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.
Oh, sure there are, but they're a minority of people. And I was saying that money and status aren't one in the same to most people.
I guess I'm just luck though. Almost everyone I date (because of my chosen profession) earns 50%+ more than me, sometimes 2x what I earn, and its never an issue as I can "keep up" as I manage my money well. It often seems I have more disposable income than many of them as I have no student loans and until last week have lived for years without a car.
Oh, I agree with you.
Money and status aren't the same at all. They can be tied together, but don't have to be. The "millionaire" next door is a perfect example of this. People with millions saved who live like average Joe Middle class. They have the money, but not the status. And there are people with status and very little money. An easy example of this is nobility. Granted, many are rich, but a lot of nobility don't have a lot of money, yet they still have the status and the titles.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillabean
Oh, I agree with you.
Money and status aren't the same at all. They can be tied together, but don't have to be. The "millionaire" next door is a perfect example of this. People with millions saved who live like average Joe Middle class. They have the money, but not the status. And there are people with status and very little money. An easy example of this is nobility. Granted, many are rich, but a lot of nobility don't have a lot of money, yet they still have the status and the titles.
Or people in bands, or on stage for other things. They're often broke, but have social status.
I don't know of any women that care about the kind of car men drive, past the age of high school. If I see a beautiful or impressive car, I admire the car...not the guy driving it.
However, the only people I know that are vastly impressed with what a man has are usually other men. If this forum is any kind of example, those that brag about what they have, what they look like, etc are turning women off. Pretension isn't sexy.
Simply said, we aren't peacocks...women are more concerned with their own feathers than the pretty feathers some guy has.
I think cars for some men are like designer shoes are for some women. Both think the opposite sex cares about these things, when the reality is it only impresses yourself and many those of your own gender. Just like most men don't care what brand of shoe a woman is wearing, most women don't care about what kind of car a guy is driving. A woman could wear black no-name stilettos from Payless and a guy wouldn't thinks twice about her shoes long as the shoes aren't falling apart, don't fit, and hurting he feet so she complains all night... and a man can drive a Chevy or Honda, and a woman won't think twice about his car so long as it's it's not dirty, backfiring, and looks like it will break down on the way to the date.
Sure, there are exceptions of course. Men who care about the fashion their woman is wearing and women who care about what kinds of cars their men drive... but again, they aren't most people and I say let those types who love consumerism have each other (honestly, it does seem that people who are like that find each other... probably because when you get people who are opposites like this together, it doesn't last. I know I couldn't stand being with a man who feels the need to impress everyone else and expects me to do so as well).
Last edited by jillabean; 12-22-2014 at 09:06 AM..
I don't know of any women that care about the kind of car men drive, past the age of high school. If I see a beautiful or impressive car, I admire the car...not the guy driving it.
However, the only people I know that are vastly impressed with what a man has are usually other men. If this forum is any kind of example, those that brag about what they have, what they look like, etc are turning women off. Pretension isn't sexy.
Simply said, we aren't peacocks...women are more concerned with their own feathers than the pretty feathers some guy has.
I don't buy it, not entirely at least. Sure, there has to be some substance. Not many folks want to date an empty-minded dolt. But, at least here in Denver, average to above-average women tend not to date overweight men who don't dress well. People can be very superficial here. It's like SoCal 2.0. I was told once that a girl didn't like me because of my voice. There's nothing wrong with my voice. Welcome to Denver!
In other words, if you're fat and dress sloppily while living in Denver Metro, and you're trying to date, you're going to have a bad time.
As I said, I am in the Top 10%. This definitely is attractive to women. HOWEVER, it is not as attractive, overall, as someone in the Top 1%.
My overarching point is that we've become a tournament-style, winner-take-all style of society. If Cristo is in the "top 10%" (whatever that means), he ought to have - modulo the ubiquitous "all else being equal" - an advantage over the vast majority of men. Instead one finds that the pecking-order, if such a thing is the proper term, works like an elimination-tournament. Only the ultimate winner counts. Anyone who lost any games, in any circumstances in the tournament, is eliminated. Runner-up is no superior to the weakest team in the tournament.
If our hero Joe Dentist is in the top-1%, presumably he ought to wield tremendous appeal to potential mates (again, "all else being equal"); so much so, that his greatest burden ought to be how not to become avaricious, dismissive and coarse; how not to break hearts or to sow illegitimate children.
Joe's lack of "fun" was noted, and I understand the implication. But nevertheless it sorely dismays me. One would have thought that a man of Joe Dentist's stature would have had eminent appeal to families who would have liked to align themselves to him by marriage. He isn't merely a provider of nicknacks or free rent to a gold-digging girlfriend, but a pillar of strength to proudly carry the family name. Instead, in our modern world, he's just another chump who happens to possess a "high net worth" account with Fidelity Investments.
Let me close by giving a salutary example. A friend of mine from graduate school wrote a brilliant dissertation, and scored an assistant professorship without slogging through a post-doc. He's Greek, and came to the US on an F-1 visa. One day he goes to a restaurant in his new college town... a Greek restaurant, as it happens. He sits down, orders his meal, chats with the waitress. She notes his accent, and calls over some middle-aged man, paunchy and balding, but with the vivacity and drive of an accomplished businessman. It turns out that he's the restaurant owner. He engaged my friend in conversation, asking the latter in which department he's a student. My friend responds: "Actually, my good sir, I'm not a student at all; I'm a tenure-tracked assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department". The restaurant-owner is taken aback, and my friend looked very youthful. Regaining his composure, he blurts out: "My dear young man, this is such a pleasant surprise! Do please do me the honor of meeting my daughter; she'd love to meet you! Oh, and dinner is on the house!"
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Joe's lack of "fun" was noted, and I understand the implication. But nevertheless it sorely dismays me. One would have thought that a man of Joe Dentist's stature would have had eminent appeal to families who would have liked to align themselves to him by marriage. He isn't merely a provider of nicknacks or free rent to a gold-digging girlfriend, but a pillar of strength to proudly carry the family name. Instead, in our modern world, he's just another chump who happens to possess a "high net worth" account with Fidelity Investments.
Thankfully these things are, hopefully, falling to the wayside in modern times and it is more about falling in love and being healthy and enjoyable partners to each other.
Often in these pages we hear of men bemoaning their parlous financial status. They're pitiable college-students, bedraggled retail-workers, underappreciated teachers, proud but poor social workers, law-graduates stuck in clerkships. Women, we hear, smell wealth and poverty, and their noises decidedly draw them to the former. A poor main who elevates his pecuniary wherewithal becomes a star with the ladies. The Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story apparently carries direct analogy in amorous life. On the other hand, we read (albeit less often) of affluent men who complain of being harassed by gold-diggers, prodded and coaxed out of their money, where in almost Christian analogy the rich man is denied the salvation of love, being pursued not for his character but for his wallet.
Both extremes confuse me. Never in my experience has a claim of wealth (exaggerated, accurate or intentionally attenuated) garnered me more female attention. Never has a tawdry display of poverty crushed a potential opportunity. Almost invariably, dinner-dates have insisted on a 50/50 split. Never has a woman dropped hints asking about my 401K, or whether my house is paid off, or if an elderly rich relative is about to die, or if I'm mired in debt. If I admit in conversation about being divorced, never have I been asked if the divorce was financially devastating. If I start talking about the stock market, the strength of the dollar, the divergence this year between small-caps and large-caps, oil prices or price-earnings ratios, almost invariably the woman's eyes roll in listless boredom.
My point is that money is neither-nor. Barring some unimaginable extreme, it neither damns or saves.
And so I have two questions to my esteemed brethren (using the term without gender) of the Forum.
1. why is so prevalent the [male] financial excuse for failure in dating? Do my fellow males seriously believe that doubling their salary will double the acceptance-rate of their romantic proposals? Do the females see themselves being twice as likely to be attracted to a man with twice the net-worth?
2. quite simply, where are the gold diggers? If from jejune desperation or reasons of conducting sociological research I were to reinvent myself as a cavalier dandy, seeking to trade lucre for lust, how to do so? How to comport myself? Where to fish?
Ive loved poor men. Their problem is never thinking theyre worthy or not having the resources to give a woman the things she wants. They dont care that a woman loves them; they care whether they can give us material things to make us happy.
Men themselves are self conscious about their financial status because they instinctively want to be providers. When they are incapable of providing for themselves and having more leftover to treat a lady or possibly children, too, thats a source of fear in them on a very primal level. It eats away at their ego and very essence of being the man who can do anything a woman would need him to, at least in their minds.
Never have I known a very poor and broke man to actively seek any type of serious romantic relationship with any woman. Probably due to all of the above. They feel too focused on being able to provide things, rather than just enjoying love. Also because love can lead to obligations to retain a habitable residence, eventually feed and care for children, make investments in family events. A poor man sees those as expectations he can't meet.
So it is legitimate that a man can be deterred from romance simply because of his financial status.
My overarching point is that we've become a tournament-style, winner-take-all style of society. If Cristo is in the "top 10%" (whatever that means), he ought to have - modulo the ubiquitous "all else being equal" - an advantage over the vast majority of men. Instead one finds that the pecking-order, if such a thing is the proper term, works like an elimination-tournament. Only the ultimate winner counts. Anyone who lost any games, in any circumstances in the tournament, is eliminated. Runner-up is no superior to the weakest team in the tournament.
If our hero Joe Dentist is in the top-1%, presumably he ought to wield tremendous appeal to potential mates (again, "all else being equal"); so much so, that his greatest burden ought to be how not to become avaricious, dismissive and coarse; how not to break hearts or to sow illegitimate children.
Joe's lack of "fun" was noted, and I understand the implication. But nevertheless it sorely dismays me. One would have thought that a man of Joe Dentist's stature would have had eminent appeal to families who would have liked to align themselves to him by marriage. He isn't merely a provider of nicknacks or free rent to a gold-digging girlfriend, but a pillar of strength to proudly carry the family name. Instead, in our modern world, he's just another chump who happens to possess a "high net worth" account with Fidelity Investments.
Let me close by giving a salutary example. A friend of mine from graduate school wrote a brilliant dissertation, and scored an assistant professorship without slogging through a post-doc. He's Greek, and came to the US on an F-1 visa. One day he goes to a restaurant in his new college town... a Greek restaurant, as it happens. He sits down, orders his meal, chats with the waitress. She notes his accent, and calls over some middle-aged man, paunchy and balding, but with the vivacity and drive of an accomplished businessman. It turns out that he's the restaurant owner. He engaged my friend in conversation, asking the latter in which department he's a student. My friend responds: "Actually, my good sir, I'm not a student at all; I'm a tenure-tracked assistant professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department". The restaurant-owner is taken aback, and my friend looked very youthful. Regaining his composure, he blurts out: "My dear young man, this is such a pleasant surprise! Do please do me the honor of meeting my daughter; she'd love to meet you! Oh, and dinner is on the house!"
Sorry, but this post reads like something out of antiquity. That dialogue alone sounds very dated. Anyway, if they're not already, women will likely soon be outpacing men in terms of earnings. So men aren't necessarily looked at as the primary breadwinner anymore.
Besides, who wants to be with a potential dullard just because he has a high net worth? There's got to be more to a loving relationship than that; otherwise, you have become nothing more than a provider.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lafleur
Sorry, but this post reads like something out of antiquity. That dialogue alone sounds very dated. Anyway, if they're not already, women will likely soon be outpacing men in terms of earnings. So men aren't necessarily looked at as the primary breadwinner anymore.
Besides, who wants to be with a potential dullard just because he has a high net worth? There's got to be more to a loving relationship than that; otherwise, you have become nothing more than a provider.
Ohio has some interesting views, one of which is that he likes the ideas of relationships based on needs and dependency and not romantic love.
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.
