Women asking guys out?

Post Reply New Topic

The purchase power 20 years ago was much higher.

Are we back to arguing about whether or not having a little money to spend is an unreasonable thing to expect in a mate?

Let me bring this to a conclusion once and for all. It's not.

In your opinion.

Most men couldn't care less about a partners earning potential.

Indeed, what's actually unreasonable is our entire modern concept of money in the first place.

It's a female thing, most men don't care.

Should men who can’t just die then?

I have a little money. Middle class income isn’t little money it’s a lot of money. Spending $4,000 on a vacation isn’t little money.
Poor minnwage people have little money.

Indeed!

@sly
Would it be possible to upskill and still work part time but in a better paying job?

Also have you considered trying to meet and date disabled women? They might be more empathetic towards your struggles and more accepting. Depending on the nature of the disability, they might also require assistance that may be more difficult for a full-time worker to provide.

The fact is no part time job will every pay the same as someone making $22 and hour working full time. That’s what most women demand. So I’ll never be able to meet their requirements.

Upskill?
I might add I’d have to make 2,000 a month or more if I go over 1,200 income. I’ll lose social security for good. With it my medical coverage. Credit will start collecting 25% from gross. I’ll have to pay $150 a month on top of it all for college loans. We’ll losing housing so I’ll have to pay the rent which alone is 1,200 a month.
So excluding the credit debt which is dependent on how much I make.
1200+150+300-500 for medical coverage, and then I’ll have to pay the bills. We get assistance for electrical but we’ll lose it so thst probably be $900ish for bill(electr,water, trash,cable)so that’s what 2,550 from rent,medical,and bills alone.
Credit will take their 25% regardless of my bills and rent. So actually I’d need to make $3,000 a month or more. What part time job pays that? And that’s not including the $750 a month for a car and insurance I’d be expected to have to meet most women’s requirements. Oh and $50 a month for bus if I don’t get a car.
We rent a cheap house. Most cheap single bedroom apartments in my area are $950ish.
And my city is a poor city. Eugene is like double. That’s where most the work is.

Yes and you’d think they would be, but actually due to them being poor they want a well off man more then other women. Similar to women who live at home and work min wage. Honestly realistically it makes more sense a well of woman who doesn’t need income or a car would be more accepting. Not reality though.
A poor or unemployed woman doesn’t have income or a car, so she needs a man to provide those. I can’t. Atleast they were honest I guess.

I would disagree. A well-off woman would probably feel she deserves a well-off man. Some of the women on this forum already mentioned the fact that well-off women may want to do things that require money with their SO and not have to flip the bill all the time because he can't afford it. You may say 'well they don't need to do things that cost money' which is true, but as hard-working women they may feel like they've earned it, so whether they need it or not is irrelevant if they have the means to make it happen.

Well-off men are more lenient with less well-off women because if that woman isn't working or works much fewer hours, she can still add value by assuming the 'housewife' role. Though househusbands are more common than ever nowadays, I don't think many couples meet under circumstances where the man is expected to take on the househusband role. Seems to me when that does happen it tends to be after the couple's been dating for a while and either the man loses his job or the woman wants to step it up with her career.

It's a fact of the world even if you think it's an unfair one.

Yes, as much as it's not unfair to reject women because of small boobs or obesity. Providing in exchange of fertility/health.

I'm all for rejecting people on whatever basis you see fit. Only you can decide whether you perceive somebody to be worth dating and making your exclusive other or not. Rejecting someone based on their weight, height, income, boob size, whatever, it's all the same. If you believe you can get with someone closer to your ideal, and/or you'd prefer to be single than 'settle' for someone with a low income or small boobs, that's completely your prerogative. Date only people with blue eyes and purple hair for all I care, at the end of the day nobody should have their standards dictated to them or be shamed for them, no matter how specific they may be.

If you can't attract a partner who meets your standards or can't even find such a person, it's ultimately up to you whether you'd rather remain single and hold out hope or lower your standards and allow for a greater pool of prospective partners.

If a woman likes to do things that cost money. I fail to see how it's "unreasonable" to want a man who can at least pay his own way.

I've known several men who had no interest in supporting a woman, and I didn't see their preference as "unreasonable."

This.

I've never understood why some people get offended and pissy over what others find attractive. IMHO, people are allowed to like what they like. What's "unreasonable" is to expect the world to change to accommodate you.

Oh it is unfair, but that is my point. Attraction is inherently unfair. Let us acknowledge that fully so perhaps Sly and others here can move past that hang up, because it's not helping them to dwell on it.