What made you suddenly lose interest in someone you were pursuing?
Options
Replies
-
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
Yes. The basic need for people to be attracted to one another is equivalent to shallow, trashy, gold digging. Seriously?
Some would consider paying bills more important than basic attraction. Many people through many centuries in many countries have arranged marriages based solely on "shallow, trashy, PROVIDING."
Just a thought. That the women you are talking about might not be as shallow as you think, but are rather being practical.
The notion that women are somehow so incapable of taking care of themselves that they would expect or even need to be "provided for" in the old school sexist sense is pretty offensive in the 21st century. At least in the developed, liberated West. I'll not speak about situations in other places or times.
In the relationship sense, I'd be looking for a partner, not a dependent. I work to support myself...which is about as basic as it gets. That's all I expect of anyone. As long as they are a functioning adult who can take care of themselves, I really don't care how much or how little they make.
When it comes to marriage, on the other hand, (which presumably happens much later on)...that is when it's necessary to discuss credit scores, debt, etc. But even then, remember: "For better or worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer....." (I know, right? Wedding vows. Solemn oaths sworn in front of everyone you know, usually including whatever your religious figure is. How quaint!)
I honestly can't think of a situation where a relationship is properly based in money. Well, I can, but those are the sorts of interactions that can land you in jail...
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You don't wait until you are so deep with someone that you are planning marriage before you determine what kind of life you might envision with someone.
And here's a heads up. In sickness and in health means that your woman might be "fully functioning," and then get pregnant. Or sick. And you might have to take care of her. So keep that in mind when you think you only have to take care of yourself in this world.
Rare is the person who is coupled with someone that feels responsible for only themselves. Often they aren't taking care of just themself or the other person, but often kids and parents AND others.
You know, like people who care about things like making a difference in this world and leaving a legacy.
Are you also the kind of guy who splits the check?
You should really just read my post, instead of deriving your own assumptions from it.
And yes, we'll have to disagree about that 1950's style Father Knows Best sexism. You can keep that going as long as you can find women who will tolerate being treated/regarded like that. They are still out there, it would seem.
Framing chauvinism as gallantry has been out of style for a long time.5 -
nt0 -
Re money... I completely lost interest in a guy I was starting to date (although to be honest I really wasn't very interested in him, I was hoping I'd grow more attracted to him in time) when he told me all these amusing stories about how he hadn't been able to pay his utility bills and he'd had various services cut off. Recently.
Yeah, that level of financial irresponsibility isn't appealing.1 -
Re money... I completely lost interest in a guy I was starting to date (although to be honest I really wasn't very interested in him, I was hoping I'd grow more attracted to him in time) when he told me all these amusing stories about how he hadn't been able to pay his utility bills and he'd had various services cut off. Recently.
Yeah, that level of financial irresponsibility isn't appealing.
Agreed.
2 -
His bad breath0
-
I had to show him how to change a flat tire1
-
Lack of reciprocation in conversation, paying for dinners, everything2
-
Is this lack of reciprocation actual silence or monosyllabics and grunts?1
-
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
Yes. The basic need for people to be attracted to one another is equivalent to shallow, trashy, gold digging. Seriously?
Some would consider paying bills more important than basic attraction. Many people through many centuries in many countries have arranged marriages based solely on "shallow, trashy, PROVIDING."
Just a thought. That the women you are talking about might not be as shallow as you think, but are rather being practical.
The notion that women are somehow so incapable of taking care of themselves that they would expect or even need to be "provided for" in the old school sexist sense is pretty offensive in the 21st century. At least in the developed, liberated West. I'll not speak about situations in other places or times.
In the relationship sense, I'd be looking for a partner, not a dependent. I work to support myself...which is about as basic as it gets. That's all I expect of anyone. As long as they are a functioning adult who can take care of themselves, I really don't care how much or how little they make.
When it comes to marriage, on the other hand, (which presumably happens much later on)...that is when it's necessary to discuss credit scores, debt, etc. But even then, remember: "For better or worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer....." (I know, right? Wedding vows. Solemn oaths sworn in front of everyone you know, usually including whatever your religious figure is. How quaint!)
I honestly can't think of a situation where a relationship is properly based in money. Well, I can, but those are the sorts of interactions that can land you in jail...
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
You don't wait until you are so deep with someone that you are planning marriage before you determine what kind of life you might envision with someone.
And here's a heads up. In sickness and in health means that your woman might be "fully functioning," and then get pregnant. Or sick. And you might have to take care of her. So keep that in mind when you think you only have to take care of yourself in this world.
Rare is the person who is coupled with someone that feels responsible for only themselves. Often they aren't taking care of just themself or the other person, but often kids and parents AND others.
You know, like people who care about things like making a difference in this world and leaving a legacy.
Are you also the kind of guy who splits the check?
You should really just read my post, instead of deriving your own assumptions from it.
And yes, we'll have to disagree about that 1950's style Father Knows Best sexism. You can keep that going as long as you can find women who will tolerate being treated/regarded like that. They are still out there, it would seem.
Framing chauvinism as gallantry has been out of style for a long time.
I think you are deriving your own assumptions from what I said. No one said anything about 1950's style sexism. What we are talking about is the practicality of women not wanting to date anyone not willing to pull weight besides his own. Because when you want to actually do big things, climb the big mountains of life, you need to make sure he can do this if necessary:
6 -
Tenebrous_D wrote: »They posted stock photos to amplify their post
Observant post is observant.2 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
I think you are deriving your own assumptions from what I said. No one said anything about 1950's style sexism. What we are talking about is the practicality of women not wanting to date anyone not willing to pull weight besides his own.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What makes you think I'm not on board with that? Why do you assume I'm talking about some other thing? It goes without saying. What I'm talking about is when it's early on in dating, not any sort of committed relationship. I'm talking about obvious gold diggers. Those who date someone according to dollar signs. I'm sorry if it offends anyone that I find that sort of thing to be gross...or if I wasn't clear enough.Because when you want to actually do big things, climb the big mountains of life, you need to make sure he can do this if necessary:
Obviously. But is it really appropriate to start digging around someone's bank account when you might not even know their middle name? If at some point, later on, you decide you want to pool resources to "climb the big mountains" then of course you need to do some math. Which I already stipulated to...but I was apparently ignored.
This thread is about "someone you are pursuing"...which to me means the beginning phase of the whole thing. By the time you are exposing yourself to their finances, I think it's fair to assume the "pursuit" phase is over.7 -
IHaveMyActTogether wrote: »
I think you are deriving your own assumptions from what I said. No one said anything about 1950's style sexism. What we are talking about is the practicality of women not wanting to date anyone not willing to pull weight besides his own.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. What makes you think I'm not on board with that? Why do you assume I'm talking about some other thing? It goes without saying. What I'm talking about is when it's early on in dating, not any sort of committed relationship. I'm talking about obvious gold diggers. Those who date someone according to dollar signs. I'm sorry if it offends anyone that I find that sort of thing to be gross...or if I wasn't clear enough.Because when you want to actually do big things, climb the big mountains of life, you need to make sure he can do this if necessary:
Obviously. But is it really appropriate to start digging around someone's bank account when you might not even know their middle name? If at some point, later on, you decide you want to pool resources to "climb the big mountains" then of course you need to do some math. Which I already stipulated to...but I was apparently ignored.
This thread is about "someone you are pursuing"...which to me means the beginning phase of the whole thing. By the time you are exposing yourself to their finances, I think it's fair to assume the "pursuit" phase is over.
Wow. I'm gonna let someone else answer this one. Because I can't think of anything that is remotely polite.
5 -
Exposing? Seems accurate. Have you seen some people's credit scores?! 😉😜1
-
No. How about you explain what it is you're on about? Is there some part here you don't understand? I can walk you through it. You do understand that, for example, when you marry someone you are then exposed to their debts, their credit scores, their financial history? You do get that, right?
Or were you making some sort of assumption about the word "exposing"? Or something? Honestly...what the heck?5 -
Words can be hard. Obviously lol. Look... it's really quite simple. Long-term relationships and marriages require honesty, understanding, and teamwork. That's the case in any culture unless someone's sold or forced into a situation which isn't the case of the ongoing discussion.
Some partnerships require two strong incomes, others don't. A woman who doesn't work outside the house but does cook, clean, handle bills, run errands, or any number of other tasks during the day is no less of a woman or partner than one who makes a livable wage on her own. Nor is a man who earns the household income but refuses to mow the lawn or change a diaper any worse than a Mr. Mom.
But chances are, those roles aren't just discovered after the pursuit or when things start getting serious. A woman who opts to not work or can't work and is still supported financially by her boyfriend or spouse is not automatically a gold digger.
A gold digger is specifically a woman (or man) who hops from option to option trying to find the best payout regardless of the emotional feelings or ties of the other people involved.
A person can date or marry well outside their financial status and still not be a gold digger, even if money was the original lure. If the idea of dating a woman who wants or needs more security in her life disgusts you, don't date one.
9 -
ladychris29 wrote: »Words can be hard. Obviously lol. Look... it's really quite simple. Long-term relationships and marriages require honesty, understanding, and teamwork. That's the case in any culture unless someone's sold or forced into a situation which isn't the case of the ongoing discussion.
Agreed, obviously.Some partnerships require two strong incomes, others don't. A woman who doesn't work outside the house but does cook, clean, handle bills, run errands, or any number of other tasks during the day is no less of a woman or partner than one who makes a livable wage on her own. Nor is a man who earns the household income but refuses to mow the lawn or change a diaper any worse than a Mr. Mom.
Agreed, obviously.But chances are, those roles aren't just discovered after the pursuit or when things start getting serious. A woman who opts to not work or can't work and is still supported financially by her boyfriend or spouse is not automatically a gold digger.
If she is opting not to support herself after entering into a relationship, it's simply a matter of whether or not her partner is okay with it. This would apply equally to men, though I suspect the rate of acceptance to be a fair bit lower. If she is living out of other people's pockets to begin with, honestly there's not a lot of sympathy for anyone involved, her or those enabling her.A gold digger is specifically a woman (or man) who hops from option to option trying to find the best payout regardless of the emotional feelings or ties of the other people involved.
A person can date or marry well outside their financial status and still not be a gold digger, even if money was the original lure.
Apparently, you thought I'd disagree with any of this? Somehow?If the idea of dating a woman who wants or needs more security in her life disgusts you, don't date one.
I know, words are hard, but try. As I've repeatedly explained, the problem isn't that anyone wants security, the problem is in disingenuously trying to trade for it at someone else's expense by making entering into a relationship some sort of a cold financial calculation.
It's not a great feeling to realize that someone was never actually into you, but was just looking for a lifestyle or the "security" they'd lacked...as opposed to you. Honestly, it's as if you think people should just be okay with being used.
And yes, that was sort of the original point. That sinking feeling when you find out that someone wasn't actually interested in you, but was trying to score something from you, isn't exactly conducive to wanting to keep them around. I'm truly surprised that anyone would be okay with that, and that not being okay with it some sort of horrible thing. Truly amazing.
5 -
Apparently, you thought I'd disagree with any of this? Somehow?
There were no accusations on my end, so don't assume. It's a simple discussion among adults. There's no need to be passive aggressive.
Honestly, it's as if you think people should just be okay with being used.
LOL Are you *kitten* kidding me?! Dude, now you've moved passed borderline rude to full *kitten* stage.
And yes, that was sort of the original point. That sinking feeling when you find out that someone wasn't actually interested in you, but was trying to score something from you, isn't exactly conducive to wanting to keep them around. I'm truly surprised that anyone would be okay with that, and that not being okay with it some sort of horrible thing. Truly amazing.
No one said they're OK with treating another human being like dirt in lieu of financial gains. You've completely missed Act's original point, so maybe you should learn how to be a gentleman and stop accusing people of *kitten* they didn't say.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions