ARTICLE: Independent Women Can Choose to 'Date Down'

[yurbud]

Ironically, this role reversal works in another way too.

As someone who was thoroughly indoctrinated by Norman Lear TV shows in the 70s, I fully expected women to be looking for peers as mates when I entered adulthood. Instead, even the most progressive who have their own careers still mostly prefer guys with more money and power than them.

So if they "date down," the guy will always be worried that when another guy who is a peer or superior of his partner takes an interest in her, she will drop him without a second thought, just as women who consider themselves unattractive think guys will drop them the instant a girl who is more attractive makes herself available to him.

Anybody have experience with this, good or bad, on the male or female end?

I am not opposed to it in principle

Independent Women Can Choose to 'Date Down'

By Molly Faulkner-Bond, Sirens Magazine. Posted December 2, 2006.


Remember when choosing a mate was easy? You and I weren't alive then, of course, but back in the day -- way back -- when humans were just starting out, our needs were simple. All a man needed was a fertile female; all a woman needed was a genetically fit male who could provide her with resources while she carried out the metabolically expensive task of carrying, birthing, and raising offspring (we've always been the more complicated gender). His politics, his taste in music, his values -- none of those things mattered; everything was streamlined. I'll make babies, you keep me alive. Done deal.

As I'm sure you've noticed, a lot has changed in the last 10,000 years. You know, we talk now; we've industrialized; we use birth control. Human life is a whole new ballgame these days. One clear sign of this change may be the fact that there are more and more couples out there who seem to reverse this deeply ingrained relationship pattern. Think Britney and Kevin, or Ashley Judd and her NASCAR racing hubby Dario Franchitti (for real -- note that this headline actually says, "Ashley Judd's Husband wins blah blah blah..." -- not his own name!). Or, if you like your relationships fictional, Miranda Hobbes and Steve Brady on "Sex and the City," Lloyd Dobler and Diane Court in "Say Anything," Will Hunting in his janitor phase and that Skylar chick played by Minnie Driver in "Good Will Hunting."

It makes sense, of course, that relationships like these are cropping up more and more these days. Women are kicking some serious ass when it comes to education and accomplishment. Women are, for example, outnumbering men on more and more college campuses, and in many schools they outperform men. In time, this pattern may tip scales in the working world and beyond, but even now, we've got the cultural upper hand.

Despite all this great progress, though, old habits die-hard -- our gender's preference for hooked-up men seems to linger: one American study found that women still pay more attention to ambition, education, and earning capacity in a mate than men do (appropriately, men still care primarily about physical signs of fecundity)...


FULL TEXT:
http://www.alternet.org/story/44775/?cID=363653#c363653

Text

[Union Thug]

1. I hate reports like this. They serve to remind me just how shallow

our society truly is.

[nam78_two]

91. I agree-I hate them too/nt

[sendero]

123. It's simply biology..

.. in action. Neither men nor women have overcome the instincts and urges that result from thousands of years of evolution, where the end-game is survival and creating offspring that survive.

Try to to be too hard on human beings for being human. :)

[BoneDaddy]

190. Surviving is one thing

hording wealth way beyond the "meeting of basic needs" is NOT a biological imperative. That is the realm of greed and avararice, conscious behavior that transcend inherent biology.

[AnnInLa]

2. Me

I married "up" the first time.

I married "down" the second time.

One was a repuke asshole. One was a liberal asshole.

It can't be me, can it?

I find these social "observations" a little silly in these times, while in my mother's day, they were serious considerations. I don't think they are any more. Anyone got anything?

[Union Thug]

4. For me, I ask whether people are marrying stuff or are they marrying people?

And I just can't get past that question.

[yurbud]

12. what do you mean? marrying as a means to get stuff?

[Union Thug]

14. Marrying based on earning potential of the prospective mate...

My question is, what is that person marrying, how much shit you can stuff in a box, or a human being?

[yurbud]

17. I had an odd experience with this where a girl who wouldn't give me the time of day

married a computer guy who brought in a six figure income.

He was a nice guy, but wasn't her intellectual equal, and she pestered me all the time to come over, join them for movies, etc.

She wanted to skim the cream off of both of us.

[pitohui]

43. marriage is a financial agreement

if you just wanted the person, marriage, a legal document, don't come into it

date down is fine, marry down is iffy and i've rarely seen it end well for the woman who tries to buy a husband, i take that back, i've NEVER personally seen it end well when a woman buys a husband

[yurbud]

46. like Poppy and Barbara Bush--you think he couldn't have gotten a prettier AND nicer girl?

instead, he married his dad's partner's daughter, who would lose a beauty contest with George Washington.

[pitohui]

60. that's a good example

and a witty description:

{barbara} would lose a beauty contest with George Washington

[yurbud]

81. if we dug up Washington TODAY, it would still be close (but he'd probably win) I was going to say

she could chop wood with that face, but that would be insensitive.

[U4ikLefty]

178. LOL....are you saying that her parents had to feed her with a sling-shot? n/t

[Union Thug]

115. Somebody more cynical than myself! well done!

And I am, by far, one of the most cynical, bitter, resentful people on DU! :-)

But seriously, my wife had no status whatsoever in the US when I married her. No money, no status, nothing. But I loved her and married her. Was that an up or down marriage for me? By the definitions provided in the article provided by the OP, I don't know.

Now, I must admit that the (then)INS probably would have eventually asked her to leave the country had we not married, but that was hardly my motivation. And as she had her own place and most of her family is outside the US, and considering my income was pretty damned average, marrying me was certainly not a step up for her.

My point is simply that, in my opinion, people that look at dollar signs as a first step in pursuing a romantic relationship are shallow-minded, hollow pricks.

[yurbud]

11. how old are you?

[AnnInLa]

58. I'm 17 1/2........and you?

[yurbud]

70. and already married twice....impressive. You must be the hottest girl in Mississippi.

[uppityperson]

94. been on DU a couple yrs too.

Good going!

[wicket]

120. Typo, maybe?

You're 17 and 1/2 & already have been married twice??

:wtf:

[shanti]

150. don't you know

some women take offense to asking them their age?

[Warpy]

3. "I'll make babies, you keep me alive. Done deal."

WTF????

Sorry, but women kept the men alive since 90% of the calories in a hunter-gatherer society was provided by plant foodstuffs gathered by women. I hate seeing this "man the protector and nourisher" garbage over and over again.

As for "dating down," my parents always thought I was doing that, a white suburban country club cracker who preferred solidly working class guys. I just discovered early in life that the sophistication and manners of the upper middle class were a veneer, and a thin one at that. I vastly preferred to keep it real, and I've never regretted it.

To each her own, though, and I know some women want to look up to a man instead of meeting him eye to eye. They can have it.

[Union Thug]

8. In addition to what you point out, these ideas serve to measure human worth...

can be be reduced to a simple equation -> $$$.

It's very bourgeois and applying this logic overtly accepts and validates the world view of the social-darwinists.

[yurbud]

15. is saying that a dynamic exists the same as approving of it? If I say there are serial killers and

rapists in the world, does that make me pro-serial killing and rape?

[Union Thug]

18. Saying it is one thing. Validating it by accepting the idea that

human worth is a simple function of how much wealth they possess or potentially possess is something quite different. So, is Paris Hilton a step up from Jane Goodall? I'll bet Paris has more money.

[yurbud]

23. if you were interested in Paris Hilton, unless you are as rich, she would either have to

pay your way or constrict her activities to what you can afford. That is a pragmatic issue not a snobbish one. I went out with a really rich girl once, and she was going to spend the summer in Europe watching the Olympics. I spent that summer driving an airport shuttle van.

With Jane Goodall, I could see a serious interest and passion gap. If you aren't into chimps, it would be tough to maintain a relationship (unless you are very hairy, have a low forehead, and your ears stick out).

[Union Thug]

109. Interesting thoughts, but missed my point...

The question is whether earning potential and wealth are indicators of human value. In this case, there is no contest. Paris Hilton is an empty headed, parasitic, narcissistic socialite with lots of money at her disposal. She doesn't hold a candle to women like Goodall.

And, fine, so I am a hairy person, with a low forhead, whose ears that stick out. Wanna make something of it? :-)

[lumberjack_jeff]

122. This would explain why my wife spends so much time watching me...

... and writing in her secret little noteboo...

What's this? Bananna splits for dessert! My favorite!

;)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Often those lines are very blurred

In the past few decades, a slew of studies have come out purporting to demonstrate the vast, innate differences between men and women. You know the drill: Men are promiscuous; women coy. Men are aggressive and independent; women passive and relationship-oriented. Men excel at math, engineering, and any fields that require spatial analysis and theoretical skills; women's superior verbal and relationship skills make them more suited for support positions and social services occupations. Etcetera ad infinitum.

The people who publish these reports, often based on flawed methodology and dubious assumptions, and the media that eagerly trumpet them from the headlines will then act as though they are just reporting scientific facts with no political agenda. Not so fast! For one thing, when those studies are criticized and debunked, as they so frequently are by other researchers, you almost never see a retraction. If you do, as in the Newsweek mea culpa when they admitted that the scary report they issued back in the 80s claiming that women over 40 were more likely to die in a terrorist attack than get married, it's so many years after the fact that the damage was already done.

This stuff has very real public policy, educational, social, and occupational consequences. It prescribes "gender appropriate" behavior, though it pretends to be merely describing it. The implication is that if you deviate from what they believe to be the natural behavior of your gender, then you are an aberration. It ignores that there is usually far more variance within groups than between them.

For example, though you may not approve of rape, you may believe that men are naturally predisposed to rape, based sketchy research and irresponsible reportage. And if you happened to be a judge or prosecutor, that may have an affect on the way you treat cases of rape.

I really think that this gender junk science, advocated by people both on the Left and the Right, is attempting to replace religion and tradition in maintaining the status quo. In its own way it's more dangerous and insidious than those institutions.

[yurbud]

36. conversely, those who thought gender roles were entirely social did sex change surgery on kids

thinking it would make no difference. Then the kid that was originally a male resisted all his training to make him a girl and still wanted to act like a boy.

I would be just as happy--in fact happier--if we were all the same apart from our genitals. Reality doesn't seem to match up to that, at least in relationships. That is not the same as saying women should be discriminated against at work, in politics, or any other way.

My boss, my boss's boss, and my boss's boss's boss are all women, and that is fine with me.

[davekriss]

72. Sex change surgery on children?

No kidding? Disciples of Dr. Mengele, no doubt.

[Tanuki]

78. See the "Medical Change" article at this link

http://www.hawaii.edu/malamalama/2002/01/Courage.html

[yurbud]

84. that's the case I was thinking of

[mrreowwr_kittty]

106. That's very compelling but still misses the point

Yes, males and females are physically different, and let us not forget that there are those who don't quite fit into either gender category. But it is highly specious and irresponsible to make sweeping generalizations about gender based on flimsy evidence, bad studies, and speculation about our prehistoric ancestors. That is exactly what many researchers do and the media exacerbates it via irresponsible articles and stories.

It's quite a jump from saying you shouldn't arbitrarily assign someone's physical gender though surgery to saying that we needn't bother trying to get girls interested in math and science because their brains aren't "wired" for it. Don't you think?

[Odin2005]

160. The data is about diferences ON AVERAGE.

Just because males on on average better in the sciences doesn't mean a female individial shouldn't become a scientist. The problem isn't the studies, the problem is crappy science reporting by journalists that twist the data into sweeping generalizations out of ignorance or a want to sensationalze.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

167. You're absolutely right about the averages and the crappy reporting

Disturbing example: John Stossel - yeah I know he's an assbag and hardly a credible source of scientific knowledge - did a 20/20 special called Boys and Girls (I think?) where he suggested just that. He interviewed some of those evo-psych gender difference proponents and then based the show around his opinion that the reason there aren't nearly as many female architects and engineers is that women's brains are made to do that stuff and he actually went on to suggest that girls should not choose architecture as a profession!

Now, you and I might realize that Stossel is full of beans but unfortunately he has millions of viewers, many of whom consider him an authority on his own. And then you have him showcasing "experts" on the issue. Multiply that by the reams of other soundbite-y articles, news reports, etc. about "Differences in the Male and Female Brains". Would it come as any surprise that some parents begin steering their daughters away from difficult math courses and discouraging them from certain careers?

Corporate media :argh:

[Odin2005]

168. LOL, Stossel is an absolute moran.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

169. Don't get me started on his tripe about the environment! n/t

[Odin2005]

159. It was reading about that poor kid that gave me a vicious hate for "blank-slatism."

It is a fact that there are inhierent behavioral differences between the sexes. The pollitically correct might want to ignore those facts, but the facts are facts, and facts don't care about what ideology is poular in acedamia at the moment.

[Odin2005]

157. I hate it when people reject theories just because they don't fit with thier ideology

And that's exactly what you are doing.

[yurbud]

13. I come from a step or two below the country club and blue collar people have their serious faults

[Union Thug]

16. wow, and I'VE been accused of painting with a broad brush.

So, what are my serious faults, exactly?

[yurbud]

35. not all blue collar and not more than other people. Some wealthier people have a tendency to...

romanticize blue collar life just as middle class teens romanticize the thug life.

As someone who grew up in a mostly blue collar neighborhood, I saw a strong streak of anti-intellectualism, cruelty, and even anti-upward mobility. If those things didn't exist to some degree, Fox News would have no viewers.

I know good blue collar people too. My stepdad was a longshoreman, my brother has been a mechanic and is now a bus driver, and I admire anyone who takes pride in their work and does it well--mechanics seem happier in their work than a lot of cube dwellers I know.

[Warpy]

25. Uh, I kinda know that already

[mrreowwr_kittty]

112. According to paleontologists, men didn't even hunt until recently

Richard Leakey quote: "There is absolutely no evidence that we became human through hunting. Up until recent times, there's no record at all of human aggression. If you can't find it in the prehistoric record, why claim it's there?"

What he meant by that is that the wisdom among people in his field is that the earlier a behavior shows up in the fossil record, the more impact it probably had on early human evolution. Big game hunting doesn't show up until fairly recently, not far enough back to have "hardwired" (Gah! I'm starting to hate that word!) our brains. It's actually believed that humans mostly gathered, scavenged, and foraged for many thousands of years. There's no proof of that much-touted narrative that men went off and hunted (or philandered) while women stayed in the cave or at the camp with the younguns. Feeding themselves required agility, mobility, and all hands on deck. According to numerous researchers - the ones who don't get glowing quotes in Time and Newsweek because they don't reaffirm cliches - men, women, and children probably travelled in packs, cooperating to outwit large predators. As for hunting, fossils are showing up revealing that both men and women did it and not just with spears. Nets were used quite often. And guess who did most of that?

[Warpy]

136. There's forensic evidence of a great deal of aggression here

in this hemisphere, fractures that could only have been caused by bludgeoning or hacking with stone tools. There may have been a peaceful Eden, but it wasn't here.

However, you're right about the characteristics of the earliest hunters. A prepubescent girl with a small spear, net or bow and arrow going after rodents would have been much more effective at supplying meat than a gang of oafs going after a mammoth.

As for the ideal of prehistoric woman as docile cavewife, people then had absolutely no use for marriage. Paleolinguists have determined that the word for father is a relatively new invention and is derived from a root word for owner. The dominant male relative until then was maternal uncle.

Articles that still push the fiction of the Flintstones lifestyle drive me nuts.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

139. Yes! It's the Flintstones all the way!

That's the premise for so many of these theories of human evolution

But there was a fossilized human skull, found in the '50s by Australian paleontologist Raymond Dart, that was believed to be struck by a weapon of some kind. For a long time it was used by researchers to bolster a theory of ancient violence and warfare. Turns out, via modern DNA and electron microscope technology, that the injury was most likely caused by a leopard.

I learned about this in a book I recently read, Same Difference by Rosalind Barnett and Caryl Rivers.

[Leopolds Ghost]

171. What we're gonna do right here is go back, way back, back into time. Back to the days when

there was NOBODY but troglodytes. cave men... cave WOMEN. Neanderthal...troglodytes...!!!

Let's take the average cave man at home, listening to his stereo.
Sometimes he'd get up, try to do his thing. He'd begin to move, something like this: "Dance...dance". When he got tired of dancing alone, he'd look in the mirror: "Gotta find a woman gotta find a woman gotta find a woman gotta find a woman". He'd go down to the lake where all the woman would be swimming or washing clothes or something. He'd look around and just reach in and grab one. "Come here...come here".
He'd grab her by the hair. You can't do that today, fellas... cause it might come off! You'd have a piece of hair in your hand and she'd be swimming away from you (ha-ha). This one woman just lay there, wet and frightened. He said: "Move...move". She got up. She was a big woman. BIG woman. Her name was Bertha. Bertha Butt. She was one of the Butt sisters. He didn't care. He looked up at her and said: "Sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me sock it to me!". She looked down on him. She was ready to crush him, but she began to like him. She said (falsetto):
"I'll sock it to ya, Daddy". He said: "Wha?". She said (falsetto):
"I'll sock it to ya, Daddy". You know what he said? He started it way
back then. I wouldn't lie to you. When she said (falsetto) "I'll sock it to ya, Daddy" he said:
"Right on! Right on! Hotpants! Hotpants! Ugh...ugh...ugh".

-- TROGLODYTE (CAVE MAN)
Jimmy Castor

Note: While there is a pounding beat in the background, the
song is spoken rather than sung

[AngryAmish]

146. Men were responsible for protecting their mates

Prehistoric people lived in an amazingly violent world. Most of this violence came from other humans. We are meat eaters but (from the things I have read) most of the meat calories came from small game, fish etc - as you said.

Men are bigger because they had to either protect their women (actually their children) from other people and/or go after other people. It was not chivalry, it was to make sure their mates were not impregnated by other guys and nobody killed their kids.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

149. That doesn't justify the amount of generalizing that is done today

Yes, men are bigger and stronger than women. But people are doing all kinds of speculation of gender characteristics based on observing modern behavior and extrapolating it to what little is known about our prehistoric ancestors. You have scientists creating just-so stories based on their own preconceived notions and shoddy research and the news media blaring it like it's the gospel. It's affecting the way men and women relate to each other and how we are treated in schools and the workplace. I can barely go a day without hearing someone repeating something they heard or read how "Men/women are like this because of (insert latest evolutionary fad theory)."

[AngryAmish]

154. That is fair

However I think it is clear that men and women are physiologically different in many areas of their bodies. This includes their brains or else it would be the sole organ in our bodies not effected by the differences in hormones.

"All men are x way and all women are y way" ignores the vast majority of similarities that men and women share. But over large populations certain statistical differences do exist. They can't just be ignored. The differences are not just in physical strength but a whole host of behaviors.

[Odin2005]

161. "You have scientists creating just-so stories based on their own preconceived notions"

Translation: "I'll ignore scientists whose research goes against my ideological sacred cows."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

166. What sacred cows would those be? Do you know me?

Just from the tone of your response I'm tempted to conclude you have some sacred cows of your own that you don't care to have examined.

I believe that BOTH the essentialist biology-is-everything camp and the other side (not that I think there are only 2 sides - just for the sake of discussion) who believe that environment trumps all have their problems. And among the essentialists, you have a wide range of political agendas in play - from male chauvinists who use it to bolster rigid gender roles to so-called "difference" feminists who espouse the view that women are innately superior nurturers.

Most importantly, I'm just saying people, particularly the ones on DU who regularly demonstrate healthy skepticism, ought to think a bit more critically about what is being presented as unassailable scientific fact by the VERY SAME CORPORATE MEDIA that feeds us lies about about everything else.

Finally, would you be so eager to accept similar theories of human behavior based on race? Would you make a similar comment to the one you made to me on your post to someone who was critical of Charles Murray's Bell Curve theory of intelligence? Why or why not?

[Odin2005]

170. I agree that both biology-is-everything AND enviroment -is-everything extremes are crap.

Both extremes are drivien by ideology (the biological determinists tend to be conservatives, racists, chauvenists, etc. and the enviromental determinists tend to be Leninist crazies and the people who gave death threats to Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson when his famous book sociobiology was published). Most behavior is a combination of biological and enviromental influences.

Charles Murry had an obvious agenda, most behavioral biologists don't AFAIK. I am a Biology major myself (genetics and biotech emphasis), so I am more well read on the subject then the average DUer, I've gotten myself pretty immune to the sensationalist garbage MSM science reporters spew. I get sick of headlines saying "Gene for Behavior X Found" when they sould say "Gene That Seems to Have an Influence on Behavior X Found." Steven Pinker's book The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and Matt Ridley's book Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes us Human are good intros on the subject and are relatively free of media BS.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

172. I disagree about Pinker not having an agenda but YMMV

In fairness, I haven't read his book but I've read numerous articles and interviews of him. Pinker has made a career out of insisting that biological differences are more important than discrimination in explaining the dearth of women in scientific leadership positions. Maybe his book is more nuanced, but his media appearances sure aren't.

[Odin2005]

156. Depends on where the hunter-gatherer society was.

Hunter-gatherers living on the tundra will obviously be eating a lot more meat then H-Gers in the tropics.

[QuestionAll...]

162. it's one of those 'old husbands tales' nt

[Mythsaje]

5. My wife makes one hell of a lot more money than I do...

For now, anyway. Until I hit big.

A lot of guys find it threatening. She appreciates the fact that I do not.

I don't know if it was marrying "down" for her...I'm a damn good writer with a promising future. But I'm not, nor have I ever been, successful in the ordinary "work" world.

[jelly]

101. Sounds about right

Being confident & talented & interesting & an overall pleasant person to be around can go a long way to reversing the lower income deficit. I bet you have some of that going for you. Worth does not equate money -- personally I would not mind coming home to a lower-income producing husband if he was someone I thought was special but in a way that is underappreciated by society and so does not transalte to the big bucks. I've been a 6-figure attorney for 3 years and I come home to someone who is not working, makes one bad judgment call after another with respect to picking a career, and who is dishonest, violent, and something of a jerk to boot. It aggravates me that I am working my butt off while he is taking his sweet time about picking a job but I think I would stay with him if not for the other things. I would be proud to support someone I was proud of and that I thought was doing his best.

[Mythsaje]

116. I'm sorry to hear that...

Dishonest and violent, to me, translates automatically to "jerk." :)

Good luck and welcome to DU!

[shanti]

151. sounds like someone

needs to be kicked to the curb!

[jelly]

177. The worst part?

He's a conservative, and lately, a pretty brainwashed one at that. We married young, before either of us had a solid sense of our political leanings. Neeedless to say, we have leaned in opposite directions. Shoot me if I have to hear another slyly raised repuke argument that he must have gotten from listening to conservative propoganda raidio. Let me OUT! Truly, it has nothing to do with money!!

[Demeter]

6. Just Try "Marrying Down"

the love of my life decided he wanted to be the one "marrying down". That lasted 5 years. Now he's dead. Life sucks. Love is the only thing I'll never know, except for the Labrador retriever, who loved me like no human ever did. And I had to put him down when his age and infirmity made his life unsustainable.

As for marrying up--I thought I had, but it turned out to be all sizzle, no steak. Psychopath, actually.

[yurbud]

19. problem with women marrying up especially here in LA: you'll be traded in

for a newer model.

[EstimatedProphet]

7. "Date down" is insulting at its nature

EVERYONE has something to bring to the table, barring serious psychological issues. The idea that because someone has more money they must be more desireable as a life partner is disgusting to me. People are worth more than their portfolios, and their lives matter to them as much as our lives matter to us.

[yurbud]

21. it is simply putting on the table things people think about anyway. Women in particular often

don't state their standards for a partner because they would sound harsh, but you can tell what they are by who they pick and don't.

[BlooInBloo]

39. It is funny to watch DUers become holier-than-God about how they would NEVER (clutch the pearls)....

... do ANYTHING if money were involved.

:rofl:

[yurbud]

41. let me put on a Skoal Bandit cap, a sleeveless Metalica tee shirt, and some greasy jeans

and see how many would go out with me.

For that matter, I could just do the same experiment as myself. There'd be some filtering on even more superficial issues than money.

[BlooInBloo]

47. Is it just my perception (based on being on one side of 'the game') that girls are more sensitive...

... to the "status", "class", or whatever, of the boy, than boys are of the girl?

That's always been my perception, but it could well be simply because I see out of a boy's eyes.

[yurbud]

55. status, class, & money are for women what looks are for guys--one of the first filters

you don't pass that one, you're out of the running.

[Leopolds Ghost]

173. Yes, and that is why we will always be a capitalism-riven, class-based society

Barring major upheavals like happened in the 60s (when mind-expanding drugs temporarily leveled the playing field for "non-upwardly mobile" guys.)

[Nikia]

61. Not necessarily when it comes to the marriage level

There is a long history of well off men dating, having affairs, and seeking prostitution with lower class women. They usually don't marry someone with a lower class upbringing though.
Even with modern birth control, there is always a chance that a higher class woman could end up pregnant with a lower class man's baby so women might be more prone to not sleep with lower class men at all if class status is something that they value in a mate.
It is interesting though that some men who complain that they are too poor to date aren't trying to date poor women. They are trying to date women of their perceived class, which may be the one that they were raised in, but have not achieved independently, or higher.

[yurbud]

82. yep--manners are for the manor. you can do what you please with the peasants. someone in my family

was suspected of being the product of that rule.

[Nikia]

66. You might attract more women than you think

But maybe these women wouldn't be up to your class standards.

[yurbud]

86. I meant out of the women here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

118. Or his exacting physical standards

Funny how some guys are very specific about how a woman should look but expect her to accept him just the way he is, warts and all.

[EstimatedProphet]

59. Not what I'm saying

[elehhhhna]

42. How do they define "dating down"?

My Hubs was younger than I, made less money, lived w/ his parents (hey! he was only 22) -- hadn't finished college...

He also scored higher than I (enough to qualify) on the Mensa test, has a brilliant career depite not finishing college, stayed home 5 years w/ our 2 daughters, keeps me home (LOL--"keeps"), and is the funniest man in the world.



Dear Abby,
Was I dating down?
LMAO

[yurbud]

83. I'm glad you're happy, and I wouldn't mind being that guy, but the author meant money and status

[TahitiNut]

9. In six decades on the planet, I've never known a woman who "dated down."

I've known many guys who'd eagerly welcome (and solicit) the interests of successful professional women, but have never seen one (even among my many friends) who didn't "naturally" assume that ANY likely mate would be more "successful" than her - a "prince" of course. :eyes:

[yurbud]

22. I think I've seen that elsewhere--successful women who want a MORE successful mate...

constrict their pool of potential candidates to almost nothing since their male peers in law or the corporate world will hook with their secretary or some arm candy instead of their peers.

[hfojvt]

143. that's hard to tell though

since people are dating in college, how do they know earning potential? I think my SiL started dating my little brother when she was a college graduate and he a college drop-out.

[TahitiNut]

163. Well, a cursory scan of 'dating/mating' ads and websites ...

... shows that the requirement that a potential mate be "financially secure" is overwhelmingly present in female ads and almost non-existent in male ads. At the same time, I think it's obvious that "financially secure" is almost a euphemism for "has more money/income than me." What any female might regard as "financially secure" is clearly going to be based on her own socioeconomic circumstances. Furthermore, the expectations regarding educational/professional attainments are clearly upside-focused in the female ads and far more varying in the male ads.

Yes, the focus on physical attributes is clearly greater from the male perspective ... but that's not at all to say that females have very assertive 'standards' in that regard as well. Given the veritable ocean of social influences in which we all swim, this isn't surprising to me. These are indoctrinations we get even before we know how to read. Disney repeats and repeats and repeats the "someday my prince will come" theme. The Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty parables are pervasive. It's NOT about "Sleeping Good Personality" or "Sleeping Intelligent," is it? It's not "Cinder-Fella," is it?

[raccoon]

155. It's the same way with some guys, in regards to looks.

Some guys who are average looking or downright unattractive want an SO who is drop-dead gorgeous.

[TahitiNut]

164. I've heard more than one female friend say ...

..."no woman wants to be with a guy that's better looking than her - she wants the eyes on her." When I observe all the couples I see, this seems to hold true at least 98% of the time - even if that attention is 'enhanced' by piercings, make-up, jewelry, clothing, and all manner of accessoriztion. When it comes to appearance, men again seem to be in a supporting role. Indeed, that has always seemed to be obvious to me, independent of whether I think it's the "way things should be."

[alarimer]

10. Well I prefer dating guys with similar education to myself

I prefer it that way, that's all. I have nothing in common with guys who only have a high school diploma. I'm sorry if that's snobbish but as someone who is working towards a master's degree, I have gotten too much crap from some guys (with no degrees) who tease me for being "smart". So no "dating down" here. No right-wingers either- that is REALLY dating "down".

[BlooInBloo]

76. Me too - well, except for the "dating guys" part - lol!

It would be awesome to be with a girl whom I could speak normally, who had opinions/responses to intellectual stimuli that were more than badly-packaged versions of millenia-old already-jettisoned thought, who knows that - and why - there's no such thing as centrifugal force, etc...

And who was tall enough that I don't see the top of her head except when she's sitting. That's more icing though, rather than a deal-breaker.

It sucks ass that there aren't many girls in rigorous graduate fields (meaning, more or less, technical fields + law + medicine + history & philosophy).


To justify this as a response to you: It goes both ways, as I'm sure you know. Well-edumacated guys - i.e., nerds - are society's paradigm never-get-a-girl people. It is good to point out the awkwardness going the other direction too, though. It seems likely that that sort of awkwardness is one of the things - in addition to just outright sexism - that discourages girls from pursuing a substantive education.

[Mythsaje]

117. I prefer intelligent, educated women...

The sharper they are, the more I like them. Helps if they can kick ass in a pinch too.

Any guy who doesn't like smart women has serious self-esteem issues of his own, as far as I'm concerned.

[alarimer]

130. Ideally I would like to meet someone who is also a biologist

or similar field to mine. Now maybe that is narrowing things too far but generally speaking the ones I have met have had similar viewpoints to my own, especially with regards to the environment. But it also makes it easier to talk about what I do without having to simplify it overly much.

But science nerds are the best, in general. Of course I am one, so I guess I am biased.

I realize now that the article really referred to status (like money and power) which I don't give two hoots about.

[Leopolds Ghost]

174. I love how folks who are "progressive" and all that think they're too smart for working class

The class-based meritocratic obsession amazes me.

Centrifugal force very much does exist, by the way.

In a rotating reference frame, it is the force that
generates centrifugal acceleration tangent to the
axis of rotation, which always proceeds away from the
centripetal actor at a 90 degree angle.

In an inertial reference frame, centrifugal force
is the force exerted upon your hand when you twirl
a keychain. The fact that the keychain is being
accelerated by centripetal forces merely proves that
it is being rotated and not pushed.

Another thing I find annoying about devout rational
materialists is that it's difficult to have a
hard-nosed philosophical discussion with them
about qualia, ethics, the nature of time, what
is a wave, or similar subjects. Physics and computer
science consist of logic puzzles which are increasingly
pursued largely to benefit humans financially, not for
enlightenment, or are falsely applied by logical
positivists seeking to "prove" materialism or declare
that evolution is the only constant in the multiverse
and therefore God does not exist, etc.

[BlooInBloo]

181. lol!

[Mythsaje]

102. Do you really believe

that everyone with only a high school diploma is your intellectual inferior? No disrespect intended, but that's not always the case. I have a GED (99% on the test) and somewhat less than two years of college behind me and will match wits with ANYONE, regardless of their official educational status or IQ.

My wife graduated high school at 14 with a full-ride scholarship to Oxford (which she never used), is a former MENSA member, and tests at least twenty to thirty points higher than I do on an IQ test. Yet in many ways I'm far more intellectual than she is. The only area she really outshines me is in mathematics. I'm not particularly good at math. But I easily grasp concepts that she does not. The only other exception is that I have a large blind spot when it comes to some forms of social expectations and she is often exasperated trying to explain certain things to me.

Your post DID come across as snobbish, to tell you the truth. If you actually believe you're my intellectual superior, I beg to differ. I have yet to MEET anyone who's my intellectual superior, though I imagine there are a few theoretical physicists and mathematicians out there who might fit the bill. Hard to say, since some of my best friends have been geniuses of one kind or another. I'm one of the few people with whom they could talk about anything who didn't get lost somewhere along the way. I was the long-haired stoner kid who'd often be found participating in in-depth conversations with the science geeks just for the sake of intellectual curiosity. Of course, I've been reading college level since I was in third grade. By the time I was in junior high, I could carry on a conversation with college students touching on any number of topics.

Again, as long as they weren't trying to explain higher math to me. I often grasp the concepts, but not the math itself. My mind doesn't seem to deal well with sequencing. That's the only explanation I can come up with for my lack of skill in that area. On the other hand, when I was in practice, I could do multiplication and division of fractions in my head. :shrug:

You'd do well to remember that there are those of us out here who might not easily fit your expectations based upon our official level of education. And it might be that you've robbed yourself of the opportunity to find out a time or two because of your assumptions about it.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

119. My sister is like that - won't date someone w/out a degree

That's her choice, and not surprisingly she's alone. As for the poster you responded to, I kind of understand where she's coming from on that. She described getting a hard time from guys when they find out she's getting her M.A. That happens a lot, I'm afraid.

[Mythsaje]

124. That really seems weird to me

but, then again, I suppose it makes sense. I've known too many guys, even guys I like, who seem to need their women to be dumber than them.

I prefer equality.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. Oh, I've seen that phenomenon, too

Back during my academic career, one of the colleges I taught at was in an association that held annual retreats for faculty of the association colleges and their spouses.

It was astounding how many really bright academic men had wives who were downright dim.

[BlooInBloo]

127. You would do well to learn what "prima facie" means.....

... and if you really were as smart-tho-formally-uneducated as you suggest, there would be no need for your defensive kneejerk response. That's because if you two were hypothetically to meet at a bar or somesuch, your intellect would shine through from word one, long before a discussion for formal academic creds came up, and her prima facie evidence of intelligence, formal education, would be waived, in lieu of the direct experience of your brains.

Duh.

All of that is, of course, assuming you're even 1/2 as smart as you proclaim yourself to be, which is somewhat hard to swallow given your reflexive and complex-ridden jump to the most uncharitable interpretation of the other person's post possible.

[Mythsaje]

131. Well, that's a pretty snotty response

all things considered. I thought my post, though unequivocally stating my disagreement with the original comment, and the reasons behind it, was generally respectful. Your response to me, on the other hand, showed a level of venom I personally consider quite unwarranted.

Nice.

[alarimer]

132. Well then you are one of the few exceptions

Because my experience with those with only a high school education has been largely negative. Especially given the quality of a high school education around here. They have been largely intellectually incurious, look at me blankly when I ask them what book they have read recently and express no desire to live or visit anywhere else. But of course it is Texas and Texans (of all types) have a peculiar chauvinism about their state.

I only have two basic requirements: some kind of higher education and preferably left-leaning (also very hard to come by here).

[Mythsaje]

135. It IS Texas...

My best friend is a great example of someone who's often underestimated. He's dyslexic and spent most of his time in school in special education. He doesn't appear quick-witted, but that's mostly because he likes to thinks things through completely before he offers an opinion.

The problem is that he harbors his own doubts about his intelligence, and tends to choose women that don't challenge him. It's a bit sad, really. He deserves so much better.

He has only a high school education, but he's an avid reader...though it took him years of work to vanquish his dyslexia.

On edit: On first glance, he doesn't seem nearly as intelligent as he actually is. And he can't spell worth a damn.

[Leopolds Ghost]

175. Most well-educated, upper-middle class liberal and conservative people I've met

Are poorly informed, incurious, and unintellectual. I find an obsession with educational attainment on the part of these self-described professionals who supposedly use their brains to make money (though just as often use a talent for overwork unmatched by their working-class siblibgs, coupled with a talent for cultivating connections amongst their elite family and friends, to move up in their career to the point where they can comfortably while away their time, a condition known as "success") un-enlightened. My religion taught me to find something to love in everybody, so I am naturally enclined to view that as the enlightened position. More to the point, highly-educated people who have re-oriented their brains to a written (as opposed to an oral) understanding of the world have restricted their world-view. One of the most fascinating studies I've ever read was a piece on the transition from a prehistoric to a historic mind-set amongst the Aztecs during the Spanish conquest. It's telling how folks who claim to be rationalists are actually logical positivists who believe that the scientific understanding of the world is more than a meta-construct designed to facilitate practical math problems encountered in the operation of our machines.

[TahitiNut]

133. "I have yet to MEET anyone who's my intellectual superior"??

:wow: That's really sad. You should get out more.

[Name removed]

134. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Donnachaidh]

24. what a crock of shit -- look who she is citing as *examples*

Britney and Kevin?

Please, can you base a shallow article on a couple any shallower? Did she hit on Tom and Katie? I've got better things to do than waste time reading such twaddle. :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

37. Apparently, you don't. :)

[yurbud]

38. too late--you already read it--AND took the time to comment.

[PassingFair]

26. Caught between the longing for love and the struggle for the legal tender.

I'll do a lot of things for money.
But two things I'll NEVER do
I won't KILL for it.
And I won't MARRY for it.
--Paraphrase from Jim Rockford (Rockford Files)

If you plan on starting from zero and dropping a "quiverful" of children, you
had better marry money.

Personally, I have always REFUSED to negotiate from an inferior position. I might
not be willing to walk away from tons of money, so I never got involved with anyone
who even SLIGHTLY tried to manipulate me with it. This included gifts, promises,
"you're so different" etc..

Damn right I was different, I wasn't selling what they wanted to buy.

It's been tough at times, scrapping on occasion, but me and mine always have enough to eat
(so far)and my self-worth is intact.

[Withywindle]

28. That's pretty much how I feel too...

...Personally, I'm kind of horrified by the idea of getting addicted to a lifestyle I couldn't afford to maintain myself. Guess I just don't trust anyone that much. Or maybe it's because I know how that kind of thing can fuck with the integrity of relationships and the integrity of the self. Nuh uh.

I don't want to date "up" or "down." Give me an equal, please. And money is only one factor in what makes a person an equal. I can deal with a partner who makes less than me, no problem. I can't deal with a partner who acts like he has something over my head, some reason to "own" me.

I might
not be willing to walk away from tons of money, so I never got involved with anyone
who even SLIGHTLY tried to manipulate me with it.

Exactly. It's kind of scary, really. I don't even want to get that close to it.

[PassingFair]

30. Personally, ALL of my friends are like this, Withy....

we are not alone.

Women who are willing to barter their bodies for "lifestyle"
are either prostitutes or republicans.

(Only partially kidding)

:hi:

Of course, it is only in THIS generation that we
have had the CHANCE to work and make our way.
I hope the opportunities continue for our daughters.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. I know one female in my circle who fits that description

She's a Republican - go figure.

[yurbud]

48. I would prefer a peer too, but because so many women like guys who make more...

it puts me in an awkward position--am I paying because I'm the guy, because I have more money, to manipulate the girl or what?

And if I let her pay, am I being egalitarian or cheap?

So I just do what I want, and if the girl complains too much, I let her pay half or whatever she wants.

[Withywindle]

105. I prefer to split things up or take turns paying, myself.

I don't see anything wrong with that. :shrug:

If you want to treat your partner to something special once in a while that's fine too - for both parties. I just don't think it's something that either should ever expect. That's where pressure and expectations and unhealthy roles and yes, golddigging, start to come in.

[seabeyond]

27. date down? as a woman i would be sooooo pissed if it were said my

hubby "dated down". didnt even begin to read the article. the title was enough off putting for me. and apology to all men that are offended by such tackiness and insult... they would never say that to a woman. better not, i would be kickin some arse

[Annces]

32. I am not sure about dating up or down

but I have seen some changes where some white men feel somewhat out of control dealing with women who are ambitious or aggressive in their careers, and they try to find someone more malleable, maybe with no big career goals. The few women I have known who were very driven in their careers, I think chose men that complemented their own lives, and didn't get in their way or be too macho in the relationship.

I think in the past a lot of men had their "at home wife", who took care of things, and then they had a fling on the side for adventure. But I don't think that is as prevalent now.

[yurbud]

54. would that be unique to white guys? I'm not insulted, but when it comes to relationships, guyness

transcends ethnicity.

[Annces]

56. I guess I said white guys

because those are the examples I have in my file cabinet. I think the Hispanic culture is more traditional generally in male /female roles, so a female will have a harder time if she wants to be a professional.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. I have been the guy in such a relationship,

It was more down in a financial sense,

She was a young lawyer who made a fortune in the early .com days on stock options - I was a piss broke "policy wonk" at a major lawfirm who worked on tax and bankruptcy issues.

After she cashed out she decided to work on divorce, bankruptcy and child custody with poor fathers and that is how I first met her. The firm I worked for was representing the wife of a divoricing couple who despite being poor had a very complicated bankruptcy filing as a result of some bizzare get rich quick scheme. I would never have ended up involved in such a case were it not so bizzare. But that is how we met.

My first impression of her was that she was just a spoiled brat probably forced to goto law school by wealthy parents, but a crappy lawyer who could only get redneck divorces. But I was completely wrong about her and got to know her quite well. Turned out she was from a working class family in Long Beach and grew up with only her father.

Money was always an issue - she had it, I didn't and I had little prospect of making much, but keeping that in the background was pretty easy. I let her buy me cloths when she was dragging me somewhere but that was it. For the most part we came from basically the same world, we worked in the same field, she just had alot more money than I did.

Unfortunately the rash of corporate bankruptcies early in the decade pulled her back into corporate law and she had some huge paydays. She completely lost interest in the social legal work she had been doing and decided to go completely corporate. And to her new circle I looked like a complete loser. I guess I looked something like Kevin Fedderline to them.

At first it didn't really bother her, but as my career fell further and further into the funk that many were in back then she began to try making me completely dependent on her and that is really what began to push me away. I was never at any time financially dependent on her and I had no desire to be. And that isn't some sense of male pride, I wouldn't want a woman to be completely dependent on me either.

To this day we still have something of an on again off again relationship, but probably one more appropriate for a pair of seventeen yearolds than adults.

[yurbud]

44. background does matter at least as much as money. I've met people from higher up the foodchain

doing my job, and we are still worlds apart on everything but the job.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

69. background was never the problem,

we didn't really come from that different a place, if anything I had a more aflunet upbringing than she did.

The .com money came all at once, but it didn't goto her head. She was still young and idealistic and beat a path to the legal aid office. It was when the money was comming in later and consistantly that she transformed into what she is now.

Had she wanted kids and it was a simple economic question of who better to serve as the bread winner that would have been one thing. She wanted me to be the kid.

[Tatiana]

103. For some reason, this really touched me.

It's obvious that you two still share something, despite the difference in income.

I hope you can work things out. (And I think if two people do have many things in common, like background and interests, it can be worked out.)

[BlooInBloo]

34. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[JVS]

40. St. Paul was right to tell us not to marry unless we couldn't help it

Solitude is best.

[BlooInBloo]

45. Maybe, but you gotta consider the source, too.

[PassingFair]

50. Um... if you're taking love advice from St. Paul...

you DEFINITELY need to go the celibate route.

Jeez.

A WORSE judge of human character, I CANNOT
conceive of.

[yurbud]

53. man, how did he know 2,000 years ago we'd have internet porn?

[JVS]

88. I'm sure Jesus mentioned it to him on the road to Damascus

[yurbud]

90. THAT'S why he was temporarily struck blind!

[Leopolds Ghost]

179. Hell is Other People. nt

[jgraz]

49. huh -- my ex-girlfriends say they were all "dating down"

Must be a trend or something...

[yurbud]

51. Laura Bush was dating down (the evolutionary chain)

[undeterred]

52. I've always assumed being heterosexual and female implies "dating down"

:shrug:

[Vektor]

62. OMG!

:rofl:

[undeterred]

63. Well, if I were dating John Kerry I wouldn't think that.

:hi:

[Vektor]

73. Tee-hee.

Now that's understandable!

:hi:

[yurbud]

74. hmmmm... Does him being a senator outrank her gazillion dollars? make them equal, or is he just her

cabana boy?

[Vektor]

79. Mmmmm...

...cabana boy...

[yurbud]

93. see? he's thinking about it in that pic...

[Vektor]

111. He probably is.

Wondering where he's going to find a large enough fig leaf.

[yurbud]

114. actually, that's the beginning of the bow he does when the lady takes the drink off his tray

[Vektor]

121. Whoa!

Perhaps she ordered a "stiff drink"?

:spank:

[Demeter]

145. Good One!

Truer words were never typed....

[SoCalDem]

57. My son's wife usually makes more than he does.

But both have 6 figure incomes, so it's just a "jokey" thing between them.

People should marry whomever they want, but they should do it with eyes open. That gorgeous construction worker guy who dropped out of high school will not always be hunky and strong, so if an upwardly mobile woman marries him, she might need to have a good job of her own just in case he gets hurt on the job, or for when he's 40-something, and can no longer work like a 20 yr old..

[Nikia]

64. Several of my female ancestors have married down

In terms of coming from more well to do families and/or having more education than their husbands. The difference now is that more women are having careers that pay closer to what we were are worth.
In the past, the college educated woman might be stuck being a secretary while her high school drop out blue collar husband made more money. Most people wouldn't think that the marriage was so strange though.
I think that the relationship tends to be more equal both partners are bringing equal things to the table although they don't need to be the same things. Sometimes class issues are issues that a couple does have to overcome, regardless of who is making more money or who came from a wealthier background. Some couples can work through them but other couples cannot.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. My only definition of "marrying down" is marrying someone dumber

Poorer, shorter, younger, all are no problem within reason. (I wouldn't want someone who was living under a bridge or a foot shorter than me or more than ten years younger, but a little poorer, a little shorter, a little younger, no problem.) But dumber--no, that's a deal breaker. I want to make it clear that I'm NOT talking about degrees or years of schooling, because one of the brightest, funniest men I've ever known never finished college and had a low income. (He was also gay, another deal breaker :-) ) I'm talking about an attitude, a breadth of mind that finds the world to be a fascinating place and is not content with conventional wisdom.

I've tried dating men who are dumber, and eventually, they "make me pay" by finding ways to tear me down.

So that's the end of that.

[yurbud]

75. my mom talked me into doing that because she was worried I was being too picky...

I ended up liking the person a lot, but there wasn't a lifetime's worth in common even though we were from very similar economic backgrounds.

[crispini]

85. I agree, sort of.

Dating someone who is dumber... out of the question. But I have dated smart men who make less money than I do, and they usually get pretty insecure or weirded out by it. It's unfortunate.

[ecstatic]

67. damned if you do, damned if you don't

On one end of the spectrum you have insecure assholes who will always be trying to prove their manhood. The other end of the spectrum, you have pompous, arrogant assholes who view women as objects who can be tossed aside like toys. (The ones in the middle are taken and/or gay)

ETA: Please disregard this post (typing while bitter)

[yurbud]

77. nope--ones in the middle are overlooked. Assholes attract women like flies to shit

at least younger ones. I think they are worried they won't get enough pain in their lives, so they go find it. If they would just be patient, life will deal them their fair share of hardship.

[NashVegas]

68. Women Have ALWAYS Been Able to Date and Even Marry Down

If a woman from a "good family" marries down, the men in her tribe will offer him ladder-climbing opportunities if he shows interest.

Men, otoh, can date down, but if they marry down, their status is reduced as well.

[JVS]

87. That's not true technically. In medieval Iceland the act of courting was automatically...

an assertion by the male that his family was superior to that of the object of his affection. An offshoot of this was that if a man was not careful to select a family that would be able to acknowledge its social inferiority, lest a violent feud break out. Another result of this situation is that love poetry was illegal due to the explosive violence in which it could result.

[Annces]

71. Also you could watch that show "Sex and the City"

It is almost a textbook lesson on dating issues. The red-headed one has problems with "dating down", but she eventually marries him.

I never related to any of those characters, but the show does talk a lot about women and who they date.

[lumberjack_jeff]

80. The logical corollary of this discussion is; "I can afford a hotter chick than this one".

I find both equally offensive.

[yurbud]

96. sadly, a lot of guys think that way. I'd give a girl bonus pints for sticking with me through the

lean years, and be at least a little suspicious of anyone who hooked up with me when I was flush.


I can think of at least two celebs whose first wives were dumpy them traded them in for hotter, younger ones: OJ, and Paul Hogan. oh, and R. Crumb.

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. Shouldn't we be about changing hearts and minds?

90% of the responses to threads about antisocial behavior either defend it (if it's seen as justified retaliation) or advocate retribution in kind.

Is the objectification of women discouraged by encouraging the objectification of men?

Fortunately my wife and I met when we were teens growing up in the same working-class rural town. It never occured to either us to consider if we were marrying up or down. Shoulder-to-shoulder, we did the best we could - starting from scratch.

I find the kind of economic productivity/hotness calculus embodied by the OP quite disgusting. I consider people who actually expend any intellectual bandwidth thinking this way quite pitiable, at best.

[yurbud]

89. for the women protesting that class and money don't matter, would you date this guy? (PIC)

[Nikia]

92. A lot of men wouldn't want to date a woman who looked like that either

I mean being female and not having a beard but otherwise very similiar.

[yurbud]

95. you don't have any teeth or eyelids either?

a girl could wear that outfit and mud wrassle and it would be plus to most guys.

[Nikia]

99. I don't look like that

I meant that many guys wouldn't want to date a woman who looked like that either. Bad hair, unattractive face, heavier build, and presumingly crude acting.

[yurbud]

107. How about that guy in a tux and Rolls Royce (Ross Perot)?

[nam78_two]

97. So is this a logical argument?

:shrug:
Are you reducing human behavior to this black and white an equation?

I might not date that guy but then I also wouldn't consider dating this guy:



Whats your point :shrug:?

[yurbud]

148. I would force Tucker Carlson to date the guy in my picture.

[Pushed To The Left]

98. I think the terms "dating up" or "dating down" are bullshit

Just like I think the idea of "leagues" (as in "she's out of his league")is bullshit. This makes the assumption that somehow if a woman dates a man with less money, or if a man dates a woman who isn't considered attractive by societal standards, that they are somehow dating somebody who isn't as good as a man who makes more money or a woman who looks like a model. I reject the whole idea of "leagues". I would be attracted to the same exact women if I were a millionaire that I'm attracted to now. I sometimes like to look at personals for fun (that's how I met my last three girlfriends), and I'm amazed and a little disgusted at how many people have salary requirements for the people they date. There is a saying "Water seeks its own level". The shallow people find eachother. The women who won't date a man who doesn't make more money, and the men who won't date a woman who doesn't look like a model. It's pretty easy to see why the divorce rate is so high in this country.

[Mythsaje]

104. My wife and I met through the AOL personals

and found each other because of shared interests. She's always made more money than I have, though there's a good chance that may change sometime in the future because of my writing.

Of course, neither of us are shallow people.

[yurbud]

125. how much difference? double? triple? $10-20K either way is in the same socio-economic ballpark

or did you live in a trailer park and she in Beverly Hills?

I would definitely prefer that vast differences in money didn't divide people by the way.

[Mythsaje]

128. About triple...

Pretty significant.

[yurbud]

141. is she taking applications for backup husbands?

[Mythsaje]

142. LOL...

Not that I'm aware of. She's spending her extra time helping me promote my books so I can someday support her in the style she'd like to become accustomed.

[BlooInBloo]

100. Note that *logically* this is a completely barren phenomenon...

At its logical root, the "story" is simply: Independent women can be choosier about their mates.

The logical barrenness of this "story" is apparent upon considering exactly *what* the word "independent" means. lol!

Therefore the only interest of the article is the fact that it's *women* who have/are coming to have this kind of choice - i.e. freedom. And it's hard to see what the point of the article could be, except for a "woohoo!" if written by a woman, or a "aw shit" if written by a man.

EDIT: Ah - there is a 3rd possibility: the MoDo-esque tsktsk-ing of women for exercising their freedom. Men have had that freedom for 1000s of years, and misused it MASSIVELY. There's *nothing* to criticize women about here - let them make their choices as they see fit, and are able.

[Withywindle]

108. I agree with your third possibility especially.

Honestly, I see a lot of upper-class male fear in this. "You mean after all this time I spent playing the stock market so I could buy a hot chick some bling and a nice nest, she might choose some construction worker with a better smile and a bigger dick because she can buy her own bling? That's not how it's supposed to work!!!" :evilgrin:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

113. You can see them any Friday night at happy hour

Lined up at the bar, twirling the keys to the expensive sportscars, ogling the pretty college girls and young businesswomen, who mostly disdain them in favor of the buff young dudes. I don't feel the slightest bit sorry for most of the ones in my town because they probably voted for Bush.

[yurbud]

126. actually, it's the opposite of being choosier. since they have fewer men above them, it's down or

nothing (or very, very old guys).

[BlooInBloo]

129. The point is that they're choosERS now, not choosEES...

... not so much the actual criteria that are commonly used for their choice. The same article coulda & probably woulda been written no matter WHAT the criteria of independet womens' choices were - because the only semi-novel point of the article is that chicks are choosers now - not just raffle prizes for men (to put it coarsely.)

[Porcupine]

137. A remarkably large number of them choose nothing.

The single professional 30-something who can't find any "eligable" men is a cliche. Hospitals are full of them.

[BlooInBloo]

140. And they're free to do that.

[SmokingJacket]

110. "Up"? "Down" WTF???

I don't live on a frigging mountain.

I dated (married, now) people who are smart, funny, and kind, period. Who gives a shit about anything else?

[Dastard Stepchild]

144. I select mates not as ambitious as me...

for the sole reason that we don't have to compete over whose career comes first. I always liked people that "hold a job" versus "have a career" because I am exceedingly ambitious, and having two people like this in a relationship seems problematic. I kind of need someone a little more willing than most to follow rather than lead. And I need a fella a little more willing than most to strongly consider the role of house husband (assuming finances allow for this).

But I wouldn't consider it dating down. That seems like an insult. I would consider it a compatibility issue. I always knew what I needed and I was always 100 percent happy staying single when I could not find this. But even among my rather educated friends, I think I am still the exception to the rule.

[yurbud]

147. Shaw said something like this in Pygmalion. Eliza marries a dope who worships her

instead Higgins who is now essentially her peer.

Paul Simon said something about his relationship with Carrie Fisher along the lines of your first paragraph. He said they were like two flowers with no gardener.

[shanti]

152. i've never married up

both my ex's were instances where i married down....and i'm very independent. i always wondered what it would be like to just once marry up, but it's too late now.:(

[KansDem]

153. If it weren't for "dating down..."

I would've had no dates at all! :(

[Blue_Tires]

176. roger that

now let's find some sugar mommies to marry ourselves off to!:toast:

[yurbud]

188. ironically, I am find this true as a college professor. my peers at work date "up" for money

so if I'm not open to someone with less education, I'm out of luck.

[lcdnumber6]

180. My boyfriend and I are struggling with this now...

this may belong in the Lounge, or Dear Abby....

I was brought up in an upper middle class home, graduated from a good college, got a decent (albeit stressful and only 60% soul-nourishing) career in which I use my biology degree. I love to expand my skills & intellect, travel, cook good food, do other stuff that you have a little bit of scratch to pursue. My b-friend was raised lower middle class, didn't finish college, is a self-employed painter, is more interested in creative/right-brain/"cheap" pursuits. We've known each other for years, been dating solid for 3 years and I trust him, laugh with him, learn more from him than anyone, and have great chemistry with him. But our financial differences are creating serious strain.

I NEVER want to rely on another man to take care of me, thankyouverymuch. But I don't make *that* much money in my career and don't expect to, so I can't support someone else and frankly I don't want to. B-friend seems to be content with being broke, says he'd rather not "obsess" about money. But it makes me uncomfortable that he doesn't at least try to save a little money for a rainy day, and sometimes I can't afford to pay for both of us to go out and do stuff, and then we fight.

I don't dream of big cars or homes or anything like that, and I'm trying to understand his perspective - as he says, "i don't want to be on my deathbed, miserable but with a mortgage." But I've been in enough financial trouble in the past (and with past b-friends), and I have worked really hard to get in the black so I guess I have a hot button with people who aren't responsible for their own finances. We're on the brink of breaking up over this, and I don't know if I am being irrational or if it's completely okay to expect a 35-year-old to be a little more fiscally responsible. I'm not asking him to buy me a fur coat or anything, but I guess deep inside I am scared to death that I may have to support him someday, or worse that i'd be resentful about it.

Ladies who date "down" (at least financially) or guys who have gone through this - what do you think?

[Porcupine]

182. Sounds like you'd rather be wealthy than happy.

When you describe your boyfriend you describe somebody who doesn't fit social patterns. In personal interactions you describe a very nice relationship. In financial matters you seem to expect him to somehow change.

Men do not suddenly become avaricious after 35 unless they suddenly discover people willing to pay bucks for what they were set out to do anyway. If you cannot accept that he may never make more than getting by money leave now. He is better off without you.

The happiest people I have ever met are Buddhist monks and hospice volunteers. In both cases the acceptance of absolute loss is part of a path to joy. Your boyfriend has a chance at that kind of happiness; you might have to go round the wheel a few more times.

[yurbud]

183. this is the pragmatic side of the issue, but what activities do you have to give up because he can't

afford them?

Incidentally, I agree with him. I teach college and probably make less money than a lot of blue collar workers, but I love my job and look forward to going everyday, and I have a fair amount of free time.



By contrast, when I worked for an attorney service, it wasn't unusual to deliver papers to the head of a law firm who was working late in the office on a Saturday night. I don't know what good all the money would do him if he had no time to spend it and probably forgot what his kids looked like.

I'd like to travel and do some play things more, but the company I keep matters more than whatever it is we're doing together.

[architect359]

185. Wanting financial stability is fine

lcdnumber6: Sometimes 2 people just don't see things eye to eye, and that's just life, you know? All the things that you bring up are totally valid issues in any long term relationship and finances are always a doozy. At the risk of sounding obvious (since it looks like you figured this out in your post), you really have to figure out what YOU want out of your life, and who YOU want to be with. Sounds like the 2 of you need to figure out how to reach the middle ground. Both of you need to figure out what life changes are worth making in your lives if you are interested in the relationship.

We evolve everyday, decisions we make now may mean squat down the road or be the best that you've ever made. Point is, you just have to do the best you can. I'm not telling you what to do - that's you're decision; it's your life. I only replied to your post because I go through this in my relationship so I can empathize with what you're going through. Things can be worked out if BOTH parties are willing to figure it out. Just wanted to say that you're not alone in thinking about these things.

Btw, when I say, I go through this..., it's not a typo. You'll have this issue (among others) that both of you will have to reciprocate continuously. Being in a relationship is always going back and forth, give and take.

Anyway, take it for what it's worth.

[lumberjack_jeff]

186. What you're describing is a different issue

You're not dating "down", you're dating "irresponsible".

Arrested development is not the same thing as ones place on the socioeconomic ladder.

I dislike the idea of choosing a mate because they're a good vehicle to advance in life, but I consider it okay to choose a significant other who won't prevent you from reaching your goals. You can't ignore the topic of money, but if you get along in other ways you should be able to come to an agreement.

Maybe I'm just really lucky to have a wife whos values are largely aligned with mine.

[BoneDaddy]

184. If someone is dating someone else

and they consider it "dating down", then there has already been an unfair judgement about the "other", attributing a value to the person based upon what they do or how much money they make.

If anyone is cognizant and is aware that they are "dating down", they have already devalued the person and that is not a good way to start off any relationship.

[yurbud]

187. has anyone ever told you you're being too picky about who you go out with?

or asked you why you wouldn't go out with their friend who was outside the range of looks, interests, or personality you like?

Part of the issue can be snobbishness, but there are also real pragmatic concerns. What if one person has enough money to travel all over the world and take month long vacations and the other doesn't? Or one partner always wants to eat at the chi chi places and the other partner not only doesn't want to lay out the cash for $20 umbrella drinks and $50 for enough food for a hamster, but also doesn't have the trendy clothes to fit in the that crowd?

I've been on the poorer end of the equation, and still would be with a lot of women. It's a problem.

[USA_1]

189. "Date Down"???

Gee, I wish that women had done that for me when I was young.

I never was one to attract women as my income level was always rather low {and I admit that I'm not exactly a handsome Prince charming}. Though well educated and highly articulate, women would lose interest in me when they discovered that they made more money than I did. So, alas, I was forced to stay single all my life.

Perhaps in my next lifetime (if there is one) ...