Would you date a woman who failed to launch?

[kaylan]

I don't know Kaylan, I am left with the impression that people do expect people to have everything 100% together. And look hot while doing it.

Some people want perfection. I know I dont though. I just want a chick whos got her act together, who Im attracted to, and who makes my heart jump. If she gives me that swelling hole of a feeling in my chest when Im with her, then I know shes my 'it' girl.

 

When I hear people say, "*They* need to bring something to the table", I wonder how often they think about what they bring to the table. And I wonder if they ever just look at someone for what they have to offer based on who they are unique to them vs. putting that person up to a chart you formulated in your head about who they should be so that they are good enough for you to pay attention to.

I think many of us say we "want someone who brings something to the table" because we've dealt with people in the past who brought us a lot of pain. In the end they didnt offer much outside of drama, so we seek someone who brings more than that, and we start telling ourselves to expect certain things so we can be happy.

 

See the thing is, while I do have an idea of what Id like most in a girlfriend...I obviously know I wont get that exact girl.

 

As long as I get a chick whos got her life together, is smart, and makes me feel good inside, then Im cool. It may seem like it sometimes, but I dont put chicks up against some chart or checklist in my mind. I usually just react to how she makes me feel. But as time has gone on and Ive experienced what I have in dating, I have realized that I do need to be smarter about my selection and not just let how a girl makes me feel allow me to ignore potential incompatibilities.

Yes, men certainly want a woman with a good head on her shoulders and a good heart in her body. But I do not see as many men qualify education, accomplishments and ambition like you do. You seem to be *really*, really concerned about women and ambition. Let me ask you, what are some of your ambitions?

The reason I qualify those things is because Ive noticed I get along best with those girls who are most like me. Because we have certain things in common, the intensity of the 'click' is that much more....usually....but not always.

 

I have had a couple times where the chick was my total opposite, but I couldnt help but get drawn to her. Didnt end all that well though. I guess I just look for someone more like me because Im sick of butting heads and crashing & burning with chicks I meet. Ive just recognized that people seem to get along better with those most like them, so I have a tendency to want that.

 

As I said, ambition is simply not settling for status quo and not accepting being a bump on a log. I think a lot of guys would agree they want a chick like that. Ambition doesnt have to mean wanting to become super rich and famous. Its just about siezing the day and grabbing what you want in life. Making things happen.

 

My ambitions right now are to get a new band, get a decent job in my career field, and get into a decent grad school. I have longer term goals for each of these things, but I have to see what happens over the next year first.

 

Why do you have to be so offensive? We are just having a discussion.

Excuse me. I wasnt trying to be offensive. I should have used a different phrase. I was just trying to let you know that I think its kookoo that you see my interest in ladies as supermodel or CEO status. Edited February 16, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

The statements were not a contradiction. You are picking out one issue I am talking about. I am talking about a sum of issues...making little money, having no ambition or life direction, while also choosing to live at home and have ones parents take care of them. This is entirely different then the situation you are trying to mold into a counter argument.

 

What exactly do you define as 'ambition' and 'life direction'? Do those things need to necessarily include one's career choices and pay, to you?

 

And whos happy making minimum wage? Haha really? I have yet to meet someone who enjoys making practically no money in their stressful minimum wage job. Be realistic. Every person Ive met in a minimum wage job either hates their pay, hates their job, or both. And its practically impossible to save a decent amount of money with those jobs because they barely cover bills. So theyd never be able to move out since they couldnt afford living alone on such a pay rate anyways.

 

Sure, I know plenty. Teachers back where I come from used to earn from $1000/month (kindy teachers) to $2000/month (HS teachers). But I know several teachers who, despite earning crap, are passionate for their job and love the kids. I also know some nannies, social workers, charity workers, and medical aides who are the same. Not to mention poor artists, writers, street performers, baristas, and many others.

 

You can totally afford 'living alone' - by that I mean moving out from one's parents' house and living with housemates - on such a pay rate. Even students who get $1000/month from student loans can move out and pay all their expenses. If you can't, you need some budgeting lessons.

 

Basically, you're entitled to like what you like, kaylan. I personally think we have entirely different opinions on what 'life direction' or 'ambition' entails - and that is the crux of my post. Other than that, my comprehension skills are pretty much impeccable, and I suggest you brush up on yours.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Elswyth

[kaylan]

What exactly do you define as 'ambition' and 'life direction'? Do those things need to necessarily include one's career choices and pay, to you?

Did I not just tell you what I consider to be ambition? To repeat what I said before:

 

"As I said, ambition is simply not settling for status quo and not accepting being a bump on a log. I think a lot of guys would agree they want a chick like that. Ambition doesnt have to mean wanting to become super rich and famous. Its just about siezing the day and grabbing what you want in life. Making things happen."

 

May I also add, I think a part of being ambitious is being responsible about your future.

 

Sure, I know plenty. Teachers back where I come from used to earn from $1000/month (kindy teachers) to $2000/month (HS teachers). But I know several teachers who, despite earning crap, are passionate for their job and love the kids. I also know some nannies, social workers, charity workers, and medical aides who are the same. Not to mention poor artists, writers, street performers, baristas, and many others.

How does this disprove what I said? They may enjoy their job, but they hate the money they make. I did say that they wont enjoy making crap. My moms a teacher, and so is a good friend of mine. My mom felt underpaid by the city before she got her credentials and moved to the better paying suburbs.

 

The only teachers making minimum wage are substitutes. Salaried teachers cannot be paid that low because wages are collectively bargained by the teachers union. And substitutes tend to be folks without the degrees necessary for salaried positions.

 

When it comes to street performers, musicians, writers, and baristas...most are forced to have other jobs since those things dont pay the bills on their own. Im a musician but I will only do it as a side gig to start out. Just because people enjoy their job, doesnt mean they dont resent the compensation they receive. Which is why its smart to have a back up plan or means of maximizing ones potential in their current field. If someone doesnt have a family to feed, nor plans to ever had one, then I guess its fine if they never look that far ahead into other jobs.

You can totally afford 'living alone' - by that I mean moving out from one's parents' house and living with housemates - on such a pay rate. Even students who get $1000/month from student loans can move out and pay all their expenses. If you can't, you need some budgeting lessons.

Maybe I should have said barely afford. Because minimum wage leaves people living paycheck to paycheck. Ive done it. After rent, utilities, gas, cell phone, and food, theres not much money left to go out with, or save in the bank, or have disposable income for different knick knacks. Doesnt sound fun to me. Making less money than Id like to make for the sake of a job I like is one thing. Living completely poor is another.

 

Basically, you're entitled to like what you like, kaylan. I personally think we have entirely different opinions on what 'life direction' or 'ambition' entails - and that is the crux of my post. Other than that, my comprehension skills are pretty much impeccable, and I suggest you brush up on yours.

Hey man, Im just trying to maximize my earning potential and live comfortably while still having fun. If other folks dont have that same direction, then so be it. Id rather enjoy my life and never have to worry about taking care of myself. Thats why I always have 2 plans going. Sure Id love to get famous making music, but Im smart enough to know that starting a career in a different area is a good back up plan.

 

If anything I can always play music as a weekend thing to make extra cash.

Edited February 17, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

Did I not just tell you what I consider to be ambition? To repeat what I said before:

 

"As I said, ambition is simply not settling for status quo and not accepting being a bump on a log. I think a lot of guys would agree they want a chick like that. Ambition doesnt have to mean wanting to become super rich and famous. Its just about siezing the day and grabbing what you want in life. Making things happen."

 

May I also add, I think a part of being ambitious is being responsible about your future.

 

Precisely. I, on the other hand, think that grabbing what you want in life is entirely possible in the scenarios I mentioned.

 

How does this disprove what I said? They may enjoy their job, but they hate the money they make. I did say that they wont enjoy making crap. My moms a teacher, and so is a good friend of mine. My mom felt underpaid by the city before she got her credentials and moved to the better paying suburbs.

 

The only teachers making minimum wage are substitutes. Salaried teachers cannot be paid that low because wages are collectively bargained by the teachers union. And substitutes tend to be folks without the degrees necessary for salaried positions.

 

When it comes to street performers, musicians, writers, and baristas...most are forced to have other jobs since those things dont pay the bills on their own. Im a musician but I will only do it as a side gig to start out. Just because people enjoy their job, doesnt mean they dont resent the compensation they receive. Which is why its smart to have a back up plan or means of maximizing ones potential in their current field. If someone doesnt have a family to feed, nor plans to ever had one, then I guess its fine if they never look that far ahead into other jobs.

 

Does not mean that they're not happy, or at least happier than people who enjoy the income they make but not the job they do. Sometimes you need to trade off one for the other, and the wisest choice is to trade for that which is more important to you. I would rather make minimum wage at a job I love than a good wage at a job I hate. I don't see how that would make me 'not ambitious'. My ambition is to do something I am passionate for. If it leaves me living 'paycheck to paycheck', so be it.

 

Maybe I should have said barely afford. Because minimum wage leaves people living paycheck to paycheck. Ive done it. After rent, utilities, gas, cell phone, and food, theres not much money left to go out with, or save in the bank, or have disposable income for different knick knacks. Doesnt sound fun to me. Making less money than Id like to make for the sake of a job I like is one thing. Living completely poor is another.

 

I have lived on $1200/month or less for the past 4 years of university and am perfectly fine with it. When I move on to my PhD, funding will be only $2000/month - as much as the average minimum-wage earner. I am lucky in that the bf earns quite a lot for a fresh grad and so offers to pay for some stuff. But if he decided to quit and do a min-wage job like starting out as a chef's apprentice, I'd be perfectly fine with that too. If you aren't, that's entirely your prerogative. I was merely referring to the fact that it seems to me, that you are lumping all minimum wage earners in the same basket as the unemployed dude that lives in his mom's basement and has no intention of doing -anything- with his life. Or as the poster I last responded to, who has been living off welfare with 'no money to do anything' for years and has been using that money to get hair extensions, braces and teeth whitening....

Edited February 17, 2012 by Elswyth

[threebyfate]

kaylan, I'm going to disagree with the pack and encourage you to find someone who meets your requirement, as long as there's a lot of love.

 

My husband and I are both driven individuals, where we understand each other not only on emotional and physical levels but also what drives us, on an intellectual level. If he needs to spend more time working, I don't nag him for attention or feel neglected. If I have an all-nighter trying to meet deadline, he completely understands. What helps is that we both bring in healthy incomes which accords us the lifestyle we both enjoy, which includes a live-in nanny and domestic help. Without the dual incomes, the understanding of drive, the synched attitude towards lifestyle, none of this would have been possible. This is the best of both worlds of living now and for the future.

[kaylan]

Precisely. I, on the other hand, think that grabbing what you want in life is entirely possible in the scenarios I mentioned.

But the scenarios you mentioned are still far different from the type of person I mentioned in my OP.

 

Someone who lacks ambition and is ok with having their folks take care of them well into their adult years wont find a lot of people trying to date them. That was my entire point. All of these other scenarios dont really compare to the type of person my OP specifies.

 

Does not mean that they're not happy, or at least happier than people who enjoy the income they make but not the job they do. Sometimes you need to trade off one for the other, and the wisest choice is to trade for that which is more important to you. I would rather make minimum wage at a job I love than a good wage at a job I hate. I don't see how that would make me 'not ambitious'. My ambition is to do something I am passionate for. If it leaves me living 'paycheck to paycheck', so be it.

They may enjoy their job, but no one likes being poor. Ive heard enough people complain about it to know that.

 

Sometimes there is a trade off, but you are getting into extremes. Most people are never really faced with the decision between making lots of money at a crappy job they hate versus no money at a job they love. Usually the choices are making decent money at a job they wont like so much, versus making a good bit less at a job theyd really love.

 

Personally Id rather take a job I like somewhat that pays me decently, rather than a job I love that pays me minimum wage. Obviously if the job I love doesnt take a super huge pay cut, then I will do it. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to make the bills and get your journey going.

 

Dare me to say a truly smart and ambitious person will figure out a way to do work on what they are passionate about and make great money doing it. Where theres a will theres a way.

 

 

I have lived on $1200/month or less for the past 4 years of university and am perfectly fine with it. When I move on to my PhD, funding will be only $2000/month - as much as the average minimum-wage earner. I am lucky in that the bf earns quite a lot for a fresh grad and so offers to pay for some stuff. But if he decided to quit and do a min-wage job like starting out as a chef's apprentice, I'd be perfectly fine with that too. If you aren't, that's entirely your prerogative.

Lmao. You are funny. Why have you been debating with me this whole time when you are on the other side of the coin of my whole argument? My argument was about folks who are perpetually poor and have no desire to change this despite not being super happy with their situation. You on the other hand are only making less money for the time being. A PhD will practically gaurantee you a far greater wage for the rest of your life once you are done.

 

Your situation is simply temporary and not what my OP was mainly focused on. Your situation was the exception that I mentioned. I said before that being theres nothing wrong with living at home, or being ok making little cash if one has a plan. And you obviously have a big plan. So how can you speak for people who pretty much lack any desire to raise themselves out of their less than happy situation?

 

Remember, my OP was about someone who was basically an adult living at home like a teenager with no goals or plans to better themselves. I have known people like this and they want a better situation for themselves, but lack the discipline to do so.

 

I think you missed my point entirely. Because if you truly got what I was saying at all, youd see you and your bf are in the same exact boat as I am and on the same path. You guys have gone to school, and plan to continue schooling, and thus will making a good living in the future, despite not making the best money now. You are NO different than me. Thats exactly what I am doing....Im gonna be ok with not making a lot of money while I go to grad school and enjoy my band for a couple years to see where it goes. At the end of the day, if im a professional business or a professional musician, I plan to live comfortably.

 

Go figure that your boyfriend is educated, just like you are. Which means like attracts like...which Ive been saying SINCE THE BEGINNING. However, you what to throw around hypothetical situations when you are basically living the exact same way I am living/aiming to live.

 

Id have no problem dating a chick who took an apprenticeship somewhere. That still requires ambition. Shes trying to master a skill. Thats entirely different from someone whos stuck in a dead end retail job and doesnt want to leave their parents basement.

I was merely referring to the fact that it seems to me, that you are lumping all minimum wage earners in the same basket as the unemployed dude that lives in his mom's basement and has no intention of doing -anything- with his life. Or as the poster I last responded to, who has been living off welfare with 'no money to do anything' for years and has been using that money to get hair extensions, braces and teeth whitening....

The odd thing is that instead of simply answering the question in my OP, you and a couple of other posters have modified the question in your mind and taken the dicussion on a totally different route. The OP did not put all people who lived at home or making minimum wage under one umbrella. The OP talked about the typed of person who was perpetually earning a low wage because of a lack of desire to do better, while their parents still provided for them somewhat.

 

I specifically stated the situation and personality of the live-in adult son/daughter in question. I also stated that others who are living home for good reasons were not in question. The only type of person who was being considered as not dateable was the lazy person lacking independence and drive...which several posters agreed they could not date.

 

I dont know why you and a couple other kept steering the convo onto other types of people when those werent the ones in question.

 

Tell me...if your boyfriend was like the type of person mentioned in the OP, would you even be dating him? You are going to be studying for a PhD...while he works a front desk job making $10/hr. He lives at home and isnt making any strides to move out, nor does he desire to. Despite having an interest in another field, he takes no initiative in getting the schooling he needs to get into that career field. He lives paycheck to paycheck, and will most likely do so for many years to come.

 

Would you be ok dating this person?

Edited February 17, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

Lmao. You are funny. Why have you been debating with me this whole time when you are on the other side of the coin of my whole argument? My argument was about folks who are perpetually poor and have no desire to change this despite not being super happy with their situation. You on the other hand are only making less money for the time being. A PhD will practically gaurantee you a far greater wage for the rest of your life once you are done.

 

PhDs really don't get a lot of money, K. Not minimum wage, but very little compared to their peers who have been working as soon as they get their undergrad.

 

Your situation is simply temporary and not what my OP was mainly focused on. Your situation was the exception that I mentioned. I said before that being theres nothing wrong with living at home, or being ok making little cash if one has a plan. And you obviously have a big plan. So how can you speak for people who pretty much lack any desire to raise themselves out of their less than happy situation?

 

Because, as I said, I know people in minimum wage jobs who do them because they have a passion for what they do. For instance, I know an incredibly smart and talented girl - we qualified for Mensa together, went for scholarship interviews together, etc. She eventually chose to go into Christian mission work, paid only by donations and barely getting enough to survive from month to month, and lives with her parents because she has an incredibly close-knit family. Yes, that doesn't describe the average min-wage person, but that was exactly what I meant. She has immense passion for life and would never want to change what she is doing.

 

Remember, my OP was about someone who was basically an adult living at home like a teenager with no goals or plans to better themselves. I have known people like this and they want a better situation for themselves, but lack the discipline to do so.

 

I think you missed my point entirely. Because if you truly got what I was saying at all, youd see you and your bf are in the same exact boat as I am and on the same path. You guys have gone to school, and plan to continue schooling, and thus will making a good living in the future, despite not making the best money now. You are NO different than me. Thats exactly what I am doing....Im gonna be ok with not making a lot of money while I go to grad school and enjoy my band for a couple years to see where it goes. At the end of the day, if im a professional business or a professional musician, I plan to live comfortably.

 

Go figure that your boyfriend is educated, just like you are. Which means like attracts like...which Ive been saying SINCE THE BEGINNING. However, you what to throw around hypothetical situations when you are basically living the exact same way I am living/aiming to live.

 

Fair enough. Perhaps I have misunderstood your OP. However, I don't think what I am or am not disqualifies me from debating a point. I will argue all day long for homosexual rights and against ill logic that debases them, but I have no desire to be one.

 

Id have no problem dating a chick who took an apprenticeship somewhere. That still requires ambition. Shes trying to master a skill. Thats entirely different from someone whos stuck in a dead end retail job and doesnt want to leave their parents basement.

The odd thing is that instead of simply answering the question in my OP, you and a couple of other posters have modified the question in your mind and taken the dicussion on a totally different route. The OP did not put all people who lived at home or making minimum wage under one umbrella. The OP talked about the typed of person who was perpetually earning a low wage because of a lack of desire to do better, while their parents still provided for them somewhat.

 

You did not mention the parents providing for them. Nobody who makes minimum wage SHOULD need their parents to provide for them in the first place.

 

The bolded is the point that I was trying to address all along: 'Better' is a completely subjective term. To some of these people, they are perfectly happy. The girl I mentioned in my previous example was offered a place in law and medicine in prestigious universities. She turned it down to work a minimum wage job. That, to her, was the 'best' decision.

 

'Better' doesn't necessarily need to mean 'pays more'.

 

Tell me...if your boyfriend was like the type of person mentioned in the OP, would you even be dating him? You are going to be studying for a PhD...while he works a front desk job making $10/hr. He lives at home and isnt making any strides to move out, nor does he desire to. Despite having an interest in another field, he takes no initiative in getting the schooling he needs to get into that career field. He lives paycheck to paycheck, and will most likely do so for many years to come.

 

Would you be ok dating this person?

 

Front desk is a very specific example - most people don't have a passion for being front desk, as opposed to equally-paid jobs like those I mentioned in my other post. However, if he WAS blissfully happy working front desk for some reason, and more importantly, knew how to live within his income instead of consistently buying things he cannot afford, I would not have a problem.

[kaylan]

PhDs really don't get a lot of money, K. Not minimum wage, but very little compared to their peers who have been working as soon as they get their undergrad.

We arent talking about in comparison to your peers who have more experience. We are talking about comparisons to the overall population.

 

Any stats on this will tell you that those with college degrees on average make significantly more over their lifetime than non degree owners. Those with advanced degrees like a Masters, JD, or PhD make considerably more than those with just a Bachelors too.

 

Either way you will be making cash. A great, great deal more than minimum wage

 

Because, as I said, I know people in minimum wage jobs who do them because they have a passion for what they do. For instance, I know an incredibly smart and talented girl - we qualified for Mensa together, went for scholarship interviews together, etc. She eventually chose to go into Christian mission work, paid only by donations and barely getting enough to survive from month to month, and lives with her parents because she has an incredibly close-knit family. Yes, that doesn't describe the average min-wage person, but that was exactly what I meant. She has immense passion for life and would never want to change what she is doing.

Ok, and again...how does this person fit into my OP at all?

 

Shes a totally different type of person than what I detailed in my OP. Shes exactly the type of situation where I said its ok to live at home with your parents. She is driven. And when one is passionate about their job they obviously are driven.

 

Fair enough. Perhaps I have misunderstood your OP. However, I don't think what I am or am not disqualifies me from debating a point. I will argue all day long for homosexual rights and against ill logic that debases them, but I have no desire to be one.

But I did not make ill logic in my OP. I explicitly stated the type of mindset that the supposedly undateable live-in adult son/daughter has compared to the live-in adult son/daughter who has good reason to be with their parents.

 

More people would date the latter. Your friend is the latter. Someone with good reason to be home and most guys would have no issue with her. However, if she was someone who worked at Walmart and just sponged off her parents and had no plans of doing anything else, a lot of guys who turn the other way.

 

 

You did not mention the parents providing for them. Nobody who makes minimum wage SHOULD need their parents to provide for them in the first place.

Did I need to write everything out for you word for word in my OP?

 

My OP stated that the person without goals only made enough money to buy food, which obviously means their parents pay the rest of the bills.

 

I then said that the person with a good head on their shoulders usually contributes to household expenses in order to assert some form of independence.

The bolded is the point that I was trying to address all along: 'Better' is a completely subjective term. To some of these people, they are perfectly happy. The girl I mentioned in my previous example was offered a place in law and medicine in prestigious universities. She turned it down to work a minimum wage job. That, to her, was the 'best' decision.

 

'Better' doesn't necessarily need to mean 'pays more'.

If she could do what she does and make a higher wage, you know she would in a flash. Lets be real. Better is not all that subjective when it comes to money.

 

But I feel you and a couple of other posters are being far too nitpicky about what I said. Its obvious in my OP, the type of person I was talking about when I mentioned certain traits and circumstances. Those circumstances for the most part apply to a certain type of person.

 

As I said before, theres a reason a stigma exists when someone lives at home past a certain age. And thats because many who do usually arent doing much with their lives and are sponging off their folks. I think most of us know someone like this.

 

There are exceptions of course, but its not hard to understand my OP enough to figure out the type of person I was addressing. It does not take all of this extra explanation. The OP should only take a paragraph to respond to at most.

 

I swear, certain posters on this board love to nitpick topics even though full understanding of the OPs message isnt that hard to attain.

Front desk is a very specific example - most people don't have a passion for being front desk, as opposed to equally-paid jobs like those I mentioned in my other post. However, if he WAS blissfully happy working front desk for some reason, and more importantly, knew how to live within his income instead of consistently buying things he cannot afford, I would not have a problem.

Again, OBVIOUSLY in my OP the person with the low wage job isnt doing it for passion...they are doing it just to get by. I said the type of person in the OP lacks ambition...obviously someone without ambition isnt in a job they are passionate about. People who are passionate about their work have ambitions and goals in their career, despite the paycheck. So again, nothing I have said has been way off base.

 

I even referenced the thread that inspired this topic. I simply copied all the traits of that posters boyfriend. Hes definitely not doing something he loves.

 

I still dont see how you and a couple of other posters had such a hard time understanding my OP. I truly feel that you all just went the typical "not everyone is like that" route and wanted to get a debate going....even though I obviously said not everyone who lives at home is one specific way. I was saying that a certain sum of behaviors and circumstances is what made a person unattractive in a dating sense. I didnt say one thing in particular made someone unattractive in a dating sense.

 

Btw, please answer my question based on what I last said:

 

"Tell me...if your boyfriend was like the type of person mentioned in the OP, would you even be dating him? You are going to be studying for a PhD...while he works a front desk job making $10/hr. He lives at home and isnt making any strides to move out, nor does he desire to. Despite having an interest in another field, he takes no initiative in getting the schooling he needs to get into that career field. He lives paycheck to paycheck, and will most likely do so for many years to come.

 

Would you be ok dating this person? "

 

You said you would if it was his passion to work a desk job, but I originally said that the desk job isnt his real interest. Another field is his real interest, but hes failed to do anything to get into that field. He lacks ambition...which is what my OP said...which means I didnt need to explain all of this to you in the first place.

 

So please reply to what is in italics again. It is essentially another version of my OP. Would you date such a guy?

Edited February 17, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

K, admit it, your OP mentioned nothing of the sort. Nothing about interest in what you are doing, nothing of the exceptions you mentioned in your latest post, nada. All you said was 'Could you date a woman who failed to launch?

 

That is, she still lives with her parents after age 25...isnt in school, work a low paying job, debt, no life goals or career ambition, and is perfectly content with making just enough money to cover food and a hobby.'

 

That is not the same thing.

 

So now you have clarified your views, after the debate. Great. Isn't that what debates are for? If we had not pointed such things out, we would not have known what your stance on THOSE were. The fact that you were 'meaning that all along' only came out AFTER all that.

[kaylan]

K, admit it, your OP mentioned nothing of the sort. Nothing about interest in what you are doing, nothing of the exceptions you mentioned in your latest post, nada. All you said was 'Could you date a woman who failed to launch?

Ambition is directly tied to interest. Its not that hard to understand. Its not my fault other posters understood my OP better than you have and gave responses that directly answered my question of whether theyd date the specific type of person mentioned in my OP.

 

Read my OP again, then read my last response again. I did not simply say a woman who failed to launch. I also detailed certain things about this womans personality. You arent reading my OP.

 

A recent thread inspired me to create this one. Check it out here and leave the OP some advice. Failure to Launch... - LoveShack.org Community Forums

 

Now I want to ask other dudes. Could you date a woman who failed to launch?

 

That is, she still lives with her parents after age 25...isnt in school, work a low paying job, debt, no life goals or career ambition, and is perfectly content with making just enough money to cover food and a hobby.

 

Now personally I would not date such a person. Not because living at home is bad...but because lack of ambition and the inability to be a independent or contributing adult is unattractive. If a gal had goals and was living at home to save up for a house one day, and was actually chipping in with her parents expenses, then Id be kool with that.

 

But someone who has no goals outside of paycheck to paycheck expenses isnt something Id go for. Not to mention I wasnt raised with the idea that I should date someone Id have to end up taking care of if things got serious.

 

So what say you men?

Learn to read. Most everyone else who responded seemed to be able to answer without all this extra needed explanation.

That is, she still lives with her parents after age 25...isnt in school, work a low paying job, debt, no life goals or career ambition, and is perfectly content with making just enough money to cover food and a hobby.'

 

That is not the same thing.

Whats so hard for you to understand? Someone without life goals or ambition, who doesnt contribute at all to their household, can only feed themself and has no desire to ever move out is FAR different then the picture you keep painting about these exception scenarios and the situation of your friend.

 

None of you scenarios ever fell into the category of person I highlighted. So as it stands, the person in my OP who failed to launch is not an attractive dating prospect. This has NOTHING to do with your scenarios which are entirely different, plus I said there are good reasons to stay home and good reasons wouldnt make someone undateable.

 

So now you have clarified your views, after the debate. Great. Isn't that what debates are for? If we had not pointed such things out, we would not have known what your stance on THOSE were. The fact that you were 'meaning that all along' only came out AFTER all that.

I never needed to clarify my views. You simply needed to read with understanding in the same manner that previous posters in this thread have. Everything was in my OP. Re-read Jojoba and grkboys responses in this thread. They obviously caught on to what I was saying and noticed that I said not all people who live at home or work a low paying job are the same.

 

Being ambitious and have goals changes a lot of things. Working towards bigger and better things, having noble reasons for ones situation, and just having a all around good head on your shoulders is what separates people a lot of the time.

 

I was not 'meaning [something] all along'. Because my OP is straight forward and you just missed the memo on most of it.

Edited February 17, 2012 by kaylan

[Sugarkane]

What about if it's a cultural thing? A co worker of mine is in her mid 30s and lives at home. She never got a degree, only finished high school. Yet guys find it ok just because she's Asian. Yet he still pulls guys. So why is it only ok if you're Asian, but no other race? She never left home, not once in her life.

[Sugarkane]

So what makes her the exception? Her parents aren't sick or anything.

[Els]

Oh, K. It isn't that 'other posters were able to understand without extra help' and 'some of us can't read'. It's that you immediately classify everyone who agrees with you as 'understands your post' and those who attempt to debate your points with you as 'unable to read'. Your bolded explains nothing. It only addresses the 'living at home' criteria. There is still no mention of interest. It's extremely presumptuous of you to expect a reader to immediately associate your mention of 'ambition' (which is the only thing remotely close to 'interest' that you had in your OP) with 'interest'. Especially given that ALL your other criteria were about money, money, money. Living at home is ok if you contribute monetarily to the home or are trying to save up money. Debt = money. Going to school = investment to earn money (as you mentioned in a following post). Working a low paying job = money. Making just enough money to cover expenses = money.

 

Are you expecting a reader to assume that your mention of 'ambition' actually meant 'ambition to achieve your passions' instead of 'ambition to earn money'?

 

I'm sorry, but if I said something like 'My bf smokes pot, sells drugs, beats his mother up, and kills puppies' and someone said 'OMG he kills puppies?? Leave him' and I say, 'Oh, no, he's actually a vet who euthanizes sick puppies, why can't you learn to read? See, poster A told me I should stay with him, she understands what I mean.'... That would sound exactly like your approach in this thread to several of us (not just me). Pretty exaggerated example, but equivalent in logic.

[kaylan]

Oh, K. It isn't that 'other posters were able to understand without extra help' and 'some of us can't read'. It's that you immediately classify everyone who agrees with you as 'understands your post' and those who attempt to debate your points with you as 'unable to read'. Your bolded explains nothing. It only addresses the 'living at home' criteria. There is still no mention of interest. It's extremely presumptuous of you to expect a reader to immediately associate your mention of 'ambition' (which is the only thing remotely close to 'interest' that you had in your OP) with 'interest'.

No mention of interest?

 

I KEEP EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU. Lack of ambition is a lack of interest. If someone is ambitious about something they obviously have an interest in it. Whats so hard to understand? I keep having to repeat myself to you.

 

Its not a hard concept for anyone but you it seems. If someone is driven about something in particular, then obviously thats a big interest of theirs. Simple.

 

Especially given that ALL your other criteria were about money, money, money. Living at home is ok if you contribute monetarily to the home or are trying to save up money. Debt = money. Going to school = investment to earn money (as you mentioned in a following post). Working a low paying job = money. Making just enough money to cover expenses = money.

All the criteria was not about money. YOU STILL DONT READ.

 

Criteria included independence, ambition, etc. You need money to live so obviously money comes into the equation in everyones life. Money is how you sustain yourself, but its not the only thing being talked about.

Are you expecting a reader to assume that your mention of 'ambition' actually meant 'ambition to achieve your passions' instead of 'ambition to earn money'?

What is the meaning of ambition? I said a person should be ambitious and driven. With the exception of you and a couple of other posters, everyone else understood that it wasnt just about money.

I'm sorry, but if I said something like 'My bf smokes pot, sells drugs, beats his mother up, and kills puppies' and someone said 'OMG he kills puppies?? Leave him' and I say, 'Oh, no, he's actually a vet who euthanizes sick puppies, why can't you learn to read? See, poster A told me I should stay with him, she understands what I mean.'... That would sound exactly like your approach in this thread to several of us (not just me). Pretty exaggerated example, but equivalent in logic.

Youre really reaching here. Its not my fault you had trouble understanding the definition of one word...ie...ambition. I didnt see everyone else having as much trouble.

 

One poster even talked about a girl being passionate about painting. Id be cool with that especially if shes taking her stuff to exhibits. Even if she made peanuts, it shows ambition.

 

Thats a ton different than living off mom and dad but working at Walmart all your adult life with no direction.

[kaylan]

What about if it's a cultural thing? A co worker of mine is in her mid 30s and lives at home. She never got a degree, only finished high school. Yet guys find it ok just because she's Asian. Yet he still pulls guys. So why is it only ok if you're Asian, but no other race? She never left home, not once in her life.

I wouldnt date her JUST because shes Asian and its cultural. Itd depends on what shes doing with herself and her personality.

 

Does she expect me to take care of her if we date and get married? Id expect someone from her culture whos never moved out in her 30s, to expect a guy to take care of her and pay for the vast majority of things. Not my kind of gal. I prefer someone more Americanized tbh

 

Id also wanna know if shes passionate about anything. I like that in a girl. Is she just a regular hum drum gal? Work, home, thats it? If so she wouldnt be my type of gal.

 

Anyone can still pull dates depending on their situation...but theyll just be pulling a different type of people though.

 

So what makes her the exception? Her parents aren't sick or anything.

Did you read the OP, I obviously said there are good reasons for people to live at home.

 

Obviously theres nothing wrong with taking care of your parents.

 

Taking care of ailing parents is FAR different from a "go no where" mooch who has them take care of them like when they were teenagers. Thats the type of person my OP was describing. Why do you people keep bringing up other kinds of folks when my OP was never about that those type of people who live at home.

 

Did people just skip over reading the part where I said there are good reasons to live at home? Are you skipping over the highlighted description of the poor traits a live in adult child can have?

Edited February 19, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

No mention of interest?

 

I KEEP EXPLAINING THIS TO YOU. Lack of ambition is a lack of interest. If someone is ambitious about something they obviously have an interest in it. Whats so hard to understand? I keep having to repeat myself to you.

 

Of course I get that. All I am saying is that your OP did not say that. How can you possibly fail to understand that that was my point all along? If you clarify something AFTER your OP, that does not magically make the words retroactively appear in your OP and does not make the person who did not initially SEE them in your OP (because they did not exist!) illiterate or unable to understand the concept.

 

Its not a hard concept for anyone but you it seems. If someone is driven about something in particular, then obviously thats a big interest of theirs. Simple.

 

Oh, really? Let me count how many other posters you accused in this same thread of being 'unable to read'.

 

All the criteria was not about money. YOU STILL DONT READ.

 

Criteria included independence, ambition, etc. You need money to live so obviously money comes into the equation in everyones life. Money is how you sustain yourself, but its not the only thing being talked about.

What is the meaning of ambition? I said a person should be ambitious and driven. With the exception of you and a couple of other posters, everyone else understood that it wasnt just about money.

 

With the exception of the word 'ambition', would you care to point out to me which phrase in your OP was not about money?

 

Youre really reaching here. Its not my fault you had trouble understanding the definition of one word...ie...ambition. I didnt see everyone else having as much trouble.

 

If all your OTHER criteria are about money, I see no reason that I should assume your meaning of ambition to not be related to money.

 

 

Let's go through this again. You completely miss the point of my analogy. You then accuse everyone who doesn't agree with your OP of being 'unable to read', because apparently the fact that people who agree with you exist is irrefutable proof that your OP can only possibly be interpreted in one way and one way only.

 

I have read many, many threads in this forum, and yours are the only ones in which I see constant accusations directed towards several otherwise prolific and well-written posters as being 'unable to read'. Given the choice between the conclusion that otherwise educated posters suddenly become dumb slobbering fools as soon as they enter your threads, or the conclusion that your OP required clarification (and you are too proud to admit it), I choose the latter.

 

But of course, this entire diatribe only serves as proof that I 'can't read' and 'can't understand that it isn't all about the money', amirite?

 

If this was a genuine debate contest, I would persevere (and likely win in the eyes of anyone with even the slightest nugget of logic resident in their grey matter). As this isn't, and there is no prize for 'winning', I shall politely decline. Good luck with calling the next 5 posters 'unable to read', too.

[kaylan]

Of course I get that. All I am saying is that your OP did not say that. How can you possibly fail to understand that that was my point all along? If you clarify something AFTER your OP, that does not magically make the words retroactively appear in your OP and does not make the person who did not initially SEE them in your OP (because they did not exist!) illiterate or unable to understand the concept.

I get that that is your point. But what I fail to understand is how you dont see ambition as having something to do with interest. Most people know that to be ambitous about something, means to have interest in it. Lots of it. Im ambitious about my music...this means I have a big interest in playing music through my bass. Simple.

 

There was no need for me to explain in my OP that ambition ties directly into interest. People who understand the meaning and definition of the word would automatically know this.

 

The word ambition exists in my OP. Therefore my points all stand.

 

 

Oh, really? Let me count how many other posters you accused in this same thread of being 'unable to read'.

Im sorry, but I cannot help that its annoying when people seem to easily skip words when reading a paragraph and then jump to conclusions and draw up scenarios that I wasnt even talking about.

 

With the exception of the word 'ambition', would you care to point out to me which phrase in your OP was not about money?

School, life goals, independence.

 

If all your OTHER criteria are about money, I see no reason that I should assume your meaning of ambition to not be related to money.

Read the above.

Let's go through this again. You completely miss the point of my analogy. You then accuse everyone who doesn't agree with your OP of being 'unable to read', because apparently the fact that people who agree with you exist is irrefutable proof that your OP can only possibly be interpreted in one way and one way only.

My OP brings up a person who failed to launch and has basically childish, leeching, behavior. You then started creating scenarios about other folks who failed to launch yet didnt have the behavior I described.

 

Can you see why I would ask you to learn to read more carefully? If I bring up a specific type of person, you do not refute my argument by bringing up an entirely different kind of person.

 

 

I have read many, many threads in this forum, and yours are the only ones in which I see constant accusations directed towards several otherwise prolific and well-written posters as being 'unable to read'. Given the choice between the conclusion that otherwise educated posters suddenly become dumb slobbering fools as soon as they enter your threads, or the conclusion that your OP required clarification (and you are too proud to admit it), I choose the latter.

Oh give me a break. Posters argue all the time here and ask others to re read what they said and then clarify their response.

 

Excuse me for catching people on their BS and calleing them out on it. Just now in the "pot and herpes" thread, some dude accused me of not knowing my stuff. He in fact misread what I said, and I called him out on it. I quoted myself and bolded what he failed to read...and I received no response on that post.

 

I wont call someone out unless I feel its warranted. Many a time I do notice posters quickly read something, then miss words that were important to a post, and then seek to start a debate before understanding the post. Im not the only one who does this. It may seem so since we are currently embroiled in debate though.

 

But of course, this entire diatribe only serves as proof that I 'can't read' and 'can't understand that it isn't all about the money', amirite?

This whole diatribe has been about you missing the point of my OP. I still dont understand how someone could not couple ambition with interest in their mind. The two go hand and hand.

 

If I created a thread right now on this forum, the vast majority would agree. Ambition implies high interest.

If this was a genuine debate contest, I would persevere (and likely win in the eyes of anyone with even the slightest nugget of logic resident in their grey matter). As this isn't, and there is no prize for 'winning', I shall politely decline. Good luck with calling the next 5 posters 'unable to read', too.

How could you win a debate contest when you cant even relate ambition with interest?

 

Lol @ you even needing to say that this was some sort of contest. It never was.

Edited February 20, 2012 by kaylan

[Star Gazer]

This whole diatribe has been about you missing the point of my OP. I still dont understand how someone could not couple ambition with interest in their mind. The two go hand and hand.

 

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

 

To me, they're not necessarily coupled. I understand and agree with E.

 

How could you win a debate contest when you cant even relate ambition with interest?

 

Why do you turn everything into a debate contest on LS? It's freaking annoying. I used to find your posts and threads salient, but ever since you've turned the forum into a a place to twist words, argue, bait, and insult people's intelligence, you've just become straight up annoying.

 

Can't you just have a freaking intelligent conversation where people exchange differing ideas and information, and let folks take away from it what they want? Jeezus.

[Star Gazer]

I have read many, many threads in this forum, and yours are the only ones in which I see constant accusations directed towards several otherwise prolific and well-written posters as being 'unable to read'. Given the choice between the conclusion that otherwise educated posters suddenly become dumb slobbering fools as soon as they enter your threads, or the conclusion that your OP required clarification (and you are too proud to admit it), I choose the latter.

 

High five, lady.

[kaylan]

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

 

To me, they're not necessarily coupled. I understand and agree with E.

Of course you would agree with her, considering you recently tried to force your beliefs down my throat in another thread.

 

I dont need to make anything "so". The meaning of the word ambition ties into great interest in something. You cannot be ambitious about something and have no interest in it. Prove to me otherwise.

 

Why do you turn everything into a debate contest on LS? It's freaking annoying. I used to find your posts and threads salient, but ever since you've turned the forum into a a place to twist words, argue, bait, and insult people's intelligence, you've just become straight up annoying.

Excuse me? I turn things into a debate contest? Last I checked this was an open forum and I am allowed to voice my opinions and respond to posts that address my opinions.

 

Furthermore, it was YOU who engaged me in the debate we had in that other thread. When you stated that you saw pot as a deal breaker, did I sit and try to explain to you why marijuana was this or that?

 

Did I start telling you about marijuana's legal history and why it carries a stigma? Did I try and convince you that pot wasnt so bad and that you shouldnt pass up someone who smokes? No I did not. I simply said thats how you feel, and it is what it is.

 

You on the other hand wouldnt just accept that I refuse to date someone with an STD, and gave me all this reasoning that wouldnt matter to me. I accepted your deal breaker and you couldnt accept mine. You were as dismissive about pot as I was about STDs. You were the one who started that debate.

 

So please, chill with the selective memory. I could care less if you find me annoying. Plenty of posters debate here. Thing is, I dont back down when someone challenges my opinion. I will stand behind what I believe. If you cant handle that, then do not address me in the future. Do you expect me to simply swallow your viewpoints and not back up what I think?

Can't you just have a freaking intelligent conversation where people exchange differing ideas and information, and let folks take away from it what they want? Jeezus.

Funny you should say this, considering how you simply dismissed my deal breaker as ignorant in the other thread. I did not do that when you said you wouldnt date a pot smoker. I left that as your prerogative.

 

But you started with the silly character attacks because my opinion upset you. If you cannot separate your emotions from your argument yourself, how can you ask me to have an intelligent conversation? You were absolutely unwilling to accepted my differing ideas. I accepted yours regarding the pot didnt it?

 

Talk about hypocrite.

 

And then you mosey along into another thread and seek to address me? Unbelievable.

 

I couldnt care less if you value my posts...because many others here do. And I actually receive PMs from people regarding them. But thats life...some folks will agree with you, and some wont.

 

I accept that, but will always stand behind my views. Its no hair off my back if people disagree with me, but when they respond, I will address those responses.

High five, lady.

*yawn* lolz

Edited February 20, 2012 by kaylan

[Els]

Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

 

To me, they're not necessarily coupled. I understand and agree with E.

 

Why do you turn everything into a debate contest on LS? It's freaking annoying. I used to find your posts and threads salient, but ever since you've turned the forum into a a place to twist words, argue, bait, and insult people's intelligence, you've just become straight up annoying.

 

Can't you just have a freaking intelligent conversation where people exchange differing ideas and information, and let folks take away from it what they want? Jeezus.

 

Oh, Star, why did you put yourself into the 'unable to read' category by agreeing with me? It would be horrible for a lawyer to be illiterate! :lmao:

[Wink Tobasco]

I'd certainly have sex with her. More than that would only lead to problems. But there could be a gem in such a situation, who will do great when she finds her way.

[Keke1]

A recent thread inspired me to create this one. Check it out here and leave the OP some advice. Failure to Launch... - LoveShack.org Community Forums

 

Now I want to ask other dudes. Could you date a woman who failed to launch?

 

That is, she still lives with her parents after age 25...isnt in school, work a low paying job, debt, no life goals or career ambition, and is perfectly content with making just enough money to cover food and a hobby.

 

Now personally I would not date such a person. Not because living at home is bad...but because lack of ambition and the inability to be a independent or contributing adult is unattractive. If a gal had goals and was living at home to save up for a house one day, and was actually chipping in with her parents expenses, then Id be kool with that.

 

But someone who has no goals outside of paycheck to paycheck expenses isnt something Id go for. Not to mention I wasnt raised with the idea that I should date someone Id have to end up taking care of if things got serious.

 

So what say you men?

Man I am dating someone just like this. I stay at hm 2 but its just me & my dad and I pay 2 stay. She doesn't. Was raised to think that a guy is supposed 2 pay for everything & she works a ****ty job getting about 5hrs a day. On top of being spoiled & selfish. I worked with her early in the Relationship. I always was trying to find a better situation worked. 2 jobs twice while dating her. Left 1 company for a Lead position. Got laid off had some surgery after that and now have the best job I've evr had. Now that I have the money 2 do so I plan on moving out because its been way past time & finishing school. Lived with my father ever since my mom passed away when I was younger(no excuse) but I've been paying since I was 18. She doesn't pay a dime for anything in the house and isn't trying 2. I've been questioning what I've been doing with someone who doesn't even feel the need 2 pay 2 stay & isn't trying 2 better herself. I've stayed because I been in the low income cycle before & I thought I would always be in it. The job I have now didn't just come 2 me magically I went 2 get it by applying myself. If I had 2 do it over again there would def. Be somethings different. I would have pushed her harder 2 do something but she seems content with stayn there mooching & working her ****ty job. At least try its so frustrating 2 deal with someone who doesn't seem 2 care or even try.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Keke1

[boaaaar]

I wouldn't.