Anonymous wrote:If the size of my tits is a deal breaker for you, then it's only fair the size of your wallet is a deal breaker for me. Easy-peasy.

fair trade

I think the ability to make money is a part of the picture. But not in the way you might think. I don't need someone who can make $150,000+. But there is a minimum that I need (along with my salary) to have a comfortable life. I dated a guy who was an actor/comedian, who would not move to NYC or LA. So he was doing local shows and college tours.

At 32, he made the most he'd ever made $17,000. I made more than him at my first job out of college. I knew that if I stayed with him, I would be the breadwinner, who had to make enough to pay for our life and childcare beacause his salary wouldn't cover it. That wasn't comfortable for me. He ended up married to a very rich attorney. He has left acting, but his jobs as a 50-something now are low-wage, entry level.

Another friend, married a guy who had a dream job that is a difficult to get. She followed him around the country as he took one job after another (at one job they paid him $0, only paid for health care) building up his resume so he could one day get his dream job. She gave up good paying jobs to follow him from job to job (often getting paid less). She was fine with this for many years. Until she wanted to settle down, buy a house and have a kid. She expected him to grow up and take a job that would pay the bills (especially since it was becoming clear that he would never get his dream job). He didn't see it that way. Now they are both angry at each other. He's had several bouts of long-term unemployment and not they've filled for bankruptcy.

So money is a part of someone's long-term goals. And that is a part of the package along with are they good, kind, respectful, funny and am I attracted to them. But for me, more money doesn't mean he is better and that I'd accept less from him emotionally.

The actual salary number isn't a dealbreaker, but the ability to live within his means is. I wouldn't consider someone who was deeply in debt with no real way to pay it off. Not my problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, obviously, people have different preferences. You say that a woman's physique is not a dealbreaker for you, but I'm sure you also seek out the most attractive mate you can, don't you? We all do. Fortunately for those of us who are not conventionally attractive, different people are attracted to different things.

OP here, when i was younger yes looks played a manor part.After some tome and dealing with attractive women and seeing their personalities sucked and also dealing with less attractive women who had wonderful personalities and treated me better that changed my mindset but i do get your point.

I'm the poster you're responding to. I feel the same way about my ex-husband's income. I didn't marry him FOR his money, because when we married, he was a broke grad student like me. He was just in a more lucrative field. His money did not make him a good partner. In a lot of ways, it actually made him a less good partner, because he developed the mentality that you could solve problems by throwing money at them.

I think that people who rely on one asset (whether that be salary or looks or smarts or ability to make a mean whiskey sour or whatever) are generally not good bets. Life is long and complicated, and choosing a well-rounded partner is important.

It's a deal breaker for me. I married a man with nothing. Was "always in school". I thought he was ambitious, now I know he was just confused. I should have run when he took me t the movies and I couldn't get anything from the concession stand because he was using his mother's cc and didnt want to spend too much. I'm giving myself away here; but he once got money back on his income tax and posted an fb status telling people to pic a book, any book that had to do with our faith and he'd buy it. We had no savings!!!! The week before his bank acct was -1200. I knew then that I wouldn't spend my life with him

I have a floor, too. It's too expensive to live a middle/upper class lifestyle these days with kids. And it depends on where we live, based on col. I don't need expensive cars, clothes, etc... but yes, I want to take nice vacations once in a while, save for retirement, kids college, and I don't want to live pay check to pay check. Yes, I work, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, obviously, people have different preferences. You say that a woman's physique is not a dealbreaker for you, but I'm sure you also seek out the most attractive mate you can, don't you? We all do. Fortunately for those of us who are not conventionally attractive, different people are attracted to different things.

OP here, when i was younger yes looks played a manor part.After some tome and dealing with attractive women and seeing their personalities sucked and also dealing with less attractive women who had wonderful personalities and treated me better that changed my mindset but i do get your point.

Typo - major

Anonymous wrote:OP, obviously, people have different preferences. You say that a woman's physique is not a dealbreaker for you, but I'm sure you also seek out the most attractive mate you can, don't you? We all do. Fortunately for those of us who are not conventionally attractive, different people are attracted to different things.

OP here, when i was younger yes looks played a manor part.After some tome and dealing with attractive women and seeing their personalities sucked and also dealing with less attractive women who had wonderful personalities and treated me better that changed my mindset but i do get your point.

I think it depends. If unemployment is a short term temporary situation, that is ok. If a low paying career was something the man is really pationate about and he can make up for it in other ways like being a responsible spender, good with kids, etc etc then it is fine. But I am not interested in another dependent mooching off me.

Anonymous wrote:OP, obviously, people have different preferences. You say that a woman's physique is not a dealbreaker for you, but I'm sure you also seek out the most attractive mate you can, don't you? We all do. Fortunately for those of us who are not conventionally attractive, different people are attracted to different things.

I married and divorced someone who made twice what I made and could comfortably take care of me financially because he was a terrible husband who made me feel like crap. I remarried someone who makes more or less what I make. We need both of our incomes to finance our lifestyle (pay the rent, pay the bills, save some money, eat well, and have some fun). I married him because he's a loving, wonderful human being who, in the words of the PP, makes me feel great, is kind to my kid, and overall makes my life better.

American culture has developed the perception that men are responsible for earning money while women are responsible for raising children. This is a relatively new dichotomy, or one that primarily applies to people who are wealthy. Poor women have always worked. Rural women have always worked. There have always been men with disabilities who are unable to work. It is the sexism of our culture that has barred women from many professions for centuries and classified women as second class financial citizens that create this expectation. As those expectations get dismantled, I expect that you will see fewer women looking for someone who can take care of them financially and more women who are simply looking for an equal partner.

Well said.

If we are talking about women "overall," much is dependent on whether she has a career. The trend of women dating younger men (as men have always tried to date younger women) is symptomatic of greater financial independence - women have more than their looks to bring to the total package, and that is attractive. As women "need" men less, they have many more choices in their personal lives.

I also read an article recently that suggested that just as Alpha men often pick wives that have lesser careers, Alpha women often find more happiness with Beta males. Finding someone who is your complement rather than someone with identical goals can be more harmonious.

It's a deal breaker for me but not for a my of women. There are many women out there who just want to be loved and will take that at the expense of everything else.

Yes, it was important to me that my future DH have a steady, well respected career. The earning potential doesn't have to be huge(teacher was fine) but he had to have a good work ethic and take his responsibilities seriously.

Back when I could have kids yes but not so much now. As long as he is a good steward of his finances and is kind, thoughtful and giving, we can make it work. Money doesn't hold you close at night.

OP, obviously, people have different preferences. You say that a woman's physique is not a dealbreaker for you, but I'm sure you also seek out the most attractive mate you can, don't you? We all do. Fortunately for those of us who are not conventionally attractive, different people are attracted to different things.

I married and divorced someone who made twice what I made and could comfortably take care of me financially because he was a terrible husband who made me feel like crap. I remarried someone who makes more or less what I make. We need both of our incomes to finance our lifestyle (pay the rent, pay the bills, save some money, eat well, and have some fun). I married him because he's a loving, wonderful human being who, in the words of the PP, makes me feel great, is kind to my kid, and overall makes my life better.

American culture has developed the perception that men are responsible for earning money while women are responsible for raising children. This is a relatively new dichotomy, or one that primarily applies to people who are wealthy. Poor women have always worked. Rural women have always worked. There have always been men with disabilities who are unable to work. It is the sexism of our culture that has barred women from many professions for centuries and classified women as second class financial citizens that create this expectation. As those expectations get dismantled, I expect that you will see fewer women looking for someone who can take care of them financially and more women who are simply looking for an equal partner.

It would depend on where I was in life. If I was making my own income and you weren't a mooch, it wouldn't a deal breaker. If I wasn't making an income and you wanted to get married and have a family, I'd want you to be making enough income to provide. So it all would depend. At the end of the day, everyone has to bring something to the party.