No, not a L’oreal commercial but a personal ad in Craig’s List supposedly posted by a young woman looking for a mate who can provide her with what she thinks she deserves. The ad elicited a response from a man who claims to fit the bill for the kind of spouse the woman is looking for but his reply may not be what she expected … but then, perhaps she did. Don’t go looking for candle light, soft music, conviviality, whispery sweet-nothings or sparkling conversation. The exchange is pure brass-knuckles business negotiation.
The woman’s plea begins:
What am I doing wrong?
Okay, I’m tired of beating around the bush. I’m a beautiful (spectacularly beautiful) 25-year-old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m not from New York. I’m looking to get married to a guy who makes at least [a] half a million a year. I know how that sounds, but keep in mind that a million a year is middle class in New York City, so I don’t think I’m overreaching at all.
Are there any guys who make 500K or more on this board? Any wives? Could you send me some tips? I dated a businessman who makes average around 200 – 250K. But that’s where I seem to hit a roadblock. 250,000K won’t get me to Central Park West. I know a woman in my yoga class who was married to an investment banker and lives in Tribeca, and she’s not as pretty as I am, nor is she a great genius. So what is she doing right? How do I get to her level?
And ends: (don’t forget to read the candid details in between)
Please hold your insults — I’m putting myself out there in an honest way. Most beautiful women are superficial; at least I’m being up front about it. I wouldn’t be searching for these kind of guys if I wasn’t able to match them — in looks, culture, sophistication, and keeping a nice home and hearth.
Here is part of the salvo from an eligible man who read the ad: (Do check out his sharp market analysis in full)
Dear Pers-431649184:
I read your posting with great interest and have thought meaningfully about your dilemma. I offer the following analysis of your predicament. Firstly, I’m not wasting your time, I qualify as a guy who fits your bill; that is I make more than $500K per year. That said, here’s how I see it:
Your offer, from the prospective of a guy like me, is plain and simple a crappy business deal. Here’s why. Cutting through all the B.S., what you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party, and I bring my money. Fine, simple. But here’s the rub — your looks will fade and my money will likely continue into perpetuity … in fact, it is very likely that my income increases but it is an absolute certainty that you won’t be getting any more beautiful!
So, in economic terms, you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset. Not only are you a depreciating asset, your depreciation accelerates! Let me explain: you’re 25 now and will likely stay pretty hot for the next 5 years, but less so each year. Then the fade begins in earnest. By 35, stick a fork in you!
I have no clue if the ads (one or both) are jokes or a deadly serious matrimonial search. If a prank, then are they funny, cruel or spot on caricatures of what fuels at least some "romantic" alliances? If serious, are the applicants honest, scary or just earnest candidates for a feasible match made in heaven (or hell) for two people who deserve each other? (link via 3QD)
Accidental Blogger 
5 responses to ““Will You Marry Me? I Am Worth It!””
Hilarious. I’m generally in agreement with the conclusion over at 3QD:
“I have to say that the respondent has some pretty sensible economics in his answer. My guess, however, is that with that mindset he probably doesn’t have any more success with ladies than the gold-digging woman does with men. Just as politics often trumps economics when it comes to public policy, rational arguments rarely win the day in dating, love, and marriage.”
I wouldn’t, however, equate economics with rational arguments in opposition to politics, unless politics is read in its broad ethical definition of “how to structure and regulate our community.”
An economist might add that there are some additional implicit preferences here that should give both parties pause.
Whether he’d admit it or not, our cocky banker might harbor a secret concern that the woman’s stated preferences suggest an extremely low tolerance for risks in her choice of investments. Though he’s currently an earning asset, there’s always the chance for another Black Thursday, in which case, the woman’s post suggests she would have packed up and vacated Central Park West by Friday. Hell, if all she wants is money, she doesn’t even need to stick around that long, so long as she gets a good attorney for the pre-nup. And if Mr. $250K couldn’t keep her interest with visions of Mr. $500K dancing in her head, my guess is all bets are off if she marries Mr. $500K but a Bill Gates comes to town.
Even for the most shallow men and women, moreover, attractiveness is more complicated than simple looks (or money, for shallow women), even if looks are part of it. Nudity is generally less alluring, though often aesthetic on other grounds, than skimpy clothing, and naked self-interest, even if admirably straight-forward, is not so attractive as when that interest is obscured. Even bankers– or some of them– like to believe that they embody other, non-economic values and positive qualities. Nobody likes to feel like Porky Pig on the desert island, being watched by a wolf (even a “spectacular” one) with thought bubbles leading to a ham-hock thought cloud.
LikeLike
What the young woman (if such she really is) is offering is of course prostitution pure and simple. What the responder is in effect pointing out that, if looked at in this way, it is a very stupid form of prostitution. No “John” would agree to such a dumb deal. This, btw, is one answer to the radical feminist theory that all marriage is nothing but prostitution: if it were, rational economic agents would quickly replace it with a more sensible version of the thing.
LikeLike
In cultures where most marriages unselfconsciously continue to be a matter of “negotiations” based on the earning power (still overwhelmingly of the male) and the “good” genes of the female to ensure financial security and the perpetuation of the blood line, preferably through male progeny, this exchange would be remarkable only for the mathematical details the two participants go into in making their respective cases. But in other societies where wedded bliss, at least in the mass psyche and popular culture, is supposed to spring from the well of companionship, compatibility and romance, the ads indeed qualify as hilarious.
On re-reading, the missive from the young woman smacks more of mercenary intentions than the one coming from the market savvy banker/investor. She isn’t looking at anything except the right address and social goodies that come with the 500+ K income. He on the other hand, is irked by the crappy meat-market deal that she has to offer – in which case, he is better off “leasing than buying.” As Anna says in her last paragraph, even shrewd bankers/ investors look for something a bit more alluring than an “honest deal” and would like to be reassured that their appeal as prospective mates goes beyond their pay-checks. I have a feeling that the woman will be luckier if she makes her offer on the trophy-wife market where actuarial science predicts that her shelf life will be longer in relation to the total time she might have to spend in the company of an older man. In which case she has to post somewhere a little more “classy” than Craig’s List.
But what the heck. People marry and un-marry for reasons that others find inexplicable. I once heard the much married Zsa Zsa Gabor explain one particularly short-lived alliance thus:
Dahling, he looked good in Las Vegas where I married him. He was totally out of place against the decor and social setting of Los Angeles.
LikeLike
I’m of two minds on this:
Mind 1)
A) I don’t think prostitution is bad.
B) Most marriages are forms of economic and social trade, therefore, prostitution. (not bad!)
C) The woman in the ad is just being honest
D) Her ad reveals something frightening about ourselves.
E) That makes people angry
F) That’s why they attack her.
and Mind 2)
A) What a terrible person.
LikeLike
Would love to have seen her expression whilst reading his great reply. Can’t flaw his economics of the value exchange. As a negotiated exchange, it wouldn’t make sense. The problem? How many marriages and romantic relationships are built on a foundation of ‘sense’?
LikeLike