# What is Economically Attractive?



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study

I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:

The first is the reported size of that earnings gap. The average single woman wanted a man with a Bachelor's degree, which is bothersome because a degree is not the only way (or even the best way for many people) to make a good living. However, the average woman wanted a guy making $40k, while the average available man made 58% of that. 

Can that be right? That implies the average available man makes just $12 per hour and/or doesn't work full time. I know my perspective might be off since I live in CA, where the minimum wage is $12 and many employers pay substantially more for entry-level jobs. But still, I have a hard time believing the guys in this study are representative of available men as a whole. Any thoughts (from the men or the ladies) on this?

The second is the high number of angry, approaching misogynistic comments following the article. So many people were blaming society for this situation, saying it's better to just stay single and avoid "gold-digging" women, etc.

This reminds me of people complaining about our capitalist economy. It's founded on debt, inflation is ruinous, etc. People rail against how things are, rather than accepting how things are and learning how to succeed within the current system (which isn't all that hard).


----------



## BioFury (Jul 9, 2015)

DTO said:


> So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study
> 
> I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:
> 
> ...


That's why 

I'm a dude, so earning potential isn't really on my list of criteria when I'm looking through a girls online dating profile. But I don't think there's anything wrong with it. They just want a man who can take care of them and any future family. Someone who can slay the dragon and ensure they're not living hand to mouth.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

When a woman wants, meet that reality, reality wins, salary down.

Love has a way of increasing a man's net worth.


----------



## lucy999 (Sep 28, 2014)

I may be a bit different than other women. I have always been an independent earner. Not a high earner, but I've always made my own money. I cringe at the thought of "being taken care of". I'm not knocking those women who do. To each their own. But I would never put myself in a position to where if my partner pulled up stakes, I'd be in financial trouble. 

All I ask of my partner is to meet me halfway in the financial department, split everything 50/50. 

My now husband was absolutely floored when on our first date (we met online-together 7 years now) I paid for my own meal. He said I was the first woman to ever do that. I found that sad.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt (Jul 30, 2016)

LOL...even before I was done reading the first comment, I KNEW it was from one of the douche bags from the idiot squad over at MGTOW.

And sure enough, he provides the MGTOW hashtag at the end of his post. Golly, _such_ a surprise. 

I can't speak for these modern day women, but most of them seem to be making as much - and sometimes MORE - than men nowadays. I know there was a time when there were more women college graduates than men, and unless all these women graduated then chose to lay on their couches eating bon bons and not put their degrees to work, then they're out in the world making decent salaries. So this MGTOW nonsense about all women being 'gold diggers' and all of them wanting to get married so they can take half of a man's 'life work' in a divorce is *such* bull-**** anymore. 

I would have to imagine that a good portion of the women wanting to meet men of a certain economic stature may only be looking for their financial equals. I think it would be unfair to assume that's it all non-working women looking for high earners so they can 'gold dig' as was presumed in the comments under the article.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

I think it’s fair to say that if someone is going to take the risk of marriage nowadays, they better choose a partner that is their equal, both in education level and financially. If not, someone will get taken in the divorce. That is what I will counsel my kids anyway. I also do believe that marriage rates will decline with the snowflake generation.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Also, there is little difference between MGTOW or red pill and a woman holding feminist beliefs. To each their own. Everyone has a right to protect themselves in any relationship in anyway they see fit


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

My wife was hesitant about me when dating because I was a relatively high income earner for my age - meaning, I would be a **** about it. Her parents are extremely wealthy, and they always tried to hold money over her. 

When we got married, she recognized my true earning potential, and encouraged me to go for it. Boy, was she right. She saw things in me I didn’t see in myself. 

So that’s good.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

For me I just need to know he can pull his own weight and be stable. And that he has enough disposable income and time to travel with me if we get to that stage (paying our own ways). He doesn’t need to pay for me or my way or buy me anything. If he has significantly more money than I do, it would be nice if he picks up the tab or some of the travel expenses, but I still wouldn’t expect him to.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

The women I like are intelligent, educated, confident, ambitious, dominant bulldozers.

One woman I knew and almost dated is now one of the most competent, successful people in her career field in her state. I believe she wanted a man who is just like her. Not “gold digging” but wanted a gunner, her equal. She’s never married, no kids, just like nearly all the women I liked. Realistically, it’s nearly impossible for two gunners to make it work.

I have the bachelor’s degree (and more), and make the $40k (and more). But the women I liked, I suspect they wanted a guy who would make 100’s of thousands a year. My W, though, appreciates that I play the complementary supportive role, thereby allowing her to have the career she wants.

I don’t like women like that because of their money, though people with personalities like that are likely to make a lot of money.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

lucy999 said:


> I may be a bit different than other women. I have always been an independent earner. Not a high earner, but I've always made my own money. I cringe at the thought of "being taken care of". I'm not knocking those women who do. To each their own. But I would never put myself in a position to where if my partner pulled up stakes, I'd be in financial trouble.
> 
> All I ask of my partner is to meet me halfway in the financial department, split everything 50/50.
> 
> My now husband was absolutely floored when on our first date (we met online-together 7 years now) I paid for my own meal. He said I was the first woman to ever do that. I found that sad.


No you are not different. Most young women work and have careers these days.

I don't see marriage as 'being taken care of', I see it as a place where everything is joint anyway. Like in the marriage ceremony where both say, with all my worldly goods I thee endow. All that I had and have and earn and all that my husband had or has or earns is ours and not his or mine. 

At times such as when the children are small its likely that the parent caring for them most will earn less, maybe working part time or not at all for a while. Makes no difference, one does a job that doesn't earn money, one has a job that does. Both very important. Of course there are also situations were one is ill for a time or disabled or injured in an accident where they will be unable to work, the same applies. Its all the money of the marriage as a whole not one with lots and the ill one with nothing or very little.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

I must be unusual as I have never been bothered about having to have a man who was rich, or relatively rich. As long as we have enough to pay the bills and eat, there are far more important things to look for in a man than his wage packet.


----------



## Rhapsodee (May 11, 2016)

For women, as we get in our 60’s the economic attractiveness becomes an issue. I have seen it with my very beautiful and sexy single friends who have no assets and are living off spousal support. They date many established and financially secure men. They have a passionate and loving relationship and even talk of cohabitation until the gentleman realizes that the lady has no money. The relationship ends. They say the same thing “You aren’t what I’m looking for.” 

A wealthy widower explained it all to me. There are four things that these men are looking for. 

1. Economic and social compatibility. 
Meaning: if they travel or live together she is expected to pay her own way. 

2. Education and intelligence. Meaning: if she doesn’t have a college education, she is therefore not intelligent and will embarrass him in front of his friends. 

3. Family compatibility. 
Meaning: her children need to be as accomplished or better than his own. 

4. Faith. 
Meaning: the lady must believe as he does. 

I have heard this over and over as my friends cry their hearts out. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Rhapsodee said:


> For women, as we get in our 60’s the economic attractiveness becomes an issue. I have seen it with my very beautiful and sexy single friends who have no assets and are living off spousal support. They date many established and financially secure men. They have a passionate and loving relationship and even talk of cohabitation until the gentleman realizes that the lady has no money. The relationship ends. They say the same thing “You aren’t what I’m looking for.”
> 
> A wealthy widower explained it all to me. There are four things that these men are looking for.
> 
> ...


I would never partner with anybody whose only income was spousal support. I might date them for a bit, but would not go forward from there.

I need to know their future is solid and is based on their own ability to provide for themselves.

I have a few female friends who are living on spousal support and they don’t seem to understand why a man may see this as a problem. Most of them try to hide this fact because even if they don’t understand it, they have found out that being honest makes men run away.

They are in situations that IMO definitely deserved and required spousal support after divorce. But if they are not going to do all they can to make their own money and get off the support, then they are saying to any future partners that they can’t carry themselves or refuse to. I wouldn’t date them either.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rhapsodee said:


> For women, as we get in our 60’s the economic attractiveness becomes an issue. I have seen it with my very beautiful and sexy single friends who have no assets and are living off spousal support. They date many established and financially secure men. They have a passionate and loving relationship and even talk of cohabitation until the gentleman realizes that the lady has no money. The relationship ends. They say the same thing “You aren’t what I’m looking for.”
> 
> A wealthy widower explained it all to me. There are four things that these men are looking for.
> 
> ...


Wow no wonder they cant find anyone. Its all about status to them.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> They are in situations that IMO definitely deserved and required spousal support after divorce. But if they are not going to do all they can to make their own money and get off the support, then they are saying to any future partners that they can’t carry themselves or refuse to. I wouldn’t date them either.


Yes, same here. It's not even really about the money (for me anyways). It's about the thought that someone is willing to see me go bust my tail every day (or live off of what I spent my whole career accumulating, if I'm retired) without making some sort of effort themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are making $15 or $50 an hour it's about effort and the willingness to be a partner in everyday life.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> For me I just need to know he can pull his own weight and be stable. And that he has enough disposable income and time to travel with me if we get to that stage (paying our own ways). He doesn’t need to pay for me or my way or buy me anything. If he has significantly more money than I do, it would be nice if he picks up the tab or some of the travel expenses, but I still wouldn’t expect him to.


I completely agree with you. What's surprising to me is that (if you believe the results of the study) that large numbers of single men in the dating world can't manage that. Hell, that would be hard enough to pull off at the average desired earnings of $40k per year, much more so at the $25k or so the average man referenced in this study actually makes.

I'd think that someone making the $25k average wouldn't even really be self-sufficient. At that income level, you're either just scraping by or (more likely IMO) you're living with someone (can't even bring a date home, in other words). And you've probably not worked too hard at your career either. You could learn a trade, drive a truck, be a police officer / fireman, wait tables, tend bar, or any of a bunch of other jobs and do better than $25k per year.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

DTO said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > For me I just need to know he can pull his own weight and be stable. And that he has enough disposable income and time to travel with me if we get to that stage (paying our own ways). He doesn’t need to pay for me or my way or buy me anything. If he has significantly more money than I do, it would be nice if he picks up the tab or some of the travel expenses, but I still wouldn’t expect him to.
> ...


The average may include unemployed men living off their girlfriends, men in college and recent grads, etc.

I believe the average household in 2018 was $63,189. I bet most families you know make more than that.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

DTO said:


> So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study
> 
> I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:
> 
> ...


I would think that women would be overjoyed that men making "angry, approaching misogynistic comments" would take themselves off the market. Am I missing something?


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

DTO said:


> Yes, same here. It's not even really about the money (for me anyways). It's about the thought that someone is willing to see me go bust my tail every day (or live off of what I spent my whole career accumulating, if I'm retired) without making some sort of effort themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are making $15 or $50 an hour it's about effort and the willingness to be a partner in everyday life.


How about if they are busting their tails caring for 2 or 3 small children 24/7? Far harder job that most 9-5 ones.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Rhapsodee said:


> For women, as we get in our 60’s the economic attractiveness becomes an issue. I have seen it with my very beautiful and sexy single friends who have no assets and are living off spousal support. They date many established and financially secure men. They have a passionate and loving relationship and even talk of cohabitation until the gentleman realizes that the lady has no money. The relationship ends. They say the same thing “You aren’t what I’m looking for.”
> 
> A wealthy widower explained it all to me. There are four things that these men are looking for.
> 
> ...


When I hear this, it occurs to me that perhaps the guy is not terribly financially secure himself. Or, if the guy is wealthy, perhaps he just doesn't like her all that much? I don't believe that a guy would worry about how much she contributes unless he's not all that into her or he simply cannot afford to help support another person. After all, doesn't he already have a place? What's the marginal cost of one more person's food, utilities, and so on?

Now, I'm not wealthy but am better off than most (at least if you believe the government stats) and can afford to take care of a lady when the right situation comes alone. And in fact I have done that; my ex-GF and I had an agreement that she took care of her and her kids' personal needs. I took care of all the household stuff, paid for most of our outings, and other stuff too. That's just what you do when you have a partner in whom you are invested.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Diana7 said:


> How about if they are busting their tails caring for 2 or 3 small children 24/7? Far harder job that most 9-5 ones.


Hi Diana,

I see your point. I made my comments in the context of a lady heading into her 60s (following the thread back); at that age there are no little kids to support and you should be working full time doing something.

But definitely my expectations would be different for a lady with small kids. I am not sure not having a job at all is okay absent special circumstances (like a good friend of mine who has two autistic children - one of whom is fairly severe). But I will note that here in CA you can get gov't assistance with day care so that you can work; I'm not sure if that is the case everywhere in the U.S. Look at the post I just wrote regarding the agreement I had with my ex-GF when we lived together. She did work but not a full 40 hours and given her situation that was plenty to show that she was a hard working person, which is what I really value more than the money per se.

My hesitation stems from personal experience. I've been a single parent for a long time and have managed to hold down a demanding professional job, raise my kid, and maintain my house. And before my divorce I was the primary breadwinner and did much more than my ex-wife for two small kids (one of whom was special needs) because the ex couldn't hack it and checked out. So while I completely get that perhaps that someone couldn't work full time, by having BTDT I don't think it's okay to not work at least a little bit.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

DTO said:


> So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study
> 
> I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:
> 
> ...


I want to clarify that my misgivings regarding this study are not that women have practical expectations regarding their potential partners. I've known for a long time that men and women both look for chemistry and a partner who "brings something to the table" (will help them meet their own goals and not be a drain). I also know that a lady having these expectations does not make her a gold-digger.

I'm simply surprised that the dating pool is so low quality. It was a big surprise that large numbers of men are just getting by (I don't see how $25k a year does anything but meet his minimum personal needs by the time you look at taxes, rent and utilities, groceries, a car, etc.). These standards don't seem to be all that hard to meet. I used to be surprised when talking to ladies and seeing how they look at you differently when you have a degree and just an average job in my profession. But I guess that mystery has been solved. LOL!!


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> I would think that women would be overjoyed that men making "angry, approaching misogynistic comments" would take themselves off the market. Am I missing something?


The misogynistic comments are not part of the study, it's part of what's posted from the readers of the article.

Women should be happy that the MGTOW brigade have removed themselves from the dating pool. But, the shortage of good men still exists. MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way, which is a movement of men who feel that society is biased against regular men in favor of women and the elite. Their solution is to withdraw from society. No reason to woo, get with, and work hard to support a woman who really just wants your wallet and will leave you hanging (and broke) once she's tired of you. And with no woman you don't have to labor for your ungrateful corporate overlord or pay taxes to a government that supports this unfair system.


On a tangent, I have to wonder how many of those guys would change their tune if they saw that it's not really all that hard to have a good life as a mainstream member of society.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> The average may include unemployed men living off their girlfriends, men in college and recent grads, etc.


Perhaps. You need to pay to access the whole paper, which is where you'd find that information. I'd hope that men living off their GFs are excluded, since the study is about men in the dating pool. As far as recent college grads, I'd think that as a group their earnings would exceed the $25k average cited by this study (not driving down the average).



CraigBesuden said:


> I believe the average household in 2018 was $63,189. I bet most families you know make more than that.


Yes they do. But a big part of that, in my opinion, is that I, and most of the people in my circle are skilled workers or college grads (often having advanced degrees) making (or having made) good money. And I'm aware that this impacts my perspective, which is why I'm posing the question of "are these numbers real?".


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

"Average" vs "median" can get very confusing since the income curve is not at all flat: there are small numbers of very high earners. Also younger people tend to have less income but may date more.

In some cases I think income may be a stand-in for general success. If a middle-aged man doesn't have a reasonable job, that could raise questions of his general competency at life - and those might go away if it turned out that he had some other competency that didn't produce a large income.


That aside, people have different types of lifestyles that make them happy, and money beyond what is needed for that lifestyle doesn't provide much of an advantage.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

DTO said:


> The misogynistic comments are not part of the study, it's part of what's posted from the readers of the article.
> 
> Women should be happy that the MGTOW brigade have removed themselves from the dating pool. But, the shortage of good men still exists. MGTOW = Men Going Their Own Way, which is a movement of men who feel that society is biased against regular men in favor of women and the elite. Their solution is to withdraw from society. No reason to woo, get with, and work hard to support a woman who really just wants your wallet and will leave you hanging (and broke) once she's tired of you. And with no woman you don't have to labor for your ungrateful corporate overlord or pay taxes to a government that supports this unfair system.


Exactly.



DTO said:


> On a tangent, I have to wonder how many of those guys would change their tune if they saw that it's not really all that hard to have a good life as a mainstream member of society.


It's not that hard if you make good money and can avoid a costly divorce.
That leaves out a large percentage of the population.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Rhapsodee said:


> For women, as we get in our 60’s the economic attractiveness becomes an issue. I have seen it with my very beautiful and sexy single friends who have no assets and are living off spousal support. They date many established and financially secure men. They have a passionate and loving relationship and even talk of cohabitation until the gentleman realizes that the lady has no money. The relationship ends. They say the same thing “You aren’t what I’m looking for.”
> 
> A wealthy widower explained it all to me. There are four things that these men are looking for.
> 
> ...


As a man in my late 50's and knowing many professional divorced men, I would agree with some of that.

1) Most men feel financially raped by divorce. Even if the split was "equitable", he still lost half his net worth including his retirement. For most men age 50+, their financial future is less rosy than he expected prior to the specter of divorce. Most divorced men no longer have any desire to be the Provider for a future wife. We expect some relative economic parity. 

2) Academic degrees aren't so important, but a future Mrs will have fit in with his existing circle. Since we won't be sitting around talking about the newborn baby's diaper problems, she had better be able to hold her own on other topics. I disagree that the lack of a degree would lead to her embarrassing him in front of his friends, but she has to offer some interesting conversation about something.

3) Her adult children do reflect on her, and if we marry then they do reflect on me. To some extent. Everyone needs to be in the same ballpark, with the occasional black sheep excepted.

4) The same religious beliefs is not important to many, but for some it is a big deal.

I would add that older men are looking for a woman with similar interests who is open to new experiences. We are looking for a friend to share our lives together with as a couple. Future marriage in this age range is about having a fun, fulfilling remainder of our lives together, not raising a family or building careers. We have to enjoy a lot of the same things, and we discover new things we enjoy through the other person.

A majority of divorced men over 40 do not have the goal of marriage. This means the woman has to bring more to the table than being sexy, which was a proxy for likely being a good mother of our future kids when we were young with a high libido.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

I like my relationships to be pretty traditional so to speak. I want the man to be the “man of the house”, I want to be the women of the house. But I am a feminist, have an advance degree and I am a high earner. I am attracted to strong, smart, confident men. 
The problem is it’s not easy to find a man that makes more than me, and I’m ok with that. But there is a big difference (in my opinion) when for example I make $170k a year, and he makes $40k a year vs I make $170k and he makes $100k. In my eyes, and I’m sure in his it throws off the balance of power/respect. 
I don’t want to feel like I’m dating a kid, or a dependent. I want to FEEL like I’m dating a man. And yes this is kind of sexist. But from my experience men need to feel like men for a relationship to work. Men who feel emasculated often get angry, and try to put their women down in order for them to feel like a man. And I do not want to work overtime stroking my mans ego to make him FEEL like a man.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

RebuildingMe said:


> Also, there is little difference between MGTOW or red pill and a woman holding feminist beliefs. To each their own. Everyone has a right to protect themselves in any relationship in anyway they see fit




Can we just make one thing clear... feminism is not the same as misogyny. For some reason people think so negatively about Feminism and often get it confused with misandry.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

There is to be a lot of confusion around a lot of what people are talking about here. Someone mentioned that men who subscribe to MGTOW remove themselves from society. Not true. They remove themselves from committed relationships with women they feel are out to just be taken care of. So they won’t date single moms. So they won’t pay to raise another man’s child. That removes them from society? Hell no it doesn’t.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

RebuildingMe said:


> There is to be a lot of confusion around a lot of what people are talking about here. Someone mentioned that men who subscribe to MGTOW remove themselves from society. Not true. They remove themselves from committed relationships with women they feel are out to just be taken care of. So they won’t date single moms. So they won’t pay to raise another man’s child. That removes them from society? Hell no it doesn’t.




MGTOW who want to date just to have sex without any long term potential SHOULD make that clear in the beginning of seeing someone. 
Therefore women can know where they stand and decide if they just want a FWB relationship or not.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Girl_power said:


> RebuildingMe said:
> 
> 
> > There is to be a lot of confusion around a lot of what people are talking about here. Someone mentioned that men who subscribe to MGTOW remove themselves from society. Not true. They remove themselves from committed relationships with women they feel are out to just be taken care of. So they won’t date single moms. So they won’t pay to raise another man’s child. That removes them from society? Hell no it doesn’t.
> ...


Agree with you 100%. However, that was not the point I was trying to make. 

For the record, I am on marriage number two. I don’t subscribe to red pill, but I do see a lot of truth in ‘some’ of what they preach. I take some and instill it in my older kids. It’s the kind of talks I wish my dad had with me. Maybe I wouldn’t have married an uneducated, unemployed useless woman at 20.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

RebuildingMe said:


> Agree with you 100%. However, that was not the point I was trying to make.
> 
> For the record, I am on marriage number two. I don’t subscribe to red pill, but I do see a lot of truth in ‘some’ of what they preach. I take some and instill it in my older kids. It’s the kind of talks I wish my dad had with me. Maybe I wouldn’t have married an uneducated, unemployed useless woman at 20.




I get what your saying. To me, red pill blue pill Is just BS. To me it’s common sense and it apples to both genders. 
There is a certain type of women men need to watch out for. And there is a certain type of man women need to watch out for. There may be common themes among the genders... women wanting security and using their looks and charm to get it. But women have similar things they need to look out for in men as well... like being controlling and entitled, and only liking them for their looks and sex, and wanting them to be “mothers” to them, or have incredibly impossible expectations.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

@RebuildingMe it seems you have had bad experiences with women and probably have formed some biased and negative opinions on women. I too have had bad experiences with me. And have formed biased and negative opinions of men. My point is.... it’s universal and not gender specific. Men are not having a “crisis” or whatever they are claiming. This is the real world and some people suck and it’s not gender specific.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

Oh and one more thing since I’m on a rant...

I have read a lot of red pill forums. What they define as “high quality women” is incredibly offensive. And it is literally the same thing as women saying a high quality man makes a lot of $$ and blah blah... the fact that they can’t see how contradicting this is blows my mind.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

uhtred said:


> "Average" vs "median" can get very confusing since the income curve is not at all flat: there are small numbers of very high earners. Also younger people tend to have less income but may date more.


I hadn't considered "mean" vs. "median". But, if average meant "mean" for this study that would make the dating pool look even worse, since most would make less than the $25,000 figure implied by the results of the study



uhtred said:


> In some cases I think income may be a stand-in for general success. If a middle-aged man doesn't have a reasonable job, that could raise questions of his general competency at life - and those might go away if it turned out that he had some other competency that didn't produce a large income.


Agree on income standing in for general success. Not sure if a middle aged man can get away with having a crappy salary if he has other talents. What would those other talents be?



uhtred said:


> That aside, people have different types of lifestyles that make them happy, and money beyond what is needed for that lifestyle doesn't provide much of an advantage.


Agree that people's desired lifestyle differ. But this brings to mind that study from several years back that said happiness increases up to $75k a year in income (for an individual) because that is the level of income that allows you to meet your needs and a fair number of wants. With that in mind, I can understand why ladies would expect their dates to make only half that.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

RebuildingMe said:


> There is to be a lot of confusion around a lot of what people are talking about here. Someone mentioned that men who subscribe to MGTOW remove themselves from society. Not true. They remove themselves from committed relationships with women they feel are out to just be taken care of. So they won’t date single moms. So they won’t pay to raise another man’s child. That removes them from society? Hell no it doesn’t.


I think you might be referring to my post. I might have not used the best choice of words but I actually looked around the MGTOW website to gain some insight. I didn't mean to say that men are going off the grid or living on a commune somewhere.

But the website (and others supporting that philosophy) make it clear that the acrimony spreads beyond women to corporate life (jobs / workforce) and the government. And the presumption is that women are out to be taken care of. So, you're avoiding romantic relationships in general, not just single moms.

So, if you're not dating and striving to work as little as possible to not support a system that supposedly is rigged against you, yeah you're checked out of society largely.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

DTO said:


> uhtred said:
> 
> 
> > "Average" vs "median" can get very confusing since the income curve is not at all flat: there are small numbers of very high earners. Also younger people tend to have less income but may date more.
> ...


I met a destitute man who only made about $500 a year for the last few years. He had the tax documents to prove it. I asked him how he survived and he said, “it ain’t easy!” But he has no problem attracting and impregnating attractive women as he has lots of disposable cash, and the women claim his business makes $150,000 a year. If fact, he moved one baby mama right near the other so he could have easy sexual access to both.

Men who work construction often officially make little or no money.



> Agree on income standing in for general success. Not sure if a middle aged man can get away with having a crappy salary if he has other talents. What would those other talents be?


Broke musicians seem to do quite well with women, even middle-aged. Writers and others can be “successful” at things without making cash. Many Christian women love preachers/pastors. I met a poor car mechanic (aspiring preacher) who married a gorgeous woman while at a conservative religious school.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Thor said:


> As a man in my late 50's and knowing many professional divorced men, I would agree with some of that.
> 
> 1) Most men feel financially raped by divorce. Even if the split was "equitable", he still lost half his net worth including his retirement. For most men age 50+, their financial future is less rosy than he expected prior to the specter of divorce. Most divorced men no longer have any desire to be the Provider for a future wife. We expect some relative economic parity.
> 
> ...


Hmmm, I don't know about some of this.

I certainly didn't feel raped by divorce. I didn't like giving half of what we had to her, but that's not the same thing. The process was fair, I got equal custody of our daughter, and I got a substantial benefit from her (I was between jobs and she had to maintain my insurance until the divorce was final). Also, we both agreed to give up alimony since she had another guy on the hook (which was an idiot move on her part, but I digress).

I've rebuilt my life well and am on track to retire at 62 making more than I do now, with a paid-off home. And I think that's the key to my feelings regarding divorce. I look forward and knew I would rebuild my life to better than what it had been. So I didn't worry about what I had to give her and instead focused on what I would accumulate for myself moving forward. And I was 37 when we split up, definitely not youngster with my whole career in front of me.

And with that life outlook, I'd love to be married again. I would have a prenup, but that would be to protect what I've already accumulated rather than not wanting to share what I make in the future. On a philosophical level, I don't believe I should expect to share in whatever my future partner accumulated prior to our relationship, and vice versa.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

DTO said:


> I've rebuilt my life well and am on track to retire at 62 making more than I do now, with a paid-off home. And I think that's the key to my feelings regarding divorce. I look forward and knew I would rebuild my life to better than what it had been. So I didn't worry about what I had to give her and instead focused on what I would accumulate for myself moving forward. And I was 37 when we split up, definitely not youngster with my whole career in front of me.
> 
> And with that life outlook, I'd love to be married again. I would have a prenup, but that would be to protect what I've already accumulated rather than not wanting to share what I make in the future. On a philosophical level, I don't believe I should expect to share in whatever my future partner accumulated prior to our relationship, and vice versa.


Mid 30's is not nearly the same as mid 50's or mid 60's. Your timeline to recoup retirement savings is much much better when younger. Losing half of my retirement savings massively hurt my retirement lifestyle. Though to be honest a big part of our split was due to her lack of concern about retirement savings, so I may be better off financially without her. But in theory, for those of us over 50 it is likely the man will lose a lot of his retirement lifestyle to divorce. Spousal support and forking over half the 401k hits very many 50+ yr old men who get divorced. Younger generations are more likely to have a wife who earns substantially, and with a shorter marriage there is much less likelihood of lifetime alimony.

If you're still single 20+ years after a divorce in your mid 30's, you may have a very nice nest egg which the man who divorced in his mid 50's wouldn't because he lost half of it just now.

As to the prenup, no argument there! Prenups in second marriages are far more common than not, at least around here, precisely to protect assets brought into the marriage in case of divorce.

However, estate planning is vital as well. If there is no divorce in the second marriage, at some point one and then the other spouse will die. The original assets should be protected for the children of the first marriages, and then some agreeable splitting of joint assets gained during the second marriage. I highly endorse the use of trusts for all of this!


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I was picturing someone who never set money as a goal, and is happy to live a an extremely modest life style. There are probably artists who are actually talented, but don't make much money. (there are of course also useless loosers who call themselves "artists".). There are various exotic jobs - I know one guy who has spent a lot of his life working winters in Antarctica. I doubt he makes much money, but has very valuable skills and a place to live. There may be people who have chosen to live mostly off the grid and have small farms etc to provide most of what they need. 

In general though, competent people usually have a least an OK income. 





DTO said:


> I hadn't considered "mean" vs. "median". But, if average meant "mean" for this study that would make the dating pool look even worse, since most would make less than the $25,000 figure implied by the results of the study
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

To me the whole "high quality men / women" seems a strange concept. Different people are looking for different things in a partner. I'm sure the type of woman I like is quite different form what some other men like. This to me is the basic problem with any of the "ladder theory" stuff - its not a ladder - its a great field of options, where everyone has different preferences. 





Girl_power said:


> Oh and one more thing since I’m on a rant...
> 
> I have read a lot of red pill forums. What they define as “high quality women” is incredibly offensive. And it is literally the same thing as women saying a high quality man makes a lot of $$ and blah blah... the fact that they can’t see how contradicting this is blows my mind.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

https://youtu.be/f9t7t0gBVlg

This guy’s theory is that guys are becoming incels because of social media. Instead of a college boy competing with guys in her social circle, they now compete with all the guys in her area. She can date a 30 yo guy making $90,000, so why date a 20 yo college guy her age who has nothing?

But that 20 yo girl isn’t dating a 30 yo guy. About 35-40% of college students are now virgins, with only a slightly higher percentage for males than females. So, no, the girls are not dating richer, superior men so much as they are not dating anyone at all... just like the boys.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Thor said:


> Mid 30's is not nearly the same as mid 50's or mid 60's. Your timeline to recoup retirement savings is much much better when younger. Losing half of my retirement savings massively hurt my retirement lifestyle. Though to be honest a big part of our split was due to her lack of concern about retirement savings, so I may be better off financially without her. But in theory, for those of us over 50 it is likely the man will lose a lot of his retirement lifestyle to divorce. Spousal support and forking over half the 401k hits very many 50+ yr old men who get divorced. Younger generations are more likely to have a wife who earns substantially, and with a shorter marriage there is much less likelihood of lifetime alimony.
> 
> If you're still single 20+ years after a divorce in your mid 30's, you may have a very nice nest egg which the man who divorced in his mid 50's wouldn't because he lost half of it just now.
> 
> ...


Agree with much of this. But personally, even I divorced later in life I'd still go out and try to make that connection. I don't need a partner to be content (and indeed I've spent most of the time since my marriage ended as an available man) but I do prefer having that special someone.

Also, the woman is losing just as much as the guy in a divorce. She also has to pay for her own place / own life out of a smaller asset base. If it was a situation where she's living a much better lifestyle than me post-divorce because of a skewed asset distribution, then yeah I'd feel raped and bitter. But otherwise, just accept your lumps and move on.

It's important to note that (as far as I know, anyways) spousal and child support does not bring the lower earning spouse to parity with the higher earning spouse. For instance, my ex makes around $50k and I make over $100k. If she asked for child support per the established formula she would get less than $500 per month with 50/50 custody. It's not like she'd be living large on my dime, so why would I feel bad or be bent out of shape?

Totally agree on the prenup, and I already have the trust (containing my home and current bank accounts) with my daughter as the beneficiary. Any future spouse would get what we accumulate together plus any retirement survivor's benefits and life insurance (assuming I pass before she does). That's likely to be a big chunk of assets, and a lady who complains about it not being enough is not the right person for me.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

DTO said:


> The average single woman wanted a man with a Bachelor's degree, which is bothersome because a degree is not the only way (or even the best way for many people) to make a good living. However, the average woman wanted a guy making $40k, while the average available man made 58% of that.
> 
> Can that be right? That implies the average available man makes just $12 per hour and/or doesn't work full time. I know my perspective might be off since I live in CA, where the minimum wage is $12 and many employers pay substantially more for entry-level jobs. But still, I have a hard time believing the guys in this study are representative of available men as a whole. Any thoughts (from the men or the ladies) on this?


Random thoughts.

I live in the Midwest and in a relatively low cost of living area that is heavily blue collar. Most women here think a tradesman is as good of a catch as someone with a Bachelor's.

Average household income here is $50k a year. That's about enough to have a family, own a home, a car or two, have healthcare, a few days vacation every year, and an emergency savings with some retirement if you're frugal. These women aren't looking for anything extraordinary.

$12-$13 an hour here for newly certified skilled labor and other entry level jobs is about average. Working a 40 hr week that comes to between $25-$27k a year. More with overtime. Considering rental prices, food prices, etc, that's actually a livable wage for our neck of the woods. So, yeah, here the average single and available guy probably does make about that.

Maybe it's just my generation, but I have noticed a lot of eligible guys get those $12-$13/hr jobs and stay until they are motivated by a spouse and expanding family to take their experience and improve their income.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Generally it's making way more than minimum wage.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Inflation has mandated two income earners, gone are the days the average Joe of Jane can live comfortably on one salary.

Lets see:

Mortgage or rent payment
Insurance on the mortgage, the house, the car(s).
Health insurance.
Dental costs way above any coverage.
Eye care costs.
Gasoline/Petrol costs.
Car payment, car maintenance costs. Annual car payments for plates, inspections.
Heating gas or oil, or coal or wood for those Brits!
Electricity costs.
Food costs.
Restaurant costs.
Baby needs: diapers, wipes, doctor, clothes and shoes every other week. Birthday parties and presents for then twenty other kids.
Home repairs.
House or apartment, condo maintenance costs or fees.
Taxes, taxes, taxes.
Beer costs, chips and pretzels, and pizza, and wine costs, burp!
Furniture.
Lawn care needs.
Snow removal needs?
Having a rainy day fund? Hah, hah.
And more...

Oh, yeah, the average hard working bub or bubbess can handle all that.

You need a household income in the states over of 50K to just survive. 
In big cities like NYC, more.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> https://youtu.be/f9t7t0gBVlg
> 
> This guy’s theory is that guys are becoming incels because of social media. Instead of a college boy competing with guys in her social circle, they now compete with all the guys in her area. She can date a 30 yo guy making $90,000, so why date a 20 yo college guy her age who has nothing?
> 
> But that 20 yo girl isn’t dating a 30 yo guy. About 35-40% of college students are now virgins, with only a slightly higher percentage for males than females. So, no, the girls are not dating richer, superior men so much as they are not dating anyone at all... just like the boys.




I think we just got to the point for the first time in history where men and women are on equal playing fields. So now that women are financially independent, we need more from a man than just $$.
And I see this sentiment... SOME men weigh us down. For example.... I make good money, and I take care of myself and my house. When my boyfriend stays over I notice that my work has increased not decreased... I am constantly picking up after him, doubling my cooking etc. he weighs me down. What I need from him is more, emotional support, helping around the house, making me feel special etc. 

Then you get the angry men who think women are brats and you need to stroke our “ego” and give us special treatment and we are entitled and blah blah blah. I read that in a lot of red pill forums. But the reality is... that’s what I need. If you don’t provide that then get out of my life because that’s what I need you for.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Girl_power said:


> Then you get the angry men who think women are brats and you need to stroke our “ego” and give us special treatment and we are entitled and blah blah blah. I read that in a lot of red pill forums. But the reality is... that’s what I need. If you don’t provide that then get out of my life because that’s what I need you for.


These guys live in a bubble, one of the many bubbles out there. They are constantly bombarded with these “truths,” one being that women want men for money.

I think the case that made many people aware of the Red Pill community was that of Elliot Rodgers. His family was wealthy. He had a great car (a new BMW 328i) and great clothes, yet he couldn’t get a date. Instead of questioning whether what he was told was true, he descended into madness.

“Just before driving to the sorority house, Rodger uploaded to YouTube a video titled ‘Elliot Rodger's Retribution,’ in which he outlined details of his upcoming attack and his motives. He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and punish sexually active men because he envied them.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Isla_Vista_killings


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

MJJEAN said:


> Maybe it's just my generation, but I have noticed a lot of eligible guys get those $12-$13/hr jobs and stay until they are motivated by a spouse and expanding family to take their experience and improve their income.


Agreed. Married men earn more than their similarly situated single counterparts. I believe that’s due to motivation (and support) from the wife and children, and not that women pick the best earners. They have the causation backwards.

This is a financial downside of men not marrying until 30. They don’t feel the pressure to succeed, at least in the short term. So, fewer eligible men. (On the other hand, some of the ineligible men might start trying harder after you marry them.)


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

CraigBesuden said:


> Agreed. Married men earn more than their similarly situated single counterparts. I believe that’s due to motivation (and support) from the wife and children, and not that women pick the best earners. They have the causation backwards.
> 
> This is a financial downside of men not marrying until 30. They don’t feel the pressure to succeed, at least in the short term. So, fewer eligible men. (On the other hand, some of the ineligible men might start trying harder after you marry them.)


I don't disagree but the words "most, or it's common that" men, may be good adds.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

DTO said:


> It's important to note that (as far as I know, anyways) spousal and child support does not bring the lower earning spouse to parity with the higher earning spouse. For instance, my ex makes around $50k and I make over $100k. If she asked for child support per the established formula she would get less than $500 per month with 50/50 custody. It's not like she'd be living large on my dime, so why would I feel bad or be bent out of shape?


In my state they do indeed bring both to parity with spousal support. Child support is additional, and a whole different issue. Here, spousal support is permanent after 20 years of marriage. Prior to that it is 50% as long as the marriage (e.g. a 12 year marriage brings 6 years of spousal support). They total up all the income, then divide by 2. That is what each of you get. The higher earner pays the difference to the lower earner forever.

It could be enough for the lower earner to retire on! It makes it a practical impossibility for the higher earner to retire early, to change careers or jobs to a lower paycheck, etc. If the higher earner was working a lot of overtime just prior to the divorce, he/she will be enslaved into that higher spousal support.

With your example, the $100k earner would have to pay $25k per year to the lower earner in spousal support alone. Then he would also pay child support per the state formulas.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

DTO said:


> The first is the reported size of that earnings gap. The average single woman wanted a man with a Bachelor's degree, which is bothersome because a degree is not the only way (or even the best way for many people) to make a good living. However, the average woman wanted a guy making $40k, while the average available man made 58% of that.
> 
> *Can that be right? That implies the average available man makes just $12 per hour and/or doesn't work full time. *I know my perspective might be off since I live in CA, where the minimum wage is $12 and many employers pay substantially more for entry-level jobs. But still, I have a hard time believing the guys in this study are representative of available men as a whole. Any thoughts (from the men or the ladies) on this?


I didnt go and read the article so am commenting based only on this post. No, I dont believe this is correct! (Even though this seems to be true of the loser men I tend to meet, lucky me.) I do not believe that the "average available" man makes so little. How would they be surviving if this was so?? Living at home? I guess I will need to read it to see where the hell they pulled those ridiculously dismal stats. I believe better of men in general. 

I am by no means a gold digger, but I do expect a man to be responsible and self supporting and be able to split at least 50/50 with me should things progress. I dont make a lot so it doesnt take much to be able to match me. This is one of the primary reasons I just split with my bf... based on his current situation over the last 5 years and the entirety of his past, he is never going to be able to be my equal partner.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Thor said:


> With your example, the $100k earner would have to pay $25k per year to the lower earner in spousal support alone. Then he would also pay child support per the state formulas.


Ugh. I would be sorely tempted not to live there. (CA and NJ, right?)

Can you use a prenup or postnup to agree to no spousal support?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> Can we just make one thing clear... feminism is not the same as misogyny. For some reason people think so negatively about Feminism and often get it confused with misandry.


Maybe that's because a fair number of feminists are also misandrist?


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

tech-novelist said:


> Girl_power said:
> 
> 
> > Can we just make one thing clear... feminism is not the same as misogyny. For some reason people think so negatively about Feminism and often get it confused with misandry.
> ...


I really don't understand what Feminism is anymore. Sounds just like a pro-metoo movement at this point.


----------



## Spicy (Jun 18, 2016)

I dunno. 

In my first marriage we were babies when we married and neither of us had anything and neither of us thought about it.

In my second marriage, we fell in love in our early 40s, so we were both well established. We decided together to scale back my work quite a bit, leaving me able to use my energy for taking care of my family and home. We consolidated home and sold the extra homes and cars, making everything simpler. 

It’s working fine for us, H likes being spoiled and I love spoiling him! It’s been so nice to be able to cook and garden after 25 years of working 10-15 hr days. I love it, because I like doing the things a “old fashioned mom and wife” did.

To answer for what _*I*_ was looking for when entering the dating pool? Finances was definitely not my main concern, but I also wouldn’t have dated another 40 year old that was destitute or in massive debt. No way. I didn’t want to have big worries about money, or needing to cover someone’s irresponsible spending all the time (like I had to with my XH). 

I wanted a good hard working man, (seems a fair desire since I have always been a very hard working woman) that has the same views on saving, budgeting, early retirement etc.

I think we are both really happy with our choices.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

tech-novelist said:


> Maybe that's because a fair number of feminists are also misandrist?




I disagree. If your talking about misandry call then what they are... misandrist.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Feminism is pro woman. Red pill is pro man. One seems to be tolerated on TAM and one is denounced as garbage. You can figure out which one.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

RebuildingMe said:


> Feminism is pro woman. Red pill is pro man. One seems to be tolerated on TAM and one is denounced as garbage. You can figure out which one.


Feminism is pro human, at least my vision of it is. It's egalitarian.

Red pill isn't pro man. It's profoundly anti-man and specifically puts women on the pedestal as gatekeepers of sexuality while taking the misandrist view that 80% of men don't cut it and never will.

Swallowed it and puked it back up years ago.

The opposite of feminism is not red pill. The opposite of feminism is misogyny.

The word you may be looking for is masculism, which has it's own problems: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

There are extremists of all types. 

To the extend that "feminists" are supporting equal rights for men and women, I support them 

To the extent that "pro male groups" are supporting equal rights for men and women, I support them. 

I don't support anyone who wants a biased system - no matter what they call themselves.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

Women tend to date/marry across and above their socioeconomic strata. Not true for ALL women, obviously (like my own wife, a surgeon who makes 4x as much as me), but it is true for most. My wife's circle of female friends includes doctors and non-MD types. The docs are all single. Why? They can't find a guy who checks all the boxes. At the top of the must-have list is "must make as much as me or be as ambitious as I am". In other words, he better have money now... or the very obvious ability to make money later. A couple of the ladies are getting closer to the 40-year mark, and they are thinking about "settling" for that one guy who is "good enough" but doesn't give her the butterflies or check anywhere close to all the boxes... just so they can get their family started. The guy they usually settle for isn't the hunky plumber they had that a few awesome dates and fantastic sex with. They usually settle for the frumpy super sweet pediatrician who can't seem to find a good woman who doesn't just love him for his money.

Unlike most guys on the internet...I don't think they should settle for Dr. Frump. If the guy doesn't give you the butterflies, then that means the most basic of attraction levels aren't there and you will just grow resentful over time and it won't end well. I think these ladies should go for the hunky plumber with a heart of gold.

The gap between who is marriage material and who isn't is widening. We're redefining what it means to be Mr. and Mrs. Perfect. While I think that women are going to start looking at the more natural/visceral attraction as their barometer for a good life partner candidate, I think men are going to start looking at more "practical" things like money. I, for example, can honestly say that I don't think I would've married my wife (#2) if she wasn't financially self-sufficient. I know FAR too many men who have taken care of a wife only to have her suddenly run off and take half his money and his credit rating with her. I know some men that have had that happen TWICE. They fell deeply in love, get married, have kids, spend a ton of money... and poof... it all went away just like that. The time of the CEO marrying the secretary is coming to an end. 

It's an interesting time we're living in! I suspect that the marriage and birth rates will further plummet. This will have huge implications for our economy.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

uhtred said:


> There are extremists of all types.
> 
> To the extend that "feminists" are supporting equal rights for men and women, I support them
> 
> ...


Most feminists I know would consider you a feminist then. At least an egalitarian.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Girl_power said:


> I disagree. If your talking about misandry call then what they are... misandrist.


I didn't say they were the same. I said there was a fair amount of overlap, which may account for the confusion.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'm happy with those labels. The thing I a not is an "extremist" on either side.

I'm in favor of equal rights to the extent that that is well defined. I'm not on a side, except the side that opposes all violent extremists of any type.

Figuring out how to reach some equality goals is in some ways a more interesting discussion. its often not at all obvious. 







Marduk said:


> Most feminists I know would consider you a feminist then. At least an egalitarian.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Ugh. I would be sorely tempted not to live there. (CA and NJ, right?)
> 
> Can you use a prenup or postnup to agree to no spousal support?


I live in CA. In my example (I make $100k and the ex makes $50k) and estimating the impact of taxes, I'd owe about $950 a month in spousal support (there's a formula, and thus online calculator). That's a good chunk but still not parity (I'd still clear about $1,200 a month more than she). Not terrible, especially when you consider that I would be able to write that off my taxes (and she'd have to pick it up ; so I'd only lose about $600 a month net. And the research I did seems to indicate that alimony awards are not permanent.

And I'm fine with this setup. I acknowledge that often the lower earning spouse has that status (at least in part) because she chose to support the family, and that sacrifice is worth something. However, IMO a spouse making substantially more has to have the skills and make the daily effort to command that higher pay, and that's worth something too.

In CA you can waive your right to collect alimony through prenup / postnup as long as your spouse / future spouse made an informed decision. In practical terms, you hire an attorney to review the agreement with your partner so that your partner can't claim later that he or she didn't understand the implications.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

CraigBesuden said:


> Ugh. I would be sorely tempted not to live there. (CA and NJ, right?)
> 
> Can you use a prenup or postnup to agree to no spousal support?


I hope so! No future marriage for me without it.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

That is the unfortunate truth. And what's even worse is that in many areas people struggle even with two incomes.

I just checked government data on individual income in my area. Note that I live in CA; while my metro area isn't the most prosperous, it is still CA and costs for housing and what not are fairly high. Given that I live well but not luxuriously by any means, it's very sobering to see that I make 3x the median (more like 4x considering the value of benefits).

This is totally not a brag. I'd struggle to support myself and my child on the median individual income; even the median family income would be tough if I hope to send my kid to school or have a decent retirement. And that reality is kinda sad.

I think this is another reminder to myself to complain less about what I don't have.



SunCMars said:


> Inflation has mandated two income earners, gone are the days the average Joe of Jane can live comfortably on one salary.
> 
> Lets see:
> 
> ...


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MJJEAN said:


> Random thoughts.
> 
> I live in the Midwest and in a relatively low cost of living area that is heavily blue collar. Most women here think a tradesman is as good of a catch as someone with a Bachelor's.
> 
> ...


That's good to know. I know that $40k needed salary is an average; hopefully the actual for your area is lower or there's going to be a lot of single women, presumably not by choice.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

3Xnocharm said:


> I didnt go and read the article so am commenting based only on this post. No, I dont believe this is correct! (Even though this seems to be true of the loser men I tend to meet, lucky me.) I do not believe that the "average available" man makes so little. How would they be surviving if this was so?? Living at home? I guess I will need to read it to see where the hell they pulled those ridiculously dismal stats. I believe better of men in general.


I'd also argue that the average is higher, but I can't be sure. I looked into wages in my area and the results were kinda surprising. Even with the strong economy, the median annual income is $36,610. And men still tend to make more than women, so let's say the average guy makes a round $40k. I don't live in the most prosperous area, but it's still Southern California which is expensive and jobs pay accordingly. In fact, some large employers start in the $13 to $15 range.

So, yeah the average earnings of guys in the dating pool might not be $25k, but it's probably a lot closer to that than I would have thought before checking the stats for myself. Which means that there will be lots of guys who don't make the cut and lots of women choosing to remain single.



3Xnocharm said:


> I am by no means a gold digger, but I do expect a man to be responsible and self supporting _*and be able to split at least 50/50 with me*_ should things progress. I dont make a lot so it doesnt take much to be able to match me. This is one of the primary reasons I just split with my bf... based on his current situation over the last 5 years and the entirety of his past, he is never going to be able to be my equal partner.


I'm totally not picking on you, but why does the guy need to be able to split at least 50/50? Are you saying that you'd optimally like a guy to make more than you, and if so then how much more and why? I'm curious because that seems to be a common dynamic (we've seen it even on this thread).


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

It mainly means that I expect an equal partner, not someone I have to support. Especially considering the crap wage I make... I can’t carry someone else even if I had the desire to. Which i don’t. I live paycheck to paycheck, so if a guy can’t equal what I have then he’s really not doing well. I just left a relationship with someone because of this. It’s been almost five years.. what I thought was a rebuilding period for him turned out to be the norm for him and I can’t deal any more. (Not only chronically under employed but irresponsible with his finances) He was not capable of contributing to a household together. 

I won’t lie, the thought of finding someone who makes more than me is appealing. Makes me imagine less struggle, maybe a little more fun. I’m not seeking it out..(I have been with one man who was very well off and he turned out to be a cheating manipulative piece of ****, so..) nor do I expect to be taken care of. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

I'm a relatively high earner (senior actuary) so there likely aren't a ton of men who make more then me. That being said, that's never been much of an issue for me.

I do need a guy to be able to support himself and maybe even take me out to dinner. But beyond that I don't much care; I don't see myself as superior, I figure I'm just a nerd who's really good at math/science and fell into a high paying field. 

The guy I'm currently seeing makes less than me, but he is gainfully employed, takes me out, and is self sufficient. We do have similar attitudes regarding money....neither of us has any material debt and we see spending much the same way.

After the self sufficient thing, it's much more important to me that we can share some athletics and have witty banter (which we do). And some chemistry is nice.

There are other things a guy can do for me, like having my back and taking care of stuff. Little things like if I blow a tire on my bike my guy will stop with me and change it, or if I need something done in my house he'll take care of it for me. Not big jobs that really should be handled by professionals, just smaller things that make women feel cared for. Feeling like I have a guy that is my partner and I can count on is worth far more then him making a ton of money.

And let's not forget that it's important that said guy not be threatened because I make more than him. Many men are....just like some men will claim that they like smart women, but the truth is that while they don't necessarily want a dumb woman they don't want one smarter then them. And these same men don't want a women who makes more. Fortunately it seems that many of the men here on TAM don't fall into this category.

I think men should give more consideration to what women make; the whole reason men have traditionally gotten the short end in divorce is precisely because they assume the role of provider. In fact, your fathers and grandfathers set you guys up for this by essentially forcing women to stay home and become dependents, so the attitude that women need support after divorce started there. If you guys gave more thought to what she earns this relationship would become more egalitarian financially and you wouldn't be seen as the supporter that needs to take care of her after divorce.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

RebuildingMe said:


> Feminism is pro woman. Red pill is pro man. One seems to be tolerated on TAM and one is denounced as garbage. You can figure out which one.


My problem with Red Pill isn’t that it’s misogynistic, but that it’s untrue. (Though they go hand in hand.)

I understand the frustration of nerdy, unattractive guys who are raised to believe that women are attracted to guys who are ambitious and do things that should lead to money, such as going to college. They can’t figure out why women aren’t interested in them. Then, when they start attracting interest around 30, they are suspicious and angry.

Yes, they would be better off sexually at a young age if women were forced to marry at 20. But this isn’t a conspiracy by society to allow women to be sexually wild with bad boys from 15-28. It’s women pursuing education and careers, getting themselves financially ready before marrying.

These men also benefit from this new reality. Instead of marrying a homemaker with a college degree, you marry a school teacher, a nurse or a lawyer, and the burden of providing for the family isn’t all on you. But all they focus on are their wives having had better sex while younger and hotter, with much better looking guys with bigger penises.

The family courts are no longer biased against men when it comes to custody. They presume joint custody because it is usually in the best interests of the child. And most states have updated their alimony laws to reflect the modern realities.

I saw a video where they showed the young, hot chick that the bad boys get, then a picture of how they look when they marry a nice guy. One of the women was A. Morissette. They showed an incredibly unflattering picture of her in her early 30s, overweight in a bikini and her face and hair looking horrible, which I can’t even find anymore online. I’m attaching a picture of how she actually looks today at 44.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

lifeistooshort said:


> I do need a guy to be able to support himself and maybe even take me out to dinner. But beyond that I don't much care; I don't see myself as superior, I figure I'm just a nerd who's really good at math/science and fell into a high paying field.
> 
> The guy I'm currently seeing makes less than me, but he is gainfully employed, takes me out, and is self sufficient. We do have similar attitudes regarding money....neither of us has any material debt and we see spending much the same way.


YES, SELF SUFFICIENT! That term was not coming to me, geez, LOL... yes this.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

CraigBesuden said:


> My problem with Red Pill isn’t that it’s misogynistic, but that it’s untrue. (Though they go hand in hand.)
> 
> I understand the frustration of nerdy, unattractive guys who are raised to believe that women are attracted to guys who are ambitious and do things that should lead to money, such as going to college. They can’t figure out why women aren’t interested in them. Then, when they start attracting interest around 30, they are suspicious and angry.
> 
> ...


Agree and disagree. I do know, for a fact, a group of women that have had fun with the more "Lover" types in their 20's and early 30's (sexy but not marriage material - i.e. not financially well off or ambitious), and now that the biological clock is ticking so loudly, they openly admit to "settling" for guys that are not the sexiest and most exciting, but check enough of the marriage material boxes for them to pull the trigger (boring "Providers"). 

Also, family courts in many places do, in fact, still favor the woman by default. I have hundreds of men on my Facebook group that will tell you horrors stories of having to fight the courts to get their kids away from their awful and abusive moms and/or her awful and abusive boyfriends. Tens of thousands of dollars, false accusations, etc. Some men are forced to just give up. But, there are also stories of men eventually winning full custody.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

dadstartingover said:


> Agree and disagree. I do know, for a fact, a group of women that have had fun with the more "Lover" types in their 20's and early 30's (sexy but not marriage material - i.e. not financially well off or ambitious), and now that the biological clock is ticking so loudly, they openly admit to "settling" for guys that are not the sexiest and most exciting, but check enough of the marriage material boxes for them to pull the trigger (boring "Providers").



I’m sure this happens a lot, especially with women who are educated and ambitious. As long as she is somewhat sexually attracted to the guy and gives him sex on the regular, I think it’s fine.

I understand why those guys feel they should have gotten a woman like that when they were younger. Sometimes an ambitious woman has unrealistic standards for a husband and needs a little fear to get her to become realistic. Other times he is Plan B, and the best men are all taken now, and he’s the cleanest shirt in a dirty hamper. But even if people still married at 20, his unattractiveness would still be balanced against his other qualities and he wouldn’t be her ideal man.

When it comes to NSA sex, women can punch way above their weight. If she’s not looking for a marriage partner, why would a woman who is a 6 want to pick a guy who is a 6 if she can get a 9 or 10? They’re going to go for the best option available.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> I’m sure this happens a lot, especially with women who are educated and ambitious. As long as she is somewhat sexually attracted to the guy and gives him sex on the regular, I think it’s fine.
> 
> I understand why those guys feel they should have gotten a woman like that when they were younger. *Sometimes an ambitious woman has unrealistic standards for a husband and needs a little fear to get her to become realistic.* Other times he is Plan B, and the best men are all taken now, and he’s the cleanest shirt in a dirty hamper. But even if people still married at 20, his unattractiveness would still be balanced against his other qualities and he wouldn’t be her ideal man.


Do you think "a little fear" is going to make her more attracted to the guy or do you think it's going to make her settle faster?


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

When men start talking about how women (as if we should not even be allowed to make choices at all) “waste” their youth with young guys they choose to be with instead of spending those years on men who they think we should have been with instead, I just have to laugh.

Good luck with whining about women’s choices. It makes you incredibly unattractive to us. But please do keep on saying these things, so we know who you are and can identify the men who think they should be able to control us and whine when they can’t.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > I’m sure this happens a lot, especially with women who are educated and ambitious. As long as she is somewhat sexually attracted to the guy and gives him sex on the regular, I think it’s fine.
> ...


Settle. Though her attraction might grow as she gets to know this guy who she wouldn’t have otherwise given the time of day. I don’t believe most of these women end up unhappy with their decision.

There are worse things in life than settling. I’ve heard it said that a good legal settlement results in both parties walking away unhappy.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > CraigBesuden said:
> ...


Settling is what causes sexless marriages.

So yeah, sure, definitely we should encourage women to settle. Because men just love it when women no longer have sex with them.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> Settle. Though her attraction might grow over time. I don’t believe most of these women end up unhappy with their decision.
> 
> *There are worse things in life than settling.* I’ve heard it said that a legal settlement is what happens when both parties agree and walk away unhappy.


I agree on the bolded which is why I don't understand why you said "_I understand why those guys feel they should have gotten a woman like that when they were younger._" .


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

I think fear makes you realize what is REALLY important and what’s not necessary.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Lila said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > Settle. Though her attraction might grow over time. I don’t believe most of these women end up unhappy with their decision.
> ...


It seems men don’t ever think they should have to “settle”, but women should always settle.

Which is not working out well for men but they still haven’t gotten the memo yet.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Faithful Wife said:


> Settling is what causes sexless marriages.
> 
> So yeah, sure, definitely we should encourage women to settle. Because men just love it when women no longer have sex with them.


Which area do you think affects sexless marriages the most; settling for: physical attractiveness, sexual compatibility, personality (introvert/extrovert), interests, or economics?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > Settle. Though her attraction might grow over time. I don’t believe most of these women end up unhappy with their decision.
> ...


I understand their feelings. Everyone is entitled to their feelings. Like this guy who wrote into Hooking Up Smart:



> Lately I’ve been thinking about my college dating experiences. I’m 28 years old now and I’ve noticed a very odd phenomenon lately. I’m getting noticed (and approached) by women that never would’ve given me the time of day when I was in college. Successful, accomplished women! One in particular is incredibly hot, but they all are attractive. I am baffled by this. You may laugh, but this is making me extremely frustrated and stressed out.
> 
> Reading your blog has offered some explanations. I’m an analytical guy, so I’ve been very impressed with the social science you weave into your writing, and the research about how 28 is the ideal male age for women helped to explain what might be going on. But I still can’t figure out what’s going on, with me or with them. I feel emotions like resentment and suspicion, as well as desire, but I’m not at all flattered. I find myself unable to respond in any way, positively or negatively. I feel paralyzed.
> 
> ...


https://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014...where-were-you-when-i-was-still-unattractive/

Susan Walsh notes that when her female readers notice that they’re suddenly found more attractive, they are happy because they now have more options. When male readers see the same thing, they often get angry.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > Settling is what causes sexless marriages.
> ...


Good question. I have a SIL married to a very handsome bad boy with a large ****. They have a sexless marriage. It’s due, in large part, to his bad behavior. Unsupportive, making her feel bad for work travel, making all family decisions difficult, etc.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

CraigBesuden said:


> I understand their feelings. Everyone is entitled to their feelings.


You're right. Everyone is entitled to their feelings but that doesn't always mean their feelings are based on truth. 

I sometimes feel bad for guys like the example you gave but then other times I wonder if theywere not eliminating themselves out of the dating pool by only trying to attract the women who "never would’ve given him the time of day" to use his words.


----------



## dadstartingover (Oct 23, 2015)

CraigBesuden said:


> I understand their feelings. Everyone is entitled to their feelings. Like this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So many men (nerdy socially awkward guys) have been sold on the notion that everyone will love them for what they are deep down inside. They also feel that romantic love is unconditional. For better or for worse. When they find out that their socially awkward nerdy antisocial ways are, in fact, not a turn on and women tend to *gasp* like the more "shallow" stuff like looks and confidence, they lose their f'ing minds. They can't shut up about it.
The dork who is now getting attention because he has checked off some boxes (makes a good living, is stable, is ambitious, etc) is fuming because the same pretty ladies didn't like him for his TRUE self early on in life. 
It's asinine, but this is the basis for the your online "incel" community. They're also a very dangerous group. You don't dangle the carrot of perfect romantic life in front of these guys and then say, "Pscyhe! You're going to grow old and lonely and people only like you because of what you can do for them"... it doesn't end well. 
We need to legalize prostitution. Like, yesterday.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

To me it just all boils down to this....

Men: how do I get with the hot chick?

Me: by being hot also.

Men: but that’s not fair, I wasn’t born with the right genes, yet I still want a hot chick.

Me: we don’t care what you think is fair, we want to be with a hot guy.

Men: how can you be so shallow and not see my other attributes?

Me: you literally just said the only attribute that matters about us is if we are hot.

Men: right.

Me: there’s some logic here you seem to be missing. Good luck with that.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Lila said:


> CraigBesuden said:
> 
> 
> > I understand their feelings. Everyone is entitled to their feelings.
> ...


At least for that guy, he was willing to settle as he mentioned a college girlfriend.

He probably thinks the girls who are suddenly interested him are his equals and were all along, though he might view them as being above his league. If he thinks they are his equals, I can understand his feelings and frustration. If he thinks they are above his league and now he’s winning the game by getting to marry and reproduce with a woman out of his league, not so much.

I saw a documentary about prostitution or maybe it was sex therapy or mail order brides.... Anyway, there was one incredibly geeky guy who was in his 40s or 50s and never married. He admitted that his plan had always been that he would become famous as a scientist, win a Nobel Prize, and then marry a supermodel. (Apparently supermodels are turned on by guys with Nobel Prizes.) His plan didn’t come to fruition. I’m sure girls in his league were frustrated that he wouldn’t give them the time of day.


----------



## wxman3441 (Aug 30, 2012)

I am kind of glad this study came out because it proves that marriage is a business. Yes, love is a part of it, but if you aren't bringing home the bacon you can forget about being loved.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

wxman3441 said:


> I am kind of glad this study came out because it proves that marriage is a business. Yes, love is a part of it, but *if you aren't bringing home the bacon you can forget about being loved.*


That’s a little extreme. But yes, marriage is a small business. Everybody must bring something to the table. It doesn’t have to be money. Negative things, like baggage, also count. All in all, it needs to be a good deal for everyone involved.


----------



## Girl_power (Aug 11, 2018)

wxman3441 said:


> I am kind of glad this study came out because it proves that marriage is a business. Yes, love is a part of it, but if you aren't bringing home the bacon you can forget about being loved.




Everyone needs to be able to at least support themselves.


----------



## wxman3441 (Aug 30, 2012)

The problem with this business is that if it dissolves, one person has to continue paying the other partner.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Faithful Wife said:


> To me it just all boils down to this....
> 
> Men: how do I get with the hot chick?
> 
> ...



I've been saying this for years.

And let's not forget that even if these guys could convince said hot chick to consider his other qualities, it's not going to create a scenario where she really wants him sexually.

Only one where she at best puts up with him....otherwise known as duty or starfish sex.

Its pretty clear how at least the men of TAM feel about that, and I understand. People want to feel desired.

But one doesn't get that by convincing someone to settle.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Maybe a hot chick will fall for an old science geek after all?

“He told me to look her up on the Internet,” Dixon recalled. “I thought he was out of his mind, and I told him that. ‘You’re not talking to the real girl. Why would a young woman like that be interested in an old guy like you?’ But he really believed that he had a pretty young woman who wanted to marry him.” When I later asked Frampton what made him think that Milani was interested, he replied, “Well, I have been accused of having a huge ego.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/...del-and-the-suitcase-full-of-trouble.amp.html


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

dupe


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

lifeistooshort said:


> I've been saying this for years.
> 
> And let's not forget that even if these guys could convince said hot chick to consider his other qualities, it's not going to create a scenario where she really wants him sexually.
> 
> ...


If I thought for a second that someone settled for me I wouldn’t want them. So why would I work to convince them to settle for me? That’s something I will not ever understand.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

CraigBesuden said:


> This is a financial downside of men not marrying until 30. They don’t feel the pressure to succeed, at least in the short term. So, fewer eligible men. (On the other hand, some of the ineligible men might start trying harder after you marry them.)


In my area the average age at first marriage is 23. Men here start trying to succeed earlier.

Let me describe the average late teen/early 20-something dude. I'll use my former neighbors and friends as example. There were 4 of them sharing rent and utilities on the house next door to me when DH and I first moved in together. Young guys between 19 and 21. They all worked $12/hr type jobs. Intelligent, polite, fun, nice guys (even if they did wallpaper every surface in their bathroom with nudie mag cut outs > ) They would collect their pay, throw it all into a pile on the table after cashing their checks, and sort out the bill money. Then they'd sort out some food money and gas money. Whatever was left over was for gaming, drinking, and weed. They were just coasting along having a good time. One by one, they fell. Real adult life appeared in the form of women. They each moved out with romantic partners and got their own rentals. One joined the Army. Why? Because their bills increased and they had real responsibility. They were motivated to do more, to do better, to be a better man capable of providing.




DTO said:


> This is totally not a brag. I'd struggle to support myself and my child on the median individual income; even the median family income would be tough if I hope to send my kid to school or have a decent retirement.


Eh, you learn tricks. For example, while my kids were growing up I never spent more than $300 a year total on school clothes for 3 kids. How? I'd go to the resale shops and hunt the new looking clothes. It took a couple hours a day for a few weeks to get everything, but I was SAHM so I had the time.



DTO said:


> Are you saying that you'd optimally like a guy to make more than you, and if so then how much more and why? I'm curious because that seems to be a common dynamic (we've seen it even on this thread).


Let's be really frank. Biology is a thing. The female carries and births the young. This is a process during which much can go wrong. Myriad health issues necessitating bed rest for the mother, pregnancy or birth causing an ongoing permanent or semi-permanent condition, special needs child, on and on. In many of the possible scenarios a woman wouldn't be able to work for a time or permanently. It's just practical for a breeding age woman to want a mate that can keep the bills paid in case of emergency.

For women that aren't fertile due to sterilization or menopause I think it's a matter of having someone who is at least their equal and someone they can respect based on achievement. And it doesn't have to be a spectacular achievement, either. I remember when my uncle paid off his house just around the time he hit his mid 30's iirc, the first friend or family member to do so, the general female reaction was :allhail:


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> Settling is what causes sexless marriages.
> 
> So yeah, sure, definitely we should encourage women to settle. Because men just love it when women no longer have sex with them.




So does not actually managing your sexual relationship, prioritizing sex, not being GGG, getting stuck in outdated roles, not accepting your own body and sexuality as you age... all kinds of things. 

I’m reading “sexual intelligence” right now - free if you have prime. It’s kinda interesting.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> It seems men don’t ever think they should have to “settle”, but women should always settle.
> 
> Which is not working out well for men but they still haven’t gotten the memo yet.



Nah, both sides thinks settling is ok. 

The whole “one kind of girl you **** the other kind you marry” is an example.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Marduk said:


> So does not actually managing your sexual relationship, prioritizing sex, not being GGG, getting stuck in outdated roles, not accepting your own body and sexuality as you age... all kinds of things.
> 
> I’m reading “sexual intelligence” right now - free if you have prime. It’s kinda interesting.


I've read that one. It was good.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Faithful Wife said:


> To me it just all boils down to this....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Literal conversation with one of my wife’s perpetually single girl friends, only with the genders reversed. She was over at our place complaining that yet another loser ****ed her for a couple weeks and dumped her. For like the hundredth time and wanted sympathy. 

Her: I can’t find a good guy. 

Me: it’s because you date losers. 

Her: but I can’t find hot guys that aren’t losers. Hell, I can’t even find hot guys. 

Me: it’s because you’re not hot. 

(That’s where my wife left the room in disgust)

Her: but why don’t they see me for being the awesome girl I am

Me: are you asking me to help you be hotter?

Her: I guess so

Me: well, lose some weight. Wear a skirt once in a while. Maybe get some interests that aren’t superficial. 

Her: what? You think I’m fat?

Me: I don’t care if you’re in shape or not, I’m not trying to sleep with you. 

Her: why do I have to wear a skirt?

Me: so a guy wonders what’s under the skirt

Her: why do I need to find hobbies 

Me: so you meet guys that aren’t losers

Her: I don’t want to do those things

Me: and that’s why you are single

Her: but I’m a nice girl

Me: nice girls don’t get hot guys. Hot girls get hot guys. Hot nice girls get hot nice guys. I don’t know what to tell you

Her: I’m not going to sit here and be insulted

Me: see ya. 

She never spoke to me again. 

I’m paraphrasing, this was years ago.


----------



## 3Xnocharm (Jun 22, 2012)

@Marduk, that's HYSTERICAL!


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

Faithful Wife said:


> I would never partner with anybody whose only income was spousal support. I might date them for a bit, but would not go forward from there.
> 
> I need to know their future is solid and is based on their own ability to provide for themselves.
> *
> ...


Really? They don't understand it? I mean, you obviously get it, in view of your last paragraph above.

What is their response to questions like, "Well, would you date a MAN whose only income was spousal support?" I'm trying to grasp why your friends cannot understand this issue. It seems so self-apparent that I cannot fathom the thought processes of someone who wouldn't understand it.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

DTO said:


> Agree with much of this. But personally, even I divorced later in life I'd still go out and try to make that connection. I don't need a partner to be content (and indeed I've spent most of the time since my marriage ended as an available man) but I do prefer having that special someone.
> 
> Also, the woman is losing just as much as the guy in a divorce. She also has to pay for her own place / own life out of a smaller asset base. If it was a situation where she's living a much better lifestyle than me post-divorce because of a skewed asset distribution, then yeah I'd feel raped and bitter. But otherwise, just accept your lumps and move on.
> 
> ...



I think your situation is not representative, especially for older professional men, and instead @Thor's is more typical. For example, I believe you stated that you had no alimony obligation?

But more to the point, and relevant to the OP's initial post about "economically attractive men"--- @Thor posted about the professional men he knew that felt "raped" (his words) by divorce. Well, think about why they might feel that way. Typically, these men were chosen as "economically attractive" by women who presumably earned less than they did, or maybe earned nothing at all, having chosen men who would "take care of them" completely. (I say that, because in a divorce of equal earners---say two equal lawyers, doctors, etc. divorcing--because their incomes would be typically very close, there would likely be negligible or no alimony, and the joint assets being split would be have been built up by nearly equal contributions by the two.) But the "economically attractive man", chosen specifically for his higher earning power, would, by that very definition, have a) contributed much MORE to the joint pool of assets and b) brought more "earning power" to the marriage to begin with. However, with a splitting of the assets equally--especially the retirement funds--his ex leaves the marriage with a net MORE than she contributed financially, while the guy leaves with a net LESS than he contributed. But I think the most galling portion would be spousal support, as the ex-wife is now availing herself of an earning power that was brought to the marriage by her husband--a sort of "pre-marital earning power" (that's why he was "economically attractive"). Hence, Thor's pool of men he knows that feel "raped" by the divorce process. (Philosophically, I see that. After all, why is spousal support designed to keep the ex in the "lifestyle in which (s)he has become accustomed? If you're going to have spousal support/alimony at all, wouldn't the logical amount be "the amount (s)he would have earned without the marriage" or "based on what was given up for the marriage" or something like that? Was (s)he a better spouse because their husband (or wife) earned more, thus justifying the higher alimony? (Or, conversely, if their now ex-spouse earned less, does that mean they worked less at that marriage and deserved less alimony?). It just makes more sense to me that the support should really be aimed to "make them whole" to the situation they would have been in had the marriage never occurred. 

I had another perspective at a class reunion about 10 years ago. I was chatting with a woman who was an attorney, a partner in a high-powered law firm. My guess is that she earned in the high 6-figures or in the 7-figures. She was telling me that she had gotten divorced from a guy who made substantially less than she did, as he worked in an administrative "artsy" type job with the local symphony. She was telling me her reaction about splitting the retirement---"yes, I know it's joint assets, but it's MY retirement." (We never got into the topic of whether she had to pay alimony.) As an attorney, she obviously knows the law and the assumptions that lead to it, but still she had the same gut reaction as Thor's professional men acquaintances. The issues are the same for the higher earner, regardless of sex. It's just much more common for the men to get the short end of the stick, since the "economically attractive" requirement seems to be applied more to men as per the OP reference, and as evidenced by the women in this very thread who have posted a preference for higher earning men.


----------



## Wolfman1968 (Jun 9, 2011)

lifeistooshort said:


> I think men should give more consideration to what women make; the whole reason men have traditionally gotten the short end in divorce is precisely because they assume the role of provider. In fact, your fathers and grandfathers set you guys up for this by essentially forcing women to stay home and become dependents, so the attitude that women need support after divorce started there. If you guys gave more thought to what she earns this relationship would become more egalitarian financially and you wouldn't be seen as the supporter that needs to take care of her after divorce.


Well, except, if I am understanding the OP's reference that kicked off the thread, I don't think it's the guys who are setting themselves up for the short end in divorce. I think it's the WOMEN who are, by and large, setting up what the market demands by requiring "economically attractive men." Otherwise, the marriage just doesn't happen, which is what I understand is the whole point of the OP's article.

Due to the nature of my job, I work with doctors and nurses on a daily basis, as well as other professionals (business leaders, lawyers, accountants, etc.) on frequent, but not daily basis, (more like weekly or 2-3 times per week).

For example the majority of women docs are married to other docs (or other similar professionals). Many male docs are married to nurses, but very few of the female docs I know would consider marrying a male nurse. They tend to want to marry upwards. And, in my experience, it's the female peer culture that drives that. In fact, a close family member of mine (male) is married to a female doc. He has become the "house husband". Theirs is one of the small minority of situations where the woman doc married an economically lower prospect. Typically the men who hear of that situation in my family will respond with comments like, "lucky guy", "wish I could get a situation like that", etc. In my experience, it's more often the WOMEN who feel that he is some sort of leech off his physician wife. "Bum" is a frequent word used to describe their reaction. On the other hand, when male docs are married to nonworking wives (which is the majority of male docs I know), nobody makes any comments about their wives being "leeches". 

So, I think when the women can't find higher earning husbands, the marriage rates drop, consistent with the OP's initial post. 

It's the women's choices controlling the marriage rates, not the men, I believe.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Wolfman1968 said:


> I think your situation is not representative, especially for older professional men


The younger generation, perhaps early 30's and younger, are very different than my age group. I work with a lot of people in that younger group. Pre-nups are quite common now in first marriages, and I hear a lot of single men saying they won't marry without one. Meanwhile, there are many more professional young women with equal or better financial prospects (especially in my industry!). There is much more of an assumption that both people will be financially self sufficient, so in a divorce there will be no spousal support.

From what I see, many young men are waiting to get married in order to avoid a wife who ends up coasting. They want a wife who will be that financial contributor, which means waiting so the women have time to prove their abilities in the working world. This is very different from my generation or older, where we expected to find our spouse either in college or very shortly afterwards. Many of us came from SAHM families, or at least where the mom worked minimally so she could primarily raise the kids and keep the house, so our model was the wife wasn't expected to earn as much as the husband. The younger generations came from families with working moms, and many from divorced families. 

The young men are much more aware of how biased the system is towards women and mothers in divorce. Many young men are put off of marriage unless the woman is economically attractive too.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Really? They don't understand it? I mean, you obviously get it, in view of your last paragraph above.
> 
> What is their response to questions like, "Well, would you date a MAN whose only income was spousal support?" I'm trying to grasp why your friends cannot understand this issue. It seems so self-apparent that I cannot fathom the thought processes of someone who wouldn't understand it.


Because they are educated and had careers, and they assume that as soon as they need a job again they will snap their fingers and have one. So they think others should assume this also.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Wolfman1968 said:


> Faithful Wife said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


If you believe that men only care about your looks and don’t care about a woman’s money (ie, whether she is self-sufficient), you wouldn’t understand why men flee.

If anything, you’d think that their flight after learning of SS means they are afraid of getting taken to the cleaners in a divorce. (Which might be a factor.)

There are still men like that. But how many of them will want to marry a SAHM raising another man’s kids?


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Faithful Wife said:


> Because they are educated and had careers, and they assume that as soon as they need a job again they will snap their fingers and have one. So they think others should assume this also.


That makes sense. But if she didn’t work for the last seven years (until the youngest turned old enough to go to school), then divorced and riding out five years of SS, it’s not a promising look.


----------



## Faithful Wife (Oct 31, 2012)

CraigBesuden said:


> That makes sense. But if she didn’t work for the last seven years (until the youngest turned old enough to go to school), then divorced and riding out five years of SS, it’s not a promising look.


Right. They have confidence in themselves, which is fine. But they expect others to have the same confidence and that’s just not how it works. Others have no info about them except that they are on support now.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MJJEAN said:


> Eh, you learn tricks. For example, while my kids were growing up I never spent more than $300 a year total on school clothes for 3 kids. How? I'd go to the resale shops and hunt the new looking clothes. It took a couple hours a day for a few weeks to get everything, but I was SAHM so I had the time.


I'm sure you do, and I would as well if I needed to; failing is not an option. But I would consider some of these tricks as struggles, especially since I'm a single dad and any time spent shopping the resale stores, picking up a side gig, etc. would come on top of my regular job and homemaking / child rearing responsibilities. At the end of the day, cutting expenses only goes so far (especially in So Cal where housing is pricey) and you need enough money to meet your current and long-term needs.



MJJEAN said:


> Let's be really frank. Biology is a thing. The female carries and births the young. This is a process during which much can go wrong. Myriad health issues necessitating bed rest for the mother, pregnancy or birth causing an ongoing permanent or semi-permanent condition, special needs child, on and on. In many of the possible scenarios a woman wouldn't be able to work for a time or permanently. It's just practical for a breeding age woman to want a mate that can keep the bills paid in case of emergency.
> 
> For women that aren't fertile due to sterilization or menopause I think it's a matter of having someone who is at least their equal and someone they can respect based on achievement. And it doesn't have to be a spectacular achievement, either. I remember when my uncle paid off his house just around the time he hit his mid 30's iirc, the first friend or family member to do so, the general female reaction was :allhail:


No arguments from me. And I think that paying off a house is... well maybe not spectacular but certainly special. Again that's a SoCal mindset. It's impressive to be able to buy a house (especially as a single person) that isn't out in the sticks, when said house will require $100k down and $2,500 a month to own.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Wolfman1968 said:


> I think your situation is not representative, especially for older professional men, and instead @Thor's is more typical. For example, I believe you stated that you had no alimony obligation?





Wolfman1968 said:


> But more to the point, and relevant to the OP's initial post about "economically attractive men"--- @Thor posted about the professional men he knew that felt "raped" (his words) by divorce. Well, think about why they might feel that way. Typically, these men were chosen as "economically attractive" by women who presumably earned less than they did, or maybe earned nothing at all, having chosen men who would "take care of them" completely. (I say that, because in a divorce of equal earners---say two equal lawyers, doctors, etc. divorcing--because their incomes would be typically very close, there would likely be negligible or no alimony, and the joint assets being split would be have been built up by nearly equal contributions by the two.) But the "economically attractive man", chosen specifically for his higher earning power, would, by that very definition, have a) contributed much MORE to the joint pool of assets and b) brought more "earning power" to the marriage to begin with. However, with a splitting of the assets equally--especially the retirement funds--his ex leaves the marriage with a net MORE than she contributed financially, while the guy leaves with a net LESS than he contributed. But I think the most galling portion would be spousal support, as the ex-wife is now availing herself of an earning power that was brought to the marriage by her husband--a sort of "pre-marital earning power" (that's why he was "economically attractive"). Hence, Thor's pool of men he knows that feel "raped" by the divorce process. (Philosophically, I see that. After all, why is spousal support designed to keep the ex in the "lifestyle in which (s)he has become accustomed? If you're going to have spousal support/alimony at all, wouldn't the logical amount be "the amount (s)he would have earned without the marriage" or "based on what was given up for the marriage" or something like that? Was (s)he a better spouse because their husband (or wife) earned more, thus justifying the higher alimony? (Or, conversely, if their now ex-spouse earned less, does that mean they worked less at that marriage and deserved less alimony?). It just makes more sense to me that the support should really be aimed to "make them whole" to the situation they would have been in had the marriage never occurred.


Yes, I did not have an alimony obligation. But that is because we mutually agreed to waive our alimony rights. She planned to remarry soon after our divorce was final, so she wouldn't have qualified for it. I was getting back to work after finishing my MBA (I had been laid off and couldn't get squat with just a Bachelor's degree), so agreeing to no alimony was a no-brainer. I never wanted a penny from her and waiving alimony was good protection for me.

I wouldn't have thought that having a spouse who got remarried was atypical. But I always could be wrong.

To the rest of it, I am indeed one of those husband where there was a huge earnings discrepancy. I made 2.5x what she did and paid all the bills, because my kid needed a roof over her head. STBX had checked out; she paid daycare for our daughter and the rest went to shopping and socializing.

Also, I had to give up a huge piece of my retirement to her. The 50% of my plan she walked away with is worth $175k now, and the 50% of hers that I got is worth probably less than 1/3 of that. Also, in divorce, the judge doesn't look back to the marriage and account for spending mismatches. All that income my ex blew through and a small life insurance policy she hoarded and spent were gone forever.

So my divorce definitely wasn't one where two equal earners and contributors split assets. Her life pre- and post-divorce was/is heavily subsidized. I just am not that worried about it. I'll still pay for my kid's school, retire well at 62, and have fun along the way. I'll drive Honda instead of Mercedes, travel less, and work a little longer than I would have otherwise. But those just aren't big enough sacrifices to sweat.

I will acknowledge that a I have great job now. It is significantly better than the one I lost during the Great Recession and that does seem to not be the typical experience. But at the end of the day, I'm still a "look forward" guy and not going to be bitter or dwell over a setback.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

DTO said:


> So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study
> 
> I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:
> 
> ...


So that is the original post.

**I didn't read the article just everyone's comments**

It's just common sense that a woman would be interested in a man who can pay for his own food, shelter, transportation, etc. in order to be economically attractive.

I used to work somewhere I saw A LOT of people's financials. Where I work now I also see financials, but it's a smaller and more controlled subset of the population.

It's amazing how many healthy, able men can't keep a good job. Or won't work a full time job. It's extreme laziness, lack of drive, entitlement, things like that that are getting in their way. So yes, those stats can be real. Note: there are also the same number of women who also don't feel they should have to work hard to support themselves. Really, it all boils down to laziness, selfishness, and entitlement, in these cases. I'm not talking about people with medical or mental health problems getting in the way. It's perfectly reasonable to choose a partner who isn't lazy or selfish and who demonstrates they have to motivation and wherewithal to support themselves, and is also in control of their spending (not spending above their means), man or woman. 

I have a question for the men who have chimed in about women being supported so much by them during marriage, expecting to be completely financially supported, and subsequent divorce and continued financial support:

Why did you do it?? I'm truly curious. I was a stay at home person until my children were in elementary school, be not after that. If you are a man, why didn't you make it part of your relationship that you BOTH contribute financially to the marriage? 

And if you didn't, why do you complain later?


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

DTO said:


> I'm sure you do, and I would as well if I needed to; failing is not an option. But I would consider some of these tricks as struggles, especially since I'm a single dad and any time spent shopping the resale stores, picking up a side gig, etc. would come on top of my regular job and homemaking / child rearing responsibilities. At the end of the day, cutting expenses only goes so far (especially in So Cal where housing is pricey) and you need enough money to meet your current and long-term needs.
> 
> 
> 
> No arguments from me. And I think that paying off a house is... well maybe not spectacular but certainly special. Again that's a SoCal mindset. It's impressive to be able to buy a house (especially as a single person) that isn't out in the sticks, when said house will require $100k down and $2,500 a month to own.


As a SAHM with a husband making the average for young guys, still building experience and a good resume, it was almost entertainment. Take a friend who also has kids in the same situation, make the rounds of the resale shops together, have some chuckles, get that "Me woman! Me found bargain!" hunter's high going, save a ton of cash, be occupied for an afternoon a few time before school starts.

Yeah, here, at the time, the house itself cost less than $100,000. Your down payment is our paid off.

Uncle's was a 1400 sq ft brick ranch, garage, fenced yard, bonus laundry room/office in the fully enclosed back porch not included in sq ft because stupid local rules. After he met and married my Aunt (yes, she was much younger and hot, in case anyone was wondering, lol) they had 4 sons and decided to move out to the sticks to buy a bigger house. They sold his house and spent $135,000 on a 3 floor 1908 farm house sitting on 10 acres with 2 barns and a storage building in addition to the garage.

Now, most of the family has paid off homes or will soon. Many of my friends do, too. Ours has been paid off since we were in our mid-30's, so ll we have to worry about are property tax, insurance, and repairs. It's a midwest thing. Cheap real estate, decent pay depending on field, some frugality, and homeowner free and clear.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

Livvie said:


> I have a question for the men who have chimed in about women being supported so much by them during marriage, expecting to be completely financially supported, and subsequent divorce and continued financial support:
> 
> Why did you do it?? I'm truly curious. I was a stay at home person until my children were in elementary school, be not after that. If you are a man, why didn't you make it part of your relationship that you BOTH contribute financially to the marriage?
> 
> And if you didn't, why do you complain later?


I think most guys expect that the lady is going to continue to provide support - because she probably had a job during the courtship - after the marriage (absent some agreement otherwise). It's likely that most of the guys who complain have a wife who decides to stop contributing without knowledge or despite their objection.

That being the case, what options do you have? You can't make your spouse contribute to the household any more than you can make them have sex with you. Your only real option is to divorce if she's digging in her heels. And you have all the usual divorce considerations. Plus, you have the extra consideration that your spousal and child support is based on her presumably low income.

If your wife had a decent job (i.e. not close to Minimum Wage) and you want to use that as the basis for support payments? Good luck with that - here in CA at least, the burden would fall on the husband to demonstrate that his wife is able to make that same wage. Now you're having to prove that there are jobs available that she passing up, or having to pay for a vocational evaluation if she's arguing that she has issues impacting her ability to work.

Economy sucks and there aren't any equivalent jobs around? Her skills aren't current or are specialized and not applicable to what is out there? That means there are no jobs for her to do to make her prior wage, and you're pretty much stuck.

Or, let's say she was a well-paid hospital nurse but she can't work 12 hour shifts, nights / weekends / holidays, and/or Overtime because of day care isn't available. Well, you can't make someone take a job that will cause them to give up custody time of their kids.

My ex tried to put me through the wringer on this part of the law (I lost my job in the Great Recession and tried - unsuccessfully - to argue that I was intentionally not working and I should pay support based on what I used to make prior to my job loss) so I'm very familiar with it.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MJJEAN said:


> Uncle's was a 1400 sq ft brick ranch, garage, fenced yard, bonus laundry room/office in the fully enclosed back porch not included in sq ft because stupid local rules. After he met and married my Aunt (yes, she was much younger and hot, in case anyone was wondering, lol) they had 4 sons and decided to move out to the sticks to buy a bigger house. They sold his house and spent $135,000 on a 3 floor 1908 farm house sitting on 10 acres with 2 barns and a storage building in addition to the garage.
> 
> Now, most of the family has paid off homes or will soon. Many of my friends do, too. Ours has been paid off since we were in our mid-30's, so ll we have to worry about are property tax, insurance, and repairs. It's a midwest thing. Cheap real estate, decent pay depending on field, some frugality, and homeowner free and clear.


Wow. Here a 30-year mortgage is standard. I would have paid it off in my 50s, but the divorce interrupted those plans. I'll still catch up and have it paid by 62, and I'm happy with that.

I've thought about leaving CA in a couple of years (once my kid finishes high school) and go shopping with the $300k in equity I'll have. Seeing prices like that is tempting, but I'd have to find an equivalent job and I'd miss my family. Oh well...


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

I’m currently active in the dating scene and feel extreme discomfort when I begin talking to a man and find out he’s a high earner. I’d really rather not know lol! Why? Because if I like him I want him to know I went for him because of who he is, not what he makes. But at the same time I would definitely want to know if the guy I’m currently talking to has trouble with self support. All I ask is that he be able to cover his own expenses AND not be in debt. I want to be equal partners at least.

I’m currently talking with a man who is a high earner and I’m uncomfortable with it. I contacted him on a dating site because I really liked the genuineness of what he wrote in his profile and he’s in my age range and looks great for his age. In my profile I stated I’m not impressed by money and nice cars, I’m looking for character and integrity and I don’t care if his home is just 800 square feet if he’s got the personality of the man of dreams. He gave me his phone number in his first response to my message. I think his reason for telling me is because he does plan on retiring in the spring and wants to travel so I think he wants me to know up front what his plans are so I can gauge whether or not I want to get involved with someone with those particular plans. I still don’t like the money situation though and wish I didn’t know.

I want to say economics doesn’t play a role in choosing a partner for me but it does. I don’t like either to much or to little. I guess I equate mid range earners as being balanced individuals who won’t judge me for being a mid range earner.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

Maybe one key issue is how you find out. 

If someone makes a big deal about their income, its very different from it just being obvious based on things that they like to do. 

so, "I'm Elmer J Fudd and I own a mansion an a yacht"

is different from

"I love deep water sailing - there is something wonderful about being alone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean". 






Not said:


> I’m currently active in the dating scene and feel extreme discomfort when I begin talking to a man and find out he’s a high earner. I’d really rather not know lol! Why? Because if I like him I want him to know I went for him because of who he is, not what he makes. But at the same time I would definitely want to know if the guy I’m currently talking to has trouble with self support. All I ask is that he be able to cover his own expenses AND not be in debt. I want to be equal partners at least.
> 
> I’m currently talking with a man who is a high earner and I’m uncomfortable with it. I contacted him on a dating site because I really liked the genuineness of what he wrote in his profile and he’s in my age range and looks great for his age. In my profile I stated I’m not impressed by money and nice cars, I’m looking for character and integrity and I don’t care if his home is just 800 square feet if he’s got the personality of the man of dreams. He gave me his phone number in his first response to my message. I think his reason for telling me is because he does plan on retiring in the spring and wants to travel so I think he wants me to know up front what his plans are so I can gauge whether or not I want to get involved with someone with those particular plans. I still don’t like the money situation though and wish I didn’t know.
> 
> I want to say economics doesn’t play a role in choosing a partner for me but it does. I don’t like either to much or to little. I guess I equate mid range earners as being balanced individuals who won’t judge me for being a mid range earner.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

There are so many factors in the spectrum of what people find attractive about another person. Finances plays a part. But sometimes you can't tell from outward appearances. I have personally known several friends that have multi-million dollar resources, but are miserly when it comes to paying for things. That makes them totally unattractive to otherwise interested parties. Who really are just looking for them to cover their own costs - or at least demonstrate that.

They use the "I didn't bring any cash with me" or "I'm not really hungry" and then eat 3 slices of pizza.


----------



## Not (Jun 12, 2017)

uhtred said:


> Maybe one key issue is how you find out.
> 
> If someone makes a big deal about their income, its very different from it just being obvious based on things that they like to do.
> 
> ...


Yes, I guess the presentation would matter and he wasn’t like Elmer J Fudd. I do think knowing about the money sort of throws a wrench into things no matter how it’s presented though. I guess it’ll be on him to decide if he trusts that a woman likes him for him.


----------



## Young at Heart (Jan 6, 2015)

Dear DTO;

I am reminded when local billionaire Bill Gates Jr. (Micro Soft) was seriously dating and looking to settle down. One of the very pretty local on-air TV personalities said that she would love to be his wife, run her hands through his pants and hold his wallet for him. 

Yes, for some women, size below the belt matters, but it is the size of the wallet and the size of the paid off credit card balances not the size of his genitals. 

There use to be a lot of discussion by both sexes on what was "marriage material." Not that many decades ago, it could be a matter of life and death, when folks lived closer to a subsistence agricultural life.

Things have changed, but in selecting a spouse there are evolving "marriage material" criteria. 

The article makes sense to me. Not sure it agrees with some of my old fashioned ideals, but it makes sense.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I'd say just watch how he acts. Be aware that a big money difference when dating can be awkward because splitting costs may not be possible. If he is wealthy he will realize that, so if he offers to take you on a helicopter tour of the city, that's fine. 

One hint is does he want to go to very expensive restaurants, or does he want to go to interesting restaurants, where the price could be anything high or low? 



Not said:


> Yes, I guess the presentation would matter and he wasn’t like Elmer J Fudd. I do think knowing about the money sort of throws a wrench into things no matter how it’s presented though. I guess it’ll be on him to decide if he trusts that a woman likes him for him.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

I have some distant family members who are deliberately not successful in life. On the rare times when we have to associate they like to to suggest that we go do some group activity (you know, for the kids to have fun) and they just assume we will pick up the tab. Each of their families has a bunch of kids, and we have one.That is economically unattractive to me, and just selfish. They also like to criticize my W - "she thinks she better than everyone else". Why? Because she wasn't a high school drop-out, pregnant at 16, in a few abusive relationships, and works as a clerk at a gas station?


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

Maybe they are just Gold Diggers?


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MAJDEATH said:


> I have some distant family members who are deliberately not successful in life. On the rare times when we have to associate they like to to suggest that we go do some group activity (you know, for the kids to have fun) and they just assume we will pick up the tab. Each of their families has a bunch of kids, and we have one.That is economically unattractive to me, and just selfish. They also like to criticize my W - "she thinks she better than everyone else". Why? Because she wasn't a high school drop-out, pregnant at 16, in a few abusive relationships, and works as a clerk at a gas station?


Yup, some of my former in-laws were like that. They were blue-collar, and at the time I was finishing my degree. So, I was the "college guy" - I laughed at how that's supposed to be derogatory, but to them it was. I'd get criticized for being uppity, and ironically get hit up to help out with something or other (with regularity).

Of course it was lost on them that the reason I had was that I worked hard and didn't spend. It becomes obvious that some people will never get anywhere and are their own worst enemies. You just have to know that they'll never get it and make it not your problem.

Here's a good rule of thumb that I learned and implemented: avoid subsidizing anyone that doesn't work as hard as you or and/or is less thrifty with their spending than you are.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MAJDEATH said:


> Maybe they are just Gold Diggers?


Seriously, right? The woman and the old man's son were left out of the will. Years to legal action followed, even though the woman was married to the old man for years and the eldest son was already a millionaire.

Those two were the poster children for gold-digging and the nightmare scenario for people of means. Total SMH.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

DTO said:


> So, there's a recent research study / article concluding there's an observable decline in the marriage rate which is correlated to a gap between what available single men earn and what ladies need them to earn for them to appear economically attractive. Here's a news article discussing the study (there are many out there): https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/unmarried-women-lack-economically-attractive-men-study
> 
> I don't have a problem with this premise per se; it seems reasonable that guys who struggle financially aren't going to be seen at great catches. However I was surprised by two things:
> 
> ...


For richer or for poorer is an oath that one should take seriously, therefore men should be careful as to who can uphold such an oath, and of course whether she can uphold it willingly out of something more meaningful than financial capacity - which can easily switch overnight. I'd rather a companion who can accompany me throughout these phases in life, rather than multiple. I believe that's a fair expectation.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

RandomDude said:


> For richer or for poorer is an oath that one should take seriously, therefore men should be careful as to who can uphold such an oath, and of course whether she can uphold it willingly out of something more meaningful than financial capacity - which can easily switch overnight. I'd rather a companion who can accompany me throughout these phases in life, rather than multiple. I believe that's a fair expectation.


Agree than fortunes can switch overnight. Neither me nor my partner control over whether I get laid off for instance, and can't will anyone to hire me. Those require a third party. And job cutbacks are very common. So yeah, being overly fixated on finances as a motivation to partner up is a big problem.

Still, you'd like to know the guy is willing and able to meet your needs, and here again that means seeing him hit the mark before you commit to him. If he can't or won't keep himself comfortably afloat as a single man, why would you think he'd do so once he has a partner who has tied her fortunes to him?

Also, these ladies don't seem to want the world. They want, on the whole, a guy to earn a more-or-less average wage. While I don't agree that a college degree should be make-or-break (given that only 25% of us have one), I strongly feel that if you can't make around $20 an hour you're going to have a hard time meeting your present and future needs and probably can't contribute much financially to a relationship.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

DTO said:


> Still, you'd like to know the guy is willing and able to meet your needs, and here again that means seeing him hit the mark before you commit to him. If he can't or won't keep himself comfortably afloat as a single man, why would you think he'd do so once he has a partner who has tied her fortunes to him?
> 
> Also, these ladies don't seem to want the world. They want, on the whole, a guy to earn a more-or-less average wage. While I don't agree that a college degree should be make-or-break (given that only 25% of us have one), I strongly feel that if you can't make around $20 an hour you're going to have a hard time meeting your present and future needs and probably can't contribute much financially to a relationship.


Yes, and that is a standard that I would also want my daughter to have, I can't have her future boyfriend leeching off her finances with no contributions. If the man loves her, he'll get off his ass and work or get a trade or study or do something with his life.

For the majority this isn't enough and that's just reality however, it's much easier after all to get an easy score than work together to achieve financial goals. It's only human. Thankfully you only need to find one in life who would love you for you, makes the materialistic dating world irrelevant after that.


----------



## MAJDEATH (Jun 16, 2015)

And if you are not working (due to layoffs), trying to cut spending and/or reduce debt by selling things is a good practice to demonstrate your commitment to the team.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

MAJDEATH said:


> There are so many factors in the spectrum of what people find attractive about another person. Finances plays a part. But sometimes you can't tell from outward appearances. I have personally known several friends that have multi-million dollar resources, but are miserly when it comes to paying for things. That makes them totally unattractive to otherwise interested parties. Who really are just looking for them to cover their own costs - or at least demonstrate that.
> 
> They use the "I didn't bring any cash with me" or "I'm not really hungry" and then eat 3 slices of pizza.


That's a step up from miserly. It's one thing to be cheap, but quite another to be a mooch. That's what you're describing.

My father was a bit of a miser but he wouldn't have sponged off of another...he would've just gone without.

Makes for a lousy partner....but a mooch is an extra level of scumbag.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think being a miser and being a mooch are different, and may not be related. 

Both can be big problems. My father was never a mooch, never accepted any money from anyone, but was a terrible miser. Our family believed we were very poor and it was only when I took over his finances when he went into a nursing home that I discovered he had been quite wealth - just never spent it on himself or anyone. 




lifeistooshort said:


> That's a step up from miserly. It's one thing to be cheap, but quite another to be a mooch. That's what you're describing.
> 
> My father was a bit of a miser but he wouldn't have sponged off of another...he would've just gone without.
> 
> Makes for a lousy partner....but a mooch is an extra level of scumbag.


----------

