# Would you date someone Broke?



## nataly87 (Apr 29, 2016)

For all the guys and girls out there, would you date someone in this situation,


Was in their age of 20-30's
Lived at home with their family, parents, siblings etc.
Had a driver's license but no insurance to drive
Did not go to college
Graduated high school
Did not have a job
Did not drink, smoke or do drugs
Didn't have or want to have kids
Wanted to get married

Would you want to date someone like this or would you think that they were too much of a square and not worth your time? I have heard time and time again, that people of today's society, refuse to go out with a guy or girl, that DOES NOT have their life together, education, schooling, car, own place, and if they DID NOT drink, smoke, or do drugs, they were boring and lame. Marriage is for losers and everyone should have kids! If you did not meet what today's society states you should do, people did not want to go out with you period.

What do you think?


----------



## Lostme (Nov 14, 2014)

Nope learned my lesson from doing just that, got nothing but cheated on and abused.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Exactly what redeeming qualities would this person have?


----------



## ThreeStrikes (Aug 11, 2012)

No college education, no job, lives with parents.

You just described a child.

I have no interest in dating children.


----------



## T&T (Nov 16, 2012)

Negative

ETA: It's not the fact that the person is broke. The person you described is doing nothing.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

Why would this person want to get married if they don't have a job or at least some portion of their life together first? 

We all go through setbacks. When you bring another person into your life, you have to bring something to the table. It sounds like this person isn't remotely self-sufficient. Sometimes we go through transitions where we may have no job/no apartment of our own for a short period of time, divorce being a good example if it leaves us devastated financially/emotionally. Until they are settled again, it seems grossly irresponsible to bring another person into their life. Would they expect the other person to pay for both of them? That seems pretty cheeky. Are there some extenuating circumstances? For example, are they caring for a terminally ill relative? And that's why they have no job? It would take some extreme situation such as that for me to even consider dating someone like this. Definitely uninterested in marrying again at this point so the marriage portion is a nonstarter.


----------



## Fitnessfan (Nov 18, 2014)

I would never date someone like this. Not bc of not having $ but I could never be with someone with no drive.


----------



## Corpuswife (Apr 24, 2009)

A person that accepts no responsibility?

No thanks.


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*You would have to love them for their heart only, and that's a pretty tall order!

Personally, money is a pretty big precursor for me ~ not necessarily having it, but seeing what one does with it and how they treat it along with the people they have in their lives! 

I'd rather be in the presence of someone who is financially destitute and had a huge amount of love within their heart for everyone; was affable, intelligent, and was educated, but had within them the necessary "drive" in whatever it was that they undertook in life; much rather than I would be with someone who was wealthy, who placed a much higher priority on their money and its subsequent investment much rather than focus on their family life, and who seemingly looked down their noses at everyone else and was covertly deceptive in their heart and mind! Been there ~ done that! Won't ever do that again! Not willingly, anyway!

Kind of makes me think of the biblical parable of the rich man ~that a lover of money is going to be judged by God at a much higher standard, because the primordial question by Him at judgement would be, "how did you use the money I gave you to promote my ends?"

Luke 18:25: "Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

sound like an anchor that would just bleed you to death.

he must be hung like a horse.


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

chillymorn
he must be hung like a horse.[/QUOTE said:


> LOL...then why isn't he reaping the fruit of his horse ****? :wink2:


----------



## Annette Tush (May 4, 2016)

Nope! If he's failing to manage his own life and take control, how will he manage the commitment that comes with marriage. Marriage is not for the fainthearted...


----------



## Cooper (Apr 18, 2008)

Is there a trust fund involved?

For me one of the most attractive traits is resourcefulness, the person described has none. I would have zero interest in that person.


----------



## ILoveSparkles (Oct 28, 2013)

For me it would depend on the situation. The ages between 20s-30s is HUGE. If it a person living at home yet working or in school working towards a degree in their very early 20s, that is okay. If the person is sitting at home doing nothing - no matter the age is not acceptable. 

As far as kids go, that is a personal decision.

If someone is driving without insurance I wouldn't get in the car with them.


----------



## lifeistooshort (Mar 17, 2013)

Nope. That's not one who's just broke, that's a leech and a bum.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

No. Have some dignity. Have some ambition. Have some self respect. Get your life together, then date.


----------



## Marc878 (Aug 26, 2015)

Jeeze!!!! Why????


----------



## nataly87 (Apr 29, 2016)

What if the person have other traits, could cook, clean, knew how to use public transit, riding buses, subways, trains, walking, riding a bike etc. They were very loving, caring, nice, respectful of the other person, know what they wanted etc.

The person has a driver's license but they don't have any income to pay for insurance, so they use public transit instead. As far as education, college isn't for everyone. As for money, if they knew how to save their money and use it wisely and had some saved and could still go out and date others, would you still go for someone like this?


----------



## Broken at 20 (Sep 25, 2012)

How hot is this person?

And by date, do you mean mutually exclusive, or just someone I see occasionally?


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

nataly87 said:


> What if the person have other traits, could cook, clean, knew how to use public transit, riding buses, subways, trains, walking, riding a bike etc. They were very loving, caring, nice, respectful of the other person, know what they wanted etc.
> 
> The person has a driver's license but they don't have any income to pay for insurance, so they use public transit instead. As far as education, college isn't for everyone. As for money, if they knew how to save their money and use it wisely and had some saved and could still go out and date others, would you still go for someone like this?


I think you're missing the point here. The transportation isn't the sole issue, nor is it one of the main ones. The issue is that they are 1. unemployed and 2. don't have somewhere to live, and want to get married. First fix the first two things. Would they be able to maybe find some sucker to leach off of without a job or a home? Maybe. But wouldn't that kind of make them of questionable character? 

I hate to say it, but if they were attractive, maybe they would be able to find a sugar daddy type to take care of them. But it kind of sounds like they're looking for a parent rather than a partner in life.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> What if the person have other traits, could cook, clean, knew how to use public transit, riding buses, subways, trains, walking, riding a bike etc. They were very loving, caring, nice, respectful of the other person, know what they wanted etc.
> 
> The person has a driver's license but they don't have any income to pay for insurance, so they use public transit instead. As far as education, college isn't for everyone. As for money, if they knew how to save their money and use it wisely and had some saved and could still go out and date others, would you still go for someone like this?


Are you describing yourself here?


----------



## nataly87 (Apr 29, 2016)

joannacroc said:


> I think you're missing the point here. The transportation isn't the sole issue, nor is it one of the main ones. The issue is that they are 1. unemployed and 2. don't have somewhere to live, and want to get married. First fix the first two things. Would they be able to maybe find some sucker to leach off of without a job or a home? Maybe. But wouldn't that kind of make them of questionable character?
> 
> I hate to say it, but if they were attractive, maybe they would be able to find a sugar daddy type to take care of them. But it kind of sounds like they're looking for a parent rather than a partner in life.


A lot of young people in today's society live at home, who are in their 20's and 30s, why is that such a big deal? Renting in some states costs a lot so living on your own isn't that easy.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

nataly87 said:


> A lot of young people in today's society live at home, who are in their 20's and 30s, why is that such a big deal? Renting in some states costs a lot so living on your own isn't that easy.


I get it. Lots of people live at home. But a person who is living at home, unless there are extenuating circumstances, like they are working towards a degree or caring for a relative or friend, is not paying their own bills, dealing with whatever household issues arise, or just generally owning their s%#%. They aren't self-sufficient. That puts their partner in the role of provider/ care-giver. Maybe some people would be OK with that. But you asked for opinions. Maybe you just don't like what you're hearing, I don't know. But it seems like the majority view is unanimous. No. Most people wouldn't. It's not necessarily just the broke issue it's all the others.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

Still, my hesitation would be NO JOB. Public transportation can get people to shopping malls. Shopping malls have department stores. I worked retail twice in my life. The stores would hire anyone with a pulse.

Fast food. Retail. They hire. Any able-bodied person sitting around not holding some sort of job, even while living in their parents' home, is showing a total lack of drive. Seriously.


----------



## TBT (Dec 20, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> Did not drink, smoke or do drugs


Maybe if they weren't broke this would change. Seriously though,participating in any of the above is not a requisite for having a fun and boredom free life.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> Was in their age of 20-30's
> Lived at home with their family, parents, siblings etc.


Would want to know why they were still living with their parents. 
For example my 27 year old son still lives with me. Why? Because he’s working on his Masters and will do his Phd next. His living with me frees him up to spend more time on his studies. But he does have a job teaching at the University.

My 27 year old step daughter lives with her mother. Why? Because her mother’s health is not good. So she’s helping her mother. My step daughter also works and does pay towards the bills.
So why are you living at home?


nataly87 said:


> Had a driver's license but no insurance to drive


Do you live where public transportation is easy to use? How do you get around do to things if you do not drive?


nataly87 said:


> Did not go to college


College is not necessary. What things are you interested in as far as work/career? 


nataly87 said:


> Graduated high school


Ok, this is good.


nataly87 said:


> Did not have a job


Why don’t you have a job? 

What skills do you have? 

Do you do any volunteer work?

What do you do with your time if you do not work?


nataly87 said:


> Did not drink, smoke or do drugs


This is a plus. Actually most people do not do drugs. Not sure what % of the population smokes and/or drinks. But this is basically good.


nataly87 said:


> Didn't have or want to have kids


Your decision. But most men will want to have children, so this will be a negative for most men who are serious about getting married and wanting a family. They might date you, but you would not be marriage material for them. Best to get this info out of the way early on so that neither of you waste your time.


nataly87 said:


> Would you want to date someone like this or would you think that they were too much of a square and not worth your time? I have heard time and time again, that people of today's society, refuse to go out with a guy or girl, that DOES NOT have their life together, education, schooling, car, own place, and if they DID NOT drink, smoke, or do drugs, they were boring and lame. Marriage is for losers and everyone should have kids! If you did not meet what today's society states you should do, people did not want to go out with you period.
> 
> What do you think?


Most people want to be with someone who is a productive member of society. The person you describe is not productive. It sounds like someone who has no real interests in life and no desire to contribute to both a relationship or to society. Sounds like a very boring and not interesting person.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> A lot of young people in today's society live at home, who are in their 20's and 30s, why is that such a big deal? Renting in some states costs a lot so living on your own isn't that easy.


If you were working and contributing to the costs of your family home, your own food, etc., then living at home is a non issue.

At your age, living with your parents with no job and not contributing is an issue.


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

nataly87 said:


> What if the person have other traits, could cook, clean, knew how to use public transit, riding buses, subways, trains, walking, riding a bike etc. They were very loving, caring, nice, respectful of the other person, know what they wanted etc.
> 
> *Those aren't "traits" those are basic skills that 8 year olds have, especially if they live in a city. Being able to ride a bike or the subway doesn't make one "dateable". *
> 
> ...


----------



## VeryHurt (Mar 11, 2011)

OP: It this "person" you are describing you?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

nataly87,

Why are you not working?


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> nataly87,
> 
> Why are you not working?


If it is her she is talking about maybe she is working...at finding a temporary sugar daddy that is. :grin2:

I say temporary because No One wants to carry another human being on their backs, especially if they have no income to contribute to the household. 

The days of the wifey staying home to take care of hubby's needs are long gone. Add to that that she doesn't want to have kids, why should any man want to carry her on their backs? 

Staying single and dating takes care of emotional needs, a housekeeper takes care of his home, and cheap restaurants takes care of his eating needs.

That's cheaper than living with the piggy on his back and bank...EEK!!!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Bibi1031 said:


> If it is her she is talking about maybe she is working...at finding a temporary sugar daddy that is. :grin2:
> 
> I say temporary because No One wants to carry another human being on their backs, especially if they have no income to contribute to the household.
> 
> ...


http://talkaboutmarriage.com/genera...sive-toys-not-spending-cash-your-partner.html


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

Bibi1031 said:


> *If it is her she is talking about maybe she is working...at finding a temporary sugar daddy that is. :grin2:*
> 
> I say temporary because No One wants to carry another human being on their backs, especially if they have no income to contribute to the household.
> 
> ...



Nope, saving herself for marriage


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

chillymorn said:


> sound like an anchor that would just bleed you to death.
> 
> he must be hung like a horse.


If you read OP threads, she's a virgin! 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

MrsAldi said:


> If you read OP threads, she's a virgin!
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


:surprise:


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

MrsAldi said:


> If you read OP threads, she's a virgin!
> 
> Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


So what? 

How does that change the fact that she has nothing of true value to contribute to the relationship?

In this day and age being in your 20s and 30s and still a virgin is NOT a virtue by any stretch of the word.


----------



## MrsAldi (Apr 15, 2016)

@Bibi1031 I'm not in disagreement with you. @chillymorn asked if the guy she was with was well endowed.
I was answering his question. 

Sent from my B1-730HD using Tapatalk


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

Wow, looks like no-one wants to date you. Maybe you should go back to your list and try to overcome some of those obstacles. BTW, when I graduated high school, a friend and I rented a place together. So you don't have to carry all the costs yourself. Kids used to frequently have roommates until their salaries grew.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

I know this is going to be bashed as sexist, but as a man I would very possibly date a woman like that, whereas I can't imagine a woman wanting to date a man like that.

(Note that this is hypothetical because I'm happily married and *much *older than the OP.)


----------



## Blondilocks (Jul 4, 2013)

"I know this is going to be bashed as sexist" No bashing but very curious as to why. Please explain and state your age.


----------



## jsmart (Mar 14, 2015)

Bibi1031 said:


> So what?
> 
> How does that change the fact that she has nothing of true value to contribute to the relationship?
> 
> In this day and age being in your 20s and 30s and still a virgin is NOT a virtue by any stretch of the word.


A virgin in her 20s has no value? That's insanity. If, *she's attractive*, a virgin ALWAYS has value to a man. She's a rare woman who many men would want to wife up. 

I don't think there are many men that are really looking for a college educated, career women. That's just feminist opinion rammed down societies throats. Any man that speaks against it is a misogynist. Saying that you prefer a virgin means you're an insecure man with a little d!ck and want a weak woman you can abuse.


----------



## joannacroc (Dec 17, 2014)

jsmart said:


> A virgin in her 20s has no value? That's insanity. If, *she's attractive*, a virgin ALWAYS has value to a man. She's a rare woman who many men would want to wife up.
> 
> *I don't think there are many men that are really looking for a college educated, career women*. That's just feminist opinion rammed down societies throats. Any man that speaks against it is a misogynist. Saying that you prefer a virgin means you're an insecure man with a little d!ck and want a weak woman you can abuse.


Sadly this is true for some guys, but the right guy will appreciate a woman with smarts. Not saying that women who aren't college educated aren't smart - I know several who haven't been to college and are bright and self-motivated, but focusing on career-focused women who have been to college, you're right. Some guys on this forum seem to have married one, then realized it's not what they want later - they want a Suzie Homemaker type. Nothing wrong with that, it's just depressing when I see bright, sexy, successful women left on the shelf in favor of female bartenders and manicurists.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

nataly87 said:


> A lot of young people in today's society live at home, who are in their 20's and 30s, why is that such a big deal? Renting in some states costs a lot so living on your own isn't that easy.





nataly87 said:


> For all the guys and girls out there, would you date someone in this situation,
> 
> 
> Was in their age of 20-30's
> ...


Not having a Job or insurance to Drive...also never wanting kids would be the killer for me personally ... no matter what my age.. even a young person... I didn't marry a man who went to College..nor did I .. so my standards are lower.

I'd personally rather a guy be smart with money & still be at home with his family IF he's saving up for a house.. over wasting it all on outrageous rent ....for what.. so chicks think he's cool, his own man.. but maybe he's in a load of DEBT .. that right there would destroy it for me.. deal breaker, don't care what type car you drive either if you're in a load of debt.

How one spends money could make or break a future together... 

I guess all things are dependent on AGE though.. I can easily see a 26 yr old still living at home.. maybe his family has a large house in the country.... lots of room... but still he could be saving for his own place in the meantime...so he can put a whopping down payment on his own House someday.. . That's responsible... and shows a drive to save for his future, making it easier for his own family someday. 

But again.. NO JOB.. no Car insurance.. wouldn't go there..I personally hate the city.. so I'd never want to rely on Public transportation or something like this... I'd feel like a caged animal..


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

jsmart said:


> A virgin in her 20s has no value? That's insanity. If, *she's attractive*, a virgin ALWAYS has value to a man. She's a rare woman who many men would want to wife up.
> 
> .


The girl is almost 30! 

I have children her age that hang out with others in that age range too. Remaining a virgin at that age here in the USA has no value on a long term relationship. Why would any young late 20s or early 30s guy see her as something to snatch and marry just because she has had no vaginal sex? She sure has had sexual experiences to boot. She is by no means pure, innocent, or even naive. Her sense of being a virgin still is laughable!

"Men would want to wife up?"...Not American men for sure! Hence why she is stuck on this one that has obviously moved on to more interesting things than this virgin any man would be honored to deflower...>


----------



## staarz21 (Feb 6, 2013)

The OP is totally describing herself...which kind of makes me feel sad for her - kind of. She seems to be a little behind in the maturity department and has argued with Elegirl over in her other thread in a childish way. This makes me wonder if she really is even 28 years old. If she is, that makes it even worse. 

Living at home with mom and dad should be a LAST RESORT/EMERGENCY type situation (or if parents are too ill to care for themselves). During the time you are living rent/bill free, you should be out looking for a job because you should feel terrible for having your parents pay your way after all they have already provided for you your entire life up until now....ANY job so that you can pay anything! 

Who cares if you have to ride a bus? Hell, it would save money on a car note...many people ride public transit so they don't have to pay for a car note and insurance. 

Dropped out of high school, no college, no job. What are you doing day to day? Why do you think it's okay just to sit around and wait for someone to come take care of you? 

It's one thing if you stay at home with your children and are providing care for them throughout the day or you and your H have decided that he enjoys you being home instead of out working. That's an agreement that you and your spouse have come to...

But that's not what you're doing. Your bf doesn't even want to hang out with you....I wouldn't even call what you two have a relationship... It's time to grow up and put those big girl panties on.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

I personally would find someone at the age of 28 who's living at home with their parents a huge turn off. Unless there's extremely extenuating circumstances, adults should be out on their own.

Money doesn't mean much at all to me, but the fact that someone of that age is still living with their parents shows me that they aren't fully matured.

With what's been going in my life lately though, I honestly think if I ever found myself single again my pre-requisite would be that his parents must be dead! Ugh.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> I know this is going to be bashed as sexist, but as a man I would very possibly date a woman like that, whereas I can't imagine a woman wanting to date a man like that.
> 
> (Note that this is hypothetical because I'm happily married and *much *older than the OP.)


Did you read her other thread? The one I linked to above?

Why would you want to date a woman who is like the description in the OP and who also calls her boyfriend names, yells at him, demeans him, etc .. why? Because he does not spend enough money on her.


I guess if that's what you like in a woman, that's your choice. Most men expect a lot more.


----------



## katiecrna (Jan 29, 2016)

A 20 year old like this, maybe I would except the part thay they don't want kids. A 30 year old like this? Definitely not.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Did you read her other thread? The one I linked to above?
> 
> Why would you want to date a woman who is like the description in the OP and who also calls her boyfriend names, yells at him, demeans him, etc .. why? Because he does not spend enough money on her.
> 
> I guess if that's what you like in a woman, that's your choice. Most men expect a lot more.


I just read the other thread and I agree that someone like that would not be too interesting to me (assuming that I was single and closer to her age, of course).

But I was answering the OP in *this *thread, not the other one, and I wouldn't have any problem (again, as a younger single man) with dating a woman even if she didn't have a job and lived with her parents, leaving the issues from the other thread aside.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Bibi1031 said:


> If it is her she is talking about maybe she is working...at finding a temporary sugar daddy that is. :grin2:
> 
> I say temporary because No One wants to carry another human being on their backs, especially if they have no income to contribute to the household.
> 
> ...


I have no problem being the sole breadwinner supporting my wife. We have never had children at home.

However, if she disappeared one day, I doubt I would marry again, because it is too risky for men.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Blondilocks said:


> "I know this is going to be bashed as sexist" No bashing but very curious as to why. Please explain and state your age.


I expected to be called sexist for saying that men and women have different criteria for relationships. In this case the difference is that most men don't care much about a woman's earning potential while most women do care a lot about a man's earning potential.

If no one calls me sexist for that analysis, then obviously I was wrong in that expectation.

And I'm not sure why my age is relevant, but I'm 67.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> I expected to be called sexist for saying that men and women have different criteria for relationships. In this case the difference is that most men don't care much about a woman's earning potential while most women do care a lot about a man's earning potential.
> 
> If no one calls me sexist for that analysis, then obviously I was wrong in that expectation.
> 
> And I'm not sure why my age is relevant, but I'm 67.


I think that the reason that your age is relevant is that the younger generations have different expectations for the most part.


I know a lot of young men and women the OP's age. Expectations of who is the bread winner, etc. has come up several times over the years. There is not one of the guys that I know that would date & marry a woman who no little to no earning potential and who planned to not work. All of the young women I know support themselves before marriage and expect to continue to contribute financially after marriage.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

tech-novelist said:


> I have no problem being the sole breadwinner supporting my wife. We have never had children at home.
> 
> However, if she disappeared one day, I doubt I would marry again, because it is too risky for men.


From what I recall, both of your wives were career women. (I don't recall if your current wife is retired or not.)


----------



## Bibi1031 (Sep 14, 2015)

EleGirl said:


> I know a lot of young men and women the OP's age. Expectations of who is the bread winner, etc. has come up several times over the years. There is not one of the guys that I know that would date & marry a woman who no little to no earning potential and who planned to not work. All of the young women I know support themselves before marriage and expect to continue to contribute financially after marriage.


That's my experience as well. Long gone is the idea that anyone will marry and financially support the other spouse without the other spouse contributing financially towards the household. Quite frankly why should anyone agree to financially take care of someone else that is perfectly capable of being able to work? 

And the way this society now works where there is little regard to staying committed to one partner, why would anyone trust so blindly that another person would financially care for them til death do them part?

I wouldn't want either of my children to have that mentality. I brought up independent, self sufficient children. I hope they continue to be that way.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

This would be a big fat no but it's based on the whole profile you listed not JUST being broke. 

As for not smoking, drinking, or doing drugs making someone boring..... I have never even so much has puffed a cigarette let alone ever touched illegal drugs. And I have people who ask how on Earth I've done so many of the things I've done and I'm only 45 so let's dispense with that hogwash now about those things are needed to make you interesting.


----------



## Personal (Jan 16, 2014)

jsmart said:


> A virgin in her 20s has no value? That's insanity. If, *she's attractive*, a virgin ALWAYS has value to a man.


A virgin, attractive or otherwise that is close to her thirties or older would be a red flag for me, my first thought would be what the hell is wrong with her!

Although I have had sex with a few women who were virgins when we first shared sex together, a woman's virginity is of no particular value to me at all, so I've had no hesitation in turning down some offers of virginity along the way. So your claim that a virgin ALWAYS has value to a man is far from universally true.

Men and women aren't spoiled through having sex, so I don't see the sense in thinking that virginity is something particularly valuable.



jsmart said:


> She's a rare woman who many men would want to wife up.





nataly87 said:


> I am a 28 year old Virgin, saving myself for marriage.





nataly87 said:


> I have been in 4, and 2 engagements. In my past relationships those guys, respected my choice with wanting to wait, and never brought up if they were sexually frustrated. They were happy with what sexual activity we did do, and that was that. I have done other sexual activity, including some BDSM and my exs par-took in that as well and were all happy with what we did.





nataly87 said:


> I am into kinky, bondage things, from me getting tied up and gagged, then messed with like groped, spanked, etc. I am into this type of sexual context, than sexual intercourse, but plan to still remain a Virgin until marriage, where I will then have sexual intercourse on my honeymoon night.


 @jsmart, are you sure about that?



jsmart said:


> I don't think there are many men that are really looking for a college educated, career women. That's just feminist opinion rammed down societies throats. Any man that speaks against it is a misogynist.


What does this have to do with misogyny?

I'm happily married to a successful, university educated career woman who is in a senior management role, as a beneficiary of her achievements I think it's terrific that she is what you rail against.

My wife and I enjoy a better lifestyle because she is compensated well for her success, I can't see why you would consider that to be a bad thing.

Since I am attracted to women who are similar to me intellectually, a fair portion of my sexual partners have been educated career women as has been the same for plenty of my male friends as well.

That being the case, why do you think many men aren't looking for college and or university educated career women?



jsmart said:


> Saying that you prefer a virgin means you're an insecure man with a little d!ck and want a weak woman you can abuse.


Is that what you believe?

At the end of the day preferring virgins (Claytons or otherwise) seems a somewhat limited approach, especially considering the fact that they cease to be such once they've had sex.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

IMO attraction has nothing to do with money or possessions, it's about intelligence. Someone who is content to do nothing with their lives, no drive to contribute to society is a sign of someone who lacks intelligence. That sort of person would bore me.


----------



## Holland (Aug 20, 2012)

EleGirl said:


> *I think that the reason that your age is relevant is that the younger generations have different expectations for the most part.*
> 
> 
> I know a lot of young men and women the OP's age. Expectations of who is the bread winner, etc. has come up several times over the years. There is not one of the guys that I know that would date & marry a woman who no little to no earning potential and who planned to not work. All of the young women I know support themselves before marriage and expect to continue to contribute financially after marriage.


Not just the younger generations EG. I am 49 I cannot think of one of my peers that does not have an education and/or work very hard to contribute financially.

Before coming to TAM I had not really heard people talking about such an outdated concept. Maybe 67 is an age that has tipped Tech over into a different reality, maybe it is the town he lives in. 

As for marriage being too risky for men, marriage is equally risky for both genders. The notion that men carry more risk or have more to lose in marriage is so incredibly outdated.
However it does make clearer some of the puzzle: men that simply want to marry a woman to take care of them and to not go out to work are the ones that seem to complain that marriage is too risky for men. They seem to feel that as they (the man) has worked outside the home for payment that the money belongs only to them.

If a man wants a mummy, a cook and a cleaner then don't be surprised when the wife gets jack of living this way and moves on. No she isn't taking all your money, she is taking her rightful entitlement as she contributed to the assets.

Personally I know more women that take a bigger risk by getting married than men.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

Holland said:


> .
> As for marriage being too risky for men, marriage is equally risky for both genders. The notion that men carry more risk or have more to lose in marriage is so incredibly outdated.


Not sure about this, especially in the US, men do seem to get royally screwed in a divorce. Some of them get stuck with alimony that goes on for years and years - which to you and I here in Aus, where there is no alimony except in very extenuating circumstances, that seems insane.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

nataly87 said:


> What if the person have other traits, could cook, clean, knew how to use public transit, riding buses, subways, trains, walking, riding a bike etc. They were very loving, caring, nice, respectful of the other person, know what they wanted etc.
> 
> The person has a driver's license but they don't have any income to pay for insurance, so they use public transit instead. As far as education, college isn't for everyone. As for money, if they knew how to save their money and use it wisely and had some saved and could still go out and date others, would you still go for someone like this?


Perhaps it is a matter of compatibility though I am not sure one saves money having not earned it first. 

Somehow I manage to cook, clean am very loving, supportive and caring. And still manage to not mooch off of Mamma and Dadda. And have been doing some since I was about 19.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

nataly87 said:


> A lot of young people in today's society live at home, who are in their 20's and 30s, why is that such a big deal? Renting in some states costs a lot so living on your own isn't that *easy*.


I wonder when the pursuit of ease became so popular. I will grant that it was a long time ago when I was 20 beginning life of a young adult. Things were different back then, and I am not talking about this supposedly crippling economy. Parents did not raise their kids to think that they would be supported by someone else into their 40s and beyond because life was not "easy".

People who want to live a grown up lifestyle should get with the idea that it usually requires being grown up to achieve.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

Bibi1031 said:


> If it is her she is talking about maybe she is working...at finding a temporary sugar daddy that is. :grin2:
> 
> I say temporary because No One wants to carry another human being on their backs, especially if they have no income to contribute to the household.
> 
> ...




Or... gasp... he can cook and clean for himself! I know. Crazy talk.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

The problem with "living on your own" is that a lot of times it's not "living on your own", or, if it is, it prepares one foot future fails.

My daughters will be living partially or fully off my dime till their late 20's. One as a PhD student and one in medical school hopefully. 

If I had instilled the " get them out by Friday " (look up the song by Genesis) ideology to them and me they would have wasted excellent intellectual capital working underemployed type jobs. 

The USA makes it too easy to "live on your own" and kids often take that path for short term gratification and long term disaster.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

john117 said:


> The problem with "living on your own" is that a lot of times it's not "living on your own", or, if it is, it prepares one foot future fails.
> 
> My daughters will be living partially or fully off my dime till their late 20's. One as a PhD student and one in medical school hopefully.
> 
> ...


There is nothing wrong with continuing to help young adults as they pursue higher education or other useful endeavors. There is nothing right with supporting your freeloading supposed grown up.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

NobodySpecial said:


> There is nothing wrong with continuing to help young adults as they pursue higher education or other useful endeavors. There is nothing right with supporting your freeloading supposed grown up.


I know - but if said young adults are being told to move out over and over again at age 18, this creates a bit of a la la land situation... 

I just read that despite free college, kids in Sweden incur serious debt because they move out to attend college, and living on their own ain't cheap. In USA there's plenty of low paying service jobs that sustain people but without a future. The answer is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Holland said:


> Not just the younger generations EG. I am 49 I cannot think of one of my peers that does not have an education and/or work very hard to contribute financially.


I’m 66. My peers, like yours, are educated and/or work hard to contribute financially. The only ones I know who don’t are older than me… and were SAHMs.


Holland said:


> Before coming to TAM I had not really heard people talking about such an outdated concept. Maybe 67 is an age that has tipped Tech over into a different reality, maybe it is the town he lives in.


No, 67 is not the tipping age on this. However, it was more common in my generation for people to have grown up with a SAHM. In the younger generations today, very few of them had SAHMs.


Holland said:


> As for marriage being too risky for men, marriage is equally risky for both genders. The notion that men carry more risk or have more to lose in marriage is so incredibly outdated. .


I agree. I know that for me, marriage devastated me financially. The idea that marriage is a much larger risk for men is just nonsense.


Holland said:


> However it does make clearer some of the puzzle: men that simply want to marry a woman to take care of them and to not go out to work are the ones that seem to complain that marriage is too risky for men. They seem to feel that as they (the man) has worked outside the home for payment that the money belongs only to them. .
> 
> If a man wants a mummy, a cook and a cleaner then don't be surprised when the wife gets jack of living this way and moves on. No she isn't taking all your money, she is taking her rightful entitlement as she contributed to the assets. .


LOL.. yep



Holland said:


> Personally I know more women that take a bigger risk by getting married than men.


I agree


----------



## As'laDain (Nov 27, 2011)

I married a 22 year old woman that was like that. dated her for several weeks, married her. paid off her 15k debt in the first year. 
she gave me a lot of flack over money too. first couple years were miserable. nowadays, she runs our business and is, generally speaking, amazing in every way.

I changed, and then she changed. 

OP, anyone who has a successful marriage with you will not make life easy on you. not at first at least. you will likely either have to change or have your world come tumbling down around you.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

When I first started dating my wife, she was broke and living at home and it was no problem.

Because she was going to school full-time working on her first degree, getting straight A's, and working full-time to pay for it herself.

There's a difference between having no money and having no ambition.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> From what I recall, both of your wives were career women. (I don't recall if your current wife is retired or not.)


My first wife was indeed a career woman.

My current wife worked only a little after we married and retired some time ago.

But again, I wasn't looking for her financial contribution.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> I think that the reason that your age is relevant is that the younger generations have different expectations for the most part.
> 
> I know a lot of young men and women the OP's age. Expectations of who is the bread winner, etc. has come up several times over the years. There is not one of the guys that I know that would date & marry a woman who no little to no earning potential and who planned to not work. All of the young women I know support themselves before marriage and expect to continue to contribute financially after marriage.


Upon further consideration, if I were a young unmarried man, I would be very reluctant to marry someone who didn't support herself.

At least in the USA, where that is like playing Russian roulette, only with worse odds. In a country where divorce is not profitable to non-working spouses (note lack of gender specificity), I might have a different opinion.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> My first wife was indeed a career woman.
> 
> My current wife worked only a little after we married and retired some time ago.
> 
> But again, I wasn't looking for her financial contribution.


I guess I like the new world order for me and my kids. Around here, alimony is based entirely around ability to pay. So if a man were going to marry a traditional woman, buyer beware. Since this is very unlikely with my son, he is more likely to have a wife who CAN contribute. Now over the course of their long lives they choose to support each other in the name of family or education or whatever, more power to them. I know that if my husband and I broke up during his unemployment, I'd have paid through the nose. But my nose is big, and a happy family takes compromise. Likewise he would have had some big payments if we had broken up back when I was home with the kids. But in both of our cases, it would have been short term and recoverable. For both of my kids I am happy that they will never be at someone else' mercy for lack of ability to support themselves and their own future children.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> Upon further consideration, if I were a young unmarried man, I would be very reluctant to marry someone who didn't support herself.
> 
> At least in the USA, where that is like playing Russian roulette, only with worse odds. In a country where divorce is not profitable to non-working spouses (note lack of gender specificity), I might have a different opinion.


A-frickin-man, though "profitable" is a bit of a stretch. More like how to make one income that formerly supported two household now support one.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> A-frickin-man, though "profitable" is a bit of a stretch. More like how to *make one income that formerly supported two household now support one*.


I think you have *that *backwards.


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> I think you have *that *backwards.


How so? If you (rhetorical) accept yourself at the breadwinner, and the single household becomes two, how does that math not add up?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NobodySpecial said:


> How so? If you (rhetorical) accept yourself at the breadwinner, and the single household becomes two, how does that math not add up?


Because one income that formerly supported one household now has to support two households, not vice versa.

Or am I just completely misunderstanding what you were trying to say?


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

tech-novelist said:


> Because one income that formerly supported one household now has to support two households, not vice versa.
> 
> Or am I just completely misunderstanding what you were trying to say?


No. You are totally understanding what I was TRYING to say. Just not what I ACTUALLY said.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

To say that men have greater risk in marriage is to completely ignore great swathes of people in circumstances that the average person would prefer to pretend don't exist.


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

I have and would but I would never marry them unless they were on an equal or greater footing than me financially.


----------



## Froggi2 (Mar 29, 2016)

nataly87 said:


> For all the guys and girls out there, would you date someone in this situation,
> 
> 
> Was in their age of 20-30's
> ...



Nope. I prefer adults.


----------



## nataly87 (Apr 29, 2016)

Whatever happened to accepting people for who they are? I've heard there are some people who married their partners, this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.


----------



## kristin2349 (Sep 12, 2013)

nataly87 said:


> *Whatever happened to accepting people for who they are?* I've heard there are some people who married their partners, this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.



You couldn't accept that your boyfriend chose to save his money or buy drones and magic cards instead of taking you on dates!


----------



## NobodySpecial (Nov 22, 2013)

nataly87 said:


> Whatever happened to accepting people for who they are? I've heard there are some people who married their partners, this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.


Lucky her! My acceptance of someone for whom they are does not extend to partnering them despite my best interest. I would not *want* to accept someone for being a lazy looser.


----------



## Anon1111 (May 29, 2013)

I'm going to guess OP has some kind of special needs, possibly undiagnosed.

too many weird details-- late 20s virgin, lives at home, doesn't work or go to school, seems unable to understand some pretty obvious social norms.

OP-- I'm seriously not trying to offend you, but you might do better to think less of what people "should" do and just focus on what is right for you.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> Whatever happened to accepting people for who they are? I've heard there are some people who married their partners, this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.


Yes indeed Nat, Whatever did happen to accepting people for who they are? I'm the Guy who doesn't marry entitled princesses. Accept me! But, for the love of all that is good, don't marry me.


----------



## Illbehisfoolagain (May 7, 2012)

Yes, 100% you could find a man who would love and accept you and want to marry you and have you live with him and take care of you. However, I highly doubt he would be the type of man you have in mind. There are all sorts of extremely kind, loving, very lonely men out there who are quite financially stable, and would love to have a special woman who loves them to marry and take care of the rest of their lives. These lonely men who would gladly love someone for as long as that someone would let them. I don't mean to be mean when I say this, its just the truth that some people are more physically attractive than others, but these lonely men are usually very physically unattractive men, however, that doesnt sound like it would be a problem for you because you have embraced loving someone for their hearts and who they are, and not the more frivolous and shallow traits. 




nataly87 said:


> Whatever happened to accepting people for who they are? I've heard there are some people who married their partners, this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

john117 said:


> I know - but if said young adults are being told to move out over and over again at age 18, this creates a bit of a la la land situation...


I started working at age 16.. had my own car.. coming home from a date with my husband on my 18th birthday.. my Step Mother had my bedroom on the porch.. I was to leave and not come back..my husband couldn't believe they did that to me.. he always felt I was emotionally abused at home.. I did move in with friends.. then a camper in someone's back yard. I didn't want all my money being blown on high rent.. (I was a saver)...here my husbands parents insisted I move in with them...

I had 3 jobs at one time back then...he also worked since age 16...we saved all our money, paid for our larger wedding...6 yrs into our marriage, we was able to put down near half on our dream house... 

We've never borrowed off of any family members.. we are more well off than any of them even.. I'd say we had a plan.. but some might turn up their noses just cause we lived with family till we married.. I think that's shame. 

I don't see every situation so black and white.. it depends.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

nataly87 said:


> ... this one friend of mine said they met their partner who was homeless, and they got together and fell in love and have been together for a long time now.


I don't believe it and I call total b.s. Why the heck would anyone date and marry a homeless person? In the center of my town we have a huge number of homeless. Many are mentally ill and should be institutionalized. Others are drug addicts. Others just want to drop out of society because they don't fit.

I bet your friend's parents were absolutely thrilled their child took up with a homeless person.

But they lived happily ever after. Sorry, don't buy it.


----------



## Threeblessings (Sep 23, 2015)

Ambition is important to me. There is always some potential in every person. College may or may not be for you but education is essential for improving ourselves and career prospects.


----------

