Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You've done it now. Ruth will ask you what does "bring to table" mean. I agree about with you about the two individuals would hopefully come to table with something similar. However, the majority of the surveys didn't yield results that indicated that the respondents wanted mates that brought similar things to the table.
Honestly - what I looked for and always looked for was just someone I felt comfortable with. I wanted someone who "got" me. Someone I could laugh with. I think that a lot of things have become exacerbated with the invention of online dating. Now people can fill out "checklists" and such that rule out lots of people that they might have been compatible with had they met in person.
Honestly - what I looked for and always looked for was just someone I felt comfortable with. I wanted someone who "got" me. Someone I could laugh with. I think that a lot of things have become exacerbated with the invention of online dating. Now people can fill out "checklists" and such that rule out lots of people that they might have been compatible with had they met in person.
I agree with you in regards to the online dating issue. For myself, I'm happy if I find someone that makes within 5k to 10k of my salary. However, if I meet a woman that make about 15k or more than I do AND she loves to travel and eat out and do drinks at nice bars/lounges, then I find myself wondering if she would expect the same of me in terms of spending the type of money she has but that I clearly don't have.
Anybody ever hear "A man's wealth is his beauty, and a woman's beauty is her wealth"?
Most "traditional" relationships, in contrast to say Madonna and her physical trainer, work along the lines above.
I do think it's more important for a guy to be above some threshold of "not at all poor" than it is to be really wealthy. Most women would prefer any of several movie stars to Warren Buffet, even though Warren is worth a lot more. Likewise it's more important for a woman to get past a threshold "not hard on the eye" level with most men, once you meet the "opening ante" so to speak, how much you exceed it is less important than other attributes.
More men will be interested in a beautiful but far from wealthy gal (although, put your antenna up, guys, why is she so undervalued in the work marketplace? Get a good answer for that. Think with the big head...) than there are women interested in a good looking but poor guy. Probably instinctive, even though kids may not be on the menu at all, say the gal is 50+ and has had her tubes tied, etc. - the instinct to select a mate that *would* be suitable for child rearing remains.
This is by no means limited to humans, all the other great apes do it.
It's neither good nor bad, it's just what natural selection has favored. Same with alpha male primates not being monogamous - the unfaithful ones made more babies, these babies inherited the genetic proclivity to be "Just like dear old Dad" and so Bob's your uncle.
You've done it now. Ruth will ask you what does "bring to table" mean. I agree about with you about the two individuals would hopefully come to table with something similar. However, the majority of the surveys didn't yield results that indicated that the respondents wanted mates that brought similar things to the table.
Will I thought I just laid out what that meant to me in the post. LOL I dont know how I could explain it any better. Just what I said in the post is what I mean.
I must also add that I dont know what the surveys say, but I think its kind of snotty to have nothing going for yourself, but demand to date someone that has it all.
Again..if a woman dropped out of school...had no education..no car...no job....ate twinkies all day and was 300 lbs..and lived in her mother's basement, but ONLY wanted to date men that were fit and trim, had a bachelors degree, a 100k a year job, and drove a porche and lived in a $300,000 house, then that woman is being ridiculous because she herself doesnt have those things BUT she only wants to date men with those things. Hey, more power to her if she can get that man, im just saying she is quite high and mighty to think she should get it.
Now..if this woman was fit, trim, had a bachelors degree, a 100K a year job, and drove a Mercedes, and owned a $275,000 condo or something..then she could say she only wants to date a guy with those things because SHE has those things. I really in good conscience cant say that if a person wants what they bring to the table in a mate, that they are snobs, etc. I can say that they can find good people who may be off their rader a bit, but I cant judge them for wanting what they have in a mate.
Its like a man who is a 5 getting mad because he only wants to date 10's who wont give him the time of day. Its ok for HIM to want a 10..when he himself is not a 10. BUT..he will get mad if that 10 also wants another 10 and overlooks him. I dont agree with that concept, is all im saying. Whether its a man or woman.
Where did it come from? The fact that women want to get married so badly (which is really just a financial contract...nothing changes aside from that) and seem to look for the highest bidder is where it comes from.
In case you didn't notice, most women:
-won't date a guy who makes less than them
-won't marry a guy who makes less than them
-refuse to date unemployed guys
-are quick to divorce if a guy's financial situation gets messy
-won't let a guy be a stay at home dad
-determine if a guy is dateable based on his job description
-push for marriage because they know they'll end up benefiting financially.
Not all women operate like this, but the majority do. On the other hand, most guys don't need their woman to make more than them, they won't refuse to date an unemployed woman, they won't divorce a woman if her job situation gets messy, and they don't determine if a woman is datable based on her job description/career status.
That was the case in my failed marriage. Once it became apparent my frugality was going to be a hindrance to her ability to attain the material lifestyle she was unable and unwilling to forge on her own, it was "I don't love you anymore" city. Bear in mind, throughout the 7 years we were together, of which only one was as a married couple, said woman never uttered such afflictions. The second the ink was dry on the license however, utterances such as "you're my husband, you're supposed to do that for me" [referring to co-signing for a new vehicle purchase to replace her older but working car] became commonplace.
My subsequent dating life was replete with examples where the paradigm-shifting request to marry with a prenup, nullifying the economic legalities that allow wealth extraction on divorce, was met with constant indignation and very pointed criticism. It was heresy to make such argument. Of course, when I would ask for a reason to help me understand the indignation, no rational or substantive reasoning was given. Just visceral and blind indignation for my blasphemous act of placing an emotional mirror in front of them and the private acknowledgement that, outside of that financial benefit to them, there was no point to marriage in their eyes.
This behavior is congruent with reality, as we know the government contract of marriage is merely a legal economic contract whereby the State subrogates the subsidy of dependents on the income-producing among society, rather than on the direct subsidy of the State, which creates a burden for it. Women are hypocrites in aggregate on this regard; being given the access to equal labor participation on the workforce just to end up largely rejecting the responsibility portion of the primary breadwinning role while simultaneously clamoring to retain the comforts of the classic female gender role. In short, my exwife wanted her full time income to be play money while her man, who must of course make more than her, must carry the responsibility of providing a classical breadwinning construct on his and only his hide alone. And come divorce, her half is hers and my half is hers too. And most women, working spouse or stay-at-home alike, simply detest being called out on that hypocrisy under the auspices that THEIR provision of human companionship is worth money and is much more valuable than the very same human companionship provision the man affords them back. Her company is worth half my salary but my company is not worth a penny? I rest my case.
Fortunately, some women are not like this and I have been fortunate to find one that does not find objection to the rationale and life choices I speak of. Said woman appears up until now to be willing and able to marry with no objection to a prenuptial agreement whereby each takes what each earned by the sweat of their own brow and calluses from their own hands, in the event of a divorce. I have regained faith in the idea that there is the possibility in this world to have a level-headed relationship with a woman, one where self-interests and the thirst for material comfort and free-loading can be put aside for the sake of writing a life chapter one can be content and at peace with.
There are no guarantees in life, that much I've learned, but I'm comfortable in suggesting that not every woman and man fall within these archetypes of material rent-seeking. I just disagree with the majority of posters, in that I believe the preponderance of marriages and relationships fall under the construct of my failed marriage and not under the archetype of my current relationship. That has been my experience and my peers' relationships further support my math. Most women do want money/hedonistic-keeping and most men do want fleeting arm candy.
The only woman I've know to ask for a prenup has been a resident oral surgeon marrying my Air Force officer buddy, who only makes a quarter of her projected market income potential, and my buddy pulls 90K mind you. But a dude making 60K asks a chick making 60K, or 30K, or nothing, for a prenup and holy Joseph watch out. Proof is in the pudding. Leave the pinky swears for organized religion or the metaphysical, for the earthly matters it's walk the walk.
And as men of modest means are finding out, the cat is out of the bag. Marriage as an economic model is falling by the wayside. No requirement for marriage to have company or even make a family. The broken family model is full-on embraced by our society these days, so women are losing leverage on the marriage angle. Yeah the suckers and those with the disposable income will continue to buy-in interest in the arm candy of their choice. To each their own in that regard.
if people married for love and for having common interests there would be no worry about wealth, but yes, men and women can be superficial and would rather look for the material things in a partner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Proof is in the pudding. Leave the pinky swears for organized religion or the metaphysical, for the earthly matters it's walk the walk. 
