Well, you're response is why I think it's absolutely fair to have that expectation. On the other hand though, if she doesn't have either of those, is it still fair? Shouldn't they be near equals economically speaking? What if the gender roles were reversed and it was a guy with neither only wanting to date women with a place to live and health insurance? Wouldn't society be more likely to paint him as an opportunist? Besides that, while those things are important, how important are they over emotional and intellectual compatibility? What about being kind, respectful, and faithful? Good with kids? Easily able to get along with family and friends? I mean, yeah, economic factors are a big part of relationships, I get that. On the other hand though, I know a ton of relationships that are anything but financially secure and people stick by each other through thick and thin (joblessness, poor health, etc.) because there's real love and commitment there. Money isn't the be all and end all to relationships. I'd rather be dead broke financially and live a life full of love than be well off, successful, and with someone I didn't appreciate.
On an interpersonal level...I don't think there is a such thing as "fair" in relationships, not the way you're quantifying it. Really a good relationship is one in which both partners are happy with everything the other brings to the table. So long as those two are happy, I kind of feel like it's not on me to judge (much). It might not be the kind of relationship that's right for me, and I'd certain say that if I was talking about it, but if the people are healthy and happy then being in it...it's kind of up to them. There are some people - probably more than some people - that don't want balanced relationships. There are people who want to be the head of the household or are happy being house-spouses. There are way more extreme cases of that spectrum, too. And again...it's up to each person to decide what's important and how it is to them. Dating is/should be all about preference. What do you prefer in a partner? What do you like? What makes you feel confident about that person as a partner? To me, having a stable living situation and health insurance is ... well, the first is mandatory and the second strongly preferred but not a make-or-break. I don't think these qualities can all be ranked linearly...but I think a given person can kind of rank them in bands. For instance, in my "most important" band, I have: having a job, having a stable living situation, be in reasonable physical shape, live their life on about the same sort of schedule I do (I'm a morning person who works 7 a - 5ish; I go to bed at 9. Someone who likes being out til two - that's not going to work for me long term), turn me on, be pretty intelligent, pro-choice, pro-tattoos, like cats. I could go on. And that's just my top tier. Bottom tier stuff I don't care so much about: whether you like exactly the same bands i like. what you dress like so long as you look reasonably clean etc. what your job is (much more important to just have a job and a good one). whether or not you went to college, whether or not you graduated. if your dick is circumsized. how you put toilet paper on the roll. whether you're close with your family or not. etc etc. Some people are gonna care about what I don't. And some people aren't going to care about what I do. It's not about fair, it's about what's right for you. I tend to make more money than the guys I date. I'm used to it/kind of assume it's the case most of the time. I try not to talk about money. I try to split dates (I think that's fair). It's interesting to see when people bring money up and how. it can tell you a lot about a person
I think that there is a reasonable argument to be made in support of that position. The second definition that Google gives me for 'Romantic' is which sort of necessitates short term irrationality of some variety.of, characterized by, or suggestive of an idealized view of reality.
You should consider that people might have different priorities before calling them out on lacking reason.
Sure sounds like it.which sort of necessitates short term irrationality of some variety.
You've just called romantics partially irrational. Here's someone telling that doesn't sound right — or fair.
Has what I have to say a chance to sway your opinion? EDIT: Guess not. I had something to say. See, wrestling with dictionary trying to find a definition to suit you could be a tricky business. If there's anything I've learned from studying foreign languages, it's that you have to try different sources to get a bigger picture. A formidable worldview advice, as well. The definitions you gave both come from Oxford Dictionary. A respectable source of information on the English vocabulary, no doubt. However, it smells funny that you would insist on it, despite there being other such sources. My guess from you not replying to this message would be that you prefer that definition because it suits your agenda: that romantic people are naive and clueless towards life and marital survival of the fittest. You're allowed to have opinions, of course, and I will respect your opinion if it's borne of solid information. However — and I hate to jump to conclusions, but your withdrawal from the discussion leaves me no choice — it seems that you'd prefer your view over others' because it's yours, rather than entertain the possibility that others — like, say, romantics themselves — could hold more solid data about what their view is than what you may have concocted on your own sans evidence. But, back to the dictionary game: Look at that! Another definition. Thank you, Merriam-Webster: another great source of semantical information about the English language. Why not choose this one when it was readily available? It's even higher up there in the search results in Google, so it couldn't have been your first choice. Did you have to look for something that fits your agenda? That's even before we start with what I, as a romantic person, would have to say on the matter. I haven't seen you attach so much weight on the evidence of the dictionary before, so I'm not going to assume it your modus operandi. Instead, I'm going to tell you this: research the shit you talk about before giving some to others. "Must be irrationality" — what nonsense. "Well, I didn't say it". "Well, I didn't hurt anyone". And what you say still doesn't hold.4 a. marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized
Hmm. I think it's more of the case that it's easier to be pragmatic when you're analyzing the lives and decisions of others or when looking at our past decisions with sober insight. When we're caught up in the ebb and flow of our own lives though, living in the present? Romantacism often wins out.
I'm on a taxiway so this will be bereft of links, but one of the tropes routinely dragged out by the conservatives is the erosion of the family as causal in the erosion of prosperity. The liberals, on the other hand, drag out the erosion of family planning as the erosion of prosperity. I got a kid. I had her when my wife and I were in our late 30s, living a six figure lifestyle. Some wonk pointed out on Twitter that two studies, one on job loss and one on having children, found the same economic impact; having a kid is economically equivalent to losing a job. And we were able to plan it, and we had $90k in savings, and by the time my wife was earning again we had $20k. The more economic prowess you have, the more resilient you are to financial shocks like having children. But the less economic prowess you have, the less likely you are to factor finances into having a family. Rich people have fewer children, period. And traditional male jobs are on the decline, and the economic costs of raising children well are increasing, and if your head knows you can't afford kids but your heart wants kids, you're going to have kids you can't afford. But if you can plan, you sure as shit won't plan with a partner that can't help.
I don't know how much I buy this. My wife is one of three kids. Their mom raised them for a while, while their dad worked as a teacher. Then their dad took some time off while their mom worked as a teacher. They're all well educated and, for the most part, well adjusted and they were all planned for - but based on your premise they were working -2 jobs while raising their family. I'm thinking about my sister who, with her husband, is very well off. And yeah, I'm sure raising a kid as they know it takes a massive chunk out of their income - their kids want for pretty much nothing. But I also think there are ways to raise kids that aren't so detrimental. I'm not trying to say kids aren't expensive, but I do think there's a bit of a fiscal boogeyman around kids, especially among the well educated.
I think when someone shows you a profit and loss statement you should be careful about terms like whether you "buy" it or "fiscal boogeymen." We straight up lost 70 grand, yo. More than that. Yeah. we've got friends that had kids younger, that didn't plan. Know what? Their financial situation is hella more perilous than ours. That's exactly the point I was making.
Their financial situation is hella more perilous than ours. My wife and I have five kids. We started that parade back in our mid-20s. I don’t think kb is referring to me... but he might as well be. I don’t often feel like I’m in a perilous state, but I sure as hell am when it comes down to it. I’ve got more thoughts on this, but I think I should read the article first.Yeah. we've got friends that had kids younger, that didn't plan. Know what?
At one point, children were an asset. They are now a massive liability, by my estimation, though I admit that my viewpoint is heavily skewed. When Vikings were sailing around generally fucking shit up, it was considered a good thing to come back from a months long voyage to find your wife pregnant by another man. He got to sleep with your wife, but you got to keep the baby. One more hand to work the farm, one more son to carry a sword, one more daughter to marry off and solidify inter-clan loyalties and alliances. Now, be prepared to spend buxxx
I get what you're saying but I think OftenBen is right here, "All is fair in love and war." Whether or not the girl being broke means she "deserves" a broke partner is irrelevant. There is no regulatory agency that manages economic equality between partners: if Richman Goodlookingson likes her, it's bada-bing bada-boom. Her decision to stay in the dating pool and not settle yet means the chances are still in play that she finds a partner that meets her reaching goal.