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.
If Asian women are what you are after better off looking in somewhere like Tokyo, Singapore, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Putrajaya. Bangkok has high rates of prostitution and ex-prostitutes and slavery. Not exactly wife material.
Money is a substitute / equalizer for those who don't have natural qualities that attract certain segments of women. Bad boys, players, and social status holders don't always need money because they portray qualities that are naturally appealing to enough women.
Example: The lifelong nerd can't get any interest from women, but he starts up a tech company and becomes rich. Now women of various backgrounds are attracted to him because of his financial success, even non-golddiggers who simply want financial stability in a future husband.
Does that make sense?
Yes - but I don't think this is as straightforward as that. This might not be about money at all but about confidence. The lifelong nerd never had any confidence until he became rich. Perhaps his new found confidence is what attracted some of the women - and not the money. We'll never know, of course, but I don't think it's as simple as men seem to think it is. There are also plenty of rich guys that most women won't touch with a 10 foot poll. And then I guess - a mail order bride would make perfect sense!!!
Both of you are missing my point. The majority of people in America aren't highly educated, so singling out one group does not automatically negate the 40-50 year downward trend in the marriage rate for the general population.
Even if you guys are correct, that doesn't negate my point.
30% of the population is educated. That's not a majority, but a large number. Further, this group is being singled out because is it not a more desired dating group?
Another lively debate with you Braunwyn, I look forward to your thought provoking questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
Maybe later. I've had my fill of PMing lately, to be honest.
The bolded is irrational to start. Do we want to argue for the removal of civil rights? Do you? I'll guess no on that.
The bolded is not irrational, and here's how: One can argue for their ideal in one thread while offering a compromise solution in another. An example of this is a person who ideally wants single payer who will compromise for Obamacare (privatized universal coverage).
Therefore, a person who desires women of traditional values can offer a compromise of true equality in social situations to avoid our status quo of sanctioning traditional values in some situations (dating and child custody) and sanctioning equality in others (everything else).
I know it's off topic, but I'll address your civil rights question. Although I'm African-American, even I argue for changes in certain civil rights policies. I believe that inequalities should NOW be addressed by income / class status, not race or color. Some of those policies were needed in the past to trend society towards integration, but today we need to be more colorblind in how we help people. A financially successful minority doesn't need government handups solely based on his color, but the poor person of any color should.
Additionally, I don't prefer any government policies that give me an advantage (or disadvantage) due to my color. That includes jobs, contracts, housing, who does business with me, etc. All I ask for is government protection against racists harming me or my property and businesses. I'd much rather know who the racists are so I can start a competing business and profit off their ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
To the second part of the argument, it already exists, but it's actualized via individual choices. Our society holds a social gamut. There are so many styles of people to choose from, so many MOs. Now, clearly many of you are unaware of this, but is it really anybody's problem? You seem to think so, but I disagree. Not my problem.
I agree that it's via individual choices, but that doesn't mean someone can't come onto this forum and disagree with the individual choices that our society sanctions. As of right now, society sanctions double standards in equality both in social situations (dating and marriage etiquette) and in with law (child custody).
There are society sanctioned double standards that work against women as well, and I'm fine with critiques of that too. I'm always on the women's side when debating gender roles in raising the kids, I believe that should be 50/50, especially in cases where both parents are working.
Yes - but I don't think this is as straightforward as that. This might not be about money at all but about confidence. The lifelong nerd never had any confidence until he became rich. Perhaps his new found confidence is what attracted some of the women - and not the money. We'll never know, of course, but I don't think it's as simple as men seem to think it is. There are also plenty of rich guys that most women won't touch with a 10 foot poll. And then I guess - a mail order bride would make perfect sense!!!
Hi Dewdrop,
Maybe you're right about some men gaining confidence through money. Who knows, we don't have stats on any of this stuff!
In my anecdotal world, I've seen both money and confidence work for undesirable men. Money has won the highest percentage of the time, hands down, even with those men who are still insecure. Those qualities tend to get overlooked by those who desire financial security (not to be confused with only golddiggers).
I didn't say they were. I said "the women they AREN'T dating". Maybe my phrasing was the issue.
My point is: From what I've seen, one group blames American women for the reasons why they can't get a date, the other group doesn't blame the women and simply seeks practical solutions, including foreign women.
Yea, that was established earlier. I get that and agree.
Notice the straight downward trend for the general population since 1960, even through economic boom times of the '80s, '90s, and 2000s.
Indeed, marriage rates have been going down. The economic boom for who in the 80's-2000's should be noted. Times have certainly changed. The poor aren't poor enough where marriage is a necessity. And marriage for the poor might not be a vehicle for wealth as it is for the more affluent. But, it should be understood that recent booms the past decades encapsulate disparity in the US. It's interesting that marriage is turning out to be a reflection of this. Why do you think that is?
30% of the population is educated. That's not a majority, but a large number. Further, this group is being singled out because is it not a more desired dating group?
Braunwyn, I'm not trying to downplay the educated population.
I simply don't see how they are relevant enough in numbers to negate the 70% that are bringing the marriage rates straight downward since 1960.
Sure, everyone desires that group, it still doesn't negate the stats, just as their median income doesn't negate the median income of the rest of the population. Nor does their desirability in dating and marriage matter since there aren't enough of them to go around, and I'm sure they prefer dating and marrying each other.
Last edited by Freedom123; 12-30-2011 at 10:49 AM..
The bolded is not irrational, and here's how: One can argue for their ideal in one thread while offering a compromise solution in another. An example of this is a person who ideally wants single payer who will compromise for Obamacare (privatized universal coverage).
Therefore, a person who desires women of traditional values can offer a compromise of true equality in social situations to avoid our status quo of sanctioning traditional values in some situations (dating and child custody) and sanctioning equality in others (everything else).
It is irrational. Your analogy of a single payer is not gender biased. It addresses all people.
Quote:
I know it's off topic, but I'll address your civil rights question. Although I'm African-American, even I argue for changes in certain civil rights policies. I believe that inequalities should NOW be addressed by income / class status, not race or color. Some of those policies were needed in the past to trend society towards integration, but today we need to be more colorblind in how we help people. A financially successful minority doesn't need government handups solely based on his color, but the poor person of any color should.
These policies hardly exist today. I have never come across them. All I see are assertions made on the net as random opinions. So, I don't really buy into the idea that policies are giving anyone a leg up based on race or gender. When it comes to marriage, children, divorce- child support cannot be removed from the playing field, which is what I assume you're getting at. If you really want to implement that kind of social pressure onto the population than an equally consequential compromise needs to be offered up.
Quote:
I agree that it's via individual choices, but that doesn't mean someone can't come onto this forum and disagree with the individual choices that our society sanctions. As of right now, society sanctions double standards in equality both in social situations (dating and marriage etiquette) and in with law (child custody).
Society says you. Frankly, I'm growing tired of assertions that this segment of the population, even if it's 40-50-60% are the majority voice or more important voice. I don't think that's the case at all.
Quote:
There are society sanctioned double standards that work against women as well, and I'm fine with critiques of that too. I'm always on the women's side when debating gender roles in raising the kids, I believe that should be 50/50, especially in cases where both parents are working.
It really depends. I think it will vary depending on the situation. Some double standards I hear when it comes to women is wage disparity. I happen to disagree with that argument. Whether it's that or gender roles IRT kids, it's about individual choices. If people want to see change, and to be cliche, they need to be that change.
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.
