online dating - salary requirements

[Star Gazer]

I don't think this is that big of a deal, especially if the women do make decent money themselves.

 

I once saw a Match.com profile for a girl who indicated that she made $40 or $50k or something around that. This was a very attractive girl in her mid-20s. However, she actually wrote in her profile that she enjoys vacations and likes to stay at 4- or 5-star hotels. Obviously she isn't going to be able to afford nights at too many top rated hotels unless she's leeching off a rich guy (either that or she spends all of her salary and hasn't saved anything). I thought that her profile made her seem like a total gold-digger.

 

I find it odd that someone puts things like that in their profile at all.

 

That said, plenty of my friends earn around $50K and still manage VERY nice vacations. It depends on what a person focuses their money on. Some people spend money on material things, others spend money on experiences (vacations being one of them). I'm in the latter group myself, and managed to stay at 4-star resorts when I was 21 and earning less than $30K a year (yes, on my own dime). Just food for thought.

[zengirl]

From the beginning I merely stated that equal opportunity is disadvantegous for men. U were the one who disagreed n so far u have only shown how equality benefits women which I already said I absolutely agree with. However u have not presented any argument againstmy claim that equal opportunity is socially inequal for men. Perhaps u just don't care n I understand.

 

As for ur suggestion for me to leave the country, do u realize how rather foolish that is? Most chinese want to live in the usa so why don't they just come here tomorrow then?

 

And my point is that saying Equal Pay is disadvantageous for men is true in about the same way as saying abolishing slavery is disadvantageous for white people. Equality benefits everyone by providing a more free, moral society.

 

I don't agree with barring women from any jobs but I do think that if women demand men play their traditional role then they should not get mad when asked to play theirs. There are some women who demand that a man be the man but roll their eyes when asked to do anything that is considered traditionally female.

 

I think we shouldn't look at men and women as a whole and legislate against any one sex (barring women OR men from anything). I think, in a relationship, both partners should communicate and work out a system that works for them.

 

Now, I would understand a man not wanting to support his wife without her contributing anything to the household in return (or woman not wanting to support her husband without him making a contribution, for that matter), but that's the individual's choice, isn't it? I don't really care what my neighbors do. You do your best to find someone whose value system and goals mesh with yours and then you build a life with them, or you stay single if you please, or whatever.

 

Tying any sort of overarching social expectations or, worse, laws to dating dynamics is foolish, as dating dynamics are personal.

[Art_Critic]

I find it odd that someone puts things like that in their profile at all.

 

What is missed by many SG is that profiles that are written like that are geared toward a certain kind of guy.. the kind of guy that would pay for an escort .. they aren't looking for friday night date at the movies

 

Everybody thinks all the women on match.com and other online sites are there to date and they aren't..

 

Many many profiles are escorts or hookers and they use those sites to fish for customers..

There was a lady of evening poster that used to post on LS and that is also what she uses the online sites for..

 

When I did online dating I would guess that 15-20% of the profiles out there were escorts/hookers..

I have even had them proposition me thru email.

[musemaj11]

And my point is that saying Equal Pay is disadvantageous for men is true in about the same way as saying abolishing slavery is disadvantageous for white people. Equality benefits everyone by providing a more free, moral society.

The abolishment of slavery put blacks and whites on an even playing field. Both sides now are neither at a disadvantage or at an advantage.

 

But come on, you really cannot honestly say the same about 'gender equality'. Blacks and whites dont necessarily need each other while due to biological reason, men and women do need each other. Equality puts men at a disadvantage while it puts women at a disadvantage in terms of interpersonal relation instead of an even playing field for all. Can you really not see my position?

 

In addition giving jobs to men instead of women is more beneficial to society as a whole. A man's pay check will feed not only himself but also at least one woman and one child. On the other hand, in nearly all cases, a woman's pay check will feed only herself or also at least one child if she is a single mother.

 

Give a man money and he will spread it around ...

[flying]

The abolishment of slavery put blacks and whites on an even playing field. Both sides now are neither at a disadvantage or at an advantage.

 

But come on, you really cannot honestly say the same about 'gender equality'. Blacks and whites dont necessarily need each other while due to biological reason, men and women do need each other. Equality puts men at a disadvantage while it puts women at a disadvantage in terms of interpersonal relation instead of an even playing field for all. Can you really not see my position?

 

In addition giving jobs to men instead of women is more beneficial to society as a whole. A man's pay check will feed not only himself but also at least one woman and one child. On the other hand, in nearly all cases, a woman's pay check will feed only herself or also at least one child if she is a single mother.

 

Give a man money and he will spread it around ...

 

Honestly, I don't find this argument to be very convincing. You're making a lot of assumptions that don't hold up in the light of day, both good and bad, about both men and women. I think you just have a particular view of relationships and what you want - and that's fine. But you're trying to force-fit your opinions into hard fact, and, well...they don't fit.

 

For example, the statement, "a man's pay check will feed not only himself but at least one woman and one child" - well...the word that comes to my mind is: naive. I know you objected to this earlier, but you do sound young, and like you have little experience beyond a 1950's view of the family.

 

I'm not saying lots of guys don't bear the brunt of wage-earning - but a) even most of them don't do it alone, because most families are two-income; and b) many, many men do NOT support families or even one partner, but only themselves. And yes, many women do support their entire families. So if you were to actually take this apart...well, it just doesn't really happen in the way you've outlined. You're just not operating in the realm of fact, here - this is how you think it ought to be, not how it is.

 

I have to ask...are you from the US, or elsewhere? Just curious.

Edited December 1, 2010 by flying

[donnamaybe]

Back when I tried online dating quite some time ago, I chose the LOWEST salary range as my minimum standard (like 0 to $20,000 a year), meaning I just want a guy who at least pays his OWN way. I got some dumbass messaging me telling me how he lived in a box (with a computer? Um, okay) and was taking digs at me for having expectations.

[musemaj11]

For example, the statement, "a man's pay check will feed not only himself but at least one woman and one child" - well...the word that comes to my mind is: naive. I know you objected to this earlier, but you do sound young, and like you have little experience beyond a 1950's view of the family.

Im 25 and compared to you 40 or 50 year olds I am indeed young. But I really see little relevance.

 

I'm not saying lots of guys don't bear the brunt of wage-earning - but a) even most of them don't do it alone, because most families are two-income; and b) many, many men do NOT support families or even one partner, but only themselves. And yes, many women do support their entire families. So if you were to actually take this apart...well, it just doesn't really happen in the way you've outlined. You're just not operating in the realm of fact, here - this is how you think it ought to be, not how it is.

Look, this is the basic of my argument: Whether it is in USA or Zimbabwe, unlike men, women (minus very few exceptions) will always seek men who make more than them. Therefore the more women taking the good jobs, the more limited the options are for men while women can choose whether she wanna insist on looking for men with more money or settle with men who have less.

 

My whole point is that in this situation, women have options, while men do not.

 

I have to ask...are you from the US, or elsewhere? Just curious.

I live in the US but I grew up in a traditional third world country and still visit it from time to time. Thus, Im able to notice who have it worse and who have it better in respective society.

[musemaj11]

Back when I tried online dating quite some time ago, I chose the LOWEST salary range as my minimum standard (like 0 to $20,000 a year), meaning I just want a guy who at least pays his OWN way. I got some dumbass messaging me telling me how he lived in a box (with a computer? Um, okay) and was taking digs at me for having expectations.

He was probably joking.

[zengirl]

The abolishment of slavery put blacks and whites on an even playing field. Both sides now are neither at a disadvantage or at an advantage.

 

But come on, you really cannot honestly say the same about 'gender equality'. Blacks and whites dont necessarily need each other while due to biological reason, men and women do need each other. Equality puts men at a disadvantage while it puts women at a disadvantage in terms of interpersonal relation instead of an even playing field for all. Can you really not see my position?

 

In addition giving jobs to men instead of women is more beneficial to society as a whole. A man's pay check will feed not only himself but also at least one woman and one child. On the other hand, in nearly all cases, a woman's pay check will feed only herself or also at least one child if she is a single mother.

 

Give a man money and he will spread it around ...

 

Your position makes vast assumptions about human behavior that are untrue. Plenty of men are single and only support themselves, plenty of women support families, plenty of couples work together to pay the bills. Women do, overall, tend to make less over their lifetimes in America because our maternity pay situation is dismal and women have babies, but they shouldn't be further penalized for being able to have babies (when they might not even want to!) by never being able to secure top jobs.

 

During this recession in particular, many men who've been laid off have relied on their wives income. Two-income families have an advantage over single-income familes in times like these in particular, and neither wage-earner should be penalized for their gender or kept from specific jobs or pay grades. That wouldn't help the economy or families in general, though it might promote a 1950s type atmosphere where women were subservient even when they did work.

 

And men and women might theoretically "need" each other for biological reasons, but I hope that we've evolved past that being the sole basis for human relationships in this era. Most successful marriages I see are based on affection (hopefully love), teamwork, and communication, not just a desire to breed or share funds.

[musemaj11]

Your position makes vast assumptions about human behavior that are untrue. Plenty of men are single and only support themselves, plenty of women support families, plenty of couples work together to pay the bills. Women do, overall, tend to make less over their lifetimes in America because our maternity pay situation is dismal and women have babies, but they shouldn't be further penalized for being able to have babies (when they might not even want to!) by never being able to secure top jobs.

 

During this recession in particular, many men who've been laid off have relied on their wives income. Two-income families have an advantage over single-income familes in times like these in particular, and neither wage-earner should be penalized for their gender or kept from specific jobs or pay grades. That wouldn't help the economy or families in general, though it might promote a 1950s type atmosphere where women were subservient even when they did work.

 

And men and women might theoretically "need" each other for biological reasons, but I hope that we've evolved past that being the sole basis for human relationships in this era. Most successful marriages I see are based on affection (hopefully love), teamwork, and communication, not just a desire to breed or share funds.

Again you are still not addressing my argument that the fact that women will always want a man who makes more than her makes Equal Opportunity detrimental for men socially.

 

All you have been doing is arguing how beneficial it is for women to work. Of course it is beneficial. Even primitive men found wives so they could help them working on their fields. But thats not the issue.

 

During this recession in particular, many men who've been laid off have relied on their wives income.

Not by the women's choice. I already brought this up before.

 

If they met under the same situation, the women wouldnt have married the men in the first place.

[irc333]

Everybody thinks all the women on match.com and other online sites are there to date and they aren't..

 

.

 

 

Now that you mentioned that, I have a female friend that is massage therapist at a ritzy resort, and she hears through a lot of her co-workers that are on dating sites, bragging about how they do the onlined ating thing, but only do it for the free meals and movies.

 

'nuff to make your skin crawl...so there is some truth to it...and it's not uncommon for a woman's motive on a dating site to just do it for the free meals, of course that probably explains why we have so much obesity in America, too. lol

[Disillusioned]

Especially the people who need people to be college educated, that just gets me to laugh.

 

Me too. Plenty of educated people have zero street smarts or common sense. They're called nerds.

 

Be glad they are letting you know up front what they are really about. Most of the ones who demand the sun, moon and stars bring very little to the table themselves and I am not just talking about money. They are pretty much grown up versions of the teenagers you see on that sweet 16 show. They never got past the I want my pony stage.

 

Seconded. Unfortunately these grown-up teenagers have learned that with bigger bank accounts comes power. Power goes to people's heads. I've yet to hear of any man staying in a lasting relationship with a woman who earns more than he does; in fact, there are loads of articles online about SWANS (single women achievers, no spouse) who have climbed to the top of the heap financially, only to discover that they tend to scare men off. Some have even experimented with lesbian relationships because men have avoided them.

 

I don't agree with barring women from any jobs but I do think that if women demand men play their traditional role then they should not get mad when asked to play theirs. There are some women who demand that a man be the man but roll their eyes when asked to do anything that is considered traditionally female.

 

Also seconded. I don't function in any traditionally female roles (except that I prefer to do the sewing and cooking) because I'd probably botch it up, so I see no point in getting into a relationship with a woman who tries to cover both bases. If she's strong-willed and independent, she probably shouldn't even be on the dating scene... the same can be said of many men as well. But, some of these power types just want a partner so they can treat them as an inferior...

[Ruby Slippers]

Now that you mentioned that, I have a female friend that is massage therapist at a ritzy resort, and she hears through a lot of her co-workers that are on dating sites, bragging about how they do the onlined ating thing, but only do it for the free meals and movies.

I've never done online dating, and a friend of a friend was recently pushing me to try it. She met her guy on a dating site, and they've been together for five years now.

 

She said, "I'd never felt so popular and had so much fun with dating before I did online dating."

 

But I couldn't see myself doing it... to feel popular. I've graduated from junior high, you see.

[musemaj11]

Its a fact that online dating is like a perfect medium for women to auction themselves. I have never done it n don't plan to. Even though I think its foolish for any man to participate in online dating, but I understand some men aren't able to meet a lot of people in real life n have no choice.

[flying]

Again you are still not addressing my argument that the fact that women will always want a man who makes more than her makes Equal Opportunity detrimental for men socially.

 

All you have been doing is arguing how beneficial it is for women to work. Of course it is beneficial. Even primitive men found wives so they could help them working on their fields. But thats not the issue.

 

 

Not by the women's choice. I already brought this up before.

 

If they met under the same situation, the women wouldnt have married the men in the first place.

 

These are your assumptions and your opinions, but you're trying to present them as incontrovertible facts in order to construct your argument on top of them. But it's a house of cards. Remove any of the cards, as has been done, and it tumbles down. I don't know why you can't see this. I guess you just believe what you believe so strongly that you think it must be fact? You wouldn't be alone in that...but yes, I do think that's where a wider experience of different lifestyles and choices would be helpful to you and give you some perspective. I suspect that you've only experienced one type of family setup, whether in this country or the country in which you grew up.

Edited December 2, 2010 by flying

[zengirl]

Again you are still not addressing my argument that the fact that women will always want a man who makes more than her makes Equal Opportunity detrimental for men socially.

 

All you have been doing is arguing how beneficial it is for women to work. Of course it is beneficial. Even primitive men found wives so they could help them working on their fields. But thats not the issue.

 

I have addressed it many ways, including:

 

1. Not all women want to marry at all.

2. Not all women who want to marry give 2 hoots about money.

3. Some women want to marry women.

4. Not all men want to marry and share their income.

5. Linking income to marriage, gender, or marital status needlessly shackles people together in unhealthy ways, leading to more abuse and power struggles within marriage.

 

Not by the women's choice. I already brought this up before.

 

If they met under the same situation, the women wouldnt have married the men in the first place.

 

Well, not too many people are able to forge a relationship when they've just been laid off, I'll give you that----this is regardless of gender, generally, in educated circles and at least partially related to the fact that people are in a bad emotional place at that point. And sure, no one wishes a layoff on their significant other, regardless of gender, if they really care for them.

 

However, one of my best (male) friends got laid off in 2008 and went back to school and he met a girl got married while in graduate school, retraining. He didn't have an income at all, and he still got married; I suspect his working towards something---and his ability to be in a positive place---contributed to his ability to maintain a social life, but that's not gender specific. Who wants to get into a relationship with someone who's a wreck, whether they're male or female?

[donnamaybe]

He was probably joking.

I know he was joking about the "living in a box" thing, but if you saw the content of his message, he was pissed that I had expectations that a man who wanted to date me should have ANY job.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Musemaj, you have shockingly ignorant views of gender AND race issues in the United States. The abolishment of slavery did NOT put blacks and whites on "an even playing field," as you stated. Legal discrimination and segregation persisted for black citizens of this country well past the end of the Civil War.

 

If you want to date / marry women who prefer traditional gender roles, and who make less money than you, that's what you should do. If you are offended by women who want "equality" while still wanting traditional gender roles adhered to by men, then steer clear of those. The rest of this culture is moving on. I hope you enjoy ALL your future women bosses, who make mucho more bucks than you do, too!

[musemaj11]

I have addressed it many ways, including:

 

1. Not all women want to marry at all.

2. Not all women who want to marry give 2 hoots about money.

3. Some women want to marry women.

4. Not all men want to marry and share their income.

5. Linking income to marriage, gender, or marital status needlessly shackles people together in unhealthy ways, leading to more abuse and power struggles within marriage.

Yes, those things are true. Despite its sometimes negative by products for one group or the other, I do think equality is the moral thing to do.

 

I was merely throwing a food for thought of one example of how equality can have an unintended detrimental effect socially for men.

 

 

 

Well, not too many people are able to forge a relationship when they've just been laid off, I'll give you that----this is regardless of gender, generally, in educated circles and at least partially related to the fact that people are in a bad emotional place at that point. And sure, no one wishes a layoff on their significant other, regardless of gender, if they really care for them.

 

However, one of my best (male) friends got laid off in 2008 and went back to school and he met a girl got married while in graduate school, retraining. He didn't have an income at all, and he still got married; I suspect his working towards something---and his ability to be in a positive place---contributed to his ability to maintain a social life, but that's not gender specific. Who wants to get into a relationship with someone who's a wreck, whether they're male or female?

I actually do know a few guys and a couple friends who got married despite having much less than the women. However, in every single case the woman was desperate and had no better options.

 

No woman except extremely few exceptions is willing to get into a relationship in which she knowingly will have to be the main breadwinner because love for her means being taken care of, not the other way around.

 

In my own family, since early in their marriage until now, my mother has been making a lot more money than my father. But even she told me that she probably wouldnt have considered him in the first place if she met him under the same condition.

 

I have never been and Im never going to consider being with a girl who has a better job than me. Its not because Im intimidated, but its because I know chances are she cant find someone better and she is settling for me or simply waiting for a better deal to come around.

[zengirl]

In my own family, since early in their marriage until now, my mother has been making a lot more money than my father. But even she told me that she probably wouldnt have considered him in the first place if she met him under the same condition.

 

I have never been and Im never going to consider being with a girl who has a better job than me. Its not because Im intimidated, but its because I know chances are she cant find someone better and she is settling for me or simply waiting for a better deal to come around.

 

Well, everyone isn't your mother.

 

And actually, what you've described is pretty much intimidation, which is just a form of fear.