Dear ladies of the board.... a question about dating

[phyco126]

Alright, so here's the deal. I was talking with my sister, and we where basically argueing about how relationships work in this day and age. I was argueing that relationships in today's age is based more on money and material items, rather than actual love and feelings from the heart. She argued that it isn't true, but that women use such things to judge if the man is worthy, so to speak, to be kept. I argue that the judgement should come from the heart, not what he has and how much he makes.

So the question, ladies, is simple. Would you date a guy who has no money? Yes, no, whatever the answer, please explain to give me some insight. Do not lie, tell the truth, no matter how mean it could be.

Now to clarify, the man doesn't have a job so he has no money to spend on material things, and even sometimes food. -OR- The man has a job, but it is a low paying job and he has a lot of bills, so in essence, he still has no money. Final case, the guy is in highschool (since I know a lot of you ladies are still in school) and he doesn't have a job or money, and his parents arn't about to fork over any dough either.

So, there you have it. Feel free to ask me questions, but please answer and give an explanation as to why you answered why you did.

[GhaleonOne]

Not a lady, but I'll say right now that I can't fault a girl if she's not interested in a guy without a job and no prospects for a future. May sound harsh, but when you're considering someone you're going to have a family with, you have a right to evaluate these things. Same from the guys perspective. A girl could be drop dead gorgeous, into lots of the same things as me, but if she has no goals or passions in life, I'm not sure I'd be interested. That's not to say I require any future girlfriend/wife to work. If her passion is homemaking, I could adjust to that. Just as long as a person is striving for something.

[Kizyr]

Good luck getting honest answers. KF

[phyco126]

Good luck getting honest answers. KF

I'm not here to judge, the reason I made the poll is because I told my sister that if I made a poll and got honest answers, a huge majority would respond that they wouldn't date a guy without money. She said women really arn't like that, and I said they where.

Not a lady, but I'll say right now that I can't fault a girl if she's not interested in a guy without a job and no prospects for a future. May sound harsh, but when you're considering someone you're going to have a family with, you have a right to evaluate these things. Same from the guys perspective. A girl could be drop dead gorgeous, into lots of the same things as me, but if she has no goals or passions in life, I'm not sure I'd be interested. That's not to say I require any future girlfriend/wife to work. If her passion is homemaking, I could adjust to that. Just as long as a person is striving for something.

Hmm, alright. To be fair, I wouldn't want my girl to work at all. Call me old fashion, but I like the idea of a stay-at-home girl/mom. However, I'm not an extremist, so I wouldn't keep her from working, I would just express that I don't like it, but hey, if it makes her happy then by all means let her do it.

Now, sure someone with no future may be bad for a family and all, but still, I say that if you love each other, then you should stick with it. That means both parties have to work with each other. If a girl loves a guy that would rather sleep all day than find work, and he doesn't show his love to her, then maybe I can understand why it wouldn't work, but if you both love each other, then you shouldn't let that come between you. Thus my position, if you love each other then money and material items shouldn't matter.

[PrettyGirlJean]

I voted that it depends, because it really does. I really feel that despite loving someone, there is more to a relationship than just that. Love is a big part and no one should stay with someone let alone marry them if there isn't love.

It's already been mentioned about having a goal in life and I really feel that's important too. If the guy is going to be a waste of a life and do nothing then no, I wouldn't stay with him, I'd find it hard to imagine I could fall in love with someone like that anyway, but for sake of the discussion... A major factor is children too. Of course there is no definite way to know how your kids will turn out in the end, but they'll obviously pick up on some of the ideas, morals, habits and such of the parents and I wouldn't want a child that has no aim because he's too lazy, or doesn't care, or the like because he takes after his father.

It's different if the guy is workin' his butt off and makes little money, that can't be helped. Money is important, but it was never a thought in my mind when I went out with my first boyfriend in high school and when I met my fiance in college. It really was their personalities and how I got along with them. Until recently my fiance and I never had really good jobs and even still we don't have a ton of money.

So I guess to conclude this: Love is more important than money. And back when I was looking for potential boyfriends I can honestly say that money was not a factor. It's nice yes, but I was looking more for someone that I shared common interests with, that had life goals, that I could truly be myself with, there is no price tag on those things.

As a side note, I don't really see how you can accurately measure either way... I guess there are trends through the years (for lack of better wording ^^' ) but I think there's really an equal amount of people that are looking for love over money, looking for money over love, or just trying to get a good balance of both.

[Agawa]

Hmm, alright. To be fair, I wouldn't want my girl to work at all. Call me old fashion, but I like the idea of a stay-at-home girl/mom. However, I'm not an extremist, so I wouldn't keep her from working, I would just express that I don't like it, but hey, if it makes her happy then by all means let her do it.

Heh, well, it's nice to know that some people would still want that. I've always thought it would be nice to be a stay at home mom.

As for you original question, if you asked me off the bat, yes. However, in my opinion, the real question is about ambition. While I would certainly date someone with no money, I would not date someone with no ambition.
A person who is trying hard to reach for a goal, especially a job that would give them happyness and/or relative financial security seems much more appealing than someone who has no money due to lack of ambition and drive.

[yroc]

Not a woman here, but I'll say what I see in today's world.

I was argueing that relationships in today's age is based more on money and material items, rather than actual love and feelings from the heart.

I can see where you're coming from because women nowadays are more into that first impression. For example: cars, looks, amount of money, etc.
Therefore, they tend to pick this guy over someone whose trying to make ends meet.

However, this could be applied to men as well. As the average man commonly chooses the "beautiful" women over another.

In addition to that, much of the American public now goes through match making companies(online sites & phone dating). Although men and women are paired up by personalities, if the man or woman don't make that first impression, I doubt whether they will date each other.

So concluding my point: I believe that today's society prefers that one that makes the first impression. I could be wrong but that's my belief.

[YoshiMars]

I voted "depends" and here's why, if the guy makes a lot of money but is a total sleeze I am NOT going to date him. In fact my current boyfriend (of three years) did not have a job when I first met him, but that didn't matter to me. I find that personality is really what drives me to be attracted to another, my family has always had money and while it is important to my future (being that I want a family of my own and not have to worry about bills...) I've taken into consideration that since I am in college and my dearest is in college as well things are going to turn out alright. I've found that (as stated above) that drive to get somewhere, to meet goals, to show dedication and determination is something really special. That means far more to me than what kind of car one drives or how much a man can spend on me. Actually I get rather bashful when a guy buys me things, yes I'm flattered but they really don't have to. What matters most is thier heart, thier feelings, what makes them who they are. Money is not what makes a man... it's an unfortunate nessesity but its not what attracts me.
Actually money can be a turn-off of sorts as many people who have it are rather snobbish, narrow-minded, and only look out for number one. Though I understand there are others without money who feel like that as well, I've just seen it happen moreso with people who have it. Might just be me... and I don't know about other women, but I will have nothing to do with a man with a bogus personality... especially one who looks down on others. I will NOT have that.

[Kizyr]

Most folks are going to vote "depends" because of the multitude of factors involved in choosing someone to be with.

The question you should be asking, phyco, if you want a more informative response, might be:
"All other things being equal, would you date a guy with barely enough money to live on, enough to be comfortable, or enough to afford luxury (for him and yourself)?"

That sort of question will isolate it down to just the issue you're concerned with. And perhaps get more honest answers rather than evasive ones. KF

[GhaleonOne]

Still not sure those choices would get it Kiz, because it still doesn't take into account how the money is earned, and the passion of the person. The money wouldn't matter to me, but rather the goals and ambitions of the person. I would certainly be willing to date, or even marry, someone with little income, as long as their time is being used in some manner that isn't a waste.

[Kizyr]

Still not sure those choices would get it Kiz, because it still doesn't take into account how the money is earned, and the passion of the person. The money wouldn't matter to me, but rather the goals and ambitions of the person. I would certainly be willing to date, or even marry, someone with little income, as long as their time is being used in some manner that isn't a waste.

Actually, that would be the kind of answer that would be useful in figuring if money did or didn't matter. There are other things which, while strongly related to money, are the real thing that people are looking for.

Your answer, for instance, indicates that money doesn't matter for you. Goals and ambitions do, and those tend to be strongly correlated with money. So if a girl, say, was barely making ends meet, but had a plan and the willingness to realize that plan for doing better, then that's what really matters. Just so happens that, because hard work and determination are strongly correlated with having more money, that that sort of preference tends you towards girls with more money. Not because of the money itself, but because of the attitude of the given person.

I can get where you're coming from, since I'm almost the exact same way. Money in and of itself does matter a bit more in my case, I think (i.e., I'd rather folks spend their time on something profitable, all other things being equal). KF

[GhaleonOne]

I'm not sure I agree with that either though. Assuming I'm reading you correctly (and I may not be, we spent the past 5 hours moving all our desks, chairs and stuff clear downstairs and through the warehouse as they built us a new office for our department so I'm lagging physically and mentally at the moment) My point is that ambitions and passions don't really equate money. They can, certainly, and probably more often to correlate with more money, but there's still quite a bit of exceptions to that. A career in, say, religious ministry can pay quite little, but can require more work than the average job would. And you certainly would have to have passion in what you're doing to perform in a job like that.

[LuciaOne]

Okay, here's my honest response:
I don't care if the guy has money, not really. As long as he isn't asking ME for money for stuff like rent or insurance.
BUT I do care if he has no prospects on life. Like, if right now he's working at a fast food place and doesn't care if he works there the rest of his life while living with his parents. I'd care more for someone who wants to make something out of himself, to BE somebody someday.

[phyco126]

Alright, well, I can understand that what info I've given thus far can make the answers vary, as I'm having a hard time to explain what I mean, but this should probably help.

In the days before the 20th century, there where peasents, and those peasents wheren't going anywhere in life. All they could do was work their farms or service (in earlier years) their feudel masters. Now suring those times, peasents got married all the time and usually had half a bajillion kids or whatever. Either way, they where poor, dirty, and no matter how hard any of them tried, they where going to die poor. Now, the woman stuck with the man, even though he was poor, out of love and probably the fact that hey, at least they ate from time to time. But see I'm basing it more on love, they stuck together because they loved each other (like movie love, yay!) Anyways, from my observations of today's society, that is not the case. More and more people get divorces, and a majority of that is due to money issues. So based on my observations, I've noticed that marriages out of love to poor men who live in utter poverty are a thing of the past, as more and more women are too caught up in the money aspect of things. So that's basically what is behind my drive of this topic. I hope that helps to clarify some (and not make it worse, haha.)

[PrettyGirlJean]

Well in those days though they truly couldn't make anything of their lives. In some instances that can be said for people today, but not, I believe, for the majority of people, so while I understand your example, it isn't necessarily fair depending on how you take it. I see that you mean women sticking to their men out of love, but back then wouldn't it stand to reason that some women just stuck with their husbands because it was better than no food? That they just settled for a life they knew wasn't going anywhere? There are too many variables no matter what walk of life you use as an example to really get a cut and dry yes or no answer. Not one woman or man is the same and that in itself means you'll never get a definitive yes or no Also, they usually had a ton of kids due to diseases and the more they had the more likely that at least one or two of their kids would actually grow into adulthood. Though I am sure that there were people that just loved to have kids too

At any rate, money is important in a relationship, I mean you NEED it to pay for an increasing expensive world. I think every woman and man alike are looking for someone they can bond with on a spiritual/emotional level but also on a monetary level. Kinda like those people pre-20th century, just substitute money for food.

[phyco126]

Ah, and see that's my point. In today's world material possesion and money rule over love, not love ruling itself. Me, I think it shouldn't be that way, and is an abomination to love, thus my stance on it. I just feel that we should keep money seperate from love. Of course, I'm half crazey .

[PrettyGirlJean]

Ah, and see that's my point. In today's world material possesion and money rule over love, not love ruling itself. Me, I think it shouldn't be that way, and is an abomination to love, thus my stance on it. I just feel that we should keep money seperate from love. Of course, I'm half crazey .

I think it's really all about opinion. I can see your point, but I don't see how you can say that material possession and money rule over love and it hasn't for as long as we can remember. At least nowadays (in most places) you can choose who you marry. Back in those dark ages you could love who you wanted sure, but unless you were a peasant you couldn't marry that person. Normally, that was because money was involved and status, so how is that different from today? To use that particular part of your point.

Again, I don't think the answer is ever yes or no. Sure there is a lot of marriages that are revolved around money and possession and all that and that's something men and women do a like. But, there are many that do it -just- for love, women and men alike. So, to say that women nowadays are lookin' for rich men and love comes second... that's unfair. That's like if I said that about men. It's not true for all, for some yes. And in saying that, I don't see how todays views on a loving relationship are one truly that much different from the past and how marrying for money applies mainly for women.

I think maybe I'm misunderstanding something somewhere ^^; I apologize if I am. Regardless, it's an interesting topic. ^_^

[phyco126]

Well obviously both men and women do marry for money, and have done so through-out time. To say that it didn't, is just a lie. However, I believe that it's far more potent today than it was even 100 years ago. I really don't have any hard evidence to back up my feelings here, I'm just basing it all on observations of the eye. Also, I'm not targeting women because I think that they're gold diggers or anything, but instead based off the fact that guys are more likely to go out with women based on looks rather than money. (At least I would, and this fact is one based off of what I would do and from my observation of other men.) So yeah, please don't take it that I think women are all gold diggers or anything. I'm just saying that I'm observing the trend of not doing things for love, but for stuff and money.

I know these are movies, and I'm sure a lot of my feelings on this very topic probably come from these, but... regardless they show my point.

Braveheart, the guy falls in love with the princess even after his wife was killed. I'm sure he didn't fall in love because she was rich (but the good looks might have helped )

Fun With Dick and Jane, Dick loses his job and Jane quits, but despite their money issues, they didn't divorce or anything, they stuck together.

So that's kind of my mind set of how things should probably be.

Now, you said you couldn't see how I could say money and material possesions could rule over love. Well, I can easily say that, I see it all the time. Woman marries man who has stuff and money. Guy with no money and hardely any stuff is stuck being called a loser who has no future. Woman and man get a divorce because of money issues. Guy runs out of money or has other money issues, she says goodbye like he was a one night stand. I'm sure some guys do this too, for sure. Or, you have the couple that divorce, and the wife sues the guy for half his paycheck for the rest of his life.

So see, this is basically how I view money and love. Guy has no money, he's considered a loser. Same princible with a girl with no looks being considered a loser by a guy. *shrugs* I've had very little else to proove me wrong.

By the way, I'm enjoying this topic very much, as it's giving me insight (whether I show it or not.)

[YoshiMars]

Phyco, I do believe you have a bit of a biasment there. "Guy has no money, guy is a loser" that is not true, perhaps you're not seeing the whole crowd? I will admit there are women (and men) like that out there, but that is a rather broad generalization (that is to say the guy/no money = loser). I do believe the increasing divorce rate has me disgusted as well, though I thought that the "money issues" involved might be that lots of couples are rushing into marriage and not thinking things through and instead of working things out they just give up. Money, in the beginning and without college, is a hard thing to come by. Though I also say don't be swayed by statistics as they are rather easy to manipulate (I'm not saying the increase in divorce is wrong, it's there.).
Anywho, to go back to the previous, I do wonder which group of individuals you are watching? I mean to ask as most of us on the board here are disagreeing with you, money is not the deciding factor when it comes to relationships (at least not to me). I would agree with Jean as well that in the past example folks at the top of society married for position and wealth, not love (as portrayed in the movies... that did not really happen, or at least not often.) at the bottom people married for the best option they could (be it more land or food from this person than another). Not to mention women did not have a choice really, their fathers chose who it was they were to marry, women were like property.
I'm rather fond of the idea that I have been given the option to choose who I would like a relationship with. Not to mention I have been given the opportunity to choose to go to school, with which I shall be making more than enough (once I get my doctorate that is) to sustain me and my family. Thus taking out the necessity for a husband to be making said money, although, even if my major was something that didn't make a lot (say I took my art farther in school than just a hobby) and my current boyfriend kept on his path (to becoming a police officer), we wouldn't be making all kinds of money, but that's okay. I do love him and plan on staying with him no matter what, I just chose to go with my strengths in college so I can properly provide for my future family. I don't want to have to be scared about whether or not I can feed my children, or clothe them or things like that. That's how far money goes for me, it's something the world deems I need to have, thus I have decided to get the money I need through my own means instead of mooching off some guy. That is LOW. Quite frankly I get rather disappointed with society when I see people like that.
However, that is how society is trying to run now-a-days. Those of us who live in America are living the capitalist lifestyle, where it's all about money not the people. The major corporations run this country not the people who matter. Thus more focus is on money, wealth, and how to acquire it. Our society is programmed to view people who don't make money as people who are doing something wrong. People to be looked down upon, people who are losers. I think that is wrong. I can't stand how things are run (and I have to say it doesn't matter which "side" is in office... it's all the same, corporations rule them all.) and perhaps that's what you're seeing. Just remember there are nice people out there who do not share this view. There are women out there who just want to marry for love, and stay with the one they love. You'll find her someday Phyco... she's out there.

Sorry... I kinda type as I think thus I more or less end up debating with myself.

[phyco126]

Heh, I end up debating myself all the time, and contradicting myself unknowingly in some of these posts, I'm sure. So no worries there.

Phyco, I do believe you have a bit of a biasment there. "Guy has no money, guy is a loser" that is not true, perhaps you're not seeing the whole crowd? I will admit there are women (and men) like that out there, but that is a rather broad generalization (that is to say the guy/no money = loser).

I'm a little confused, do you mean that a majority of people don't think like that? Or do you mean that I shouldn't think that a guy with no money = loser? If it's the first, well, I find that hard to believe since all through high school and the 3 years after that I've seen far more cases where men with no money, no matter the circumstances, is called a loser. Now if you meant the second part, then just a little misunderstanding, as I was saying that people generally think that, but I don't. I think it's a rather unfair bias to immediately label someone as soon as you hear they are broke.

Now as for who I've been watching, I've just observe everything. From what I read on the news, watch from TV shows, see in a movie, to hearing people talk when I was in school, or at work, or at a restaurant or store, just about whereever and whoever my ear happens to listen too. Even discussions with friends and family.

Perhapes though, I'm reading everyone's responces wrong, because I actually got the impression that what I was saying was basically true. I guess it could be a personal vendetta I'm on, but I'm not really trying to be that way.

Still, I can see how difficult it would be to answer directly yes or no, thus why I asked to explain after the vote. Obviously, no one is going to want to marry a guy who lives in the streets wearing a cardboard hat, patched up clothes, with a scraggly beard and drinking a thing of whiskey. I guess I should have just said a guy with no money or little money due to things outside of his control, or perhapes someone who is not a lazy oaf with no ambitions, but instead laid back and trying to enjoy life instead of becoming a corporate mouse.

As for me, I highely doubt a girl would date me, just because of the circumstances I am living under. Actually, this is what brought this discussion, as me and my sister started talking about me ever dating. Still, this topic isn't soley for me or about me, but instead about a trend in society to go for people with money. *shrugs*