justagirliegirl Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 If some $70K/yr woman approached me for my $100K/yr salary I'd tell her to go and find herself a job that pays $170K/yr, she can keep it all for herself, and she can leave me the hell alone. But what I have been trying to say is that 98% of the women wouldn't be so obvious so how would you ever know?
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 But what I have been trying to say is that 98% of the women wouldn't be so obvious so how would you ever know? Obvious in what way? That they want the *big bucks*?
justagirliegirl Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Obvious in what way? That they want the *big bucks*? Yes. Most wouldn't come right out and say they want a guy who makes a lot of money.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 But you said she made 70k and so 100k isn't that much of a stretch and like others have said that isn't all that in Cali. I agree there isn't much difference between 70 and 100 and I know CA is an expensive place. I am not even saying that this girl wanting a 100k guy is wrong. What I am saying is that she mentioning 100k as the deciding factor to the question of whether 'to date or not date' a guy is a turn off for me.
orpheus Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I make over a $120K a year and would love to find someone would still want me if I made $12K. Money does not buy happiness, security, love or anything else of real value. Money buys stuff, that's all, just stuff. You could had me $12M tomorrow and I would not be any happier or have more love in my life, just more useless stuff.
catgirl1927 Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Everyone has standards, and there is nothing wrong with them. The way this girl presented hers seems mercenary and materialistic to me. Maybe I'm just playing games with words.
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Yes. Most wouldn't come right out and say they want a guy who makes a lot of money. Ah... but that's why I take time to get to know the person, I see how they live, see how they dress, hear about their job, etc. I do all that BEFORE I *hop and flop*. And I don't even approach women anyway so I'm not too concerned about being *taken for a ride* or anything by those gold-diggers. I can spot those high-maintenance chicks quite easily... even just by looking at them and seeing how they're dressed and made up. Certain looks just give it all away... and let's face it... most women are into money anyway.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 I make over a $120K a year and would love to find someone would still want me if I made $12K. Exactly!!!!!!!!! Right on!!!!!! If I dated this girl and fell in love later on how would I know she liked me b'cos I make 100k or more and not b'cos she found me attractive or liked my personality???
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Too many people have confused *money* with *love*. Last time I checked... those two words are not synonyms.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 If some $70K/yr woman approached me for my $100K/yr salary I'd tell her to go and find herself a job that pays $170K/yr, she can keep it all for herself, and she can leave me the hell alone. Excellent
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Excellent That's right. I am not in the banking business so any woman who wants to be in my life had better not expect to be with a bank... just doling out free money at her whim. f*** that!
justagirliegirl Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Well guys, now you know how us pretty girls feel. Does he like me for who I am or just because I look good.
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Well guys, now you know how us pretty girls feel. Does he like me for who I am or just because I look good. Looks can vary from one man to another. Some dude may think you're *hot* but some other dude may simply pass you up. Everyone has different tastes in the looks department. Money, OTOH, has no subjective variance... it's an actual figure that isn't subject to any interpretation. If you have a lot of it, you have a lot of it. If you don't, you don't. Not much room for any subjectivities.
blind_otter Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I'd think you'd have to have a relationship that lacked emotional intimacy if you didn't know whether she was materialistic and shallow enough to be with someone for their money. That said, I stand by my "needs ability to live alone" criteria.
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I'd think you'd have to have a relationship that lacked emotional intimacy if you didn't know whether she was materialistic and shallow enough to be with someone for their money. That said, I stand by my "needs ability to live alone" criteria. Most relationships these days seem to be less about emotion and more about business.
blind_otter Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Most relationships these days seem to be less about emotion and more about business. I disagree. If this were true, there would be fewer divorces among the wealthy, and that is hardly the case since the divorce rate in Manhattan is like over 70%.
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I disagree. If this were true, there would be fewer divorces among the wealthy, and that is hardly the case since the divorce rate in Manhattan is like over 70%. That may be true for the wealthy folk but I am middle class and I see things differently. The middle class also are the majority in this country. So many couples having so many arguments about money - money this, money that - and they are getting divorces over it. They have placed money above everything else, it seems. In fact, money is one of the top reasons for marital strife and eventual divorce.
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 I disagree. If this were true, there would be fewer divorces among the wealthy, and that is hardly the case since the divorce rate in Manhattan is like over 70%. Oh, and Manhattan doesn't speak for the country as a whole. Neither does Beverly Hills.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 Well guys, now you know how us pretty girls feel. Does he like me for who I am or just because I look good. Fair enough! But how does it sound if a guy says "I will not consider dating a girl unless she has nice tits and a great ass." That's the equivalent of this girl saying "I will not consider dating a guy unless he earns 100k or more".
SmoochieFace Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 Fair enough! But how does it sound if a guy says "I will not consider dating a girl unless she has nice tits and a great ass." That's the equivalent of this girl saying "I will not consider dating a guy unless he earns 100k or more". It's the same thing essentially. Women are in it for the cash and men are in it for the flesh.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 It's the same thing essentially. Women are in it for the cash and men are in it for the flesh. .... will be better if they don't make it explicit and specific! that's a turn-off for sure!
LongTallSally Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 WTF do you mean its not a reflection on you personally? You're nuts! Of course it is.......if I say to you HOKEY that I only date blonde women who wear a size 2 with fake boobs and you don't fit that criteria then it has affected you personally. the point is that it might be TAKEN personally, but isn't meant to be. it's not "i don't like you as a person"; it's "i am looking for certain things you don't have, and this is not your fault...or mine." people are allowed to have preferences; not everyone can meet those requirements. you can't help what you like, and you can't help what you are...or aren't.
flavius Posted March 20, 2006 Posted March 20, 2006 It may not sound romantic, bt "romance" produces the same result as pragmatism--pretty marries pretty, rich marries rich. It is simply a matter of criteria, and everybody has some minimum criteria for a potential mate. Are we saying people have no right to discriminate, that there is NOBODY who may be excluded form consideration? All the Indian folks I know have great clarity about their minimum criteria. As a real life for-instance, we Flavii have dear friend-family who are Indian. They arrange marriages you know, and I THINK their 12YO may be already promised. Anyway, we are same religion, same social status (in US, that is. I might actually rank higher in India because I am "landed", and they are "professionals".) I once asked whether they would consider my son as a mate for their daughter. Without hesitation they rejected the idea because my son is just not Indian. Are they returning to India? Heck, no. But Indian is what they are, and it is what they intend to remain, even over generations. And that is their right. Will they accept a poor Indian? Heck no. "Professionals" is what they are, and what they intend to remain, even over generations. And that is their right. They are not shallow, they are not vain, and they are not uncharitable. But that doesn't mean that their kid will EVER do the THANG with mine.
Author noclobber Posted March 20, 2006 Author Posted March 20, 2006 I really don't see a need for you to take a hit at my Indian roots.... especially on a public forum like this. It may not sound romantic, bt "romance" produces the same result as pragmatism--pretty marries pretty, rich marries rich. It is simply a matter of criteria, and everybody has some minimum criteria for a potential mate. Are we saying people have no right to discriminate, that there is NOBODY who may be excluded form consideration? All the Indian folks I know have great clarity about their minimum criteria. As a real life for-instance, we Flavii have dear friend-family who are Indian. They arrange marriages you know, and I THINK their 12YO may be already promised. Anyway, we are same religion, same social status (in US, that is. I might actually rank higher in India because I am "landed", and they are "professionals".) I once asked whether they would consider my son as a mate for their daughter. Without hesitation they rejected the idea because my son is just not Indian. Are they returning to India? Heck, no. But Indian is what they are, and it is what they intend to remain, even over generations. And that is their right. Will they accept a poor Indian? Heck no. "Professionals" is what they are, and what they intend to remain, even over generations. And that is their right. They are not shallow, they are not vain, and they are not uncharitable. But that doesn't mean that their kid will EVER do the THANG with mine.
BlahBlahQueen Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I really don't see a need for you to take a hit at my Indian roots.... especially on a public forum like this. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it in an offensive way, Clob.
Recommended Posts