Woman should make the first move?
Replies
-
What is more attractive, a guy who is a trust fund kid with millions in the bank, no debt and doesn't work or a guy who makes likes $40,000 a year, limited net worth and can support himself with a job, but is one job loss away from significant financial issues?
A couple more details for my original hypothetical, which I did keep intentionally vague. I really enjoy the insight I'm seeing here from the ladies.
1. The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
2. The 2nd guy works in an industry where job security is limited. Most industries function this way in this economy. His skill set is not unique and income growth over time would be limited. The historical precedent suggests that male income stops growing around age 45.
Ages of the two men in the hypothetical are whatever you want them to be. Assume the man is never married, no children.
What does the first one do with his time?
Are they both happy? Are they both "matches" for me?
Because if so then I don't really have a preference as long as I don't have to support him. It doesn't seem like my life would be impacted either way so it doesn't matter.0 -
It doesn't bother me at all if a woman makes more money than I do, I say good for her.It bothers most men when the woman they are dating makes substantially more than them. I think most men like to be the provider, and if that gets taken away from them...not happy campers. At least this has been my experience. As a result, I try to date men who are at least within spitting range of my income bracket.
So yeah, I do care about income.
I think there are men that wouldn't mind if the woman makes more money. Unfortunately for those men, they probably wouldn't be perceived as attractive to high earning women.
There are a lot of men that are turned off by this as well, though. I've dated men that make $30k a year less than me that were intimidated by my income. I wasn't bothered by it, because I had expenses they didn't have to worry about (daycare, clothing, food & medical expenses for the kids). The way I saw it, once I paid for my other obligations, we were equal. We enjoyed the same types of lifestyles, vacations, etc. That logic didn't stick for them.0 -
What is more attractive, a guy who is a trust fund kid with millions in the bank, no debt and doesn't work or a guy who makes likes $40,000 a year, limited net worth and can support himself with a job, but is one job loss away from significant financial issues?
A couple more details for my original hypothetical, which I did keep intentionally vague. I really enjoy the insight I'm seeing here from the ladies.
1. The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
2. The 2nd guy works in an industry where job security is limited. Most industries function this way in this economy. His skill set is not unique and income growth over time would be limited. The historical precedent suggests that male income stops growing around age 45.
Ages of the two men in the hypothetical are whatever you want them to be. Assume the man is never married, no children.
What does the first one do with his time?
The first one essentially spends his time watching his investments and making sure that he preserves wealth. He pursues his hobbies. He may occasionally volunteer his time and make some charitable contributions, but he should not be perceived as a philanthropist type. He would fall between Type #1 and Type #2 you described earlier.
Assuming both men are happy with their lives as is, I would go for the second.
Reason - While I admire that the first is managing his money, I would be turned off by the fact that he is out there doing what he pleased every day. Nowhere to be, nothing to do. No ambition to do anything other than sit by the pool. I need someone who desires more than to grow money. That, of course, is my own personal preference.0 -
Good, that's what I thought. But I'm the total opposite, I don't find it easy to approach a total stranger but I have no problems asking someone out.
For instance, if you're at a bar and start a conversation with someone you find attractive, do you consider that the first move? Or is it more when someone actually asks the other person for their number?
If you're online is it the person that sends the first email? Or is it the person that asks for the first date?
First move is making it very clear you'd like to go out with the person. So, yes, asking for a number, or asking for a date in email/text.
I dont think idle chat is the same as a move...........as I find the chat really easy, but actually to ask someone on a date and make my intentions clear? Not so easy........ :noway:0 -
Good, that's what I thought. But I'm the total opposite, I don't find it easy to approach a total stranger but I have no problems asking someone out.
For instance, if you're at a bar and start a conversation with someone you find attractive, do you consider that the first move? Or is it more when someone actually asks the other person for their number?
If you're online is it the person that sends the first email? Or is it the person that asks for the first date?
First move is making it very clear you'd like to go out with the person. So, yes, asking for a number, or asking for a date in email/text.
I dont think idle chat is the same as a move...........as I find the chat really easy, but actually to ask someone on a date and make my intentions clear? Not so easy........ :noway:
Between us we could conquer the world!! lol
0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
For the hypothetical, in the short to medium term, you might have to. With him managing his investments while sitting on his duff, his investment earnings could equal some people's salaries. But you could retire 10-15 years earlier with the millionaire. He's a strong money manager with solid net worth, whereas the other has little net worth and little job security in his field.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
For the hypothetical, in the short to medium term, you might have to. With him managing his investments while sitting on his duff, his investment earnings could equal some people's salaries. But you could retire 10-15 years earlier with the millionaire. He's a strong money manager with solid net worth, whereas the other has little net worth and little job security in his field.
And, I'd bet he'd still expect me to make the pot roast each night. Pass. 0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
For the hypothetical, in the short to medium term, you might have to. With him managing his investments while sitting on his duff, his investment earnings could equal some people's salaries. But you could retire 10-15 years earlier with the millionaire. He's a strong money manager with solid net worth, whereas the other has little net worth and little job security in his field.
And, I'd bet he'd still expect me to make the pot roast each night. Pass.
That seems like quite the assumption doesn't it? It seems weird to me that so many people are willing to dismiss a perfectly respectable, decent person as a partner simply because he doesn't have to work and instead fills his time with philanthropy and hobbies. Sounds like a healthy, balanced, RESPONSIBLE individual to me. If anything, he could be the perfect "stay at home dad" instead of either person having to give up potential career advancements for the kids.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
... fair? I'm sorry, but since when does "fairness" matter as far as our lot in life. As long as he's a decent person and treats you well, why does it matter that he just got lucky and is able to pursue other avenues of life?
I know a lot of peeps on here say money doesn't matter, but in my opinion that should go both ways. Whether he has a lot, or just enough to support himself and get by - personality and whether or not he's a match really should matter more.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
If he's a millionaire, he shouldn't have to work. He's earned the privilege to stay at home and do whatever he pleases to do as long as he pays the bills with his hefty bank account.
Would you expect a lottery winner to go to work also? Life is too short to work when you don't have to.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
If he's a millionaire, he shouldn't have to work. He's earned the privilege to stay at home and do whatever he pleases to do as long as he pays the bills with his hefty bank account.
Would you expect a lottery winner to go to work also? Life is too short to work when you don't have to.
I get where you are coming from but I'd hope he did SOMETHING productive with his day. Volunteer, travel, help someone with daily activities that they couldn't do for themselves. Seeing someone wasting away at home doing nothing with no ambition other than spending money he didn't make (aka trust fund) isn't something I'd like to see.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
If he's a millionaire, he shouldn't have to work. He's earned the privilege to stay at home and do whatever he pleases to do as long as he pays the bills with his hefty bank account.
Would you expect a lottery winner to go to work also? Life is too short to work when you don't have to.
I get where you are coming from but I'd hope he did SOMETHING productive with his day. Volunteer, travel, help someone with daily activities that they couldn't do for themselves. Seeing someone wasting away at home doing nothing with no ambition other than spending money he didn't make (aka trust fund) isn't something I'd like to see.
But it was specified he was pursuing philanthropy and other hobbies...0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
For the hypothetical, in the short to medium term, you might have to. With him managing his investments while sitting on his duff, his investment earnings could equal some people's salaries. But you could retire 10-15 years earlier with the millionaire. He's a strong money manager with solid net worth, whereas the other has little net worth and little job security in his field.
And, I'd bet he'd still expect me to make the pot roast each night. Pass.
That seems like quite the assumption doesn't it? It seems weird to me that so many people are willing to dismiss a perfectly respectable, decent person as a partner simply because he doesn't have to work and instead fills his time with philanthropy and hobbies. Sounds like a healthy, balanced, RESPONSIBLE individual to me. If anything, he could be the perfect "stay at home dad" instead of either person having to give up potential career advancements for the kids.
[/quote[/img]
That was said in absolute jest.
But, considering DM said that he would might do a little volunteer work, but not a lot. I wouldn't want to be at work all day while my husband was home enjoying his hobbies. He does seem like an ideal stay at home dad candidate, but not likely he'd want to be that with me (considering both my kids are school aged and I can't have anymore). My personal preference would be bachelor #2.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
If he's a millionaire, he shouldn't have to work. He's earned the privilege to stay at home and do whatever he pleases to do as long as he pays the bills with his hefty bank account.
Would you expect a lottery winner to go to work also? Life is too short to work when you don't have to.
I get where you are coming from but I'd hope he did SOMETHING productive with his day. Volunteer, travel, help someone with daily activities that they couldn't do for themselves. Seeing someone wasting away at home doing nothing with no ambition other than spending money he didn't make (aka trust fund) isn't something I'd like to see.
But it was specified he was pursuing philanthropy and other hobbies...
He said "occasional" philanthropy work, but should not be perceived as a philanthropist. I just couldn't be in a relationship that kind of man.0 -
The trust funder millionaire doesn't work, but does manage money well. He lives below his means. He's figured out a way to financially plan so that he doesn't have to work for the rest of his life. The woman who he is with would be able to live comfortably with him, but she wouldn't be quitting her day job, at least not in the short to medium term.
So I still go to work every day and he does nothing all day long? Hmm.. that really doesn't seem quite fair.
I think I'd have to pick the other guy.
If he's a millionaire, he shouldn't have to work. He's earned the privilege to stay at home and do whatever he pleases to do as long as he pays the bills with his hefty bank account.
Would you expect a lottery winner to go to work also? Life is too short to work when you don't have to.
I get where you are coming from but I'd hope he did SOMETHING productive with his day. Volunteer, travel, help someone with daily activities that they couldn't do for themselves. Seeing someone wasting away at home doing nothing with no ambition other than spending money he didn't make (aka trust fund) isn't something I'd like to see.
But it was specified he was pursuing philanthropy and other hobbies...
He said "occasional" philanthropy work, but should not be perceived as a philanthropist. I just couldn't be in a relationship that kind of man.
LOL, I think at this point the difference is our interpretation of an entirely arbitrary term XD I imagined a guy that keeps himself pretty busy - just not with work.0 -
I agree. And, personal preference. I can't imagine being at work all day while he's out playing. I'd like all aspects of the relationship to be even.0
-
Whichever one is the leftist activist willing to support my rise to power. Of course it would be nice if that one was the trust fund rich guy. But he'd be working against his own interests so he would be a quite unusual person indeed. Of course it can be argued that any American leftist is working against her own interests, too, given that our lifestyle is propped up by the suffering and oppression of the rest of the world.
Regardless, when I seek a life partner, if I ever bother, he will be politically compatible with me or he won't get the time of day. Hell, I don't even think I'd have casual sex with a right-winger. They're just not my species.
Go sista!! :laugh: For me they don't have to be a left wing activist, but they do have to have to have a social conscience. I was about 18 when I discovered there was no way on earth I could have casual sex with a right winger. Income comes way down on my list of priorities, but I did recently pass on a wonderful man who had no means of support whatsoever.0 -
I agree. And, personal preference. I can't imagine being at work all day while he's out playing. I'd like all aspects of the relationship to be even.
This is not reality, this is not life.
The rich get to enjoy life more than someone who isn't that is reality.
Demonizing someone for their success is pointless. If someone has earned their way and now uses their money to sustain themselves in a responsible manner, he has accomplished more than the majority of the population.
Building a good amount of wealth takes discipline, as far as im concerned if someone has earned their wealth they are not forced to work any longer.
You can demand "fairness" in the game of life all you want, but that is simply unrealistic. I am actually slightly appalled the amount of jealousy in this thread.
Also to note: I know someone is going to say "WAIL WUT IF THEY ENHARITED THEIR WELF, THEN THAT IS SO UNFAREEEE!"
Welcome to life, where things are not fair. I don't think people should judge those individuals either.0 -
I agree. And, personal preference. I can't imagine being at work all day while he's out playing. I'd like all aspects of the relationship to be even.
This is not reality, this is not life.
The rich get to enjoy life more than someone who isn't that is reality.
Demonizing someone for their success is pointless. If someone has earned their way and now uses their money to sustain themselves in a responsible manner, he has accomplished more than the majority of the population.
Building a good amount of wealth takes discipline, as far as im concerned if someone has earned their wealth they are not forced to work any longer.
You can demand "fairness" in the game of life all you want, but that is simply unrealistic. I am actually slightly appalled the amount of jealousy in this thread.
Also to note: I know someone is going to say "WAIL WUT IF THEY ENHARITED THEIR WELF, THEN THAT IS SO UNFAREEEE!"
Welcome to life, where things are not fair. I don't think people should judge those individuals either.
Agreed. A lot of foot soldiers in this class warfare are doing a good amount of bomb throwing today. Certainly makes for a fun read though.
The fair is where you get cotton candy.. life isn't fair. Deal with it. :smokin:0 -
I agree. And, personal preference. I can't imagine being at work all day while he's out playing. I'd like all aspects of the relationship to be even.
This is not reality, this is not life.
The rich get to enjoy life more than someone who isn't that is reality.
Demonizing someone for their success is pointless. If someone has earned their way and now uses their money to sustain themselves in a responsible manner, he has accomplished more than the majority of the population.
Building a good amount of wealth takes discipline, as far as im concerned if someone has earned their wealth they are not forced to work any longer.
You can demand "fairness" in the game of life all you want, but that is simply unrealistic. I am actually slightly appalled the amount of jealousy in this thread.
Also to note: I know someone is going to say "WAIL WUT IF THEY ENHARITED THEIR WELF, THEN THAT IS SO UNFAREEEE!"
Welcome to life, where things are not fair. I don't think people should judge those individuals either.
Zach, while I agree with a majority of your message, there's a better way to get it across. 0 -
Also, have any women on here ever dated a very wealthy man?
Granted there are many different types of rich guys, but nearly every one I've ever met are are less tolerant of a woman's BS than guys on here are. If you think DM and I are picky about a women's waist, bust, and grooming standards.. a rich guys expectation are that times a million. They're alpha, want to be in charge, and expect you to fall in line with their lifestyle.
Judging from the personalities on here and the wealthy people I've met in real life.. it would be an absolute disaster if both parties ever met in person.0 -
There are different ways to get money. Ok, so you won the lottery. Lucky creature. Hope you'll at least use some of it to make the world better, but it's your choice.
Okay, you're a small business owner who worked 80 hours a week alongside your well-compensated employees and now you're retiring early. Good for you!
Oh, you inherited money from daddy and mommy, bought a business, outsourced all the jobs so you could earn money off oppressed workers in sweat shops then invested in their own resources through a corrupt government so you can sell those resources (like land, food, and water) back to them at a profit. And you're proud of yourself? You're scum, you're a parasite sucking your wealth from the misery of others, and I wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire.
So yeah, depends on how someone gets their money as to how I'm going to feel about that person. Also, even though people aren't required to do good things on this Earth with their money, I don't see why I would date someone so callous as to have all he needs and then some and not at least give something back. Seems a bit sociopathic to me. And not coincidentally, 1/3 of all CEOs in the US are sociopaths.0 -
So yeah, depends on how someone gets their money as to how I'm going to feel about that person. Also, even though people aren't required to do good things on this Earth with their money, I don't see why I would date someone so callous as to have all he needs and then some and not at least give something back. Seems a bit sociopathic to me. And not coincidentally, 1/3 of all CEOs in the US are sociopaths.
Okay, but you're judging an entire group of people based on a minority amount simply because they make money. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume someone is a monster that takes advantage of other people and doesn't care about anyone else because they're rich, isn't that making a snap judgment based on a preconceived notion because of an exception rather than the rule?
You're reacting very vehemently to a hypothetical situation. Why is that?
Edited: A hypothetical situation that isn't incendiary by nature.0 -
woman's BS
Sigh...0 -
So yeah, depends on how someone gets their money as to how I'm going to feel about that person. Also, even though people aren't required to do good things on this Earth with their money, I don't see why I would date someone so callous as to have all he needs and then some and not at least give something back. Seems a bit sociopathic to me. And not coincidentally, 1/3 of all CEOs in the US are sociopaths.
Okay, but you're judging an entire group of people based on a minority amount simply because they make money. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume someone is a monster that takes advantage of other people and doesn't care about anyone else because they're rich, isn't that making a snap judgment based on a preconceived notion because of an exception rather than the rule?
You're reacting very vehemently to a hypothetical situation. Why is that?
Edited: A hypothetical situation that isn't incendiary by nature.
That isn't my assumption about all successful people. I have hard working, successful small business owners in my family. That is totally different from the kind of people I'm knocking. And among the very wealthy that 'hypothetical situation' is quite common.
And hey, if a trust fund guy wants to date me, I'll give him a hearing about how he turns his money into more money and what he's doing or not doing to make the world a better place for his fellow human beings. But there are some business practices I simply wouldn't tolerate no matter how 'nice' the person seems in his 'personal life'. And there is nothing wrong with that.0 -
So yeah, depends on how someone gets their money as to how I'm going to feel about that person. Also, even though people aren't required to do good things on this Earth with their money, I don't see why I would date someone so callous as to have all he needs and then some and not at least give something back. Seems a bit sociopathic to me. And not coincidentally, 1/3 of all CEOs in the US are sociopaths.
Okay, but you're judging an entire group of people based on a minority amount simply because they make money. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume someone is a monster that takes advantage of other people and doesn't care about anyone else because they're rich, isn't that making a snap judgment based on a preconceived notion because of an exception rather than the rule?
You're reacting very vehemently to a hypothetical situation. Why is that?
Edited: A hypothetical situation that isn't incendiary by nature.
That isn't my assumption about all successful people. I have hard working, successful small business owners in my family. That is totally different from the kind of people I'm knocking. And among the very wealthy that 'hypothetical situation' is quite common.
And hey, if a trust fund guy wants to date me, I'll give him a hearing about how he turns his money into more money and what he's doing or not doing to make the world a better place for his fellow human beings. But there are some business practices I simply wouldn't tolerate no matter how 'nice' the person seems in his 'personal life'. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I agree with the last part - a ****ty person is a ****ty person is a ****ty person. But look at the first part of your second paragraph. You'll give him "a hearing". Is that how you see all dating? Or just wealthy people? Because either way, that's a very harsh perspective to take.0 -
So yeah, depends on how someone gets their money as to how I'm going to feel about that person. Also, even though people aren't required to do good things on this Earth with their money, I don't see why I would date someone so callous as to have all he needs and then some and not at least give something back. Seems a bit sociopathic to me. And not coincidentally, 1/3 of all CEOs in the US are sociopaths.
Okay, but you're judging an entire group of people based on a minority amount simply because they make money. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume someone is a monster that takes advantage of other people and doesn't care about anyone else because they're rich, isn't that making a snap judgment based on a preconceived notion because of an exception rather than the rule?
You're reacting very vehemently to a hypothetical situation. Why is that?
Edited: A hypothetical situation that isn't incendiary by nature.
That isn't my assumption about all successful people. I have hard working, successful small business owners in my family. That is totally different from the kind of people I'm knocking. And among the very wealthy that 'hypothetical situation' is quite common.
And hey, if a trust fund guy wants to date me, I'll give him a hearing about how he turns his money into more money and what he's doing or not doing to make the world a better place for his fellow human beings. But there are some business practices I simply wouldn't tolerate no matter how 'nice' the person seems in his 'personal life'. And there is nothing wrong with that.
I agree with the last part - a ****ty person is a ****ty person is a ****ty person. But look at the first part of your second paragraph. You'll give him "a hearing". Is that how you see all dating? Or just wealthy people? Because either way, that's a very harsh perspective to take.
Haha I didn't mean it to sound so harsh, but if I decide to go out and seek a life partner I will be quite critical and serious no matter who the 'applicant' is. And I'm so sure hundreds are eager to line up for my selection, too! :laugh:
The thing is, I have friends I don't hang out with anymore because although I love them dearly they are right-wingers I am a leftist and politics is very important to me.
We literally cannot discuss anything because we literally see the world completely differently. I never want to look at a man and think, 'wow, I'm planning on spending my life with this person, and we can't see eye to eye on one of the most important subjects in my life'. No thanks, no way. That one just isn't negotiable.0 -
Haha I didn't mean it to sound so harsh, but if I decide to go out and seek a life partner I will be quite critical and serious no matter who the 'applicant' is. And I'm so sure hundreds are eager to line up for my selection, too! :laugh:
The thing is, I have friends I don't hang out with anymore because although I love them dearly they are right-wingers I am a leftist and politics is very important to me.
We literally cannot discuss anything because we literally see the world completely differently. I never want to look at a man and think, 'wow, I'm planning on spending my life with this person, and we can't see eye to eye on one of the most important subjects in my life'. No thanks, no way. That one just isn't negotiable.
LOL, well if it works for you then that's awesome! Me being from San Diego, if I only associated with people that agreed with my politics I would have very few friends indeed! I used to be a lot more particular back in the day but now I just figure as long as the person has a good heart and isn't stupid I don't really care what side of the spectrum they're on.0 -
I don't exclude wealthy people, depends on how they made their wealth. I'd like not to have to worry about how the bills will be paid, but over and above that, I'm not bothered what someone earns or has. I've lived enough of the life of the rich to know it's not a panacea. I spent my teenage years on a caribbean island with very wealthy friends. An idylic lifesyle, but it was exceptionally shallow and the many of the people were deeply unhappy. I was very lucky to have the best of both worlds and the balance of young, idealistic, politicised parents who showed me other lifestyles and values. I'm not saying all the super rich are like this, it may have been an unrepresentative sample. There were similarities to another very wealthy community I visited in Kenya, I'm sure cultural factors played a part in the collective malaise too.0
