You can have your wallet loved and your personality despised. In fact, that is generally what happens.

No man is loved for his wallet. It is the wallet itself which is loved.

It is quite easy for a man to work out what is in a woman’s mind. And if he can’t, practically every woman he asks will be able to see it immediately and tell him.

The trouble is, men just don’t want to know, and the reason they can’t see what’s staring them in the face is that they don’t want to have to CHANGE to save the relationship, or go out of their way.

With gold-digger women who are just using them as a meal ticket, they don’t want to face the truth that they’re not ‘loved’ for themselves, even if it is obvious to everyone else, and so will go into major denial mode and get really, really upset if well-meaning friends and family try to tell them to watch out.

The denial mode is so great that an ageing and ugly man will acknowledge that yes, he knows he is ageing and ugly, but his 30-years-younger and very beautiful girlfriend “loves me for myself because she can see who I really am”.

Jahasra.

The mantra every woman has heard from some man at some point in her life: ‘Take me as I am or leave.’

Meanwhile, women are expected to turn themselves inside out to accommodate everybody else.

Daphne, from personal experience it is the other way round.

A man never knows what is hovering in a woman’s mind. And I am not a male chauvinist pig.

It could only become a matter of principle in the refusal of payment context if the charge was attached to the child and its right from the point of existence as an embryo and not the mother. Is the child the State’s ward? Is the mother merely the carrier?

Whilst one cannot ascertain which precise national rights apply during the pregnancy, or rather one could – but at an unwelcome and unnecessary risk to the unborn child, the child’s rights at the time of labour and passage into the world could become a point of principle.

I’d say principle in this case begins at the point when the umbilical cord is cut, at which point in natural childbirth most of the work for the mother is done.

Pre-natal and post-natal. But isn’t this the principle in place already?

Unless the principle sought is the one where the mother is considered merely the carrier for the charge/ ward (the child) and a necessary inconvenience to be catered for in the same bundle of expenses carried by the State? Effectively, this would be a demotion of the mother’s role and rights.

I’d say context is paramount when talking about principles to be extracted, lest one case provide the precedent for a different scenario.

Call Cyrus on 7928 1981. He’s the expert.

This is obviously another man speaking. A woman (and a decent man) would put the question the other way round: why would a man want to marry in the first place, and then stay married, to a woman to whom he wishes to leave nothing or nearly nothing in his will while spending the intervening years trying to cheat her out of as much as possible?

Is there some special psychology to all this, because it makes no sense to a rational person?

But why marry in the first instance, in that case?

Is marriage now defined as a status of … just for the fruits of having a large sum of money after your spouse’s death?

Perhaps he got the sperm from Petticoat Lane.