It is not quid pro quo...

[Sam Spade]

It seems that people (both men and women, but mostly women) consistently miss the point that a successful relationship is not based on tit for tat exchanges, but on complementarity. I.e. the two individuals have their own unique strengths and weaknesses that combined are more than the sum of the parts; conversely, piling more of the same (i.e. piring "equals") adds much less value. If so, that means that the partners in a successful relationship are not equal in most aspects, but complement each other.

 

What finally made me realize this were the recent discussions where the empirical fact that men often marry "down" but women almost never do were brought up.

 

It only makes sense - if you already have something (either an asset or a personality trait), how is more of the same going to make you any better off? Instead, you are much better off looking for a partner who possesses qualities and characteristics that complement your own.

 

There are many possible combinations, but the most obvious example is if you are a successful man, why would you want a successful woman? She is your equal, so that by definition does not complement you and your life, maybe just changes the scale a bit. That's precisely why you see so many rich men with less than accomplished women. (seeing it in my own family - my brother is an extremely accomplished lawyer who married a girl with GED and couldn't be happier, because they mesh so well.) This logic also extends to personality traits: if you are a dominant, alpha type, you will derive a lot more utility from pairing with cute, feminine type rather than another alpha. The complementarity of the two is arguably more efficient and has a much higher value than the (i'd say inevitable) clash of two alphas. If you are decisive and impulsive, the couple is probably better off if the other person is the level-headed, contemplative one than just as impulsive. Etc. etc. etc., there are infinitely many combinations.

 

So the question then is why, why, why is it so important that men are women's equals, at least as far as credentials and incomes are concerned? We've seen it stated hundreds of times on these threads: "I won't marry a man who doesn't make at least as much as I do, isn't at least as intelligent as I am, isn't at least as educated as I am". etc. etc. etc.

 

My neighbor across the street is the stereotypical example: 37 years old, not particularly attractive (but okay looking), makes very good money as a pharmaceutical rep. She will die alone - she goes through guys like handrekchiefs, and they are never good enough - they aren't real men in her own words (because they don't make as much as she does:rolleyes:). She doesn't even consider whether they could work together, she just pushes the "next" button over and over again...

 

Say what you will about men, but it seems that they are likely to consider the importance of complementarity - broadly defined - rather than obsessing over the status implications of pairing with someone who might not quite be their equal in some respect .

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sam Spade

[Stockalone]

Well, it's not like your sister-in-law married "down".

 

I do agree with you to some extent though. I don't always understand why some women put so much emphasis on it.

 

Then again, if I were a woman, I'd have certain expectations too. I can think of plenty of reasons why women want a man who is their equal, or at least close to it (including income wise).

[Sam Spade]

Well, it's not like your sister-in-law married "down".

 

I do agree with you to some extent though. I don't always understand why some women put so much emphasis on it.

 

Then again, if I were a woman, I'd have certain expectations too. I can think of plenty of reasons why women want a man who is their equal, or at least close to it (including income wise).

 

I'm certainly not talking about extreme examples (say marrying the janitor), but my impression is that a salary of 50-60k on the dating market is considered "meh", "so-so", i.e. not likely to score any major brownie points in the peer group...

 

The thing is that there is quantifiable point at which you can lead a comfortable, if modest, life, and that point is precisely somewhere in the 50-60k region. So anything beyond that should be just a bonus, if present, and take the back seat to more important concerns such as the complementarity of characters, which rarely happens since the external measures of success/equality are at or near the top of women's screening process...

 

 

Moreover, a woman making 60k + a man making 40k will have a decent life, yet you will see this combo very, very rarely, if ever. So, there is no real reason for a woman to demand that the man makes just as much as her, since what they'd be making in the above scenario is already good enough, objectively speaking.

 

I make 65k, and per the above calculations wouldn't care how much exactly a woman makes, as long as she can pull in an additional 20-30k to cover vacations and some savings cushion, and that's that... Would I like to date an MD making 100k+? Sure. Would I trade a low income gf for an incompatible one? NO way.

 

(this is purely hypothetical - my actual gf will be making close to what I'm making upon graduation, the point is that I wouldn't care if it was a fraction of that)

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sam Spade

[doushenka]

I'm certainly not talking about extreme examples (say marrying the janitor), but my impression is that a salary of 50-60k on the dating market is considered "meh", "so-so", i.e. not likely to score any major brownie points in the peer group...

 

What?!

 

I'd feel downright wealthy if I were that man's wife. 60K is nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays with so much of the wealth concentrated in such a small segment of society. 60K per household is more realistic to me; I expect I won't make more than 30K doing what I love.

 

What matters more to me than the number is what he does with it. He could make 100K and mismanage it horribly; that would not be an ideal partner at all. I admire the man who makes 20 or 30 and makes it count. Don't buy me things you can't afford. Don't insist on a fancy house or a boat. Just keep yourself fed and clothed. Common sense is uncommonly sexy.

[threebyfate]

Well, it's not like your sister-in-law married "down".

 

I do agree with you to some extent though. I don't always understand why some women put so much emphasis on it.

 

Then again, if I were a woman, I'd have certain expectations too. I can think of plenty of reasons why women want a man who is their equal, or at least close to it (including income wise).

Our marriage is one of equals, in most ways, including being dominant personality types. It is by and large, THE singular most healthy, loving and easiest relationship, I've ever experienced in my life. This includes 6 LTRs where two ended in marriage and a number of STRs. He's as close to a soulmate, as I'm willing to use that term.

[Woggle]

Both my wife and I think of money as simply the resources to do the things we want to do. Neither one of us give a damn about status or keeping up with the Joneses or any of that so it works well.

[Sam Spade]

Both my wife and I think of money as simply the resources to do the things we want to do. Neither one of us give a damn about status or keeping up with the Joneses or any of that so it works well.

 

Sweet! And good for you. Not everybody is so lucky: I have a colleague who is currently dating a vet (i.e. by and large his equal). He has explicitly confessed that he feels as if the quality of the relationship is at least partially conditional on his ability to buy new appliances and cool vacations

[Stockalone]

Our marriage is one of equals, in most ways, including being dominant personality types. It is by and large, THE singular most healthy, loving and easiest relationship, I've ever experienced in my life. This includes 6 LTRs where two ended in marriage and a number of STRs. He's as close to a soulmate, as I'm willing to use that term.

 

I can see the value in both cases. Either preferring a relationship with someone who is a lot like yourself, like you and your husband.

 

Or preferring a relationship with someone who has a different, yet complementary personality.

 

Personally, I prefer some similarities with distinct differences in other areas as long as we don't have polar opposite personalities/values.

 

And as I said, I can understand if wanting an equal partner includes a similar income.

 

What I do not understand is the example Sam used. If the woman makes 60k and the man makes 40k, I don't see why that would be a dealbreaker. Maybe it would be a dealbreaker for some women; and if it is that is their right, but I wouldn't understand it.

 

 

 

I'm certainly not talking about extreme examples (say marrying the janitor), but my impression is that a salary of 50-60k on the dating market is considered "meh", "so-so", i.e. not likely to score any major brownie points in the peer group...

 

There is no doubt that the majority of women care about how much a guy makes.

 

But let's say a guy makes 40k and the woman earns 60k. Do you really think that most women would dump the guy because of that? I honestly have no idea, but I would assume they wouldn't.

 

I guess it also depends on how you'd divide living expenses, once you are married. Would you keep separate accounts while everyone pays half, or would all money go into one household account.

 

I should add that I am not an American, so I am not familiar with the costs of living or the income structures.

 

But let's just say you have a woman who is a MD making 100k+ or someone who is self-employed and making even more, say 150k+. That means she has a quite a bit of disposable income. What if she has grown to like the lifestyle that she works for and can afford?

 

If she meets a guy who makes 40k, that can become a problem. I am not sure if she would dismiss the guy immediately, but even if she did, we can't really blame her. On the other hand, if said woman demanded that a guy makes at least what she does (meaning less than 100k wouldn't be good enough), then I can see your point.

 

But if you think about it, even such a preference wouldn't be outrageous. Granted, it will also drastically narrow down the number of potential partners. But, if she works in a field where you earn that kind of money, she would meet plenty of men who earn as much as she does. And that means she will have opportunities to meet a suitable partner.

 

If you think about it, that isn't much different than a man saying he wants a gf or wife who is in the top 5% in terms of looks. Though that is harder to quantify than income.

 

You could even reverse roles. What if a guy makes "x" Dollars (doesn't matter how much he makes) but wouldn't want his wife to be a full-time housewife. He thinks a woman should provide some money to the household income, not matter what the circumstances. What would he do if he met a woman who wants the "traditional" role, become a SAHM when they have kids or simply take care of the household while the man brings home the bacon?

[Sam Spade]

What?!

 

I'd feel downright wealthy if I were that man's wife. 60K is nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays with so much of the wealth concentrated in such a small segment of society. 60K per household is more realistic to me; I expect I won't make more than 30K doing what I love.

 

What matters more to me than the number is what he does with it. He could make 100K and mismanage it horribly; that would not be an ideal partner at all. I admire the man who makes 20 or 30 and makes it count. Don't buy me things you can't afford. Don't insist on a fancy house or a boat. Just keep yourself fed and clothed. Common sense is uncommonly sexy.

 

That's my point exactly. These ARE good money objectively, but they are still sneezed at by women in the same income bracket.

[Crusoe]

Most people are more interested in what they can get, rather than what they can give. Therefore they fall in love with the external, not the internal.

[SadandConfusedWA]

Sam, if only all men thought like you

 

TBF's marriage of two alphas seems like my worst nightmare...

[threebyfate]

Or preferring a relationship with someone who has a different, yet complementary personality.

I don't know about anyone else, but I select men who don't need me to compensate for them. Our marriage is based on wanting to be together, rather than needing each other, hence finding someone to compensate for your own flaws.

Personally, I prefer some similarities with distinct differences in other areas as long as we don't have polar opposite personalities/values.

We do have some distinct differences, like career paths, where he's in law and I'm in finance. He's very much into going to the gym and team sports, where I prefer to work out at home. He prefers jazz/blues, where mine is pretty eclectic. But if you dig deeper with all three, we're both career oriented, like to stay in shape and enjoy music.

 

And as I said, I can understand if wanting an equal partner includes a similar income.

This way, you can rest assured that you haven't bonded to a gold digger or someone who wants to be taken care of by a father or mother figure.

What I do not understand is the example Sam used. If the woman makes 60k and the man makes 40k, I don't see why that would be a dealbreaker. Maybe it would be a dealbreaker for some women; and if it is that is their right, but I wouldn't understand it.

That doesn't strike me as a dealbreaker difference. If the spread was double or greater, I could understand it.

[Stockalone]

I don't know about anyone else, but I select men who don't need me to compensate for them. Our marriage is based on wanting to be together, rather than needing each other, hence finding someone to compensate for your own flaws.

 

Needing each other is definitely part of it for me.

 

I am judgmental and impatient, among other things as far as flaws are concerned. Having a partner who is different is good for me. I become a nicer (better if you will) person with someone who grounds me. Having a woman at my side who leads by example takes the edge off, it makes me more well-adjusted. It helps me do the right thing.

 

And usually, I have the same effect on the woman. I have good traits, things that can help or guide them towards something they had a hard time achieving on their own.

 

 

We do have some distinct differences, like career paths, where he's in law and I'm in finance. He's very much into going to the gym and team sports, where I prefer to work out at home. He prefers jazz/blues, where mine is pretty eclectic. But if you dig deeper with all three, we're both career oriented, like to stay in shape and enjoy music.

 

To me, those are rather nuances than distinct differences.

 

For example, the women I'm usually drawn towards turn out to have a strong artistic interest and very broad knowledge, something I do not possess. The things I can get glimpses of when I try to see things through their eyes, learning about those things they are passionate about, that amazes me.

 

It more often than not broadens my horizon, which is also something that is good. I sometimes need a gentle push to look at things from a new angle.

 

And they always roll their eyes when I talk about soccer , one of my earliest passions/loves. But they are also understanding and comfort me when my favourite club loses, even though they think it's silly that 22 guys chase one ball.

[deux ex machina]

What?!

 

I'd feel downright wealthy if I were that man's wife. 60K is nothing to sneeze at, especially nowadays with so much of the wealth concentrated in such a small segment of society. 60K per household is more realistic to me; I expect I won't make more than 30K doing what I love.

 

What matters more to me than the number is what he does with it. He could make 100K and mismanage it horribly; that would not be an ideal partner at all. I admire the man who makes 20 or 30 and makes it count. Don't buy me things you can't afford. Don't insist on a fancy house or a boat. Just keep yourself fed and clothed. Common sense is uncommonly sexy.

 

 

I feel the same way.

[threebyfate]

I am judgmental and impatient, among other things as far as flaws are concerned. Having a partner who is different is good for me. I become a nicer (better if you will) person with someone who grounds me. Having a woman at my side who leads by example takes the edge off, it makes me more well-adjusted. It helps me do the right thing.

 

And usually, I have the same effect on the woman. I have good traits, things that can help or guide them towards something they had a hard time achieving on their own.

You have a point here, in that my h. is a de-escalator and negotiator, so when we argue, we also end up resolving every issue. In this, he's the master of the technique, where I sit at his knee, his admiring and respectful pupil!

 

But when it comes to financial matters, he bows to my expertise. In the past, he's always relied on portfolio managers to handle his accounts in a discretionary fashion, so he doesn't need to mess with it. For the past year, he's been learning how to be self-sufficient and has done very well, with help.

 

So yes, we do complement each other in these two areas, but if left to our own devices, we're still capable of independently handling them, whether with professional help or not.

To me, those are rather nuances than distinct differences.

 

For example, the women I'm usually drawn towards turn out to have a strong artistic interest and very broad knowledge, something I do not possess. The things I can get glimpses of when I try to see things through their eyes, learning about those things they are passionate about, that amazes me.

 

It more often than not broadens my horizon, which is also something that is good. I sometimes need a gentle push to look at things from a new angle.

 

And they always roll their eyes when I talk about soccer , one of my earliest passions/loves. But they are also understanding and comfort me when my favourite club loses, even though they think it's silly that 22 guys chase one ball.

Perhaps what you're saying, is that with the right SO and relationship, you can exceed yourself. If that's the case, I don't disagree, since that's what viable relationships should entail, rather than vampiring off each other, you both vault higher.

[Rudderless]

It seems that people (both men and women, but mostly women) consistently miss the point that a successful relationship is not based on tit for tat exchanges, but on complementarity. I.e. the two individuals have their own unique strengths and weaknesses that combined are more than the sum of the parts; conversely, piling more of the same (i.e. piring "equals") adds much less value. If so, that means that the partners in a successful relationship are not equal in most aspects, but complement each other.

 

I hate to pop your personal epiphany but statistically, the most long lasting marriages are where the partners are of similar income, similar backgrounds, similar beliefs, and similar age.

[ADF]

OP, I think your basic premise is flawed. ALL relationships--romantic, platonic, familial, et al--require reciprocity, or what you call pro quo. The mistake people make is they wait around for The One--that person who is a perfect fit, which "compliments" them precisely. Well, guess what? The One is a lie. The One doesn't exist. Don't wait around for The One, because he/she ain't coming. No two people are perfectly suited to each other. The only way their relationship survives is though give and take, and that give and take needs to be roughly equal. Otherwise, one person ends up dominating the other, which breeds resentment and ultimately kills the relationship.