Why Do Girls Look Down on Guys That Live With Their Parents Around the Ages of 22-27?

[Negative Nancy]

so what are you gonna do when you lose your job and dont find another one immediately - with an apartment you can move into a smaller one and save on rent - but with a house? unless you find a seller right away, a seller who actually pays as much as the house is worth at that, you'd be stuck with a hefty mortgage, and in the end you might have to move out anyway, with tons of debt lingering over your head. or were all those news about tons of foreclosures just stories the newspapers made up out of boredom?

[bean1]

You have different priorities. You sound terribly butt-hurt because some women will disagree and think you are not 'independent' because you live with your parents. Just like you think they are idiots for thinking an apartment is more important than long term financial investments. You don't place any value on having the experiences that come with moving out young, so what? Some people do. I did. I found it valuable.

 

So find a girl who doesn't care then. You're not right and you're not wrong, and they aren't right and they aren't wrong. Again, it's just priorities.

[veggirl]

well you're 29, you wouldn't date me regardless because I'm pretty sure you want to get married soon and I'm likely not gonna get married until I'm 28-35

 

Well no i'm actually not that concerned with getting married, my point was that at your age (the topic of your thread quotes 22-27), I think it's fine. I think 27 might be pushing it TBH, but it would depend on circumstances. It's all circumstantial!! I don't think MOST people would automatically write someone off that they were legit and truly interested in for living with their parents. If it was because they were just lazy etc, then yeah, but like I said, if it was for a specific purpose, I think there is leeway. Esp at 22. Again, 27 might be pushing it, but it would depend.

[dasein]

I just don't understand how so many woman can look down on a man for thinking about his long term future financially and having a great relationship with his parents.

 

The partial answer is in the subtext. They will never admit this, maybe not even to themselves, but lots of it in current U.S. culture has to do with a feeling, right or wrong, in many women, that when a man is living at home, there are less resources available for her to attach, less money and attention to be spent on her and whatever her agenda is. The family looms as a third party competitor in the relationship, and for many women, if it isn't "all about them," it's an intolerable situation.

 

Hence all the complaining about "mama's boys" out there. Some few are real mama's boys, the rest represent unacceptable competition between her and the preexisting family. This also explains lots of the inherent friction between wives and mother in laws generally. It also explains pervasive "cheap slander" in society that many women inflict on men. Come to think of it, it also explains the demand for engagement rings, a sign that the man is willing to waste an exorbitant sum on something totally frivolous, just because she expects it, that may even have its origin in oppression and human suffering.

 

Women are every bit as competitive as men are, just in different ways. Men could care less if a woman is still living at home into her 20s, don't associate such a choice with "not growing up" or "being in a different stage of life," and wouldn't bother even attempting massive rationalizations of what is in fact simple competitive instincts at work.

[zengirl]

I've explained this many times, it's very simple

 

I've explained it many times: it's very simple. . .

 

Not everyone sees their lives as being driven by investment in property and monetary things.

 

From my POV, there are so many benefits from living on your own, away from your parents, and making your own way in the world that have nothing to do with money or investments! Even if you have to live in a crappy apartment with hostile roommates (worst case and not my experiences mostly) --- experiences themselves are worth so much. You don't view life that way, obviously, but certainly some others do!

 

Also, I could buy a house right now if I wanted and I'm not. Because my life isn't about investments and property and that's not what's right for ME or my husband. You think the housing market is the key to your happiness, it seems, and maybe it is, but don't be surprised if others have different priorities.

 

well you're 29, you wouldn't date me regardless because I'm pretty sure you want to get married soon and I'm likely not gonna get married until I'm 28-35

 

Yes, this is another reason not to date someone who lives at home. They tend to be late bloomers with marriage and marriage-mindedness as well. That's above the national average for the ages men marry, btw. Nothing wrong with that but another reason I'd not have dated someone who was at home at 26 . . . there would be no way he'd be ready for marriage anywhere near that state. I've been dating 'for marriage' (theoretically) well before I was 26!

[udolipixie]

I have friends who have switched back and forth between having apartments and living at home for various reasons. Are they a radically different person when they live away and do they somehow change back to a different lifestage when they're living at home? Come on now. How in the world are you letting such petty and superficial things determine what kind of person somebody is?

 

The women in this thread are saying a scumbag with a dead end job but who has an apartment is more compatible with you than people like myself who think about our long term financial futures and who will be financially set at a very young age? In what planet does that make sense?

As I stated I know many gals/guys who felt they've changed and to elaborate on the extent some radically changed and some slightly changed. Though it seems to me the 'come on now' bit is a way to avoid acknowledging that a different environment may change personality as nowhere did I state the extent of the difference.

 

Perhaps it's not petty or superifical to the person just as weight or age isn't petty or superificial to some guys. It's not out of this world or unusual if people use petty or superificial things to determine what kind of person someone is as from my experience people tend to attribute non character traits to character such as fat = slob/lazy. People often don't even bother getting to know what kind of person somebody is if they don't past things that may be considered petty or superifica.

 

I posted what the gals said and nowhere did any gal state, suggest, or imply then or now that a scumbag with a dead end job is more compatible with them period much less make such a comparison. Is this more of you 'reading between the lines'?

 

The planet that such a statement makes sense is likely the one you inhabit where when a gal says she doesn't want to date a guy who lives at home it's being brainwashed by society or caring what society thinks.

Edited May 24, 2012 by udolipixie

[HallowedBeThyName]

As I stated I know many gals/guys who felt they've changed and to elaborate on the extent some radically changed and some slightly changed. Though it seems to me the 'come on now' bit is a way to avoid acknowledging that a different environment may change personality as nowhere did I state the extent of the difference.

 

 

So somebody who has been living at home and in an apartment are different points of their life for various reasons is switching back and forth between different lifestages?

 

 

Signing that lease on the apartment somehow changes everything right? You're now a completely different person because you're living somewhere else instead of at home

 

 

When you come back home, you're completely different again and you're now back to being at a different lifestage? Boy oh boy that signing that lease on an apartment sure makes a huge difference for a person

 

 

 

Ridiculous just absolutely ridiculous and you sit there and try to justify this nonsense with one line of nonsense after another. Also how in the world are you gonna compare weight to living an apartment vs at home? Weight determines how good you look, having an apartment or not does not determine how charismatic or confident you personality is. That's an outrageous comparison

 

 

The fact is that you can't justify this on any sort of a logical level and you're just grasping for straws now

[dasein]

At any rate, I've never yet heard anyone give the reason for living at home to be an ecological one, and many households aren't green-friendly regardless of the number of people in them.

 

Irrelevant. Doesn't change the point that someone who claimed to have "green" ideals doesn't really have much ground to stand on in judging someone merely for living at home.

 

That's not the same as "not becoming an adult" but also no one in the thread has really said or suggested the turnoff is solely about avoiding adulthood or mooching, as another poster pointed out. It's about the priorities presented.

 

Window dressing, there is definite bias in the thread expressed as "stage of life" or whatever that translates into the same thing.

 

Liquidity IS material things, if you leverage it for property, etc. Again, this is about priorities. If your friend is happy with his choices, awesome. Same with the OP. But trying to sell those choices as priorities everyone should get on board with is a different story.

 

Deciding to not go around naked is also focusing on "material things." You are splitting hairs. There's a difference between forcing people to get on board with priorities and not expecting kneejerk judgments based on living situation alone. OP's position is the latter and it's a reasonable gripe, as many women would in fact judge a man merely for living at home in and of itself without even considering the specifics of the situation case by case. That sentiment is all over the thread, and it's counterintuitive. The rational position would be to evaluate case by case with a bias favoring a man who was making wise choices about the future and keeping options open.

[bean1]

OP had a reasonable gripe on the first post.

 

How many pages later, it has turned into an obvious attitude that is identical-yet-opposite to the one he seems to complain about.

 

He was pissed off because people couldn't see his priorities, now he's pissed off because he thinks his priorities are more important than others and can't see the other side of the coin himself.

[zengirl]

Irrelevant. Doesn't change the point that someone who claimed to have "green" ideals doesn't really have much ground to stand on in judging someone merely for living at home.

 

I really don't get that point. Living at home is not necessarily green. Nor is living alone even necessarily not green (if you live in a one-room studio for instance, with good insulation, and practice green practices, there's no reason it'd be less green!). The most green living I ever did was in a one-room, alone, in South Korea.

 

Window dressing, there is definite bias in the thread expressed as "stage of life" or whatever that translates into the same thing.

 

It's not a bias really --- it's people's opinions and priorities on how they prefer the people they would date to live, act, and view the world. Why do you have a problem with other people's preferences for independence?

 

Deciding to not go around naked is also focusing on "material things." You are splitting hairs. There's a difference between forcing people to get on board with priorities and not expecting kneejerk judgments based on living situation alone. OP's position is the latter and it's a reasonable gripe, as many women would in fact judge a man merely for living at home in and of itself without even considering the specifics of the situation case by case. That sentiment is all over the thread, and it's counterintuitive. The rational position would be to evaluate case by case with a bias favoring a man who was making wise choices about the future and keeping options open.

 

I don't think what the OP considers "wise choices about the future" (the focus on saving for a home over current independence) is necessarily aligned with MY view of wisdom and the correct way to live your life.

 

I have already said I'd not judge a man at ALL if he were living at home to care for ill, infirm, or out-of-work parents (seriously -- I'd commend that!), nor do I think it's bad for a 22 year old student to live at home (though I'm long away from the student life phase myself), but all the reasons the OP listed for living at home after procuring a job are distasteful to me. That doesn't mean such a person is a "bad" guy --- it just means I would not have seen him as LTR material. Apparently many other women agree, and thus the OP's frustration. Just as people are entitled to reject someone for the way they look or anything else, a woman is entitled to reject a man because his living situation is not to her liking, as is a man entitled to do the same!

[Green Light]

The WORST thing a man can do for his self esteem is sit around and worry about what women want! You are a man not some product with bullet points advertising your many qualities! The best thing a man can do is live the life that HE wants to live and be as totally happy with himself as he can. If a woman comes along to share it so be it, if not, then that's OK too. I you can't be happy being alone then chances are you won't be happy while you are in a relationship. What's most important is to be at peace with yourself. That is really the most attractive quality in anybody. Short or tall, rich or poor, living alone or with family all take a back burner to that! No matter where you are in life you'll get much more respect from women[and everybody] when you don't live your life based on other people's "expectations."

[HallowedBeThyName]

OP had a reasonable gripe on the first post.

 

How many pages later, it has turned into an obvious attitude that is identical-yet-opposite to the one he seems to complain about.

 

He was pissed off because people couldn't see his priorities, now he's pissed off because he thinks his priorities are more important than others and can't see the other side of the coin himself.

 

 

 

I didn't say other people's priorities were less important than mine. I personally think having an apartment is an awful waste of money, talk to anybody in finance or real estate and they'll agree 100%. With that being said, I have no problem at all with somebody living in apartment because it's my money

 

 

 

What's mind boggling to me is all the women in here who will judge a man for living at home when the only reason he's doing so is because he's thinking of the best way to take care of himself financially in the future. Why live paycheck to paycheck when you don't need to? Why have debt when you don't need to? Why throw away 10s and thousands of dollars every year when you don't need to?

 

 

There is literally nothing I'm doing that would indicate I'm less independent, less hard working or less developed as an adult than somebody whose been living at home since he was 18, can't really afford his lifestyle and just has bills and debts up the ass.

 

 

The women in this thread are obsessed with finding a man that fits societal ideals. That's it all comes down to. Every other form of reasoning they try to use makes no sense whatsoever. Women are obsessed with doing what society tells them and they will pick that over doing what is smart and considerate of the long term any day of the week

[zengirl]

The WORST thing a man can do for his self esteem is sit around and worry about what women want! You are a man not some product with bullet points advertising your many qualities! The best thing a man can do is live the life that HE wants to live and be as totally happy with himself as he can. If a woman comes along to share it so be it, if not, then that's OK too. I you can't be happy being alone then chances are you won't be happy while you are in a relationship. What's most important is to be at peace with yourself. That is really the most attractive quality in anybody. Short or tall, rich or poor, living alone or with family all take a back burner to that! No matter where you are in life you'll get much more respect from women[and everybody] when you don't live your life based on other people's "expectations."

 

Well certainly, and this is true if you reverse the genders as well. I'd say everyone should live as they want to live and date the people they want to date (which includes only dating people whose lifestyles fit your preferences). I don't think there's anything 'wrong' with the way the OP lives in a general sense --- it'd be wrong for me and I'd not have ever preferred it or accepted it in a potential mate, so I answered why that was since he wanted to know the reasons why someone might feel that way.

 

However, if the OP or anyone else is truly happy living as they want to live isn't that more important than what other people think? I think trying to frame this whole thing in "right" and "wrong" is the problem --- there's no right/wrong/wise/unwise/logical/illogical to it. There are many different ways to live well, but some people may see a lifestyle as unfitting for THEIR goals either in themselves or a mate.

 

But I absolutely agree that someone who wants to live at home, for the comfort or anything else, is free to do so and should accept their choices and all the ramifications of that choice, good or bad.

[HallowedBeThyName]

^^ my last comment I meant to say I have no problem with people living in apartments because it's not my money

 

 

 

 

Zengirl you have to admit women do judge a man for living at home and it's definitely not in a positive way. You can keep going with your "Oh it's different mindset" blah blah blah but I'm not buying it and neither are the other men here in a similar situation. Why else would you see that passionate response by that 22 year old engineer who is gonna own a beautiful condo at the age of 23? He sees the exact same thing that I see and it irritated him to hell

 

 

 

The bottom line is that somebody living at home at the age of 25 or 26 with no plans to move out is a loser, a person living at home for a couple years to save up money and get a down payment for a house is living his life wisely in every sense of the term. There are lots and lots of guys I talk to the internet who are 28-29 years old who moved out very young and they tell me that they wish they didn't move out because they would be much more settled and stress free when it comes to finances right now

[joystickd]

Women that prefer an independent man here is a question. Would it bother you that you met a guy that was on his own and rich but didn't struggle for it? Ex. he had a trust fund from his parents or they just buy him a place to live and he lives off of their money. He didn't struggle at all. Is it a bother that he had the easy life and not struggled? Would that keep you from wanting to date him?

[HallowedBeThyName]

 

Deciding to not go around naked is also focusing on "material things." You are splitting hairs. There's a difference between forcing people to get on board with priorities and not expecting kneejerk judgments based on living situation alone. OP's position is the latter and it's a reasonable gripe, as many women would in fact judge a man merely for living at home in and of itself without even considering the specifics of the situation case by case. That sentiment is all over the thread, and it's counterintuitive. The rational position would be to evaluate case by case with a bias favoring a man who was making wise choices about the future and keeping options open.

 

 

 

Great post buy you should know better than that by now

 

 

 

Women don't work based on logic or rationale. They work based on emotions and they care more about fitting what society says than anything else

[udolipixie]

So somebody who has been living at home and in an apartment are different points of their life for various reasons is switching back and forth between different lifestages?

 

Signing that lease on the apartment somehow changes everything right? You're now a completely different person because you're living somewhere else instead of at home

 

When you come back home, you're completely different again and you're now back to being at a different lifestage? Boy oh boy that signing that lease on an apartment sure makes a huge difference for a person

 

Ridiculous just absolutely ridiculous and you sit there and try to justify this nonsense with one line of nonsense after another. Also how in the world are you gonna compare weight to living an apartment vs at home? Weight determines how good you look, having an apartment or not does not determine how charismatic or confident you personality is. That's an outrageous comparison

 

The fact is that you can't justify this on any sort of a logical level and you're just grasping for straws now

 

For some such a guy may be switching back and forth between different lifestages. To me that is his lifestage as I've often seen people flip flopping on some aspect in their life and to me it may be an adjustment, discovery, learning, or decision stage.

 

If they decide to signing the lease or go back home they're changing their life stage to me as they are no longer switching back and forth but have settle onto one route.

 

Nowhere did I state, suggest, or imply that a person is a completely different person because they are living somewhere else instead of home. I stated to me different experiences, environments, and responsibilities may have a tendency to change a person's personality. Are you doing some more of your 'reading between the lines'?

 

What's ridiculous to me is how often you seem to be making strawman arguments and applying your own biased skewed perceptions to get the intrepretation that suits you such as when a gal says she doesn't want to date a guy who lives at home it's being brainwashed by society or caring what society thinks.

 

It's not grasping at straws to state it's not uncommon for people to use petty or superificial things to determine what kind of person someone is such as equating fat to men the person is a slob or lazy. Nor is it an outrageous comparison as the similarity is both have someone using petty or superificial things to determine what kind of person another is. Or is using using someone's weight to determine what kind of person they are and attributing traits based on their weight not using superificial things to determine what kind of person someone is?

 

Seems you're grasping at straws as you don't have a logical counterpoint.

[dasein]

Living at home is not necessarily green. Nor is living alone even necessarily not green

 

Doesn't change that living at home -is- generally green, and moving out to be independent as opposed to staying home and conserving resources -is- generally less green.

 

Why do you have a problem with other people's preferences for independence?

 

Because as often expressed, and as expressed in this thread, it rises to the level of a prejudice, not a preference, as there is no underlying rational basis for it. You can use the word "independence" all you want, but someone paying rent, extra utilities, insurance, as opposed to investing or saving it is less "independent" in a very real economic sense. Likewise, merely living outside the home has -nothing- to do with independence in and of itself as sanman demonstrated in his post giving several of examples of people who lived away but were still completely dependent. Judging someone for living at home alone without other details is the equivalent of judging someone for driving a beater car, another common type of female judgment, and equally irrational.

 

I don't think what the OP considers "wise choices about the future" (the focus on saving for a home over current independence) is necessarily aligned with MY view of wisdom and the correct way to live your life.

 

Again with the "independence" as if sleeping in a remote location from one's family represents any real indicia of independence. It may, it may not. The mere fact of it alone, though, does not grant any moral high ground, especially not enough to form a judgmental, immediate reaction, based on "independence." I know tons of women (and some men) who moved out early and still took a check from daddy until they got married. Were they independent? Of course not.

 

Just as people are entitled to reject someone for the way they look or anything else, a woman is entitled to reject a man because his living situation is not to her liking, as is a man entitled to do the same!

 

Yeah, people are certainly free to behave as judgmentally and irrationally as they choose in their preferences. With that I agree. They can then complain one day about "the rich" and "raising tax brackets" on those who made wise wealth building decisions early on also as they become more and more "dependent" on the government throughout their lives. Certainly their right to do so, hypocritical, but their right.

[fortyninethousand322]

Women that prefer an independent man here is a question. Would it bother you that you met a guy that was on his own and rich but didn't struggle for it? Ex. he had a trust fund from his parents or they just buy him a place to live and he lives off of their money. He didn't struggle at all. Is it a bother that he had the easy life and not struggled? Would that keep you from wanting to date him?

 

Yeah, what if he won the Mega Millions? Guy would be rich and "independent", but he could spend all day playing video games if he wanted.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Women that prefer an independent man here is a question. Would it bother you that you met a guy that was on his own and rich but didn't struggle for it? Ex. he had a trust fund from his parents or they just buy him a place to live and he lives off of their money. He didn't struggle at all. Is it a bother that he had the easy life and not struggled? Would that keep you from wanting to date him?

 

 

 

Of course it wouldn't, what kind of stupid question is that?

 

 

 

I used to know a guy who was 22 and had a beautiful apartment in the city. His parents were millionaires and they gave him the 400,000 apartment to live in. He didn't even work and was always swarmed by female attention

 

 

According to women's ideas, this guy is more independent and at a more developed lifestage because he lives by himself. It doesn't matter that he didn't earn a damn thing and that he will live his life as a cake walk

 

 

Which brings me back to my point, it's not about the principals. Women are just lying about that - it's about emotions and trying to fit society's stereotypes and caring what society thinks instead of rational analysis. If that wasn't the case, then this guy who had a apartment given to him wouldn't be swarmed by female attention

[HallowedBeThyName]

Doesn't change that living at home -is- generally green, and moving out to be independent as opposed to staying home and conserving resources -is- generally less green.

 

 

 

Because as often expressed, and as expressed in this thread, it rises to the level of a prejudice, not a preference, as there is no underlying rational basis for it. You can use the word "independence" all you want, but someone paying rent, extra utilities, insurance, as opposed to investing or saving it is less "independent" in a very real economic sense. Likewise, merely living outside the home has -nothing- to do with independence in and of itself as sanman demonstrated in his post giving several of examples of people who lived away but were still completely dependent. Judging someone for living at home alone without other details is the equivalent of judging someone for driving a beater car, another common type of female judgment, and equally irrational.

 

 

 

Again with the "independence" as if sleeping in a remote location from one's family represents any real indicia of independence. It may, it may not. The mere fact of it alone, though, does not grant any moral high ground, especially not enough to form a judgmental, immediate reaction, based on "independence." I know tons of women (and some men) who moved out early and still took a check from daddy until they got married. Were they independent? Of course not.

 

 

 

Yeah, people are certainly free to behave as judgmentally and irrationally as they choose in their preferences. With that I agree. They can then complain one day about "the rich" and "raising tax brackets" on those who made wise wealth building decisions early on also as they become more and more "dependent" on the government throughout their lives. Certainly their right to do so, hypocritical, but their right.

 

 

 

Beautiful, absolutely beautiful

 

 

 

http://rs-ff.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/Funny%20-%20Rock%20clapping.gif

[HallowedBeThyName]

Yeah, what if he won the Mega Millions? Guy would be rich and "independent", but he could spend all day playing video games if he wanted.

 

 

 

Women don't care about the principals, anybody who believes that nonsense is just a complete idiot

 

 

They care about emotions and fitting into what society wants. They care about their status and dating a man who lives at home is deemed to be lower status

 

 

I have known a good number of kids from wealthy families who lived on their own but the house/apartment they had was given to them, yes given to them by their daddy/mommy. According to them, these kids who have their tuition payed off by daddy and their house payed off by daddy are more independent than somebody like me who is gonna pay off all my student loans and buy a house with just my money. Don't sit there and tell me otherwise because every one of them used to get swarmed with female attention

 

 

This is why me and dasein are arguing that none of this nonsense being spewed in this thread has any logical underlying, because it doesn't

Edited May 24, 2012 by HallowedBeThyName

[fortyninethousand322]

Women don't care about the principals, anybody who believes that nonsense is just a complete idiot

 

Are you new to planet earth? About 1% of humans care about principals, and that's a very generous estimate. It's not a female thing just a people thing.

[zengirl]

Zengirl you have to admit women do judge a man for living at home and it's definitely not in a positive way.

 

I am sure many people do. I have said I would judge such a man, as he would not be compatible with my mindset. There are some women on here who've said they would not care, though they seem to be the minority. Certainly if a woman herself lived at home but cared that a man did, that may be hypocrisy, but if she has made her own way in the world, I could easily see why she'd want a man who had done the same.

 

You can keep going with your "Oh it's different mindset" blah blah blah but I'm not buying it and neither are the other men here in a similar situation. Why else would you see that passionate response by that 22 year old engineer who is gonna own a beautiful condo at the age of 23? He sees the exact same thing that I see and it irritated him to hell

 

So be irritated, I guess. *shrugs* I don't judge a man favorably by the property he owns either -- so I don't know why you keep bringing up property ownership as though it's some great thing.

 

The bottom line is that somebody living at home at the age of 25 or 26 with no plans to move out is a loser, a person living at home for a couple years to save up money and get a down payment for a house is living his life wisely in every sense of the term. There are lots and lots of guys I talk to the internet who are 28-29 years old who moved out very young and they tell me that they wish they didn't move out because they would be much more settled and stress free when it comes to finances right now

 

The guy you see living his life "wisely" --- I see him as living his life with a little too much comfort, stasis, and focus on the material and far too little independence for my taste, but that's not to say he's a loser. He's just got some strikes against him that would make him undateable to some women. As I said, though, you should make the choices that are best for you, overall. Always.

 

Women that prefer an independent man here is a question. Would it bother you that you met a guy that was on his own and rich but didn't struggle for it? Ex. he had a trust fund from his parents or they just buy him a place to live and he lives off of their money. He didn't struggle at all. Is it a bother that he had the easy life and not struggled? Would that keep you from wanting to date him?

 

I don't care if a person struggles per se, and a trust fund wouldn't turn me off per se, but it probably would, if the guy chose to live off of that and didn't really seem to have drive, ambition, and independence of his own.

 

My best friend has a trust fund, but she's never touched a dime of it for her own expenses. She donates every penny. I really admire that.

 

Doesn't change that living at home -is- generally green, and moving out to be independent as opposed to staying home and conserving resources -is- generally less green.

 

I wouldn't agree with that assessment. Most people who move out have houseshares, which are every bit as green, if not greener, than lots of family living. An apartment-share is much greener than a family living in a house, as apartments and condos and townhouses are typically greener than homes. Etcetera.

 

Because as often expressed, and as expressed in this thread, it rises to the level of a prejudice, not a preference, as there is no underlying rational basis for it.

 

Many people have given rational basis for it -- both pragmatic (no place to have loud sex) and philosophical (he's overly comfortable at home and has never had to struggle on his own, he's not valuing independence and is overvaluing his comfort/money) and so forth. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it irrational.

 

Again with the "independence" as if sleeping in a remote location from one's family represents any real indicia of independence.

 

Paying all your own bills, managing your own financial crisis, and so forth make one independent. I agree that someone taking a check for their rent is just as "not independent" and would be just as undateable, ftr.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Are you new to planet earth? About 1% of humans care about principals, and that's a very generous estimate. It's not a female thing just a people thing.

 

 

 

At least men don't sit there and lie about it

 

 

 

Women will get on their high horse about all this nonsense about a man who lives at home being less independant, being at a different lifestage, blah blah. It's all bullsht, they care about their status and a man living at home is deemed to be lower status. That's all it comes down to