# Study about Dating



## JCD

An Economist Goes Into a Bar

and he tries to make a study about speed dating. I have some doubts about methodology.

Here are the highlights: Looks are important to guys. Intelligence and ambition were good too...but not if they were perceived as more intelligent or ambitious than the man according to his perceptions.

For women, intelligence was incredibly important. A man could not be too intelligent or ambitious.

Here is the odd one though, that I wanted to bring up.



> Another clear gender divide, this one less expected, emerged in our findings on racial preferences, reported in a forthcoming article in the Review of Economic Studies. *Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race*: White women were more likely to choose white men; black women preferred black men; East Asian women preferred East Asian men; Hispanic women preferred Hispanic men. But men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. *A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices.*
> 
> Two wrinkles on this: *We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference.* We also found that regional differences mattered. Daters of both sexes from south of the Mason-Dixon Line revealed much stronger same-race preferences than Northern daters.


Not sure I buy this. What are your experiences?

Please note: this is a 7 year old study and if it's already been discussed, I apologize.


----------



## JCD

An Economist Goes Into a Bar

and he tries to make a study about speed dating. I have some doubts about methodology.

Here are the highlights: Looks are important to guys. Intelligence and ambition were good too...but not if they were perceived as more intelligent or ambitious than the man according to his perceptions.

For women, intelligence was incredibly important. A man could not be too intelligent or ambitious.

Here is the odd one though, that I wanted to bring up.



> Another clear gender divide, this one less expected, emerged in our findings on racial preferences, reported in a forthcoming article in the Review of Economic Studies. *Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race*: White women were more likely to choose white men; black women preferred black men; East Asian women preferred East Asian men; Hispanic women preferred Hispanic men. But men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. *A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices.*
> 
> Two wrinkles on this: *We found no evidence of the stereotype of a white male preference for East Asian women. However, we also found that East Asian women did not discriminate against white men (only against black and Hispanic men). As a result, the white man-Asian woman pairing was the most common form of interracial dating—but because of the women's neutrality, not the men's pronounced preference.* We also found that regional differences mattered. Daters of both sexes from south of the Mason-Dixon Line revealed much stronger same-race preferences than Northern daters.


Not sure I buy this. What are your experiences?

Please note: this is a 7 year old study and if it's already been discussed, I apologize.


----------



## RandomDude

Ey? So men don't have racial preferences? Pffft

I'd be the first to admit I do!


----------



## Married but Happy

The observations you quoted match my own observations of dating behavior in others, my own experiences, and from the many things I've read, I think the author is correct. Sure, he could be wrong, and other people's experience may contradict it. I think there are two factors at play - natural, innate reproductive tendencies, and cultural influences (especially for the north-south racial preferences, though I am seeing some of those starting to fade).

A third factor plays into the Asian woman-white male pairings, especially for the USA. That's the influence of major wars conducted in east Asia by the USA, and the resultant mingling of US servicemen with Asian women.


----------



## ReformedHubby

I'm going to have to say its spot on. There are exceptions of course but as a black male I've noticed that black women really only want to date black men for the most part. I've also noticed that East Asian women in general with the exception of women from the Phillipines generally don't prefer black men. There are of course exceptions but I think its pretty accurate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> An Economist Goes Into a Bar
> 
> *For women, intelligence was incredibly important. A man could not be too intelligent or ambitious.*


This ^^^ is what I know for certain applied when I was single and I think also applies today, in our region.

Women did't really allow racial preferences to dictate whom they dated, rather I think their criteria was money and success.
The man's looks didn't really count for much either , if he had money and was successful.
Now if a guy had looks _and was successful_, then he always had the best women fighting over him.
I think basically, successful women looked for their equals .
Women who were climbing the ladder of success , college chicks and university grads , also preferred successful men or men on their way to success.
Almost like a type of " professional networking."

On the other hand, men were the ones who had their preferences which impacted whom they dated. Physical looks and attractiveness ranked high , an then race. Money and success was way down on the list.

Back then my preference was Asian or Latin women, so I basically married my preference.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> I think basically, successful women looked for their equals .
> Women who were climbing the ladder of success , college chicks and university grads , also preferred successful men or men on their way to success.
> Almost like a type of " professional networking."


You've pretty much described my wife. Looking back at her relationships and suitors even going back as far as her prom date. None of them are losers. They are all very successful men today. She just knew how to pick em I guess. I hope she passes this "gift" on to my daughter.

Its a little unpopular on TAM to acknowledge that women are attracted to status and success but its true. A business associate of mine drives a Ferrari. Every now and then someone leaves a note on his car with their phone number on it. He thinks its funny because he is fairly certain that these women don't even know what he looks like.


----------



## Caribbean Man

ReformedHubby said:


> Its a little unpopular on TAM to acknowledge that women are attracted to status and success but its true. A business associate of mine drives a Ferrari. Every now and then someone leaves a note on his car with their phone number on it. He thinks its funny because he is fairly certain that these women don't even know what he looks like.


Yes it's a bit unpopular , because some misinterpret it and think that it makes women look shallow. 
No it doesn't automatically mean that women are shallow. 

I think it is a deeply embedded social construct . Women are the species that bear offspring, and have to provide sustenance even during gestation.

Men have been defined by the roles they play in society, provider being the most basic role.

Recent developments made it a whole lot easier on women bearing kids and providing for them, but women now look for their equals in men, hence the reason I suppose that success attracts.
Women are now equal to men in terms of what is possible to achieve in society.

Just like men , smart women do what needs to be done to survive and become successful.
Why would they want a man who hasn't done much for himself?


----------



## always_alone

This part accords with my experience:



> We males are a gender of fragile egos in search of a pretty face and are threatened by brains or success that exceeds our own.


The race stuff, not so much. I know plenty of men with very strong racial preferences, and I know plenty of women who prefer to date outside of their race.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> You've pretty much described my wife. Looking back at her relationships and suitors even going back as far as her prom date. *None of them are losers. They are all very successful men today.* She just knew how to pick em I guess. I hope she passes this "gift" on to my daughter.
> 
> Its a little unpopular on TAM to acknowledge that women are attracted to status and success but its true. A business associate of mine drives a Ferrari. Every now and then someone leaves a note on his car with their phone number on it. He thinks its funny because he is fairly certain that these women don't even know what he looks like.


I hate to see , because someone is not financially successful.. or makes 6 figures (however one defines "very successful" ) that if a man is just a blue collar worker for instance... he is called or considered a LOSER by many.. This makes men like the one I married a LOSER.. so yeah.. kinda strikes a chord with me. 

When I see RICH men, fancy cars...2 things immediately comes to mind ... 

*1.* Even if these men were in love...they probably wouldn't have *TIME* for their wives/ family...too busy chasing a bottom line, building an empire or keeping up with the CEO's.... and

*2* Very successful men will always be surrounded by beautiful willing women... more temptation in his face, on his over night stays.... (pretty funny about the notes on his Ferrari -but not surprising!).....So these men are far more likely to Play around - since hot chicks are at their disposal -throwing themselves at them.... I can't think of a worse Turn off... 

Higher success/ Status, by no means = Happiness in relationships ... it's not the end all...

A couple who makes "enough" to build a life together, pays off their house in a reasonable time frame...has time for their children, goes on a couple vacations a year...stays out of debt.. and lots of time for each other is far more appealing for someone like myself..... Just had to get that out.. 

I look at 3 things......* 1)* Looks....*2)* Character (on the $$ front...Work ethic & can he live within his means - these are VERY important)...and* 3 )* Compatibility...

THough I wasn't a college educated woman either back then... if my husband died tomorrow.. I would still be on the look out for the same 3 things..


----------



## firebelly1

Women allowed to comment?  As a white woman, I can verify that this is true. I prefer to date men of my race. Not that I'm not attracted to men of other races, but especially as I get older I want as much compatibility and as little conflict in my relationship as possible. My perception is that the family of someone outside my race might not be as accepting of me. I've seen that play out with friends who are in mixed-race relationships. And...a person of another race just has a really, fundamentally different view of the world. A white person is never really going to understand what it's like to be black in the U.S., for instance.

And...maybe to my detriment ...I've never been a woman who dates based mostly or solely on money and success and I think women who do are despicable. However, again because of the conflict and compatibility thing, I want the guy to make about the same or more money than I do and be at least as intelligent as I am. Because I've dated guys who are not comfortable with the fact that I make more money and I'm more intelligent and it's just not worth the ego hassle.


----------



## ReformedHubby

SimplyAmorous said:


> I hate to see , because someone is not financially successful.. or makes 6 figures (however one defines "very successful" ) that if a man is just a blue collar worker for instance... he is called or considered a LOSER by many.. This makes men like the one I married a LOSER.. so yeah.. kinda strikes a chord with me.


Huh? I wasn't trying to imply that blue collar men are losers. My definition of a loser is synonymous with laziness, or someone who mistreats his mate. It has nothing to do with a man's occupation. I would never disrespect another man's occupation. 

I was just trying to point out that status and wealth are attractive attributes. I still believe this to be true.


----------



## JCD

SA,

We all make choices about how pretty/successful/busy/sociable we want our mates. A man may select a '5' in looks, because she has other properties he likes, or he just doesn't want to marry a woman who will constantly be hit on (or he can't do better).

A woman may feel that she would prefer her husband to spend all his time with her and Daddy Warbucks isn't going to be that man.

So this is general trends.

If you were single and had an internet business man who could work from home and was rich, maybe you'd feel a bit more flexible.

Or not.


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> A couple who makes "enough" to build a life together, pays off their house in a reasonable time frame...has time for their children, goes on a couple vacations a year...stays out of debt.. and lots of time for each other is far more appealing for someone like myself..... Just had to get that out..



And I wholeheartedly agree with you!

A man or woman who is able to do that^^^ is a successful person , because in order to accomplish that , thay must have had a vision.

Lots of people driving fancy cars , well educated and they are living from paycheck to paycheck , either renting or struggling to pay their mortgage.

Success means being on top of your game. No matter if it's business , career , relationships .
In general , having control over the direction of your life.


----------



## always_alone

ReformedHubby said:


> I was just trying to point out that status and wealth are attractive attributes. I still believe this to be true.


I agree that saying this isn't necessarily disrespecting someone's occupation, but by inference, it is basically saying that women naturally prefer someone making big bucks and driving a fancy car over some guy who "gets by".

Maybe it isn't exactly calling that guy a loser, but it also strikes me as being pretty insulting. Both to those men and the women who love them.

Indeed, I find all of this talk of "more desirable" based entirely on superficial qualities like looks and money to be pretty insulting, not to mention a very poor measure of what constitutes a "good catch".

But I also get that the rule on TAM is that women are only good for their looks and men are only good for their wallets.


----------



## ReformedHubby

always_alone said:


> I agree that saying this isn't necessarily disrespecting someone's occupation, but by inference, it is basically saying that women naturally prefer someone making big bucks and driving a fancy car over some guy who "gets by".
> 
> Maybe it isn't exactly calling that guy a loser, but it also strikes me as being pretty insulting. Both to those men and the women who love them.
> 
> Indeed, I find all of this talk of "more desirable" based entirely on superficial qualities like looks and money to be pretty insulting, not to mention a very poor measure of what constitutes a "good catch".
> 
> But I also get that the rule on TAM is that women are only good for their looks and men are only good for their wallets.


Well....it may be insulting but that doesn't mean it isn't true. I can understand that the behavior of women that would be categorized as gold diggers is embarrassing to women that hold themselves to a higher standard, but they are out there. That was the point I was trying to make.

No one should be insulted by me pointing it out. If you're happy with who you've got my opinion shouldn't matter to you.


----------



## RandomDude

Last year I was very open in regards to my business, dates were easy to maintain. This year I decided to pull the whole 'poor man' act, dates become much harder. Now bear in mind that I do live in rat race city! I'm sure in more rural/smaller cities the issue isn't as pronounced.

However, gold diggers are the norm and it's acceptable where I live. The men here also accept it. Tis just how it is.


----------



## Wolf1974

RandomDude said:


> Last year I was very open in regards to my business, dates were easy to maintain. This year I decided to pull the whole 'poor man' act, dates become much harder. Now bear in mind that I do live in rat race city! I'm sure in more rural/smaller cities the issue isn't as pronounced.
> 
> However, gold diggers are the norm and it's acceptable where I live. The men here also accept it. Tis just how it is.


Prior to my divorce last time I was single was early 20's and I was in college so money and status wasn't much of an issue in dating. While married I would hear others comment about some women being gold digging and always looking for the BBB (bigger better deal) but thought these were gross over-exaggeration from my male friends and colleagues. Fast forward and I become single myself and I can absolutely verify they are out there.

I never care if a woman only cares about money and status. I make it known early on what I do and how little I make. So long as they are honest about wanting that Ferrari up front that's what matters to me. Just don't prented you are ok with a blue collar lifestyle while waiting for your white collar opportunity is all I hope for.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I don't think it's accurate or fair to lump women who want better for themselves , and take care to select a partner who can they can view as their equal in status as " gold diggers."

I don't think it's fair either for a man to expect a woman to accept him " for who he is " if he hasn't used the opportunities given in life to exceed, especially if she has already made something of herself.

I think women who have accomplished certain things in life should be very wary of taking up lesser accomplished men as " projects."

What usually happens is that they take these men as lovers, spend lots of money on them in an attempt to give their life some direction, the men usually take them for a ride and leave them.


----------



## RandomDude

That argument I've heard thousands of times before, however here's the thing: Even in my younger days the only financial standard I look for in a woman is for her not to be a drain. That's it, the financial standards many women look for however is not about being drained or not, it's about security and wealth.

Me? After losing almost all my capital 'bribing' my ex to keep her fingers off my business I've become rather paranoid of such a financial loss again. Not to mention ex herself was non-materialistic, and even then she ended up costing me a fortune. Can't imagine if I get involved with someone who was materialistic!


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> I agree that saying this isn't necessarily disrespecting someone's occupation, but by inference, it is basically saying that women naturally prefer someone making big bucks and driving a fancy car over some guy who "gets by".
> 
> Maybe it isn't exactly calling that guy a loser, but it also strikes me as being pretty insulting. Both to those men and the women who love them.
> 
> Indeed, I find all of this talk of "more desirable" based entirely on superficial qualities like looks and money to be pretty insulting, not to mention a very poor measure of what constitutes a "good catch".
> 
> But I also get that the rule on TAM is that women are only good for their looks and men are only good for their wallets.


I agree with you to a point, but here is where your theory meets the harsh light of day.

Very few 'bums' i.e. people who have no money or prospects, do well on the dating front. They can be kind, have a good personality, maybe even be a looker (wasn't it Kevin Bacon who said: "Sure, I can get a date when I have money. A REAL player can still pull in women when he lives in a fourth story walk up and sleeps on a mattress on the floor and he's a bus boy." paraphrased)

The scales of...I won't say attraction, because that is too specific. This isn't about attraction, it is about 'mate selection' which is a far different animal (and it also gores Mach's particular oxen). It is NOT superficial for a woman to want to be with a man who has some subsistence. Or even one of plenty! And this gets comingled with ones own sense of worth. You see very few '10' girls married to a fiscal '3'.

Of course there are exceptions to this rule. If the woman has nothing, she can afford to date someone who has nothing because, hey, they got nothing! And if a woman is fiscally independent, she can make selections based upon other qualities than money. Women tend to have rather snide terms for women married in similar terms, but a spade, is in fact a spade.

And some people go through a period where they are 'finding themselves' (i.e. turning off their judgment) and start dating for reasons other than sense. Play dating.

But by and large, very few women date 'fiscal losers' if they are not in fact also fiscal losers (or they are stupid. Let's not dismiss stupidity in human choices.) I know a lot of decent guys who were 'fiscal losers'. One great friend. Had a sense of humor. Easy to get along with. Not bad looking. Had a large penis (or so it was reported to me) But he had no ambition at all. Guess what? He had plenty of 'dates' but he have very few LTRs and they were with female 'fiscal losers'.

Funny thing: he got a decent job picking up decent coin and SNAP, he's engaged!

Funny how that works out. 

Let's not be too dismissive of 'money' when it comes to mate selection. Who wants to eat beans every day for the rest of your life? 

But you are correct, it is not the only thing women look at.


----------



## RandomDude

> But you are correct, it is not the only thing women look at.


Sure it's not all they look at but for many it's what their decisions are based upon. My mother for instance when she remarried, it was for security, zero love (which she admitted to me, as she loved another), and I sure as hell never want to be like stepdad.

Meh, probably having a gold-digger so close in my family tree makes me a little paranoid.


----------



## JCD

Personal said:


> When my attractive wife and I started dating each other, she was a single, full-time employed, recent university graduate who lived in a shared household not far from the CBD of Australia's largest city. She also owned a brand new car that she purchased with savings from previous employment.
> 
> On the other hand, I was a divorced, full-time employed, high school drop out that lived in a shared household a little bit further from the CBD than her. Who also paid child support (for a child that was 5 at the time), and didn't own a car.
> 
> When we started dating she knew all of those things, yet pressed on with me anyway.
> 
> Just before I started dating my wife, I had a corporate lawyer seeking my affection (she too, knew my background).
> 
> Today we have two kids together, own our own mortgage and are rather fortunate in having a household income that is greater than 95% of all Australian taxpayers.
> 
> My wife is INTJ while I am ENTJ.
> 
> P.S. My wife still earns more than I.


I do not know your ages. I think that has some bearing on the decisions.

Very few who marry early marry based on RESULTS. There are not results yet. They marry on the promise shown by the other person. "Will he/she be a good match later on?" So many marriages were based on hope (mine was  )

But your lawyer wannabe paramour sort of proves my point, doesn't she? She could marry you 'for your personality' because the whole money thing was already 'fixed' in her life. She didn't need you to be an earner because she had that covered.

Of course, individual results may vary. I am speaking of general trends, not individual cases. I think there is a study in there. Heck, it's probably already been done several times. That the results are unpalatable to some doesn't make them wrong


----------



## RandomDude

That makes sense, considering ex - who did marry me when I had no wealth, was already rich due to her family, hence she had choices.

Should I make it a rule? Only date rich girls? Heh - only problem is that it makes me just as bad as the gold-diggers doesn't it?


----------



## Personal

JCD said:


> I do not know your ages. I think that has some bearing on the decisions.


I am 43, my wife is 44 when we started dating I was almost 25 and she was almost 26.


----------



## JCD

Personal said:


> I am 43, my wife is 44 when we started dating I was almost 25 and she was almost 26.


In other words, not the 'established gentry' period of life. It was the 'up and comer period.' The time of 'faith'.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Personal said:


> I am 43, my wife is 44 when we started dating I was almost 25 and she was almost 26.


I married my first husband when he was 27 (I was 32) just after we had both finished our MBAs. He was deep into debt, I was not. (I am sure now that he is one of those partners of the Big 5 making million pound bonuses these days (not on my watch, though), but I have decided not to look.)

My experience was that whenever I offered to pay, it freed his money up to be generous to someone else.

I even recalled not too long ago how I had an argument with my bf in high school. We would go dutch / pay for each other..... then we were invited to a party and he wanted to buy the hostess a gift...... What? Well, if you can buy her a gift, why do I have to pay for dates? Maybe someone can find the logic for that.....

ditto with my current husband until i put an end to his EA before we got married. 

Maybe it's the type of man that I attract who likes to LOOK like BigDaddy. 

If I EVER have to date again, I ain't payin' for nothing.


----------



## NextTimeAround

> Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race:


I would like to see the database that led him to that conclusion. 

I think that those who go to university and brush shoulders with other ethnic groups will be more open to dating outside of their own group.

I also think that because men simply like what they say, race /ethnic group is less important to them.

My husband said he thought I was jewish / mediterranean when he first met me. 

While race is not important to him, he's more interested in the Halle Berry /Lena Horne type black woman than the Oprah Winfrey / Weezy Jefferson (remember her?) type of black woman.


----------



## Jetranger

Two things to add:

As a guy, I don’t care what colour a girl is so long as I think she’s cute. It might be that some races have more examples of cuteness for me than others but I don’t give a crap about where she or her ancestors were from.

Secondly, it’s absolutely right that girls want a guy with prospects. My best friend (female) was telling me yesterday about how she was seeing a guy for a few months and the fact he was a high school drop out who worked in a gas station was a deal breaker (no kidding, right). An extreme example, she admitted, and you don’t necessarily plan to grow old with them but you do have to consider what kind of relationship you’ll have based on what they do. She decided that his crappy salary and crappy hours would make it really hard for them to do anything. (it’s worth noting that he was enamoured of her and thought it was much more serious that it was)


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> One great friend. Had a sense of humor. Easy to get along with. Not bad looking. Had a large penis (or so it was reported to me) But he had no ambition at all. Guess what? He had plenty of 'dates' but he have very few LTRs and they were with female 'fiscal losers'.
> 
> Funny thing: he got a decent job picking up decent coin and SNAP, he's engaged!
> 
> Funny how that works out.


Oh, hey, if that's the type of woman that you and your friends are into, please don't let me stop you. I'm just pointing out that it's a choice. Not some biological inevitability of womanhood.

It just stands to reason that the most superficial of both genders would be drawn to each other.

And despite what others are saying about it, I do think this focus on wealth/looks is about as superficial as it gets. You try to make it reasonable and compelling by contrasting eating beans every night with the full on American Dream, but rarely is anything ever that stark. And rarely are the individuals so interchangeable --unless, of course, all you care about is how they look.


----------



## treyvion

NextTimeAround said:


> I would like to see the database that led him to that conclusion.
> 
> I think that those who go to university and brush shoulders with other ethnic groups will be more open to dating outside of their own group.
> 
> I also think that because men simply like what they say, race /ethnic group is less important to them.
> 
> My husband said he thought I was jewish / mediterranean when he first met me.
> 
> While race is not important to him, he's more interested in the Halle Berry /Lena Horne type black woman than the Oprah Winfrey / Weezy Jefferson (remember her?) type of black woman.


Weezy Jefferson! I get your point though.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Regarding money, I think it's generally agreed that if the woman makes way more man than the man, he will have trouble respecting her and the relationship usually goes down hill at some point.

And of course, as I have experienced, even when I want to show that money is not important or that the burden of cost can be shared (in a modern relationship), all that I get it is the feeling that I am subsidising someone else but not of my choice.

I think younger women have greater demands of whom they choose since they feel that they have a few more good years to hang out before they need to get serious.

My husband's one time (11 years younger) EA dumped him, I suspect, because he is a bit chubby and bald. She moved on to a guy of the same age but slimmer, had a full head of hair and is also Jewish as she is.

I realise that when you're a salesman, the sky's limit for earning potential, but still as an estate agent who had to work weekend hours against his preference (as per what he said on his FB wall), I'm sure he's making less than what my husband is bringing home. 

but she's still young (under 35), white (Jewish, that is; as a black woman I know that I have made some Jewish women uncomfortable having dated both white and Jewish men) and carrying around an extra 50 pounds that she had hoped to loose _(sic)_ when she had turned 30. 

I'm sure she'll find someone suitable.... soon...


----------



## treyvion

NextTimeAround said:


> Regarding money, I think it's generally agreed that if the woman makes way more man than the man, he will have trouble respecting her and the relationship usually goes down hill at some point.
> 
> And of course, as I have experienced, even when I want to show that money is not important or that the burden of cost can be shared (in a modern relationship), all that I get it is the feeling that I am subsidising someone else but not of my choice.


Especially in modern society both people need to help out financially, and if one cannot help as much financially they will do other things to make up for the difference and save the wage earner time, energy and stress. Or they should.

I wouldn't say that a man won't respect a woman who makes alot more than him, it's usually the other way around. 



NextTimeAround said:


> I think younger women have greater demands of whom they choose since they feel that they have a few more good years to hang out before they need to get serious.


I wouldn't say they are more picky, however their selection is more about fun and play dating. They don't really need to super good guy because theey have plenty of time and wantto "have fun". Later in life they will be more critical of their mate selection.



NextTimeAround said:


> My husband's one time (11 years younger) EA dumped him, I suspect, because he is a bit chubby and bald. She moved on to a guy of the same age but slimmer, had a full head of hair and is also Jewish as she is.
> 
> I realise that when you're a salesman, the sky's limit for earning potential, but still as an estate agent who had to work weekend hours against his preference (as per what he said on his FB wall), I'm sure he's making less than what my husband is bringing home.
> 
> but she's still young (under 35), white (Jewish, that is; as a black woman I know that I have made some Jewish women uncomfortable having dated both white and Jewish men) and carrying around an extra 50 pounds that she had hoped to loose _(sic)_ when she had turned 30.
> 
> I'm sure she'll find someone suitable.... soon...


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Oh, hey, if that's the type of woman that you and your friends are into, please don't let me stop you. I'm just pointing out that it's a choice. Not some biological inevitability of womanhood.
> 
> It just stands to reason that the most superficial of both genders would be drawn to each other.
> 
> *And despite what others are saying about it, I do think this focus on wealth/looks is about as superficial as it gets*. You try to make it reasonable and compelling by contrasting eating beans every night with the full on American Dream, but rarely is anything ever that stark. And rarely are the individuals so interchangeable --unless, of course, all you care about is how they look.


This is true and I agree. In my younger years, prior to marriage, it was all about the hottest girl you could find. The one that impressed your friends. At some point you age and realize no matter what this woman looks like she won't look that way forever and you start focusing a lot more on personality and values that align vs what the woman looks like in a bikini. 

I think some of this is true for women as well but I can't say how much. I have dated women who previously dated really rich men and I'm surprised to hear how many echo the same fact that they felt like property dating them. Pure eye candy and nothing more. So those relationship ships ended.

For those men who only ever care about looks and women who only care about money they are made for each other my opinion


----------



## ReformedHubby

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think it's accurate or fair to lump women who want better for themselves , and take care to select a partner who can they can view as their equal in status as " gold diggers."
> 
> I don't think it's fair either for a man to expect a woman to accept him " for who he is " if he hasn't used the opportunities given in life to exceed, especially if she has already made something of herself.
> 
> I think women who have accomplished certain things in life should be very wary of taking up lesser accomplished men as " projects."
> 
> What usually happens is that they take these men as lovers, spend lots of money on them in an attempt to give their life some direction, the men usually take them for a ride and leave them.


I completely agree. I'm finding myself correcting myself quite a bit in this thread. I used the term gold digger because depending on how high you climb you're likely to attract quite a few of them. I see gold diggers as people who will leave as soon as a bigger gravy train pulls up. I think most women seeking their equals are doing it because they want someone who is on their same level intellectually, and also because they want someone who can contribute equally financially to the household. Its not the only thing that matters to them, but its certainly a very important part of the package.

Using my wife as an example I was flat broke when she met me and she was working on her second degree. The bottom line is a man without a plan wouldn't have gotten anywhere with her. She didn't expect me to have whole lot of money but she was _very_ interested in what my career plans were. I totally understood why. Love doesn't pay any bills, and it was clear that she wanted someone that had goals that were loftier than hers. 

I think partially some if it had to do with the lifestyle she had when growing up. Looking back I think she wanted to at least be able to live at that level with whomever she chose as a husband. I'll be bluntly honest, I think my wife is cool with in sickness and in health, but not so much the for richer or poorer part. She never pretended to be though. Its not that she is a big spender, security and stability are very important to her. I actually appreciate her honesty.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Women who want to have children have an obligation to mate only with men who are financially stable so that these children won't become the responsibility of socity.

I suppose it goes both ways. I read that men will claim in online dating that they want to have children -- to justify their desire to date only very young women.

And I guess, women will claim to want to have children to justify only dating / marrying men who have money.


----------



## ReformedHubby

NextTimeAround said:


> Women who want to have children have an obligation to mate only with men who are financially stable so that these children won't become the responsibility of socity.
> 
> I suppose it goes both ways. I read that men will claim in online dating that they want to have children -- to justify their desire to date only very young women.
> 
> And I guess, women will claim to want to have children to justify only dating / marrying men who have money.


I guess as long as everyone's needs are met and everybody is happy its all good. It doesn't matter if your family is like the Jeffersons family or the Evans family as long as it works for you. 

But, in some ways it does make me a little sad. I'd like to think that love is a whole lot more than a mix of attraction coupled with what each partner provides to the other. It certainly feels real.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

To a large extent it comes down to values and values are an important part of compatibility. Do they value education, knowledge and are curious about the world? That person is likely going to have a degree, perhaps higher degrees, enjoy more non-fiction reading, enjoy watching educational shows and having long discussions/debates on a variety of topics. That person will not get along with someone who prefers sit coms, and has no desire to attend cultural events or travel to places of cultural or historical significance.

I grew up around families who were predominantly blue collar, got married out of high school, did not attend college and preferred spending a Saturday night playing beer pong in someones carport. These kids had never gone further than the closest beach for a vacation and to them that was exotic. If asked did they ever want to move, they would ask why? I asked why would they stay?

Our family vacations took us up and down both coasts of the US. I thought it was so cool that Dad traveled all over the world with his job and I wanted to go everywhere and see everything. If I expressed this to most kids I went to school with, they would say no way would they ever want to fly, and had no desire to visit other continents.

I grew up reading National Geographic while they had TV Guide. While it may seem snobbish, I had nothing in common with most of them. I fully understand they were perfectly happy and have no trouble believing it. They were content in their world - happiness comes from somewhere besides money. But I was more curious and more restless than that - still am.


----------



## Jellybeans

I really don't have a racial preference. I have dated every kind of man and think it would be incredibly stifling to only want to date one kind of person.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Jellybeans said:


> I really don't have a racial preference. I have dated every kind of man and think it would be incredibly stifling to only want to date one kind of person.


I think more and more people are moving this direction. I grew up in the deep south so perhaps my views are tainted by it. I generally feel its okay for someone not to be attracted to a certain group based on race. It certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings if a woman wasn't into black guys.

The only thing that creeps me out are people who are one race but only exclusively date a specific race that isn't their own. For me at least it was a turn off to find out that the new girl you're dating only dates black guys exclusively. It makes you feel like she doesn't value anything else about you other than your appearance. Which is not okay if you're looking for something long term.


----------



## always_alone

Wolf1974 said:


> For those men who only ever care about looks and women who only care about money they are made for each other my opinion


Agreed. I don't know much about what it's like to be just a wallet, but I have been just a set of tits, and it really sucks.


----------



## Wolf1974

always_alone said:


> Agreed. I don't know much about what it's like to be just a wallet, but I have been just a set of tits, and it really sucks.


Well I have never been a wallet because I have been a cop since my early 20's but have been dumped for a guy that was a wallet...and that also sucked


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Oh, hey, if that's the type of woman that you and your friends are into, please don't let me stop you. I'm just pointing out that it's a choice. Not some biological inevitability of womanhood.
> 
> It just stands to reason that the most superficial of both genders would be drawn to each other.


How incredibly insulting.

***

According to pretty much every relationship study out there, most women generally DO have a little box on her mate checklist which say 'will not be a fiscal burden to me, and is likely to actually be of some fiscal benefit to the family'. (Some go further granted)

To characterize this majority as merely superficial and selfish...well...it says something about the person making such a judgment. I suppose it is much more high minded to marry someone who brings NOTHING to the relationship, cause looks, money, status, height...all superficial nonsense.


----------



## ReformedHubby

You know, on the flip side of this it actually would make me feel good to know that the person I'm dating does have standards. Mainly because I'd be wary of dating someone who has no idea what they are looking for. Lots of couples have made it all they way to the alter without ever really asking themselves what they wanted in a mate.


----------



## JCD

I found this reasonably amusing and germane (probably NWS)

Go to time stamp 7:12 seconds.

**

Here is a mental exercise (post if you are brave enough): Your best friend has set you up on a blind date (you are single). Except for the name, what are the first three questions out of your mouth?

Honesty is a plus, but not required


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I suppose it is much more high minded to marry someone who brings NOTHING to the relationship, cause looks, money, status, height...all superficial nonsense.


What a delightful false dichotomy you're creating here! So because I suggest that women do not place money and status at the importance you seem to think, I'm therefore saying saying that women want men who bring nothing to the relationship? :scratchhead:

Rather, what I'm suggesting is that only some women prioritize wealth and status. Others are more concerned about character, compatibility, shared values and goals, and so on.

But only the 10s who are seeking to trade their looks for lifetime of wealth and status count as women whose opinion is worth considering?


----------



## tulsy

JCD said:


> I found this reasonably amusing and germane (probably NWS)
> 
> Go to time stamp 7:12 seconds.
> 
> **
> 
> *Here is a mental exercise (post if you are brave enough): Your best friend has set you up on a blind date (you are single). Except for the name, what are the first three questions out of your mouth?*
> 
> Honesty is a plus, but not required


Honestly....

1) What does she look like?
2) How old is she?
3) What does she do (imply both vocational and occupational)?

Race is of no concern, but I prefer slightly older women over younger. 
I wouldn't date someone who is not physically active because we simply wouldn't be compatible. 
I would want to have an idea of what she's into, and what line of work she's in.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> What a delightful false dichotomy you're creating here! So because I suggest that women do not place money and status at the importance you seem to think, I'm therefore saying saying that women want men who bring nothing to the relationship? :scratchhead:
> 
> Rather, what I'm suggesting is that only some women prioritize wealth and status. Others are more concerned about character, compatibility, shared values and goals, and so on.
> 
> *But only the 10s who are seeking to trade their looks for lifetime of wealth and status count as women whose opinion is worth considering*?


Yep. Pretty much


----------



## JCD

tulsy said:


> Honestly....
> 
> 1) What does she look like?
> 2) How old is she?
> 3) What does she do (imply both vocational and occupational)?


Yeah. Pretty much my list too.


----------



## always_alone

samyeagar said:


> Yep. Pretty much


Indeed. This will be my main take-away from my time here on TAM: Not only am I useless, but also completely invisible.


----------



## samyeagar

always_alone said:


> Indeed. This will be my main take-away from my time here on TAM: Not only am I useless, *but also completely invisible*.


Not unless you're hot 

Hopefully you know I am speaking in jest...


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> I found this reasonably amusing and germane (probably NWS)
> 
> Go to time stamp 7:12 seconds.
> 
> **
> 
> Here is a mental exercise (post if you are brave enough): Your best friend has set you up on a blind date (you are single). Except for the name, what are the first three questions out of your mouth?
> 
> Honesty is a plus, but not required



LMAO!

Perfect commentary ^^^ JCD.
I liked this part of the commentary:

_" Maybe they are in love , but I just don't see it because I'm a psychopath who butchers women.."_

Only in Star Wars and on TAM do you get that kind of sterile ,
" pharmaceutical grade" version of attraction and dating .

Only on TAM does a person prefer to date people they aren't physically attracted to . 

Only on TAM does raw chemistry happen , _only_ between two people who have perfectly compatible moral values.

Only on TAM , ambition , confidence , a good education or even a good job , doesn't count for much .

" _Adventure. Excitement. A Jedi craves not these things._."


----------



## treyvion

ReformedHubby said:


> You know, on the flip side of this it actually would make me feel good to know that the person I'm dating does have standards. Mainly because I'd be wary of dating someone who has no idea what they are looking for. Lots of couples have made it all they way to the alter without ever really asking themselves what they wanted in a mate.


Maybe they wanted to feel like they are "in love". Maybe they actually feel like they are "in love" and they have been riding that high all the way to the alter.

When we know here "in love" is a combination of LUST and also idealizing someone and infatuation.

But them perhaps TAM over analyzes things and doesn't just let them happen.


----------



## ReformedHubby

treyvion said:


> Maybe they wanted to feel like they are "in love". Maybe they actually feel like they are "in love" and they have been riding that high all the way to the alter.
> 
> When we know here "in love" is a combination of LUST and also idealizing someone and infatuation.
> 
> But them perhaps TAM over analyzes things and doesn't just let them happen.


I hear ya Trey. I have no doubt that people fall in love or lust or that fog thing that people talk about on TAM all the time. It definitely does make it hard to make good choices when you're not able to think straight. Maybe some of us are just wired different. If it ain't working we say to ourselves I'll catch the next one. Perhaps some are afraid that there won't be a next one.

I'm sure many of us have felt crazy attraction to someone only to realize that there are other things that make us incompatible with that person. Its up to us to decide if we choose to ignore the warning signs or go forward. I think most folks that feel "blindsided" by something their spouse has done can look back and identify things that were signs of what was to come.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

ReformedHubby said:


> Huh? I wasn't trying to imply that blue collar men are losers. My definition of a loser is synonymous with laziness, or someone who mistreats his mate. It has nothing to do with a man's occupation. I would never disrespect another man's occupation.
> 
> I was just trying to point out that status and wealth are attractive attributes. I still believe this to be true.


I'm not trying to be difficult...you know I LIKE YOU Reformed Hubby .. I so often agree with so many of your posts ! --it's not that I even disagree with what you say... I do think I am different but then again.. I was a nobody working a nobody job who ended up with a Grocery Story Boy - though he did make his way to a manager of a Dept after a few yrs dating..... it's your saying THIS ..."Its a little unpopular on TAM to acknowledge that women are attracted to *status* and *success* but its true."... then mentioning your buddy with the Ferrari...that is STATUS and SUCCESS....(not someone like us..our newest vehicle is a 1997...we also have a 1991 - a freaking classic - we don't mind!)...

It's all in one definitions I suppose.. we do NOT consider ourselves to have STATUS and wealth.. ...I still carry an old tracfone (only cell phone our family has).... by choice though.. we have neighbors who are always broke but have all new phones & cars, whereas we could probably pay cash for a city house.. ..never had to borrow in our marriage (except for our house).... yet his yearly income would be low for our family size...(never made a dime over $60,000 a year).... even if we are debt free. 

I asked my Husband tonight if he feels he has status and is successful financially.. he says "NO".. but he also says he doesn't care, he's happy.. We generally think people are just "BEING NICE" to suggest lower income blue collars are successful... (that's just what I think -but maybe I am wrong)...

Tonight we are on a little anniversary Vacation...staying in a room that normally costs about $550 a night... (of course we got a deal -cause that's what I look for).. if we want something bad enough, we do save for it.... but we sacrifice in other areas for these things... 

MY husband agrees with you all... he thinks many women marry for Money...(what I mean is -putting it at a higher priority over love even- big hoopla about these NFL players abusing their wives.. I haven't watched the news at all -so clueless but what comes to mind for me.. she's got it pretty good financially -and it IS a factor in why many women stay- maybe I am wrong)...

Being honest.....I'd struggle to be faithful to a man I wasn't in love with, who didn't treat me right....so many other things are important to me over a higher income...I just assume this is what you all mean by key words.. *status / wealth / success*??

...Maybe someone should put a financial figure on this to clarify...


----------



## RandomDude

ReformedHubby said:


> You know, on the flip side of this it actually would make me feel good to know that the person I'm dating does have standards. Mainly because I'd be wary of dating someone who has no idea what they are looking for. Lots of couples have made it all they way to the alter without ever really asking themselves what they wanted in a mate.


Very true, someone who doesn't know what they want = disaster. Worst thing to do is emotionally invest yourself only to realise later on you're not truly her type.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

JCD said:


> SA,
> 
> We all make choices about how pretty/successful/busy/sociable we want our mates. A man may select a '5' in looks, because she has other properties he likes, or he just doesn't want to marry a woman who will constantly be hit on (or he can't do better).
> 
> A woman may feel that she would prefer her husband to spend all his time with her and Daddy Warbucks isn't going to be that man.
> 
> So this is general trends.
> 
> If you were single and had an internet business man who could work from home and was rich, maybe you'd feel a bit more flexible.
> 
> Or not.


Yeah.. I agree with what you say here.. our individual ideals in what is deeply important varies from woman to woman..(and from man to man)...... working from home would be much better.. I wouldn't want to be married to a man who traveled.. or a Doctor on call 24 hrs a day, high profile Lawyer/ movie star (forget that!).....once H could have taken a truck driver Job-over the road... he would have earned more, we decided no way, our time together meant far more to us, if I had to step up & work full time for us to make it.. so be it.



Caribbean Man said:


> And I wholeheartedly agree with you!
> 
> A man or woman who is able to do that^^^ is a successful person , because in order to accomplish that , thay must have had a vision.
> 
> Lots of people driving fancy cars , well educated and they are living from paycheck to paycheck , either renting or struggling to pay their mortgage.
> 
> Success means being on top of your game. No matter if it's business , career , relationships .
> In general , having control over the direction of your life.


 Well obviously I appreciate YOUR definition here.. but I still don't think the vast majority of people look at how someone manages their meager income - in comparison to what a man DOES for a living, or how much he earns a year .... (that wealth, power, status thing) ex..driving Ferraris...it's the outward that catches their attention...

In our little town...the blue collar job he has is envied by many though.. very hard to get in where he is at .... it's good money for our high unemployment area.... we are very thankful..


----------



## treyvion

SimplyAmorous said:


> Yeah.. I agree with what you say here.. our individual ideals in what is deeply important varies from woman to woman..(and from man to man)...... working from home would be much better.. I wouldn't want to be married to a man who traveled.. or a Doctor on call 24 hrs a day, high profile Lawyer/ movie star (forget that!).....once H could have taken a truck driver Job-over the road... he would have earned more, we decided no way, our time together meant far more to us, if I had to step up & work full time for us to make it.. so be it.
> 
> Well obviously I appreciate YOUR definition here.. but I still don't think the vast majority of people look at how someone manages their meager income - in comparison to what a man DOES for a living, or how much he earns a year .... (that wealth, power, status thing) ex..driving Ferraris...it's the outward that catches their attention...
> 
> In our little town...the blue collar job he has is envied by many though.. very hard to get in where he is at .... it's good money for our high unemployment area.... we are very thankful..


Just remember if somehow you guys got set back in that area and it was hard to impossible to find work, you can always move to an area with a much higher job rate. They exist.

You sound very good, and your description of your relationship makes my day. That's true happiness.


----------



## RandomDude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93tR96egox4

"But there is always something to envy, a smile, a friendship, something you don't have...

... there will always be rich and poor, rich in gifts, poor in gifts, rich in love, poor in love."


----------



## Caribbean Man

SimplyAmorous said:


> *Being honest.....I'd struggle to be faithful to a man I wasn't in love with,* who didn't treat me right....so many other things are important to me over a higher income...I just assume this is what you all mean by key words.. *status / wealth / success*??
> 
> ...Maybe someone should put a financial figure on this to clarify...


Right.

I also would struggle to remain faithful , or even marry someone I wasn't in love with.
Sometimes people get involved, are in love and stuff like unfaithfulness still happens.

But attraction does not always automatically guarantee love.

I'm assuming that on this thread we're talking about first impressions , and basic attraction.

Are men attracted to pretty women?
Generally , yes.
Does that mean they'll fall helplessly in love for a pretty face even though she's a mean entitled spoiled brat who demands worship?
Well the jury is still out on that..:rofl:

Are women attracted to successful men with some status ?
Generally yes.
Does that mean they'll fall in love and marry that man even if he's a real jerk or
" d0uchebag?"
Most times , no.

Attraction is the first part of the process , love comes a long way after. 
In between there is a whole lot of horse trading and compromises.


----------



## NextTimeAround

JCD said:


> I found this reasonably amusing and germane (probably NWS)
> 
> Go to time stamp 7:12 seconds.
> 
> **
> 
> Here is a mental exercise (post if you are brave enough): Your best friend has set you up on a blind date (you are single). Except for the name, what are the first three questions out of your mouth?
> 
> Honesty is a plus, but not required


At university, it became standard belief that if you described your friend as someone "with a lot of personality," the guys would immediately assume that she was ugly.


----------



## whitehawk

Dunno why intelligence is so important to women when if your smarter than her you'll spend the rest of your life having to play it down anyway.
Doesn't make sense.
When people are asked these silly things it's as if they are queen of Sheba with the looks to go with it and can make any demand they want.

But let me tell you. 6mths in the single scene myself and l've yet to meet anything even remotely justifying 1/4 of the crap that comes up in these surveys. And most of them have gone single for years and will grab anything they can get their hands on believe me.


----------



## NextTimeAround

It depends on what kind of intelligence one is talking about.

Someone who is intelligent and who can make just about any topic interesting to most people is the most highly desireable.

someone who can pass a test; who's always right and thinks that's more important than anything else....... er well, they're wrong.

Funny how these surveys talk about "intelligence" in general. there are different kinds of intelligence.


----------



## ReformedHubby

SimplyAmorous said:


> I'm not trying to be difficult...you know I LIKE YOU Reformed Hubby .. I so often agree with so many of your posts ! --it's not that I even disagree with what you say... I do think I am different but then again.. I was a nobody working a nobody job who ended up with a Grocery Story Boy - though he did make his way to a manager of a Dept after a few yrs dating..... it's your saying THIS ..."Its a little unpopular on TAM to acknowledge that women are attracted to *status* and *success* but its true."... then mentioning your buddy with the Ferrari...that is STATUS and SUCCESS....(not someone like us..our newest vehicle is a 1997...we also have a 1991 - a freaking classic - we don't mind!)...
> 
> It's all in one definitions I suppose.. we do NOT consider ourselves to have STATUS and wealth.. ...I still carry an old tracfone (only cell phone our family has).... by choice though.. we have neighbors who are always broke but have all new phones & cars, whereas we could probably pay cash for a city house.. ..never had to borrow in our marriage (except for our house).... yet his yearly income would be low for our family size...(never made a dime over $60,000 a year).... even if we are debt free.
> 
> I asked my Husband tonight if he feels he has status and is successful financially.. he says "NO".. but he also says he doesn't care, he's happy.. We generally think people are just "BEING NICE" to suggest lower income blue collars are successful... (that's just what I think -but maybe I am wrong)...
> 
> Tonight we are on a little anniversary Vacation...staying in a room that normally costs about $550 a night... (of course we got a deal -cause that's what I look for).. if we want something bad enough, we do save for it.... but we sacrifice in other areas for these things...


I hear ya SA. You are like one of only a handful of folks I would consider TAM friends. I guess I was just surprised that it came across like I was looking down on you and your choices because I talked about my friend. You know I didn't come from money, so I would never look down on those that don't place as much of a priority on acquiring wealth as I do. There are many days when I sometimes do wish I had chosen a simpler path.

With that said I do think both of our posts struck a chord with the other. I've encountered a lot of what I would call "success shaming" recently. What I mean by that is people assume I'm miserable because of my status, or that I live paycheck to paycheck, or that because I'm in the one percent it must mean that I have no time for my kids. I'm no happier now than I was before but I'm certainly not miserable. I do what I do because I want my kids to be able to choose whatever path that they want in life. Without having to worry so much about money.

I don't think the paths that we've each chosen in life would work for the other but that's okay. We both seem to be on a path that works for us individually, and we both have partners that we are compatible with, and I think that's a good thing.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I've heard men are turned off when a woman ask them what they do for a living because the men often assume it's a fishing expedition to guesstimate their income. 

There are many sides to the career/success/income equation. Employment is only part of it. I ask and I want to know. After all it does indicate what interests him. But it's because there ARE so many subtleties. BTW I usually meet men on line. I don't seem to meet them out and about. My career doesn't offer much exposure; my free time is usually spent taking care of my home and my social circle is relatively small so introductions by friends are slim. So starting off I know very little and I assume even less. For example:

Maybe he has a job that is traditionally high paying and he drives up in a nice car. But I don't assume that means he's financially secure. Maybe he's leasing vs. buying, maybe he has ZERO in savings; maybe he's only been on the job for 6 weeks and seems to hop from place to place. Maybe he's up to his eyeballs in debt, maybe his ex took him to the cleaners. In other words, maybe it's all a facade; maybe he's insecure. And even worse - maybe he ends his sentences with "at". *cringe*

I dated a guy for quite a while who worked in a decidedly blue collar job. He probably makes less than I do. He buys his clothes at Good Will (except shoes/underwear) - and he always looks nice. His house is bigger than mine and more nicely appointed - he is SUPER handy, gets his materials at Habitat for Humanity Re-store and has re-done the whole kitchen, knocking out a wall, adding a pantry, a bar top counter between that and the living room and a built-in entertainment surround so perfect you can't see a single nail, screw, mitred corner or seam. He built a 2-car garage + shop by himself including siding and roofing. He has money in savings and travels a couple times a year. It's usually on a budget but if he wants to do something he makes it happen and he no doubt has a lot more in savings than I do. (Of course he has no children.) And in his spare time he enjoys trivia, learning Spanish via a meet up group and is editing his first novel.

I'd much rather have the second guy who makes less, is handier, has more in common with me and generally more fun. But he is also more financially secure, though you'd never know it from his 2000 Impala (well maintained, I might add - you'd never know it was 14 years old unless you happen to know body styles). 

Sure it would be nice to have it all - money, looks, intelligence, a great personality and generous kind spirit, but I've learned that flash doesn't equal substance nor security and blue collar doesn't equate to poor, unambitious or unintelligent.

I'm looking for someone who spends money like I do - cautiously, saves but sets some aside for fun; who is curious about things like I am and finds the idea of travel for the sake of discovery more interesting than traveling in luxury, and who has intelligence but I know it comes in many forms. 

I used to be very particular in reading profiles and I would exclude someone for grammatical errors until I really started thinking about the different ways intelligence manifests itself. LIke my cousin who was a master plumber (deceased; motorcycle accident) who made a 6-figure income but barely graduated high school because he was dyslexic - he was smart, just not in the traditional sense. 

I don't mind making more as long as he's employed - maybe he's an artist and will eventually get his big break. Maybe he's in construction and knows more than I ever will about weight bearing structure calculations. But it's equally fine if he happens to know more about analyzing balance sheets or companies and selecting stocks, and whether an Argentina Pino Grigio from 2001 is better than a Napa Valley 2002.

Intelligence has many forms; financial security has many forms, compatibility has many forms and physical attraction is variable (I like an Armani suit as much as I like Levis and Hanes T). As long as those things mesh with mine, I don't care why or how.

ETA - there IS something super sexy about taking off a tie and unbuttoning a dress shirt... but if he could wear workboots and build something with his hands on the weekend that's pretty damn sexy too.


----------



## JCD

Caribbean Man said:


> Right.
> 
> I also would struggle to remain faithful , or even marry someone I wasn't in love with.
> Sometimes people get involved, are in love and stuff like unfaithfulness still happens.
> 
> But attraction does not always automatically guarantee love.
> 
> I'm assuming that on this thread we're talking about first impressions , and basic attraction.
> 
> Are men attracted to pretty women?
> Generally , yes.
> Does that mean they'll fall helplessly in love for a pretty face even though she's a mean entitled spoiled brat who demands worship?
> Well the jury is still out on that..:rofl:
> 
> Are women attracted to successful men with some status ?
> Generally yes.
> Does that mean they'll fall in love and marry that man even if he's a real jerk or
> " d0uchebag?"
> Most times , no.
> 
> Attraction is the first part of the process , love comes a long way after.
> In between there is a whole lot of horse trading and compromises.



It is very much a variable metric for all people in pretty much all circumstances. I am sure a woman somewhere will select a mate purely on personality, compatibility, his wonderful soufflé recipe and maybe his tight little buns.

AND she did this knowing he was as poor as a church mouse, but decided that personality + soufflé + buns > a $60K income for that specific man at that specific time in her life.

Random Dude wants to castigate his mother for being pragmatic in her late life choices. Well, a woman at her age does not get cushy jobs. If she felt that she had some fiscal security, maybe she would have chosen differently. I am not throwing stones at her.

A silly school girl can also pick a guy who has nothing.

A single mother...she does not have those luxuries necessarily. This doesn't make her bad. It doesn't make her superficial. I think every person makes a personality/money/buns assessment. It is the sum of the parts.


But a woman who selects a man NOT based on money specifically THOUGHT of that money that she was not paying attention when she made those decisions.

Just like some of my friends decided that 'that rack' was well worth the extra crazy that came with it (I think it was a stupid choice myself. The rack will shrink...the crazy will likely grow)

I did not realize some women were so 'grammar-centric' in their analysis. How tight do the buns need to be to make up for prepositional atrocities, EnlojiWoman?


----------



## NextTimeAround

> I've heard men are turned off when a woman ask them what they do for a living because the men often assume it's a fishing expedition to guesstimate their income.


That's what I heard, too. So I didn't ask until I was aksed first.

I also believe that when a guy is specific about what he does for a living he wants me to know /impress me.

When I first met my husband, he could have said simply, "I work for multicorp." let me wonder if he was a salesman or someone's PA. But it was not lost on me when he said "I'm an IP lawyer for......."


----------



## JCD

NextTimeAround said:


> That's what I heard, too. So I didn't ask until I was aksed first.
> 
> I also believe that when a guy is specific about what he does for a living he wants me to know /impress me.
> 
> When I first met my husband, he could have said simply, "I work for multicorp." let me wonder if he was a salesman or someone's PA. But it was not lost on me when he said "I'm an IP lawyer for......."


Eh, wouldn't bother me, but then again, it's one of my few selling points.

I think that so called 'simple question' covers a large amount of information: 
does he earn money, is there upward mobility, 

do I need to worry about him losing his job, what is his technical/intellectual background, 

what is the level of his ambition, 

is it a self motivated or a structured job so I can read what kind of worker he is, 

what kind of social connections are involved in that job and how much will I be involved (i.e. do I need to play hostess constantly), 

how will that job impact my relationship time with the guy, 

will he have time for children...

Etc etc.

So it's sort of important.


----------



## treyvion

whitehawk said:


> Dunno why intelligence is so important to women when if your smarter than her you'll spend the rest of your life having to play it down anyway.
> Doesn't make sense.
> When people are asked these silly things it's as if they are queen of Sheba with the looks to go with it and can make any demand they want.


LOL -!!! I know what you are saying! All women are not like this though, but many are. They will not "lose" to a man, and use any outside leverage possible to maintain superiority.



whitehawk said:


> But let me tell you. 6mths in the single scene myself and l've yet to meet anything even remotely justifying 1/4 of the crap that comes up in these surveys. And most of them have gone single for years and will grab anything they can get their hands on believe me.


Long term single scene is full of people with stiff boundaries, a bunch of checklist items not likely to be found in one person, and they aren't willing to adjust themself at all. So you get the fun of eating $hit if you are with them.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

JCD said:


> I did not realize some women were so 'grammar-centric' in their analysis. How tight do the buns need to be to make up for prepositional atrocities, EnlojiWoman?


Hm - I don't think it's as much about the buns, but the whole package needs to outweigh the combined grammatical atrocities, not just prepositions. I also cringe with noun/verb incompatibilities (I seen) and certain colloquialisms (I'm fixin' to). But if I ever hear "I seen a buck in them there woods so I'm fixin' to get my shotgun and find where it's at" I might just have an anxiety attack on the spot. 

But if they misuse their/there/they're, your/you're and of/have I _might_ overlook those.

When my kiddo would sing along with the Black Eyed Peas song "Ima be, Ima be" I'd end it with "Ima be unemployed". I also don't let the difference between speak/talk and good/well go uncorrected; ain't is not used in my house; literally had better mean just that; and "like" and "you know what I mean?" had better not be repeated more often than once per conversation. 

I wouldn't correct an adult. But as soon as this imaginary male, who finds me irresistible, comes over to my house and meets my daughter and proceeds asks me where the bathroom's at, her eyes will grow large while a grin spreads across her face just waiting for me to have a conniption fit.:rofl:


----------



## EnjoliWoman

whitehawk said:


> Dunno why intelligence is so important to women when if your smarter than her you'll spend the rest of your life having to play it down anyway.
> Doesn't make sense.


I have never met a man who needed to play down his intelligence. THAT makes no sense. I've known plenty of women to play dumb to make the male feel superior and unthreatened, but never a man who plays dumb.


----------



## treyvion

EnjoliWoman said:


> I have never met a man who needed to play down his intelligence. THAT makes no sense. I've known plenty of women to play dumb to make the male feel superior and unthreatened, but never a man who plays dumb.


Men get chopped down to size by combative women who won't allow him any intellectual superiority. It's not all women, but the guy who started the post knew exactly which ones he was speaking to. It's something that men feel is NOT ALLOWED.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

treyvion said:


> Men get chopped down to size by combative women who won't allow him any intellectual superiority. It's not all women, but the guy who started the post knew exactly which ones he was speaking to. It's something that men feel is NOT ALLOWED.



Well, if it ever happened with me, then I guess I wasn't aware of it. I think both genders - heck, any two people - both have strengths and weaknesses. I find it more interesting to be able to ask lots of questions and learn from him. That doesn't make him superior, though. I assume we both know a lot about different topics whether academically or practically. 

Which brings to mind a subject that was a huge deal to my ex - he was always vying for power and control. Once, when I was simply looking for a truce he said "well SOMEONE has to be in control and it's going to be me" and I asked "why does someone always have to be in control?" 

Does someone always have be intellectually superior? Can't both people just BE without this undercurrent of competition?


----------



## treyvion

EnjoliWoman said:


> Well, if it ever happened with me, then I guess I wasn't aware of it. I think both genders - heck, any two people - both have strengths and weaknesses. I find it more interesting to be able to ask lots of questions and learn from him. That doesn't make him superior, though. I assume we both know a lot about different topics whether academically or practically.
> 
> Which brings to mind a subject that was a huge deal to my ex - he was always vying for power and control. Once, when I was simply looking for a truce he said "well SOMEONE has to be in control and it's going to be me" and I asked "why does someone always have to be in control?"
> 
> Does someone always have be intellectually superior? Can't both people just BE without this undercurrent of competition?


Sometimes you ARE. They might have a different strength such as physical dominance or influence.

I have a female friend, very bright, very sexy and intelligent engineer.

She finds that a lot of men who are not in professions where brain power is utilized try to talk down to her and make her feel stupid. This is not a case of lack of common sense or anything, but some folks like crab in the barrels will not allow you to come to them with a greater altitude, they will drag you down.

So it's not a thing only that men face, but women do to, and I was honestly shocked.

I bet you somewhere in silent or small groups they talk about how to make an intelligent woman with vision feel small and powerless.

Just like they do to men.


----------



## JCD

EnjoliWoman said:


> Hm - I don't think it's as much about the buns, but the whole package needs to outweigh the combined grammatical atrocities, not just prepositions. I also cringe with noun/verb incompatibilities (I seen) and certain colloquialisms (I'm fixin' to). But if I ever hear "I seen a buck in them there woods so I'm fixin' to get my shotgun and find where it's at" I might just have an anxiety attack on the spot.
> 
> But if they misuse their/there/they're, your/you're and of/have I _might_ overlook those.
> 
> When my kiddo would sing along with the Black Eyed Peas song "Ima be, Ima be" I'd end it with "Ima be unemployed". I also don't let the difference between speak/talk and good/well go uncorrected; ain't is not used in my house; literally had better mean just that; and "like" and "you know what I mean?" had better not be repeated more often than once per conversation.
> 
> I wouldn't correct an adult. But as soon as this imaginary male, who finds me irresistible, comes over to my house and meets my daughter and proceeds asks me where the bathroom's at, her eyes will grow large while a grin spreads across her face just waiting for me to have a conniption fit.:rofl:


Warning: this is not edited for content.


One of the few books I've read had a Lesbian try to be disguised as a man to 'walk a mile in man's shoes'.


That included dating. And one thing she said was that her online writing profiles were what pre-seduced the targeted women. Granted, she also owned a copy of the play book, but the power of writing was a point which stood out to me.

Good luck on finding your grammarian.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Warning: this is not edited for content.
> 
> 
> One of the few books I've read had a Lesbian try to be disguised as a man to 'walk a mile in man's shoes'.
> 
> 
> That included dating. And one thing she said was that her online writing profiles were what pre-seduced the targeted women. Granted, she also owned a copy of the play book, but the power of writing was a point which stood out to me.
> 
> Good luck on finding your grammarian.


Can you describe some of the female profiles she targeted, and what image she created to snare them?

I'm just curious. I bet if you may you could divide the female populous into a dozen type of "fishes". Each of the fish groups have their own priority system, things that tend to be attractive to them and typical viewpoint.

That once you figured out which fish groups you were targeting, you could develop a strategy to achieve a large rate of success.


----------



## JCD

treyvion said:


> Can you describe some of the female profiles she targeted, and what image she created to snare them?
> 
> I'm just curious. I bet if you may you could divide the female populous into a dozen type of "fishes". Each of the fish groups have their own priority system, things that tend to be attractive to them and typical viewpoint.
> 
> That once you figured out which fish groups you were targeting, you could develop a strategy to achieve a large rate of success.


Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man


----------



## EnjoliWoman

JCD said:


> Warning: this is not edited for content.
> 
> 
> One of the few books I've read had a Lesbian try to be disguised as a man to 'walk a mile in man's shoes'.
> 
> 
> That included dating. And one thing she said was that her online writing profiles were what pre-seduced the targeted women. Granted, she also owned a copy of the play book, but the power of writing was a point which stood out to me.
> 
> Good luck on finding your grammarian.


I'm not looking for a grammar professor.  I learned to look over that - I teach my daughter to speak correctly because first impressions are everything and I wouldn't want her to bomb an interview over something so elementary. I would hope someone writing a profile would at least proof read for glaring errors but some have come to be so commonplace they are assumed to be correct, like the aforementioned 'at'. So if they said it, I would cringe a little but he would eventually learn (probably via my big-mouth daughter LOL).

Yes, the power of the written word can be an aphrodisiac. But I'm old enough to read between the lines, now.


----------



## treyvion

JCD said:


> Self-Made Man: One Woman's Year Disguised as a Man


WOW. She would lose any female entitlements during this time period and truly see what it's like too get the male attention and male requirements. However she picked a managerial looking one from the white collar business world, there are a bunch of other mens viewpoints that men live out of.


----------



## NextTimeAround

EnjoliWoman said:


> I'm not looking for a grammar professor.  I learned to look over that - I teach my daughter to speak correctly because first impressions are everything and I wouldn't want her to bomb an interview over something so elementary. I would hope someone writing a profile would at least proof read for glaring errors but some have come to be so commonplace they are assumed to be correct, like the aforementioned 'at'. So if they said it, I would cringe a little but he would eventually learn (probably via my big-mouth daughter LOL).
> 
> Yes, the power of the written word can be an aphrodisiac. But I'm old enough to read between the lines, now.


The problem here sometimes is that people think that they are right when they are not. I worked in an office that encouraged peer proofreading. A co-worker claimed that I had made some mistakes. I didn't apostrophes on the word "its" when I was using it as possessive pronoun. ("It's" with the apostrophe is a contraction of "it is" for those who aren't sure.)


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Yeah, I get that. Mistakes happen as do typos. And I'm still unsure on affect/effect and have to think it through each time. Geez I just set myself up for others to look for mistakes now!


----------



## EnjoliWoman

treyvion said:


> WOW. She would lose any female entitlements during this time period and truly see what it's like too get the male attention and male requirements. However she picked a managerial looking one from the white collar business world, there are a bunch of other mens viewpoints that men live out of.


Actually I just watched her interview. She bonded with a group of bowlers but yet struggled in a monestary because they thought she was gay (gay male, that is). She tried a lot of different groups and activities. Interesting.


----------



## Machiavelli

Here's a link to an OK Cupid profile rating analysis done across 2009-2014. It meshes pretty well with the one cited in the first post on this thread. 

Here are the 2009 findings:









Those numbers purportedly show the pro or negative bias on each possible combo.

As for me personally, some of the guys I worked with when I was single used to call me the "international man." When I told my mother I was getting married to my girlfriend, the first thing out of her mouth was "Are you mature enough for an interracial marriage?"


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> Here's a link to an OK Cupid profile rating analysis done across 2009-2014. It meshes pretty well with the one cited in the first post on this thread.
> 
> Here are the 2009 findings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those numbers purportedly show the pro or negative bias on each possible combo.
> 
> As for me personally, some of the guys I worked with when I was single used to call me the "international man." When I told my mother I was getting married to my girlfriend, the first thing out of her mouth was "Are you mature enough for an interracial marriage?"


You always find such interesting and germane studies. Not necessarily scientific evidence, but certainly suggestive stuff.


----------



## whitehawk

NextTimeAround said:


> It depends on what kind of intelligence one is talking about.
> 
> Someone who is intelligent and who can make just about any topic interesting to most people is the most highly desireable.
> 
> someone who can pass a test; who's always right and thinks that's more important than anything else....... er well, they're wrong.
> 
> Funny how these surveys talk about "intelligence" in general. there are different kinds of intelligence.


Yeah l hear ya but l still don't see why intelligence would matter to the average women or how she could fill out one of these things asking for it. You should read some of their date site profiles . They aren't all Enjoli's believe me , no where near it actually. Even talking spelling but it's much more. The thing's they say , the way they say it and the pictures some of them use and stuff they're waring. And spelling , my God most of them spell much worse than me so all in all , anything in any of these studies is a bit of a joke from what l see . There's not too many women in them l'd be jumping through any hoops for let me tell ya.
TBH , l am still amazed every time l go on even after 6mths. You'd think l'd be use to it by now.

PS , l'm seeing someone atm but would you believe, just the other night , I looked in on my old site and read 3 , yep 3 profiles, that actually talked about that show The Bachelor - believe that , right there on their profiles. Um , that's Hollywood la la land ladies . I was gob smacked - and you should've seen their pictures. So , you know , we can all dream can't we !


----------



## JCD

EnjoliWoman said:


> Actually I just watched her interview. She bonded with a group of bowlers but yet struggled in a monestary because they thought she was gay (gay male, that is). She tried a lot of different groups and activities. Interesting.


That is where she lost me, in the monastery. This was very much a private enclave of men. So her actions there felt very much like this betrayal of them and what they were doing. She decided on her whim to shove herself into a place where men went for male spiritual growth.

Now...I can only imagine how betrayed some of these women felt as well when they found out their 'Romeo' was actually 'lying Juliet' but I didn't feel it as viscerally as the monastery.


----------



## Omego

EnjoliWoman said:


> I have never met a man who needed to play down his intelligence. THAT makes no sense. I've known plenty of women to play dumb to make the male feel superior and unthreatened, but never a man who plays dumb.


Me too. I see it quite a lot at parties, etc. The men dominate certain aspects of the conversation, especially when it comes to politics, economics, etc. and the women usually listen, ask questions but let the men draw the conclusions. It doesn't matter if they all have the same level of education. This is just the way things work.

I remember I was once at a party where the men could not get a word in edgewise (my H wasn't there). I felt like I had spent an evening in the Twilight Zone.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> That is where she lost me, in the monastery. This was very much a private enclave of men. So her actions there felt very much like this betrayal of them and what they were doing. She decided on her whim to shove herself into a place where men went for male spiritual growth.


Sounds like when Clodius Pulcher dressed in drag to crash the annual invitation only _Bona Dea_ lesbian orgy at Caesar's house. He was caught out when one of the slave girls kissed and groped him.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I was engaged to a man in my 20s who was 10 years my senior. Smart, funny, fairly attractive. We had a great time together. But he was so unstable with $ and life. He had 5 different jobs in 3 years, 4 different cars, and as many places he lived. He was sober 7 years after working himself to the bone, and declared himself out of the rat race. He started his own business, but it wasn't anything that would make him good money.

I tried talking to him about he importance of financial stability. He was deaf to my logic. I ended the relationship.

For giggles, I googled and found out that, sure enough, he filed for bankruptcy a few years ago. So I dodged a bullet with that one.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EnjoliWoman said:


> *I dated a guy for quite a while who worked in a decidedly blue collar job. He probably makes less than I do. He buys his clothes at Good Will (except shoes/underwear) - and he always looks nice. His house is bigger than mine and more nicely appointed - he is SUPER handy, gets his materials at Habitat for Humanity Re-store and has re-done the whole kitchen, knocking out a wall, adding a pantry, a bar top counter between that and the living room and a built-in entertainment surround so perfect you can't see a single nail, screw, mitred corner or seam. He built a 2-car garage + shop by himself including siding and roofing. He has money in savings and travels a couple times a year. It's usually on a budget but if he wants to do something he makes it happen and he no doubt has a lot more in savings than I do.*


 Frugal Handymen are worth their weight in gold..I'd personally be very impressed by these things.. 



> *I'd much rather have the second guy who makes less, is handier, has more in common with me and generally more fun. But he is also more financially secure, though you'd never know it from his 2000 Impala (well maintained, I might add - you'd never know it was 14 years old unless you happen to know body styles). *
> 
> *Sure it would be nice to have it all - money, looks, intelligence, a great personality and generous kind spirit, but I've learned that flash doesn't equal substance nor security and blue collar doesn't equate to poor, unambitious or unintelligent.*
> 
> ....
> 
> *Intelligence has many forms; financial security has many forms, compatibility has many forms and physical attraction is variable **(I like an Armani suit as much as I like Levis and Hanes T). As long as those things mesh with mine, I don't care why or how.*
> 
> *ETA - there IS something super sexy about taking off a tie and unbuttoning a dress shirt... but if he could wear workboots and build something with his hands on the weekend that's pretty damn sexy too*.


You really got the heart of the matter .... you explained this SOOOO Much better than I was getting across (taking it a little too personal)... you laid it out here perfectly... with these comparisons... it's just not always so Black & white.. Love your post EnjoliWoman !! :smthumbup:


----------



## heartsbeating

JCD said:


> how will that job impact my relationship time with the guy


I agree with this. Way back when... you know... the days before everyone had a cell phone... I briefly dated a guy who was training to be a chef. That often meant meeting up after late shifts and he was usually still in his kitchen uniform. Suited me at the time because I had insomnia and youth on my side. But then he wanted to get serious and I wanted to travel and experience different things. When my to-become husband and I started living together, he was working in a restaurant. That was short-lived as I expressed the late shifts weren't ideal for our relationship and he switched to a day job instead that was outside of hospitality. A job/career can also somewhat provide insight to someone's personality. 

Education level wouldn't be important to me. Then again, I'm a high school drop-out. I was the type who was barely showing up for class and still getting good grades. Long story short, probably makes me the most foolish! When the teacher told us in length that we'd all be losers, I packed up my bag and walked out of class. I phoned another school known for its music/arts to see if I could apply but couldn't. Neither my husband or I went to university and we've done alright in life. We chalk that up to luck, yes, a lot of this has been luck... some determination and smarts. He's aware that he's in his prime earning years right now and making the most of that. He earns double my salary. 

When we met, I was saving to travel. We ended up traveling together. I love everything about travel... and sometimes lean towards the impulsive. I couldn't be with someone who didn't get this or tried to stifle that side of me. And yet, I love that my husband balances this while still embracing what I'm about.

A highly-educated friend, heading to the peak of her career, asked my opinion of whether she ought to take an opportunity that was offered to her overseas in the buzz of a city and different culture but with a side-step to her career path - or stay and continue on the path she was already on. I told her I was likely the wrong person to ask, as I'll always opt for taking the different experiences and especially with travel. She said she's never 'broken out' of what she _should_ do, she's always walked the straight and narrow. She really wanted to take that leap ....but in the end just couldn't bring herself to. There's nothing wrong with that. Her discipline and rationality is something I respect. I know what I would have done though. For a relationship, finding someone who complements you and you them, is so important. She stayed on the path, got the promotion she was heading for and is now married to a highly-educated man.

In summary, tight buns is essential.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *Heartsbeating said*: A highly-educated friend, heading to the peak of her career, asked my opinion of whether she ought to take an opportunity that was offered to her overseas in the buzz of a city and different culture but with a side-step to her career path - or stay and continue on the path she was already on. I told her I was likely the wrong person to ask, *as I'll always opt for taking the different experiences and especially with travel. She said she's never 'broken out' of what she should do, she's always walked the straight and narrow. *
> 
> *She really wanted to take that leap ....but in the end just couldn't bring herself to. There's nothing wrong with that. Her discipline and rationality is something I respect*. I know what I would have done though. For a relationship, finding someone who complements you and you them, is so important. She stayed on the path, got the promotion she was heading for and is now married to a highly-educated man.


I'm more like your friend Heartsbeating.. very rational.. I would think too death everything that could go wrong with taking side adventures... I was the type who NEVER missed school.. did listen to authority, walking a pretty straight line in my youth... My H was very similar... in working for the past 35 yrs of his life, I bet he only missed a total of 10 days of work or something.. extremely dependable.. he stayed at his 1st job for 18 yrs straight... 

We are the type of couple .. when we plant ourselves down somewhere, you can almost count -we'll still be there 30 yrs later.. stability is very important to both of us... This doesn't mean, however, I can't be spontaneous with FUN adventures in the moment.. VERY flexible here....(Example: Friend calls up in the am - says "Hey , want to take a trip to the beach today?"....if I am free, the kids are free, I'd scramble for the next hour , throw a big picnic lunch together, grab a neighbor, load up 7 kids, meet her, and drive for 2 hrs for swimming, the kids love it!!... done that a few times.. very memorable, some spontaneity is great!!.. but the Big stuff (could be life changing)...I would dissect every detail reasoning it out / counting the cost, that it would have little risk and we'd come out being "better off".. or I wouldn't take that chance...I'd talk myself out of it...

Neither of us like too much RISK.. but many would feel this is Boring.. and I get that.

I believe these characteristics are inborn somehow and it comes down to the last 2 digits on temperament profiles.... 
Myself and husband are both J's...

No doubt you are a P....explained here...




> J = *Judging Characteristics*
> 
> Plan many of the details in advance before moving into action.
> 
> Focus on task-related action; complete meaningful segments before moving on.
> 
> Work best and avoid stress when able to keep ahead of deadlines.
> 
> Naturally use targets, dates and standard routines to manage life.
> 
> A Judging (J) style approaches the outside world WITH A PLAN and is oriented towards organizing one's surroundings, being prepared, making decisions and reaching closure and completion.
> 
> 
> P = *Perceiving Characteristics*
> 
> Comfortable moving into action without a plan; plan on-the-go.
> 
> Like to multitask, have variety, mix work and play.
> 
> Naturally tolerant of time pressure; work best close to the deadlines.
> 
> Instinctively avoid commitments which interfere with flexibility, freedom and variety
> 
> A Perceiving (P) style takes the outside world AS IT COMES and is adopting and adapting, flexible, open-ended and receptive to new opportunities and changing game plans.


----------



## heartsbeating

My husband is the planner. He feels more comfortable with having a visible plan of action and list. I'm more plan-on-the-go but I've adopted his style and it helps us together. He's also allowed himself to let go at times when it perhaps wouldn't be his normal style to. I think that's where the balance is. However... we also don't have children and that no doubt changes things.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

heartsbeating said:


> My husband is the planner. He feels more comfortable with having a visible plan of action and list. I'm more plan-on-the-go but I've adopted his style and it helps us together. He's also allowed himself to let go at times when it perhaps wouldn't be his normal style to. I think that's where the balance is. However... we also don't have children and that no doubt changes things.


The children part makes a big different, I can't even wing a vacation with our size family, few places allow 8 all together ,so I have to find cabins or large Suites (they go quick, I need to book as early as JAN to get what I want in the summer)....I'm not fond of getting 2 hotel rooms or 2 cabins doubling the cost....I have even went as far as looking up menu prices in a given area & their hrs.....keeping a handy list for our trip/ all those details (just in case)... because I don't want to be blindsided walking into an establishment that is going to cost us over $100 to eat a meal.. cause you know what... I'd walk out! 

It keeps the chaos (& wasting of time) down to have a plan - readily available options at my finger tips to work within..and God Bless the GPS!...then things run very smoothly.. we took a trip to Disney yrs back...drove 18 hrs straight with 5 kids.. did 5 large parks in 7 days.. (even threw in Sea World on the spur of the moment when we learned of a killer deal)....ran to buy a cheap printer at Walmart 10pm that night...to print out BOGO tickets (saved us a good $200 +).....Looking back that vacation ran more smoothly than should have been allowed with that many of us & smaller children...no mishaps....these things also help us live within our more meager income..


----------



## Lon

SimplyAmorous said:


> I hate to see , because someone is not financially successful.. or makes 6 figures (however one defines "very successful" ) that if a man is just a blue collar worker for instance... he is called or considered a LOSER by many.. This makes men like the one I married a LOSER.. so yeah.. kinda strikes a chord with me.
> 
> When I see RICH men, fancy cars...2 things immediately comes to mind ...
> 
> *1.* Even if these men were in love...they probably wouldn't have *TIME* for their wives/ family...too busy chasing a bottom line, building an empire or keeping up with the CEO's.... and
> 
> *2* Very successful men will always be surrounded by beautiful willing women... more temptation in his face, on his over night stays.... (pretty funny about the notes on his Ferrari -but not surprising!).....So these men are far more likely to Play around - since hot chicks are at their disposal -throwing themselves at them.... I can't think of a worse Turn off...
> 
> Higher success/ Status, by no means = Happiness in relationships ... it's not the end all...
> 
> A couple who makes "enough" to build a life together, pays off their house in a reasonable time frame...has time for their children, goes on a couple vacations a year...stays out of debt.. and lots of time for each other is far more appealing for someone like myself..... Just had to get that out..
> 
> I look at 3 things......* 1)* Looks....*2)* Character (on the $$ front...Work ethic & can he live within his means - these are VERY important)...and* 3 )* Compatibility...
> 
> THough I wasn't a college educated woman either back then... if my husband died tomorrow.. I would still be on the look out for the same 3 things..


The real answer, is how would these rich men and fat cats fare in the Zombie Apocalypse?


----------



## treyvion

Lon said:


> The real answer, is how would these rich men and fat cats fare in the Zombie Apocalypse?


Many of the rich worked very hard to recieve their financial rewards, are motivate and driven individuals. You can't knock them and say they are beneath people who are not as driven who are more content to follow the herd.

Yes they will fall for a physically attractive partner who doesn't have the same financial stature as themself, does this mean you can knock them? No.

What they don't realize is most of the ones who don't have the same financial stature as themself won't respect their dedication and motivation that it took to build them up to that level, so it will be a drain on them they might not be willing to respect. 

And then some of these fat cats like you call them are very selfish, self centered, piggish people. Who are only soliciting a prostititute almost, but all or most are not like it.

There are many people who have done very well for themself who are loyal, who are nice, who have integrity. Just like there are many dirty, piggish and scummish ones who have done well for themself.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Study about Dating*



treyvion said:


> Many of the rich worked very hard to recieve their financial rewards, are motivate and driven individuals. You can't knock them and say they are beneath people who are not as driven who are more content to follow the herd.
> 
> Yes they will fall for a physically attractive partner who doesn't have the same financial stature as themself, does this mean you can knock them? No.
> 
> What they don't realize is most of the ones who don't have the same financial stature as themself won't respect their dedication and motivation that it took to build them up to that level, so it will be a drain on them they might not be willing to respect.
> 
> And then some of these fat cats like you call them are very selfish, self centered, piggish people. Who are only soliciting a prostititute almost, but all or most are not like it.
> 
> There are many people who have done very well for themself who are loyal, who are nice, who have integrity. Just like there are many dirty, piggish and scummish ones who have done well for themself.


I'm not disagreeing that many successful people have worked hard to achieve their goals. My point is just that if everything was taken away, from all people in this world, and we were all stripped down to our bare character, and all social advantage some people had were levelled, would those men be able to rebuild their lives again to new and possibly different goals, be they materialistic or not? And would that translate directly to attraction by women just as is did before?

I guess what I'm wondering is what is at the ultimate core of attraction, is it their character, their genetic composition or luck and ability to immerse themselves into circumstance which attracts others and the other sex?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Lon said:


> The real answer, is how would these rich men and fat cats fare in the Zombie Apocalypse?


I just want to say I am not into "Success shaming" at all.. I have met a # of very successful GENEROUS wonderful people in my real life.. 

I work for a very successful man on occasion... He buys new cars the way I buy shoes...I've joked about this a # of times with him.. he jokes about our old cars... We get along great !...But I look at his lifestyle.. there is absolutely no envy there from my end... he's never home! 

He would be gone 3 weeks at a time many times a year...then he married his interpreter 20 yrs younger ..not too long after his divorce...He had little old me do his wedding photos, he could have hired the BEST.. 

Every room in his house could be ripped from a "House Beautiful" magazine... but when is he there to enjoy it....probably earns 5 times more than my husband a year... he has ALWAYS treated me & my family... LIKE Family.. in this way...I don't see him as someone who looks down on others..... I much appreciate his attitude...Even if he wouldn't be caught dead with a car as old as ours...

But I must admit these things play on my mind...when we get around those who live a higher class lifestyle..... I can't relate to them, and I wonder if they think we are lazy and/ or unambitious ...

I will never forget one of our conversations.. he admitted one day the reason he buys so many new cars/ sports cars IS to impress others...and get women!...and he laughed...He thinks it's great we don't care about those things.....but that's just the way it is ....he has said a couple of times had he married someone like me...he'd probably be retired by now.... Though I could see myself thinking it's asinine to buy all those new vehicles... and I would have abhored his working schedule...

Earlier today I came across this saying - my H had it taped in his locker at work for a long time.... I guess he really liked it, then brought it home to me one day.. I thought of this thread when I read it again.... (I think this falls in line with what Lon is meaning pretty much.)


----------



## treyvion

Lon said:


> I'm not disagreeing that many successful people have worked hard to achieve their goals. My point is just that if everything was taken away, from all people in this world, and we were all stripped down to our bare character, and all social advantage some people had were levelled, would those men be able to rebuild their lives again to new and possibly different goals, be they materialistic or not? And would that translate directly to attraction by women just as is did before?
> 
> I guess what I'm wondering is what is at the ultimate core of attraction, is it their character, their genetic composition or luck and ability to immerse themselves into circumstance which attracts others and the other sex?


I think they will. I think for many there is a test in that their life and/or business will be destroyed and they have to rebuild themself.

How many of those guys/women have you heard of being destroyed and rebuilding themself back years later. It takes alot of drive, ambition, intelligence to do it in the first place. You can take all the material goods and wealth away, many would not be happy and be driven to do it again.


----------



## JCD

Lon said:


> I'm not disagreeing that many successful people have worked hard to achieve their goals. My point is just that if everything was taken away, from all people in this world, and we were all stripped down to our bare character, and all social advantage some people had were levelled, would those men be able to rebuild their lives again to new and possibly different goals, be they materialistic or not? And would that translate directly to attraction by women just as is did before?
> 
> I guess what I'm wondering is what is at the ultimate core of attraction, is it their character, their genetic composition or luck and ability to immerse themselves into circumstance which attracts others and the other sex?


Let me use two of Samuel Vimes quotes to answer this:

"The common people?” said Vimes. “They’re nothing special. They’re no different from the rich and powerful except they’ve got no money or power. But the law should be there to balance things up a bit. So I suppose I’ve got to be on their side.”

“Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority (ed addition: or blue collar) doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk.”

There is no nobility in being a lawyer...but there is no nobility in being a teacher, a carpenter...or even a cop or fire fighter! See the recent 'Flirty or friendly' thread where this captain of firefighters (married) loves all the adulation and hot and cold running women who throw themselves at his feet. One of the perks they don't mention on the application.

It's people. And someone who has good character or works hard will land on his feet no matter what imaginary world you come up with if given a chance to succeed.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD;10425538
[I said:


> It's people. And someone who has good character or works hard will land on his feet no matter what imaginary world you come up with if given a chance to succeed.[/I]


That's how they made it to the top in the first place.

Being poor or even middle class doesn't automatically make a person of good character.

In fact , some of the most dangerous, conniving , pretentious people I've come across are middle class.

Some of the humblest I know are from the wealthy class who have climbed the ladder of success from the bottom rung.


----------



## Fozzy

Caribbean Man said:


> That's how they made it to the top in the first place.
> 
> Being poor or even middle class doesn't automatically make a person of good character.
> 
> In fact , some of the most dangerous, conniving , pretentious people I've come across are middle class.
> 
> Some of the humblest I know are from the wealthy class who have climbed the ladder of success from the bottom rung.


Character =/= success. Character =/= poverty.


----------



## Lon

SimplyAmorous said:


> ...I will never forget one of our conversations.. he admitted one day the reason he buys so many new cars/ sports cars IS to impress others...and get women!...and he laughed...


My Grandpa espoused the same approach - he always believed the secret to being successful, for him atleast, was to give off the appearance of success. He never finished grade 6, and literally was a hobo for a number of years in his youth, travelled the rails, worked in the merchant marine (or some something of the sort which he told me about a few times, maybe he was just BS'ing me). In the early years of his marriage, my grandparents were BROKE, however neither were afraid of hard work, he got into stucco business with his brother and he generated enough to pay a down payment on a new house (well the materials and labour for it since he had already drafted all the plans for it himself, new Cadillac and even a little left over for two expensive suits.) - his father was not impressed at all going into huge debt like that.

They were house-poor for a number of years, and my dad tells me of living off nothing but tomato soup for a long time, but during that time my grandpa had schmoozed his way into some pretty swanky social circles. He would invest money he didn't actually have, but people took him at face value as good for his word, and his gambles usually paid off because he was shrewd and calculating. He became a church man, and found a lot of wealth in that community with which to associate, and he also found a lot of beliefs that resonated strongly with him, and his faith was reinforced by the financial blessings that stemmed from his unbroken facade. Not long before his death in the mid-90's he told me all about his secret to success, and that he initially wanted to retire from that all once he'd socked away a $1M, but when he got to that point he upped the line to $2M and then upped again... he alluded that he'd managed to accrue well over $3M for their retirement savings (or did he? I'm still not convinced, it could have been some measly amount), he also admitted it was never about the money, or the cars or the lifestyle, just that it was the only we he felt it was possible for him to provide for his family, and he just sorta rolled with it since it worked. He had no shame, but he said like any other truly content man it was seeing his children and grandchildren grow and expand that brought satisfaction.

Anyways, what's my point? I guess that money is the means to an end, and it's so true that success is however we choose to define it for ourselves.

I am not into success shaming either, however I also refuse to admit that those with success have by and large worked harder, or smarter or anything that makes them superior (or inferior), I truly believe we are all equal, and that whether we bust our butts just to get out of bed, or to find a stale loaf of bread to put on our kid's table, or turn our $1M into the next $1M, we all give it 100% each day, every day - it is inescapable.

OK back to dating studies...


----------



## Lon

JCD said:


> Let me use two of Samuel Vimes quotes to answer this:
> 
> "The common people?” said Vimes. “They’re nothing special. They’re no different from the rich and powerful except they’ve got no money or power. But the law should be there to balance things up a bit. So I suppose I’ve got to be on their side.”
> 
> “Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority (ed addition: or blue collar) doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk.”
> 
> There is no nobility in being a lawyer...but there is no nobility in being a teacher, a carpenter...or even a cop or fire fighter! See the recent 'Flirty or friendly' thread where this captain of firefighters (married) loves all the adulation and hot and cold running women who throw themselves at his feet. One of the perks they don't mention on the application.
> 
> It's people. And someone who has good character or works hard will land on his feet no matter what imaginary world you come up with if given a chance to succeed.


I agreed with you completely up until this very last sentence, and then maybe its just the wording isn't clear to me. Many people that work hard and have good character have not landed on their feet. But then, maybe it's the "if given a chance to succeed" part you are trying to emphasize?

Some people would argue that successful people "create" those chances, and that is the part of it I would staunchly disagree with. They may be good at capitalizing on those chances, but really it's the universe that creates those chances, and does not always give them out evenly.


----------



## treyvion

Lon said:


> I agreed with you completely up until this very last sentence, and then maybe its just the wording isn't clear to me. Many people that work hard and have good character have not landed on their feet. But then, maybe it's the "if given a chance to succeed" part you are trying to emphasize?
> 
> Some people would argue that successful people "create" those chances, and that is the part of it I would staunchly disagree with. They may be good at capitalizing on those chances, but really it's the universe that creates those chances, and does not always give them out evenly.


Change your world and change your universe. That's all.


----------



## ReformedHubby

Lon said:


> My Grandpa espoused the same approach - he always believed the secret to being successful, for him atleast, was to give off the appearance of success. He never finished grade 6, and literally was a hobo for a number of years in his youth, travelled the rails, worked in the merchant marine (or some something of the sort which he told me about a few times, maybe he was just BS'ing me). In the early years of his marriage, my grandparents were BROKE, however neither were afraid of hard work, he got into stucco business with his brother and he generated enough to pay a down payment on a new house (well the materials and labour for it since he had already drafted all the plans for it himself, new Cadillac and even a little left over for two expensive suits.) - his father was not impressed at all going into huge debt like that.
> 
> They were house-poor for a number of years, and my dad tells me of living off nothing but tomato soup for a long time, but during that time my grandpa had schmoozed his way into some pretty swanky social circles. He would invest money he didn't actually have, but people took him at face value as good for his word, and his gambles usually paid off because he was shrewd and calculating. He became a church man, and found a lot of wealth in that community with which to associate, and he also found a lot of beliefs that resonated strongly with him, and his faith was reinforced by the financial blessings that stemmed from his unbroken facade. Not long before his death in the mid-90's he told me all about his secret to success, and that he initially wanted to retire from that all once he'd socked away a $1M, but when he got to that point he upped the line to $2M and then upped again... he alluded that he'd managed to accrue well over $3M for their retirement savings (or did he? I'm still not convinced, it could have been some measly amount), he also admitted it was never about the money, or the cars or the lifestyle, just that it was the only we he felt it was possible for him to provide for his family, and he just sorta rolled with it since it worked. He had no shame, but he said like any other truly content man it was seeing his children and grandchildren grow and expand that brought satisfaction.
> 
> Anyways, what's my point? I guess that money is the means to an end, and it's so true that success is however we choose to define it for ourselves.
> 
> I am not into success shaming either, however I also refuse to admit that those with success have by and large worked harder, or smarter or anything that makes them superior (or inferior), I truly believe we are all equal, and that whether we bust our butts just to get out of bed, or to find a stale loaf of bread to put on our kid's table, or turn our $1M into the next $1M, we all give it 100% each day, every day - it is inescapable.
> 
> OK back to dating studies...


Interesting Lon....in many ways it really is all about risk tolerance. I don't think most entrepreneurs see themselves as better are smarter than most. At the end of the day we are just willing to risk more. God help our spouses.


----------



## JCD

Lon said:


> I agreed with you completely up until this very last sentence, and then maybe its just the wording isn't clear to me. Many people that work hard and have good character have not landed on their feet. But then, maybe it's the "if given a chance to succeed" part you are trying to emphasize?
> 
> Some people would argue that successful people "create" those chances, and that is the part of it I would staunchly disagree with. They may be good at capitalizing on those chances, but really it's the universe that creates those chances, and does not always give them out evenly.


I knew this guy from Ethiopia. He was just a driver for a hotel bus. He was old. He told me about how he walked across a desert for a week or two to leave his country and get to a place where he could eventually come to America. He seemed pretty happy about his decision. And he told me proud stories about his family here.

Yes, there were probably brilliant mathematicians born in straw huts somewhere who never ever got a shot at anything. Star athletes whose parents stuffed them with ho ho's and never signed the permission slips.

But that isn't what this is about. Your original post, at least to me, reeked of class warfare. That 'the working man' had it all over 'those nobs' and that a little hiccup in the world would show them! Crawl you investment banker! Crawl because you don't know how to hammer a 2x4!

I've known rich people. I've known poor people. Can't see a lot of difference though rich people all seem to have slightly better social skills than poor people.

So let me go to Tolstoy (paraphrased):

“All happy families (successful people) are alike; each unhappy family (unsuccessful person) is unhappy (unsuccessful) in its own way.”


----------



## Lon

My original comment, about the zombie apocalypse, wasnt intended to be about class warfare at all, it was intended to try to differentiate between character and circumstance, in order to help visualize what the real core of sexual attraction for men is. And I don't think such a situation would necessarily favor a working class man over a money baron. My question, for the ladies, is: does the type of man that you could foresee surviving well in the (speculative) zombie apocalypse be the kind of man you are most attracted to today? Or is it a complete waste of my time to even bother putting it that way?


----------



## IcePrincess28

I've always dated white guys. But its bc of my environment growing up- (my schools were always predominately white- with about 1 asian per grade)

Of the serious relationships and one marriage that I had- I was the first non white girlfriend for every boyfriend except one. After me, one ex started dating asian women only, another ex dated a Hispanic woman, and another ex- dated asian women and white women equally. 

The following are what I've witnessed/experienced- they are thru my eyes only. 

New York- races are more cliquey- not even asians "sticking" with asians, and whites to whites- but in New York- it goes more specific than race- down to ethnicity. Koreans stick mostly with koreans, Italians with italians. Bosnians with bosnians. Chinese with Chinese, etc. The boroughs were especially true of this, with Manhattan being the melting pot. 

West Coast, CALI- has similar racial cliques- but has a much greater interracial dating- especially bc the cities are not so compressed. The cities with denser populations will experience more interracial dating. Whereas the suburban areas- you will see more of white dating white- and more races- dating white. 

Midwest- The OP applies in this region- more- than other regions.


----------



## norajane

Lon, I don't think in terms of zombies, but if I were stuck on a deserted island, or in a cabin in the woods during a snowstorm, I'd want my SO with me because he is super resourceful and knows how to build a fire, purify water, and could build a shelter/catch fish/fix the furnace/whatever for survival. He is also so prepared for everything, that he'd probably also have a stash of chocolate and wine in his backpack for me.

Is that why I'm attracted to him? That's probably not why I fell in love with him years ago, but the reason he has those skills is that his motto (if he had one) is "be prepared for everything so you can do anything," and that is something I can identify with and treasure about him. It's that quality that makes us compatible on a lot of things, like financial matters.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Study about Dating*



norajane said:


> Lon, I don't think in terms of zombies, but if I were stuck on a deserted island, or in a cabin in the woods during a snowstorm, I'd want my SO with me because he is super resourceful and knows how to build a fire, purify water, and could build a shelter/catch fish/fix the furnace/whatever for survival. He is also so prepared for everything, that he'd probably also have a stash of chocolate and wine in his backpack for me.
> 
> Is that why I'm attracted to him? That's probably not why I fell in love with him years ago, but the reason he has those skills is that his motto (if he had one) is "be prepared for everything so you can do anything," and that is something I can identify with and treasure about him. It's that quality that makes us compatible on a lot of things, like financial matters.


So if you were single, on a plane full of single men in your dating demographic, with a wide range of skills, and the plane made an emergency landing in the ocean right near a deserted island and you all survived but knew you'd be stranded there for years (I keep thinking of Lost, lol), and you eventually had a need or longing for sex, which type of guy would you pick? The leader who is most admired and/or despised by the other guys? The loner that sticks to himself? The funny one that makes everyone laugh? The smart one that can figure out the answer to difficult problems? The hard worker that isn't intelligent but likes to sweat? The quiet safety conscious one whom has staved off tragic incidents? The mellow one that is content being along for the ride and puts everyone at ease? Etc. Which type is it whose touch you would long for first?

(My guess, for you, knowing what I can piece together from all your comments I've read, would be the smart one)


----------



## norajane

Lon said:


> So if you were single, on a plane full of single men in your dating demographic, with a wide range of skills, and the plane made an emergency landing in the ocean right near a deserted island and you all survived but knew you'd be stranded there for years (I keep thinking of Lost, lol), and you eventually had a need or longing for sex, which type of guy would you pick? The leader who is most admired and/or despised by the other guys? The loner that sticks to himself? The funny one that makes everyone laugh? The smart one that can figure out the answer to difficult problems? The hard worker that isn't intelligent but likes to sweat? The quiet safety conscious one whom has staved off tragic incidents? The mellow one that is content being along for the ride and puts everyone at ease? Etc. Which type is it whose touch you would long for first?
> 
> (My guess, for you, knowing what I can piece together from all your comments I've read, would be the smart one)


Lost with a plane full of single men and me, lol! 

You're right, I'd pick the smart one (unless he's an ass). I need that intellectual connection to be attracted...sexy starts in the brain, for me.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lon said:


> The real answer, is how would these rich men and fat cats fare in the Zombie Apocalypse?


I've always felt having your own helicopter would be useful.


----------



## heartsbeating

Lon said:


> My question, for the ladies, is: does the type of man that you could foresee surviving well in the (speculative) zombie apocalypse be the kind of man you are most attracted to today? Or is it a complete waste of my time to even bother putting it that way?


This is absolutely the type of question I would love to over-think when time allows... I was kidding about the helicopter. Actually a ship could do well too. To be answered, another bat-time, another bat-channel.


----------



## JCD

Lon said:


> My original comment, about the zombie apocalypse, wasnt intended to be about class warfare at all, it was intended to try to differentiate between character and circumstance, in order to help visualize what the real core of sexual attraction for men is. And I don't think such a situation would necessarily favor a working class man over a money baron. My question, for the ladies, is: does the type of man that you could foresee surviving well in the (speculative) zombie apocalypse be the kind of man you are most attracted to today? Or is it a complete waste of my time to even bother putting it that way?


Ah. I mistook the tenor of your post and I apologize.

That is an intriguing question. I think circumstance has a HUGE impact on these decisions. Suddenly, in a ZA, Mach's 'V' becomes very important again.

One could very well argue that 'beauty' is a luxury good. If one's 'needs' aren't being met (and trust me, chocolate, wine and intellectual stimulation will take a far back seat to an empty belly), one will quickly reassess 'attraction'. IMO. And this isn't a ding on women. I think it applies to both genders. It speaks well of the wealth of our society that we can dismiss a potential spouse 'because she smells like soup'.

Back in the day, an 'eligible wife' wasn't necessarily a 'pretty' wife. She brought some huge assets to the table. Granted, the double standard meant that sexual needs could and would be 'subcontracted' made such a pairing more palatable.


----------



## firebelly1

Lon said:


> So if you were single, on a plane full of single men in your dating demographic, with a wide range of skills, and the plane made an emergency landing in the ocean right near a deserted island and you all survived but knew you'd be stranded there for years (I keep thinking of Lost, lol), and you eventually had a need or longing for sex, which type of guy would you pick? The leader who is most admired and/or despised by the other guys? The loner that sticks to himself? The funny one that makes everyone laugh? The smart one that can figure out the answer to difficult problems? The hard worker that isn't intelligent but likes to sweat? The quiet safety conscious one whom has staved off tragic incidents? The mellow one that is content being along for the ride and puts everyone at ease? Etc. Which type is it whose touch you would long for first?
> 
> (My guess, for you, knowing what I can piece together from all your comments I've read, would be the smart one)


If it's just me and all those guys I don't have to choose, right?  How many of them are gay?

So are we still in zombie apocalypse? Cuz the guy I need protecting me from zombies is different than the the guy I want if I have all to choose from with no threat of danger on the deserted island and no female competition. And both of those are different than the guy I would choose to be with now with a variety of female competition. 

Deserted island guy: the leader


----------



## ocotillo

> "Women of all the races we studied revealed a strong preference for men of their own race: White women were more likely to choose white men; black women preferred black men; East Asian women preferred East Asian men; Hispanic women preferred Hispanic men. But men don't seem to discriminate based on race when it comes to dating. A woman's race had no effect on the men's choices."


This is a little bit of a tangent, but it is tough to take an article seriously when the author can't get basic terms right.

Anthropologists abandoned the concept of race 60+ years ago as unscientific, but even when it was accepted, there were only four (Or five depending upon what you read) races.

The divisions were not primarily based on skin color; they were based on phrenology and "Caucasian" took in everything from the lightest skinned Scandinavians to the darkest skinned Bisharins.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Study about Dating*



ocotillo said:


> This is a little bit of a tangent, but it is tough to take an article seriously when the author can't get basic terms right.
> 
> Anthropologists abandoned the concept of race 60+ years ago as unscientific, but even when it was accepted, there were only four (Or five depending upon what you read) races.
> 
> The divisions were not primarily based on skin color; they were based on phrenology and "Caucasian" took in everything from the lightest skinned Scandinavians to the darkest skinned Bisharins.


It made sense to me, even if the terms were anthropologically obsolete. So what is the correct term to use to describe people of different skin color and ethic groups?


----------



## ocotillo

Lon said:


> It made sense to me, even if the terms were anthropologically obsolete. So what is the correct term to use to describe people of different skin color and ethic groups?


Ethnicity is the best term to describe people of different ethnic groups. Anglos and Hispanics, for example are different ethnic groups, within the same, "Race." (Caucasian)

The mistake is using either term (Race or Ethnicity) to describe skin color. "White" is not a race. "White" is not an ethnicity either. White is a skin color and only a skin color.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Study about Dating*



ocotillo said:


> Ethnicity is the best term to describe people of different ethnic groups. Anglos and Hispanics, for example are different ethnic groups, within the same, "Race." (Caucasian)
> 
> The mistake is using either term (Race or Ethnicity) to describe skin color. "White" is not a race. "White" is not an ethnicity either. White is a skin color and only a skin color.


Well, white is not even really a skin color. We are all varying shades of pink and brown. I find ethnicity is a more useful descriptor for in the study cited. But race kind of works too, since it is a common, lay term to refer to what the study was referring to.


----------



## IcePrincess28

I didn't know that Hispanic was within the Caucasian race. 

In bigger cities where there are more dense populations with varying ethnicities - ethnicity is generally used over race. 

In New York City - the term white is hardly used. You hear Irish Italian (my EH), Italian, Russian. You don't hear Asian as often as you hear Chinese, Japanese. 

In my ethnicity. We further sub categorize and state- mandarin or Cantonese.


----------



## ocotillo

Lon said:


> But race kind of works too, since it is a common, lay term to refer to what the study was referring to.


I disagree. The original yardstick was skull morphology, not skin color and the boy below is Caucasian.










Conversely if you are not following the original concept, than you are not observing any rhyme or reason whatsoever, except perhaps in the theater of popular misconception. And that has no place in an article that purports to be scientific.


----------



## JCD

Anthropologists may have abandoned it, but to hear most people, they certainly have not. They seem perfectly happy to use skin color ('white' Hispanic vs. 'black' Hispanic as differing options in some government applications etc) as well as culture as useful terms for divisions.

My quibble with the study is this: they did it during speed dating. So this is mostly yuppie alpha types of a distinctly urban flavor in their demographic. This means that in some ways, they deviate from the rest of society in important ways. For example, urban populations are probably less 'ethnically intolerant' than other groups by a certain percentage. And it is very unlikely that an Asian woman with vigorous ethnic preference would be caught 'speed dating'. She is with three of her female cousins as she goes on a 'date' with her fiancé. 

I use this as a suggestion, not as the last word on dating.


----------



## FalconKing

IcePrincess28 said:


> The following are what I've witnessed/experienced- they are thru my eyes only.
> 
> *New York- races are more cliquey- not even asians "sticking" with asians, and whites to whites- but in New York- it goes more specific than race- down to ethnicity. Koreans stick mostly with koreans, Italians with italians. Bosnians with bosnians. Chinese with Chinese, etc. The boroughs were especially true of this, with Manhattan being the melting pot. *
> 
> West Coast, CALI- has similar racial cliques- but has a much greater interracial dating- especially bc the cities are not so compressed. The cities with denser populations will experience more interracial dating. Whereas the suburban areas- you will see more of white dating white- and more races- dating white.
> 
> Midwest- The OP applies in this region- more- than other regions.


I've heard the same thing from others. One of my good guy friends is Jamaican and lives in NY. He told me that a lot of african american women refused to date him because he was Jamaican. I would follow this guy on youtube who was of Trinidad descent. He talked of having the same experiences.


----------



## FalconKing

I think the reason more women prefer someone of their same race than men(statistically speaking), is perhaps because it's a safer choice.


----------



## Coffee Amore

IcePrincess28 said:


> You don't hear Asian as often as you hear Chinese, Japanese.


It's interesting how different places use the word Asian. In England, the term "Asian" is often used to refer to South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and so on) and "oriental" is used to refer to Chinese, Japanese.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Study about Dating*



Coffee Amore said:


> It's interesting how different places use the word Asian. In England, the term "Asian" is often used to refer to South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and so on) and "oriental" is used to refer to Chinese, Japanese.


I think oriental has been deemed a derogatory term in north America, or so I suspect since I heard that term a lot as a young child. Now not so much.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Coffee Amore said:


> It's interesting how different places use the word Asian. In England, the term "Asian" is often used to refer to South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and so on) and "oriental" is used to refer to Chinese, Japanese.


I was told that Asian refers to people whereas oriental refers to things. "An oriental rug woven by an Asian" or "The oriental vase was owned by an Asian king." Which is why Asian is always capitalized but oriental is not.


----------



## FalconKing

EnjoliWoman said:


> I was told that Asian refers to people whereas oriental refers to things. "An oriental rug woven by an Asian" or "The oriental vase was owned by an Asian king." Which is why Asian is always capitalized but oriental is not.


Whenever I hear someone called oriental I cringe and I think your post explained well why I feel that way.


----------



## IcePrincess28

FalconKing said:


> Whenever I hear someone called oriental I cringe and I think your post explained well why I feel that way.



Me too- but only if it's in ignorance. If it's an old man or woman. They don't know any better- I can tell thru the way they speak to me. (By being kind or oblivious). Doesn't bother me at all. I've never heard anyone older than 50 use that word. 

I can't remember the last time I heard that word.


----------



## ocotillo

FalconKing said:


> I think the reason more women prefer someone of their same race than men(statistically speaking), is perhaps because it's a safer choice.


I wonder how many different "Races" the author would see here?

One or Five?


----------



## IcePrincess28

Beautiful hybrids.  

Pretty funny/cute/insightful conversation the other day. My kids are half Chinese. My four year old is listening to a Chinese girl his age talk. She is talking to him in Chinese- bc she does not know English. He's so confused. He funnels his eyebrows. Looks at me and says - with his hands up in the air. "Mom- I have NO idea what she is saying!?? Why is she talking like that?"

I'm cracking up. "It's because she is talking in Chinese. Just like grand ma and grandpa. You're half Chinese." "No" - he laughs. "YOU're Chinese" he says to me. "But I'm American!" 

Well said


----------



## ocotillo

IcePrincess28 said:


> Beautiful hybrids.


It was actually a shameless trick question, which is why I directed it into the air instead of trying to pin anyone down. The ladies in the pictures may be more attractive than average, but they are typical of their nationalities and ethnic groups.


----------



## IcePrincess28

ocotillo said:


> It was actually a shameless trick question, which is why I directed it into the air instead of trying to pin anyone down. The ladies in the pictures may be more attractive than average, but they are typical of their nationalities and ethnic groups.



I understood what you were getting at. I was stating it in the direction of agreeance with ya


----------



## NextTimeAround

ocotillo said:


> It was actually a shameless trick question, which is why I directed it into the air instead of trying to pin anyone down. The ladies in the pictures may be more attractive than average, but they are typical of their nationalities and ethnic groups.


Even so, one look can straddle across several ethnicities. My husband told me when we first met he thought I was either Jewish or Mediterranean. I am Black American.


----------

