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.
And this is really the core point, is it not? How we're equipped, is secondary to our sincerity. The purpose of dating is to gauge the degree of sincerity. Have it, and who cares about the practical stuff? Lack it, and no tokens of independence or maturity can compensate.
I don't mean to make light of practical considerations. It is too easy to be smitten and to disregard sure evidence of grievous faults. Nobody is so wise as to see everything; shortcuts are inevitable. But are we taking the right shortcuts?
Again, only speaking from my experience. People who come into a relationship happy about what they can get from you, materially, because they are lacking in these areas, are usually not sincere in their regard for you as a person. And for someone in a region where a vehicle is a necessity, to not have one, often points to other dysfunction. Do they have a job and how do they get to work? Did they lose their license or car due to irresponsible habits like dui, or not making their payments? Again, it's completely different if there is a logical reason for it, like living in certain cities, and they function well without one. But here, that would be unlikely.
I know a guy who refuses to work a job because it's giving in to the man and society's expectations. He is often starving, squats in a dilapidated house, has drug problems, no car, no ID, and does weird radio programs for a local station where he lives. No decent woman will give him the time of day, even though he's cute. And I can't blame them. This is the kind of dysfunction women avoid.
I think it's a legit question, especially if you live in an area where Mass Transit is either terrible or non-existent. Now if the site asked what kind of car do you drive, I think that would be a little much. I will say though as a whole, this question probably matters more to women, than it does guys. Many guys wouldn't mind picking her up all the time and driving her around and dropping her off at home and then driving back to his place. Especially if they live in the same town. Women...not so much. Especially Older women. They just couldn't see themselves picking up a man at his place and driving him around all the time. Sucks for guys who either can't drive or in some cases save money by not driving, but it is what it is.
The other factor that is worth mentioning is age and stages in life. It's a bit different to be a very young adult, dating other very young adults, and one of them doesn't have a car. I'm 36 and I have a decent job making decent money, and my life is fairly well established. I'm nearly done raising my kids, for crying out loud. Not only do I not want to date someone with no car, I don't want to date someone who doesn't have a stable income, someone who doesn't have stable housing (for instance someone who is roommates with other people, who could flake out at any time, and couldn't afford the whole rent on their own) or people with very young children (only because I've been there and done that and I'm further down the road.) I'm not interested in people who live like college kids. I need and want more maturity than that in my relationships. Again, I don't need them to be WEALTHY...just to meet a certain minimum standard. And I really don't care at all what kind of car they drive. But I would probably reject prospects who were my own age or younger, preferring those in their 40's and 50's anyways.
My point is that preferences like these aren't really about materialism.
Now where it shows on a lot of profiles the range of income a person makes...I don't like that. First of all, there's no way to know if it's accurate, so it's kind of nonsense. Secondly, a person could earn tons of money, but have tons of debt, or other obligations, or have horrible habits like drugs or gambling that eat all of his money. A person could on the other hand make a very modest income, but live frugally and make smart choices and be doing quite fine. Someone who comes into a lot of money, like a trust fund or inheritance, might have no financial sense to handle it well at all. So even if the income is reported accurately, it really doesn't tell the whole story, or even the most important stuff, in my opinion.
Now where it shows on a lot of profiles the range of income a person makes...I don't like that. First of all, there's no way to know if it's accurate, so it's kind of nonsense. Secondly, a person could earn tons of money, but have tons of debt, or other obligations, or have horrible habits like drugs or gambling that eat all of his money. A person could on the other hand make a very modest income, but live frugally and make smart choices and be doing quite fine. ...
I agree. In a perfect world, online dating would not be robotic, but would be managed by a human broker, who does actual investigation into people's financial and personal situation, who has fiduciary responsibility for the client, and who discretely reveals the salient facts to prospective applicants (that is, prospective mates) upon request and upon making commensurate vetting.
As to the subject of dating a person of loathsome intemperance and annoying lassitude, living on the fringes of society and in dire material circumstances, and possibly afflicted by mental illness... well, that depends. If she's Virginia Woolf or Sylvia Plath, then most certainly I'd date her, even if her forearms were festooned with needle-marks and she couldn't hold down a part-time job at Walmart (not that Virginia or Sylvia did such things, but I'm trying to make a point). If she's a spoiled ingrate who frittered away her trust-fund and now wallows in the gutter (not having written any poetry), then no.
Funny thing, about cars. I'm a collector. Some of my automotive escapades are featured online, on enthusiast-sites. But if a woman on OKC or POF were to inquire as to whether I have a car, I'd be inclined to answer in the negative. Maybe I'm the next Sergei Yesenin or Joseph Brodsky. Is this what women in online dating are seeking? If so, attend to the right kind of snobbery. If not, best wishes with Joe the Plumber.
I don't ask, but I tend to be a little turned off by those who don't have a car. They often say so upfront. It's not a money thing. I'm just used to the freedom of a car, and like someone with a similar attitude. I don't want to always be the one driving. Often times, people here don't have cars as a lifestyle choice, and while I respect the ideas behind that (being minimalist, being better for the environment, etc), it doesn't work well for me personally. I also feel that if they have chosen to live in an area where they don't need a car, and embraced that lifestyle, we're probably not going to see eye to eye about where to live. I don't see myself as a city person in the long run. That's not entirely rational (maybe they would change their mind later, and buy a car) but that's my impression.
I've dated men who didn't have cars. My ex didn't even have a driver's license when I met him, so I did all the driving. It's not as much fun going on a road trip with someone when you always have to be the driver.
I agree. In a perfect world, online dating would not be robotic, but would be managed by a human broker, who does actual investigation into people's financial and personal situation, who has fiduciary responsibility for the client, and who discretely reveals the salient facts to prospective applicants (that is, prospective mates) upon request and upon making commensurate vetting.
As to the subject of dating a person of loathsome intemperance and annoying lassitude, living on the fringes of society and in dire material circumstances, and possibly afflicted by mental illness... well, that depends. If she's Virginia Woolf or Sylvia Plath, then most certainly I'd date her, even if her forearms were festooned with needle-marks and she couldn't hold down a part-time job at Walmart (not that Virginia or Sylvia did such things, but I'm trying to make a point). If she's a spoiled ingrate who frittered away her trust-fund and now wallows in the gutter (not having written any poetry), then no.
Funny thing, about cars. I'm a collector. Some of my automotive escapades are featured online, on enthusiast-sites. But if a woman on OKC or POF were to inquire as to whether I have a car, I'd be inclined to answer in the negative. Maybe I'm the next Sergei Yesenin or Joseph Brodsky. Is this what women in online dating are seeking? If so, attend to the right kind of snobbery. If not, best wishes with Joe the Plumber.
I'm going to veer off topic just a smidge here and say that it's interesting to note that you are just as fond of the idea of a woman who writes, and particularly who writes poetry, clearly someone who appreciates the finer nuances of language, as you are of playing with flowery verbiage yourself.
Personally, I prefer musicians, though I am not a musician myself I have a wide range of appreciation for many kinds of music, from snarling irreverent punk rock to the soaring and soothing and sometimes charged passages of Beethoven, Vivaldi, or Bizet. I'm highly impressed with the makers of music, as it moves me so. I, myself, make art (sculpture and painting.) I am appreciative of some artists but not others, as I tend to see the inner workings of it enough to be critical. That is MY snobbery.
Funny though, in your case, the question, "Do you have a car?" somewhat outrageously underrepresents the reality. I actually think you have little business shopping for mates in places like OKC or POF. I think you should be circulating in more academic circles, seeking your lady poet. But that is only my opinion.
For the vast majority of people, the question is one of simple practicality.
And I do not have the resources to provide for another person who cannot provide for themselves, no matter how creative, talented, and inspiring a soul they may be. I already have obligations in the persons of my two sons, that stretch me fairly thin sometimes. I have no reason to be less than selective; candidates for my affection (male and female) are many.
Sure, there's the practical aspect of whether or not people have access to adequate transportation. This something to discuss as the two prospective partners interact and assess compatibility. It belongs in the category of whether work-schedules are compatible, or core-interests are compatible. Certainly if one person is an avid cyclist who disdains motor vehicles, while the other drives a lifted diesel truck, there's going to be friction and misunderstandings.
Just to clarify, when you sign up for POF, the SITE asks you if you have a car, not the individuals who message you. It's part of your bio info, similar to OKC asking if you smoke, drink or do drugs. That is what the OP is talking about.
Asking this, or this being part of the details in one's profile, makes sense from a logistical standpoint, especially depending on the area. But it wasn't something that bothered me if a match didn't own a car. This applied to very, very few matches.
My husband was one of them. He hadn't owned a car in, gosh, nearly 10 years by the time we met. He rode his bike or relied on public transportation (major city), and it worked really well for him. He took a train and rode his bike when he visited me an hour+ away before we married, or I drove to him. We made it work.
Wow. People read way too much into a simple question.
The question "Do you have a car?" is subject to a variety of factors. If I read that someone didn't have a car but lived in a remote area, that might be a red flag. How can someone expect to date if they don't have a car but live miles away from any downtown? Public transpo is pretty bad overall in most of the United States, so not having a car is limiting. It allows the person viewing the profile an extra piece of information about the profilee. A smart person would note within their profile if there are extenuating circumstances surrounding why he or she doesn't have a car.
On the other hand, as some have noted, not having a car in a city doesn't always mean anything. Someone of average intelligence living in a city would realize this and ignore that section, understanding that it says nothing about the profilee. I know people here in Philly who don't need cars; I, personally, look forward to the day where I can get rid of mine and rely on Uber, Zipcar, and public transit. That's all.
Having a car isn't a status symbol and says nothing about one's stability; not having one might indicate those things, or it might not.
Again, it's just an extra piece of info provided so that people have as much information as possible before messaging a potential date. Some people don't want to date someone with kids, and that's their prerogative. Same thing applies here.
FWIW, I think this question is only on OKC.
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.
