Attraction v security

[confused kitty]

Im sure theres many simular threads out there, but Im just curious to see what you guys think on this subject...

 

Which would you go for ladies??

Type A) Hes a genuinely nice guy, fun to be around, makes you laugh and spending time with him is just so easy never any awkwardness, hes a good man who works hard to try make a living for himself and his son (from a previous relationship). Hes a take life day by day sort of guy, imediate attraction and chemisty..

 

OR

 

Type B) Also a nice guy, who seems genuine and is free from any baggage, hes caring and a deep thinker, he has his life planned out and knows where hes going, he makes good money and thinks nothing of buying expensive things on a whim and often does so, hes made it clear that he would look after you and never want for anything (sounds shallow and Im wincing as I write this) someone you may grow to love..

 

So who would you chose to date..?

 

I guess you could call it a case of Head v Heart.

 

Just so you know, Im in a relationship, this is a situation my best friend is in and I just thought Id throw it out there to get some feed back from you LShackers

[Star Gazer]

I'm not seeing a big difference between the two...?

[confused kitty]

Okay to put it very bluntly, one she is very attracted to but he can hardly support himself and his son and the other is a nice guy who she is not so attracted to but he is baggage free and makes real good money.. It all sounds very shallow as Im even writing this but Im purely looking for oppinions here

[ScienceGal]

This is tough, and actually something that I've been thinking about a lot lately. My boyfriend doesn't make much money and chooses to stay at the job because he enjoys it and sees the potential for growth and greater success. I don't see it, but feel I should give it time. He's taken on part time work and is trying to be successful. He is far from lazy, and I am doing my best to be patient and supportive. And he adores me, that I do not doubt.

 

What struck me about your descriptions is that the first guy works hard, he's not a deadbeat. You seem less sure about the second guy and even referenced that she could "grow to love him". That makes me sad, but probably because I totally relate. I want to live modestly but comfortably, and I don't think that's too much to expect. I worry my boyfriend will stay at this job that prevents him from being financially stable and able to go 50/50 with me.

 

Personally, I like to imagine myself 65 years old. I picture my future husband and what kind of man he is. I imagine at that point, in terms of relationships and life happiness, money wouldn't have mattered as much as true attraction and love. I think about how I'll reflect on my life with him.

 

If your friend isn't involved deeply with either of these men, I recommend she get to know both of them. Then, she should determine who seems to be the better connection. If she is still leaning towards guy A, she should then determine what is more important to her, the connection or the financial security.

 

I always tell myself that you just have to make the best possible decision with the information that you have.

Edited September 10, 2012 by ScienceGal

[SpiralOut]

I believe in following your heart. What happens if you choose this guy who looks better on paper but you never grow to love him.

[CptObvious]

Anybody who wouldn't choose option 2 is a liar.

[confused kitty]

ScienceGirl, you described the exact predicument she finds herself in..

 

Guy A) has just gone back to college (for 3yrs) to try and better his future while still working part time and taking care of his son, hes far from lazy but he cant offer her much in terms of a secure future, she has always had to struggle financially for her whole life and staying with him would show no end to this yet hes the one her heart is telling her to go with...

While she isnt looking to be " a kept woman" guy B) offers her and end to financial worries, he even joked how shed never have to work another day in her life if they were dating long term (and I believe this to be true!) hes 27 and could have afforded to retire at the age of 23 only for the fact that hed have nothing else to do!

She didnt go out looking for an insanely rich guy who could offer her a wealthy lifestyle, infact hes told her its one of the reasons hes so attracted to her because she isnt after his money like previous girlfriends, all shes looking for is a modest/comfortable lifestyle where she wouldnt have to live from paycheck to paycheck and struggle to keep up with bills, shes not interested in his expensive gifts and offers of fancy meals in expensive restaurants and has often declined them choseing a night in with a bottle of wine and a home cooked meal instead...

[ScienceGal]

I'm not sure what he's going to school for, but guy A has the potential to get a decent paying job after college, right? And what about the fact that he has a son? I'm assuming your friend does not have children yet and I'm wondering if that is weighing on her as well. Kids come first, so the finances are tighter to begin with because of that, not to mention how that must affect his time availability.

 

If with all this, she truly has a better connection with guy a, I think she would deeply miss him if she lets him go.

[kaylan]

To your friend:

 

If you read threads online or ask women you know, settling in either situation will not leave you happy in the long run (especially when it comes to the attraction part). And if the first guy is a great guy, good father, and someone you are attracted to, why in the world would you settle for simply getting money from another dude? Are you a gold digger? Does real emotional happiness not matter?

 

I have to be honest and say I truly hope I dont come across many women like you when I start seriously dating again. Personally Id say take neither guy and find a guy who has both things you want. I wouldnt want to be the first guy, because in all honesty I feel youd possibly leave him one day for a rich guy who would give you a cushy life. And not that hed know, but what man would want a woman who seriously had to think if shed take money over him.

Edited September 10, 2012 by kaylan

[january2011]

I'd choose A because of his good values combined with our attraction and chemistry.

 

B is going to run out of money if he continues spending like this:

 

thinks nothing of buying expensive things on a whim and often does so, hes made it clear that he would look after you and never want for anything

 

I don't want to be solely dependent on my partner when it comes to money. Would I have to ask him for money if I wanted to buy things for myself? Do I get a monthly allowance? Will I feel guilty and controlled by him because I'm not financially independent? And what will happen if he loses it all?

[confused kitty]

Thanks for all your oppinions, shes casualy dating both guys and will more than likely continue dating Guy A because she has more chemisty with him, she is not a gold digger by any means... I mearly posted this thread to see what feedback/ oppinions i got back so thanks again :-)

[udolipixie]

I'd go B then divorce him taking half.

 

Probably suited to have your friend ensure her own security. In my opinion it's ridiculous for a woman to seek security from a man be it physical, emotional, or financial security unless she's willing to prostitute or give the appearance of possible sex. It seems most men don't offer security to a woman unless they're having sex with said woman.

 

Probably better suited to have your friend forgo attraction and go for compatibility and his appeal as a partner. In my opinion she can simply project her attraction of other men onto the man she's with.

[Titanwolf]

I'd go B then divorce him taking half.

 

Probably suited to have your friend ensure her own security. In my opinion it's ridiculous for a woman to seek security from a man be it physical, emotional, or financial security unless she's willing to prostitute or give the appearance of possible sex. It seems most men don't offer security to a woman unless they're having sex with said woman.

 

Probably better suited to have your friend forgo attraction and go for compatibility and his appeal as a partner. In my opinion she can simply project her attraction of other men onto the man she's with.

 

Are you a misandrist?

[udolipixie]

Are you a misandrist?

 

No.

 

Bit curious as to how you got misandry from my post.

 

Unsure where's the misandry in most men don't offer physical, emotional, or financial security to a woman they're not having sex with.

 

Really unsure where's the misandry is going for compatibility/partner appeal and project attraction onto the man.

[kaylan]

I'd go B then divorce him taking half.

So its ok to use someone and ruin their life? Nothing morally bankrupt about that huh? Tbh, Im starting to see similarities between you and the typical bitter male trolls on this forum.

Probably suited to have your friend ensure her own security. In my opinion it's ridiculous for a woman to seek security from a man be it physical, emotional, or financial security unless she's willing to prostitute or give the appearance of possible sex. It seems most men don't offer security to a woman unless they're having sex with said woman.

Are you daft? Thats how relationships work...men and women give each other various forms security based on the fact that they are in a partnership together. Aside from family members, why else would a man (or woman) simply give any form of security away to a woman (or man) they have no intimate connection with? Get real.

Probably better suited to have your friend forgo attraction and go for compatibility and his appeal as a partner. In my opinion she can simply project her attraction of other men onto the man she's with.

Um ...didnt OP say the first guy was a great dude, a good father and someone her friend clicked with well? Id think all of that, on top of physical attraction, equals compatibility.

 

And no, projecting attraction does not work. Or did you miss the numerous threads with women complaining about their unhappy marriages to men they have no attraction to?

[Titanwolf]

No.

 

Bit curious as to how you got misandry from my post.

 

Unsure where's the misandry in most men don't offer physical, emotional, or financial security to a woman they're not having sex with.

 

Really unsure where's the misandry is going for compatibility/partner appeal and project attraction onto the man.

 

This isn't regarding this specific post. Just from what I've gathered from the last few days. Your posts appear to have that element of disdain for men, something that makes me think you're out for revenge of some sort. What I'm getting from you is; Women=good Men=evil. I won't go into it any further though before I completely derail the topic.

[udolipixie]

So its ok to use someone and ruin their life? Nothing morally bankrupt about that huh? Tbh, Im starting to see similarities between you and the typical bitter male trolls on this forum.

It's okay to me as it's not illegal or harming children/animals. Though off note a person stating do something isn't necessarily stating, suggesting, or implying it's okay.

 

The only similarity I see between me and the typcial bitter male posters on this forum is that to me it seems most men are those posters.

 

Are you daft? Thats how relationships work...men and women give each other various forms security based on the fact that they are in a partnership together. Aside from family members, why else would a man (or woman) simply give any form of security away to a woman (or man) they have no intimate connection with? Get real.

I'm aware that's how relationships work as I stated so.

 

I did get real ala it's best to for a woman to ensure her own security than get it from a man unless she's willing to prostitute herself or give the appearance of sex.

 

Amusing logic that I'm daft and need to be told how relationships work because I state most men give security to women they are f*cking.

 

Absolutely amusing logic I need to be questioned why someone should give security away when I state seek your own security unless you're willing to meet the requirements to get the security.

 

Um ...didnt OP say the first guy was a great dude, a good father and someone her friend clicked with well? Id think all of that, on top of physical attraction, equals compatibility.

 

And no, projecting attraction does not work. Or did you miss the numerous threads with women complaining about their unhappy marriages to men they have no attraction to?

The OP also implied the second guy had more partner appeal to her best friend since he's baggage free.

 

Projecting attraction works for some women. I didn't miss those threads nor did I miss the numerous women I know and know of in happy marriages to men they have no attraction to.

[udolipixie]

This isn't regarding this specific post. Just from what I've gathered from the last few days. Your posts appear to have that element of disdain for men, something that makes me think you're out for revenge of some sort. What I'm getting from you is; Women=good Men=evil. I won't go into it any further though before I completely derail the topic.

LMAO @ that I appear to have a misandric element of disdain for men because I think most men are like the typical bitter male posters on this forum.

 

LMFAO @ what you get from me is women=good men=evil.

Yeah...it seems you have a selective biased perspective no different than the many women who think I'm misogynist who hates my gender thinking men=good women=evil.

[kaylan]

It's okay to me as it's not illegal or harming children/animals. Though off note a person stating do something isn't necessarily stating, suggesting, or implying it's okay.

 

The only similarity I see between me and the typcial bitter male posters on this forum is that to me it seems most men are those posters.

Encouraging certain behavior tells us all what you think of the behavior and whether you condone and support it. And I think you have made other posters points regarding your attitude towards men. We are lower than animals huh?

 

If you dont see the similarity between yourself and the bitter males, than by golly you are blind. Im sure many other females and males on this forum see it though.

 

 

I'm aware that's how relationships work as I stated so.

 

I did get real ala it's best to for a woman to ensure her own security than get it from a man unless she's willing to prostitute herself or give the appearance of sex.

I am so amused by your quaint smileys...really.

 

Amusing logic that I'm daft and need to be told how relationships work because I state most men give security to women they are f*cking.

 

Absolutely amusing logic I need to be questioned why someone should give security away when I state seek your own security unless you're willing to meet the requirements to get the security.

Are you really one to talk about someones logic? haha...this is where those smileys are needed.

 

You obviously missed the point of my previous post. It was an outright criticism of your attitude regarding men. You always seem to generalize us as interchangeable, useless, sex crazed wallets who can be used by women for some simple endgame.

 

The OP also implied the second guy had more partner appeal to her best friend since he's baggage free.

 

Projecting attraction works for some women. I didn't miss those threads nor did I miss the numerous women I know and know of in happy marriages to men they have no attraction to.

And the OP also implied that the truly big pull is the money above all else. And projecting attracting may only work for a miniscule amount of women. All of the threads Ive seen on the topic show me a woman whos greatly unhappy with her sex life and dreams of other men. I care not for your convenient anecdotes to back up your viewpoint in which a man will be used as a wallet.

 

Why not show me the threads of women happy with their wallet boyfriend who gives them no passion.

[confused kitty]

Just to clear up one thing, she has Not slept with Guy B! And yet he offered her the security, so to say men give security to those they are ****ing is ridiculous and while Im sure there are some men like that out there, painting them all with the one brush is both unfair and misleading... What about men who are ****ing women but yet offer them nothing, weather it be emotional, financial or any other kind of security..?

[udolipixie]

Encouraging certain behavior tells us all what you think of the behavior and whether you condone and support it. And I think you have made other posters points regarding your attitude towards men. We are lower than animals huh?

 

If you dont see the similarity between yourself and the bitter males, than by golly you are blind. Im sure many other females and males on this forum see it though.

Different opinions as mine is a person stating do something necessarily means they think it's morally correct. They may or may not.

 

Yes my compassion and consideration men are lower than animals. No different than women though telling how you only focus on men.

 

I do see a similarity I think most men are like those bitter males. If there is more of a similarity I'd be amused to hear so. In my opinion the similarity to a man stating women are gold digging leeches and such is a woman stating men are rapists in waiting.

 

I am so amused by your quaint smileys...really.

I am so amused by your logic really.

 

Are you really one to talk about someones logic? haha...this is where those smileys are needed.

 

You obviously missed the point of my previous post. It was an outright criticism of your attitude regarding men. You always seem to generalize us as interchangeable, useless, sex crazed wallets who can be used by women for some simple endgame.

In this case think I can talk about your logic..or lack of it.

 

Seems you're obviously evading your illogical statements.

 

If your point was a criticism of my attitude towards men perhaps it'd be suited to state so rather than make illogical statements in regards to me stating it seems most men give security to women they're f*cking.

 

And the OP also implied that the truly big pull is the money above all else. And projecting attracting may only work for a miniscule amount of women. All of the threads Ive seen on the topic show me a woman whos greatly unhappy with her sex life and dreams of other men. I care not for your convenient anecdotes to back up your viewpoint in which a man will be used as a wallet.

 

Why not show me the threads of women happy with their wallet boyfriend who gives them no passion.

The pull of money doesn't deter the implication of baggage free holds more partner appeal to her best friend.

 

Whether it's a miniscule amount of women that projecting attraction works on is a toss up. I would be curious to see where is the scientific research that states otherwise.

 

Nice strawman equation of wallet boyfriend from some women can be happy with men they aren't attracted to. I'm guessing the women being for men for his personality is purposely overlooked.

 

I could show you of women happy with their wallet boyfriend who gives them no passion if they were not deleted due to insults and threats on the woman's life or cl*t for being a gold digger.

[kaylan]

Strawman? No....but Im not wasting my time on you. People can go read your little blog or google you themselves to see I made great points regarding your attitude.

 

I already know from dealing with other bitter posters, not to get into cyclical arguments with folks like you.

 

Laterz =)

Edited September 10, 2012 by kaylan

[udolipixie]

Strawman? No....but Im not wasting my time on you. People can go read your little blog or google you myself to see I made great points. udolipixie.wordpress.com

 

I already know from dealing with other bitter posters, not to get into cyclical arguments with folksl ike you.

 

Laterz xD

 

Hearing some women are happy with men they aren't attracted to and requesting proof of women happy with wallet boyfriends is a strawman.

 

Always amusing how you shut down when show your lacking logic.

 

Great points :

- a person stating do something means the person thinks it's morally okay

 

- someone is daft and needs to be told giving each other security based on a partnership is how relationships work when they state men give security to a woman basd on the relationship they have with her

 

- questioning why men/women should give security away when someone states seek your own security unless you're willing to meet the requirements to get the security from others

 

You've made some amusing emotionally reactive illogical statements...great points...

[kaylan]

Lol...and she characteristically continues, as per usual. Why are you repeating yourself?

[udolipixie]

Just to clear up one thing, she has Not slept with Guy B! And yet he offered her the security, so to say men give security to those they are ****ing is ridiculous and while Im sure there are some men like that out there, painting them all with the one brush is both unfair and misleading... What about men who are ****ing women but yet offer them nothing, weather it be emotional, financial or any other kind of security..?

Likely he offered her the security thinking he'd get sex. I highly doubt he offered her security for a sexless relationship.

 

I don't think it's unfair or misleading to say it seems most men don't give security to women they aren't f*cking or think they will be f*cking. I doubt most men would be giving financial security to some random woman or a woman they'd never have sex with outside of family members/friends.

 

The men f*cking women and offering them nothing are often called smart and heavily envied by society and many men.