you chalk up as  having integrity and work ethic. These people are de facto nations onto  themselves. 

My future yellow or white gold ring with 1.25 carats  or so of diamonds is but a pathetic crumb of national wealth and  consumption of the earth's resources compared to these giants of the  planet. Even if I had a Cadillac, fur coat, godfather hat, and million  dollar mansion on Milwaukee's East side I'd still be but a drop in the  bucket in terms of wealth compared to those giants of the planet. So,  while you're a fiscal conservative, and defend the American rich, and  talk about "integrity" and "how people treat other people" and about how  I'm materialistic, don't take me as a fool. I'm not the brightest guy  around or the most educated but I have enough knowledge base and  intelligence to know a Cadillac and a $2,000 purchased ring does not  constitute so-called "real wealth." The East side mansion is another  thing. That is more real wealth (even the ring may hold more wealth in  long term investment than the Cadillac driven off the car dealership  lot).

You also have pieces of men's jewelry, like wrist watches,  that the rich conservatives wear, that have no diamonds on them but cost  $20,000 or more. That "bling" is regarded by those that don't like  "bling" as materialism is just a matter of perception. There is nothing  intrinsically worse about diamonds than the metal that goes into form  those $20,000 German and Swiss made watches.  

But because inner  city people like "bling" it automatically loses prestige among the  inherited wealthy class or those in conservative wealthy circles that  may be of first generation wealth. Whenever the poor or common man  acquires or adopts things once only the rich could afford it always  loses it's "cultured" value and prestige. Used to be only the rich could  afford forks and spoons. Used to be only the rich could afford cars.  



> Courtship and selection is not that complex. Practically on sight, a man  will pick a woman based on physical criteria. Once he makes that  selection, there will be other factors that overlay those instilled by  instinct -- things like intelligence, sense of humor – and things like  common interests or perhaps faith etc. Not rocket science.
> 
> For women, we both know the underlying motivations: The best genes for  her children – and the best situation for her children to eventually  pass on those genes. Simple. Her “alpha male” is going to be the man she  comes across – probably by chance – who’s best suited to provide for  that. The attributes she’ll likely consider include income (or potential  income) good health, intelligence etc. Naturally – she’ll also consider  good looks, sense of humor, faith etc. (Of course, there is romantic  love – and that goes for both sexes.)
> 
> What else does she look for? I’d contend a “decent guy” -- the attribute  that you mock. By that I mean someone who’s more likely to be honest,  trustworthy and faithful. This is where you get it wrong. In this day  and age -- the best situation to pass on genes -- a stable marriage --  is more attainable and sustainable if the man possesses those  qualities.



Everyone is a "decent guy." By that I mean  just about everyone can be liked and there is good to be found in just  about everyone. How I perceive an obese woman with low self esteem has  more to do with me than it does with her an her intrinsic worth. As a  biological creature, built up from the cellular level, she is a work of  marvel. She may not know it and others may not see it. From a Christian  moral perspective her gluttony may be obvious. But we are all sinners.  If I wanted to I could reshape my character to embrace her and seek to  see the good in her and those qualities I like.

Men can do this  with women. But women can do this with men too. Both just wish not to.  Plus, both are indoctrinated by society with ideas of what constitutes a  "good man" or "good woman." 



> “Most women” aren’t going to be attracted to your notion of the  alpha-male -- who runs around having indiscriminate sex and who then  “moves on.” She might be superficially attracted to that kind of man –  but I would content that in most cases – she would recognize he’s not a  suitable partner. It may be different within your limited experience and  in your corner of the world, of course. (Also, there is no accepted  scientific definition of alpha male as it might apply to humans.  That’s  pop-science. It means different things to different people. Ask around –  that is if you can get opinions from people outside your immediate  surroundings.)



Yes she will be. If she says she isn't  then she lies. While men tend to be more prone to violence, to rape, and  are more childish when it comes to their egos, women are more like  children when it comes to wanting something they see other women having.  There is nothing more "deep" than that. You can dress up with "decent  guy" nonsense all you like. It's not rocket science that it takes a  woman to get a woman. If I'm walking with a woman under my arm - or  wearing a wedding ring - my odds of attracting women shoots up  astronomically. That's because they have no more "depth" than little  kids. They see another kid with a toy and they want it. If the other kid  was not playing with the toy then they could give two damns about it. 





> Other than the obvious underlying motivations that have to do with  evolution, I don’t think you have any idea what women want. Yes – they  do want a decent man -- that’s a concept that eludes you. They consider  many other things besides wealth -- and in most cases, since people  marry in their late 20’s or so -- it’s just the potential of future  wealth anyway.



Yeah... women are keenly aware of social  status. And they like to brag. Just like men like to brag. Women like to  brag about their boyfriends or husbands to other women. The two most  important things to a woman about a man is his wealth or earning  potential and his social status. Period. Love and all that stuff does  not factor in. Love develops later. Women like men are to calculating  for that.

The day bisexual males or pedophile males become the  newest socially "cool" thing is the exact day you'll see women lusting  and competing for the attention of those chaps. 

I know all there  needs to be known about men and women. For instance, if I robbed a  bank, and either a woman or man I was "friends" with knew, if a $20  million dollar reward was offered for information leading to the bank  robbers arrest, you can be certain that woman or man would call the cops  on me. A friend of mine who's family was involved in crime once told  me, "If they'll do it for something small then they'll do it for  something big." If a woman calculates she wants a "decent guy" (e.g.,  earning potential at minimum $60,000 per annum) then she'll rat on you  for $20 million. Does not matter if you're "nice" to her. 



> “Most” women are probably not going to overlook prison time for  committing violent crimes, nor will “most” see a promiscuous man as an  ideal mate. That’s just stuff you’ve made up -- or you’re extrapolating  from what goes on around you, what you read in some magazine or saw it  on a reality show -- and you’re applying it to the world.



You're wrong on both accounts. Partly because having a woman has come easy in your life.  My former Africology professor (Africology being an afro-centric social  science) pointed out in a class, that rich people tend to think the  world is fair, middle-class people tend to think the world is pretty  fair with some amount of unfairness, and poor people tend to view the  world as unfair.

This can be applied to acquiring "wealth" in sex and love.



> *I also don’t think you have a clue as what wealthy people want  in a mate and I don’t think you know anything about wealthy or powerful  men in general other than what you see on TV.* I know men who  make a million plus in salary and bonuses easy -- and have a lot of  accumulated wealth. And more who make in the 250.00-500,000 range. Some  are clients, some I know from church or from when my wife taught private  school. One of my best friends is a plastic surgeon who could buy and  sell me ten times over. Some are still married to the women they met in  college or early in their careers. Some are divorced -- and they’ve  essentially married younger versions of their first wives. They’re  criteria is not as specific as you imagine. Even so, I doubt any of them  would look twice and any of your “Mob Wives.” Class does seem to be a  trait most of them look for -- from what I’ve seen. If you think Ramona  Rizzo could snag even your average corporate CEO, you’re dreaming.



Ramona Rizzo was married to a wealthy Arab and lived for a time in the UAE with maids. I've been in the UAE.  And contrary to what most Americans think that they're the only people  in the world with cars and indoor plumbing, the average American lives  like a pauper next to those Arabs in Dubai. 

And you are right, I  don't personally know many rich people (that should be ironic in a U.S.  that is fair and egalitarian). I do know at least one. A good female  friend of mine married him. That's how I know him. They live in Mequon  (spelling?) outside of Milwaukee. She's black and he's white. He met her  when she worked in a strip club as a stripper. They live in a smaller  house for my taste for the cost of the house but he does not want to  live in Milwaukee as he perceives that as being associated both with  crime and low social status. He's also going through major depression  right now as his "poor" means having a few hundred bucks in his pocket  and buying a brand new BMW. His wife tells him, "You know how many black  cats would like to be 'poor' like you?" 

But I really don't need  to personally know rich men. It's enough for me to have grown up in a  world and city with sections of the city clearly separated by race and  socio-economic standing. If I lived on the rich part of the East side of  Milwaukee I might as well be living in another English speaking  country. I'd think I'd have died and went to heaven. And if I got robbed  I could complain about the injustice of it all and the lack of  integrity in people. But as it is I can't complain but prepare to fight  and survive and know that no one has integrity.  



> *In my book, women who pursue men purely for money are gold diggers.*  It’s not an admirable quality in my estimation. Yes – some women dream  of marrying wealth – perhaps some high percentage – but you’re assuming  that “most” women will automatically sacrifice their integrity to bag a  wealthy man -- or that “most” are even willing share that man with other  women – and I don’t see that there’s any basis for that. If you have  evidence that shows otherwise – I’d like to see it.



That's  all women. Damn near all at least. Unless a woman marries some broke  ass dude and never expects him to work but she's the bread winner, then  she singed a monetary contract for her ass. The street prostitute or  high class escort is just more honest about it.


----------



## JosephB (Jun 23, 2012)

You’re not into subtleties are you? A condescending tone doesn’t mean I’m frustrated or angry. Your posts are an amusing diversion to me. Nothing more or less. You say a lot of weird stuff with strange tangents and disconnects. From time to time, they make sense and you say something interesting. That’s what I think. It doesn’t mean I think I’m better than you. But whatever you have to believe.

Along the lines of weird stuff, if you think “most women in America” would be willing to overlook that a man has a violent criminal history, you’re delusional.  And that’s just one the more ridiculous assumptions you're making.  Of course, there are no statistics or data to back up or refute such an absurd notion. No one in his right mind would bother to look into it. I’m sure it applies to some number of women, however small -- otherwise, it wouldn’t matter if every woman in the country told you it was nonsense, since you firmly believe that each and every one of them would be lying. Somehow you, Writ, know better. You "know it's FACT." Based on what -- who knows? So weird.

I can’t have a conversation with someone who believes something so off the wall. I really should have known better than to try.


----------



## Writ (Jun 23, 2012)

JosephB said:


> You’re not into subtleties are you? A condescending tone doesn’t mean I’m frustrated or angry. Your posts are an amusing diversion to me. Nothing more or less. You say a lot of weird stuff with strange tangents and disconnects. From time to time, they make sense and you say something interesting. That’s what I think. It doesn’t mean I think I’m better than you. But whatever you have to believe.
> 
> *Along the lines of weird stuff, if you think “most women in America” would be willing to overlook that a man has a violent criminal history, you’re delusional.  And that’s just one of your more ridiculous assumptions.*  Of course, there are no statistics or data to back up or refute such an absurd notion. No one in his right mind would bother to look into it. I’m sure it applies to some number of women, however small -- otherwise, it wouldn’t matter if every woman in the country told you it was nonsense, since you firmly believe that each of them would be lying. Somehow you, Writ, know better. Based on what -- who knows?
> 
> I can’t have a conversation with someone who believes something so off the wall. I really should have known better than to try.



You keep accusing me of assumptions while you've done it this whole thread about both the reality show _Mob Wives _and the casts in both New York and Chicago.

I already stated numerous times the cast members are a bit ethnically stereotypically "greasy" in the New York show and even greater "grease balls" in the Chicago show. But guess what? That's there hood and the peoples they come from. That's not Writ's hood or the people he comes from. So, what do you want me to do about Staten Island being Staten Island or Chicago's Taylor Street being Taylor Street? I can't change their reality anymore than I can change the reality of red necks in Mississippi.

And you've not even watched _Mob Wives _to make a fair judgement of it. The show has real people with real lives going through real struggles with real emotions. While Ramona and Karen both retain some of their bullying characteristics they learned from their mob families, both have made some growth and break away strides too. Partly it is revealed in the men of different races they choose to marry. But more especially in Karen's case her growth has been impressive in the way she came to confront who she was and what it meant to be the daughter of Sammy "the bull" Gravano. She confronted what it was or is to be what she calls a "mob groupie." 

That's better and more authentic than any soap operas that were popular in the United States decades ago. All of which had fictional characters that were rich people.

People like to put down Reality TV because it's new. They did the same thing with jazz music when it was new. With rock. With rap. But there are better and worse Reality TV shows. I think _Mob Wives _has to be one of the best if not the best. And really... it's no worse than fictional novels or historical fictional novels. Karen going back to Staten Island which comes with confronting her former peoples and community that has any many ways turned their back on her and shunned her is a compelling journey and has it's own level of heroism. 

But you just write them all off as if they're nothing. While at the same time talking up the rich in the United States as if they're the greatest people since Jesus Christ. Those people put on their pants one leg at a time like everyone else. And from Enron to the housing scandal you'd think we'd know they're as inclined to corruption as anyone else. 

Ramona is actually a very classy woman. But you can be classy and be evil too. People think Satan would be a homeless bum with no woman. But Satan is more likely to come in the world as a rich, handsome, charismatic and classy man. 

Drita is more down the earth and keeps it 100. 

I like the way she goes off on the phone on her incarcerated husband. She's a tough and strong woman. I don't care if she curses (or fights) and you don't regard it as classy. She doesn't come fake to you and she lets you know where the line is drawn. I like her.

Drita going off on her hubby: "I'm Not Waiting" | Show Clip | VH1.com (1 minute 42 sec. clip)

Drita and her white collar stock broker friend Carla discuss in the gym all the visiting women at prison they know from their neighborhood when they go visit their own incarcerated husbands. That kind of reminds me of my own neighborhood. Everyone in my neighborhood has friends and/or family in prison. Most males my age have felonies. Ergo, no woman cares about a man having been in the joint. 

And that goes for the rest of the nation outside my neighborhood or even the broader North side of Milwaukee. American woman don't care about men having felony convictions. They only care about money and social status - of the man. 

Drita and Carla discuss visitors at prisons: "Carla and Drita Hit The Gym" | Show Clip | VH1.com (short 1 minute or so clip again)


----------



## JosephB (Jun 24, 2012)

Reality TV isn’t new. It’s been around at least a decade. And I already said I watched part of the episode you posted.

Reality shows aren’t reality. The situations are totally artificial – for example four so-called mob wives thrown together for the sole purpose of creating a TV show.

They’re heavily edited too – like the old fake reaction shot – when an angry or surprised facial expression is cut in out of sequence. They set up situations to create conflict and make people look silly for the amusement of the audience. To create drama, they always pick a ‘villain” -- then include mostly footage that puts him or her in a bad light. 

Plus, no one acts the same in real life as they do when they’re on camera. They’re not fully scripted – but the producers do a whole lot of meddling to make sure it’s all entertaining. They patch together scenes, show them out of sequence, heavily edit dialog etc. So there’s nothing real about it.

And I never said the mob wives were "nothing." I said they were foul-mouthed and tacky. I also said they were probably made to look bad for the sake of the show -- because I know how reality shows are made. That means I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt. Otherwise, I don’t see anything about them that makes them worthy of any attention or admiration. It’s a just freak show -- just like most VH1 reality shows.

I understand that some people just want to watch crap as a diversion. But in general -- I don’t like reality shows. Pawn Stars is about the only one I can stomach -- that’s because the transactions are pretty interesting. I like the ones where they flip houses too, because I’m interested in how they make the renovations etc. But even in those, the stuff involving the people is mostly B.S.



> While at the same time talking up the rich in the United States as if  they're the greatest people since Jesus Christ.



I never said that or even implied it.

Of course, some rich folks are not good people. Some are crooks. Some are greedy. Some are decent people with a good work ethic. Some give freely of their time and money. Some are indifferent to those who aren't as fortunate. And there is everything in between. It varies -- just like any other subset of the population. None of that has a whole lot to with what we were talking about, so I didn't feel like it was necessary to rehash the obvious.



> And that goes for the rest of the nation outside my neighborhood or even  the broader North side of Milwaukee. American woman don't care about  men having felony convictions. They only care about money and social  status - of the man.



Women you know. Women where you live and places with a similar demographic. Some other women too, I'm sure. That does not mean "American women." It means some fraction of America women would overlook a violent felony conviction for the sake of money. (And remember you said, a man who "murders or robs banks." Not just any felony.) 

 Both of us agree that women will most likely select a man from a similar socio-economic background. Why would this be an exception to that? A conviction on a violent crime will be more socially and personally acceptable to some small segment of women in this country. It will be red flag to many, if not the majority of others. Come on Writ -- apply a little logic and common sense to this.


----------

