Prenups

[Sheena815]

I dont think money is the driving factor with the higher rates of divorce among wealthier people, I think it tends to be more the attitudes and views that come with having alot of money. Some people just can't hold on to good family values.

 

Sorry if I worded it badly, but those with more money have a lower rate of divorce, and those of lower socioeconomic status have a higher rate. So, no, I don't think money drives divorce either.

 

I find it sad that you think a woman must be submissive, passive or conservative, to want to be a stay at home mother, when that is generally what most women do.

 

No, you misunderstand. I meant that they would be rather submissive if they were okay with an expectation that they will do this for their husbands/ family. Wanting to do it because its their own goal is another thing entirely, and fine, but I find expecting (which to me says that you're not very okay with her choosing otherwise) to be not so good. Basically being a stay at home parent is a job... but would you ever say to your partner that you "expect" them to be say, a doctor, or a lawyer or any other job? I certainly would not. I don't know if saying "most" women want to be stay-at-home moms is accurate. Do you have any data to back that up?

 

I mean, the whole point of prenups as we have discussed in this thread is an acknowledgment that people can and do at times change, and we have to be prepared for that possibility. I guess my question is this: what if your wife changes? What if she changes her mind about whether she wants to be a stay-at-home mom (like say, after you are married and have a young child)? Are you prepared for that possibility? I think its simply unkind to saddle someone you love with an expectation that he or she will do the job you want of them, on your terms. That's asking a lot of a person, and its not so much that a woman cannot want it on her own, but I think a strong and assertive person would not like it being expected of them. They would want to feel that it is their choice, and even if they change their mind, they will be supported by their husband. Its really the expecting it that bothered me. If you had just said that you would prefer it, or wanted someone who would be willing to do it, that would be different. If my bf told me he expected me to be a doctor, I'd not be too pleased, even though that is obviously what I want to do.

 

The most important thing in my life is family, and I do not want a nanny or daycare raising my kids. When I was young my family wasn't well off and both my parents had to work, so i was pretty much raised by different babysitters.

 

I agree about the importance of faimly, but I'm wondering why it must be your wife that is the stay-at-home parent? Why not you, if family is the most important thing to you? (which I think is a great). You seem to want a parent to be full-time with the kids, but why must it necessarily be the female parent? If its because you are expecting to be the primary wage-earner, that's different, but I'm not sure of your reasoning. I know both my parents worked, but I had a stable caretaker during the day that I loved, and had a wonderful childhood. (And in a psych class I took the studies have shown that high quality daycare, ie. that with a stable caregiver to whom the child can bond, has no negative impact on any facet of development).

 

To me, its the quality of time spent (parent and child) and not the quantity that's important. I see no reason why a child must have a parent with them 24/7. None. I do see great reason for children to spend quality bonding time with their parents each day, and to feel loved and secure at all times. But that to me does not require being with a parent all day long. What is bad (with daycare) is when there is high turnover in the staff (ie. the child does not have a stable caretaker to form attachment to) or when there is a high ratio of kids to workers (ie, not enough individual attention). But a full-time, long-term nanny is absolutely healthy, as long as mom and dad also spend quality time with the children during other times of the day. Some people just seem so against the nanny thing, but I do not get that. So your child will form a healthy bond to three people instead of two. Big frickin' deal. Is it really so bad if they bond to one extra person who is not "biologically" family? Not to me.

[Zuckman]

I think very much like Wolvenstar. I place A LOT of emphasis on family and I truly believe that both parents should spend more time at home. I don't like the whole daycare thing. I also believe that my wife should spend more time at home than I do, while I make the majority of the money for the family. I definitely find a woman who can cook very attractive too!! My ideal partner would work part-time and place ultimate emphasis on the family. Family before career.

 

I said to one of my coworkers that I thought a woman should spend more time at home than the man. She got all hysterical (like some women do when they get emotionally overwhelmed). However, all my other coworkers (both women and men) were of the same opinion as me. I find many many highly ambitious women actually agree with me (to my surprise)!

 

In terms of dating a women more ambitious than me...I couldn't do that. My attraction goes to zero. Okay, I shouldn't say zero. I can still imagine a short-term relationship (which I don't like in most cases) - but in terms of long-term relationship, they're chances with me are zero. A bit similar to when I see an enormously obese woman. I simply can't be attracted any more. I simply see them like a male friend (that means I have zero attraction).

 

Zuck

[Meredith]

So I see no problem with it, and guys tend to be able to tell if a girl's family or her job is more important to her (at least I tend to be able to). I am not attracted to women who do not put a strong emphasis on family, because it is the most important thing in my life.

 

 

I was going to stay out of this debate, but I guess I cannot control myself.

 

Wolvenstar: I think this is the biggest problem with your arguments (the quote above). Now, before I go any further, please understand that I do not believe that a man is sexist if he would like to marry a woman who will stay home with the children. Like you said, this is a personal choice, and as long as both partners are happy and willing, then it is a perfect choice for that particular family.

 

However, please read the bit I quoted above. You say family is the most important thing to you, yet you want to work for pay. You continue on to say that you are not attracted to women who do not put a strong emphasis on family, and from all of your other statement, I can only deduce that you mean if she wants a career, she does not value her family as much. Is this not a double standard? (Man can work for pay and value family; woman must choose one or the other?)

 

I work with dozens of women who value their children more than their work, but are capable of managing both quite successfully. You say you feel like you would have benefited from more "parent" time. That's your experience, but there will be many families who can work and provide lots of time with their children.

 

By all means, explain yourself again, but try to understand that these are the sorts of statements that will find you being accused of being sexist.

[BlackJack]

There are plenty of points that this thread is bringing to light.

 

I see marraige, or any type of long-term relationship, as a sort of team. Both members of the team have their respective roles, and it is their duty to perform those roles to keep the family strong.

 

Someone in the family has to make the money. Someone in the family has to raise the kids. There are only two parents, so each one must take a leadership position in each role. Traditionally, the male worked and brought in the wealth, while the woman raised the children and maintaned the home. Both roles are crucial in the development of a strong family. There is not enough time to take on both roles simultaneously.

 

Sure, I'll stay home and take care of the kids instead of working as a doctor. Why not? It's a way easier job than scutting around the hospital. Of course, I doubt I'd find an ambitious woman who would gladly respect and cohabitate with me: Sheena, I'm looking at you;). It seems the attraction rule works both ways: men do not want their woman to have more power/money than them, and women do not want their man to have less power/money than them. Clasically, although extremely simplified, this seems to be a consistent observation in the dating world.

 

Thus, it seems the only choice is that I will be the breadwinner in my family. The woman I pair up with and potentially impregnate will be happy with raising the children and maintaining the home. This is a team, not a competition.

 

Heck, if a woman and a man are both dead-set in working and being ambitious, they should hold off on having children until they establish a large enough net-worth so that one or both can significantly diminish their work hours in favor of raising the children.

 

As for the quantity/quality argument when it comes to babysitters and caretakers: No psychological studies can approach truth - they can only present contextual theories. In my personal experience, people who have not had a consistent parental figure present in their life, be it a mom or a dad, seem to grow up to have a fleeting sense of loyalty; employing the friendship of people who suit them for the time being. Of course, this is impossible to measure and thus disprove, so it only makes it an observation. But its my observation nonetheless.

 

 

On another note, does anyone find the current feminization of men in the media somewhat concerning? Every single TV advertisement has a family where the man is a complete tard and his wife is a shining example of patience and pragmatism. I guess women are more apt to buy products from a TV ad than men are, hence the ad speaks to them instead of the man. I also assume that if women and men assume these roles that these TV ads emulate, then the man will succumb to his partner's expensive whims on threat of constant nagging and other marriage annoyances whilst the women make ridiculous impulse purchases...one can tell a lot about society by paying attention to advertising.

[Sheena815]

However, please read the bit I quoted above. You say family is the most important thing to you, yet you want to work for pay. You continue on to say that you are not attracted to women who do not put a strong emphasis on family, and from all of your other statement, I can only deduce that you mean if she wants a career, she does not value her family as much. Is this not a double standard? (Man can work for pay and value family; woman must choose one or the other?)

 

Aah, thank you, you posted what I was trying to get at much more succinctly.

 

Sure, I'll stay home and take care of the kids instead of working as a doctor. Why not? It's a way easier job than scutting around the hospital. Of course, I doubt I'd find an ambitious woman who would gladly respect and cohabitate with me: Sheena, I'm looking at you. It seems the attraction rule works both ways: men do not want their woman to have more power/money than them, and women do not want their man to have less power/money than them. Clasically, although extremely simplified, this seems to be a consistent observation in the dating world.

 

lol, well that actually probably will be my situation, if I marry my current bf. He is a classical guitarist, and wants the freedom to perform and teach (some of which conveniently can occur at home) without financial worry. I am his financial security, essentially, and we are both pretty darn happy with those roles, as they allow us both to pursue our "dream jobs" while not having to worry about money. You're probably right about the general trend in the dating world, but its not universal by any means.

 

As for the quantity/quality argument when it comes to babysitters and caretakers: No psychological studies can approach truth - they can only present contextual theories. In my personal experience, people who have not had a consistent parental figure present in their life, be it a mom or a dad, seem to grow up to have a fleeting sense of loyalty;

 

Aah, that's the key word though, isn't it. Consistent. I went back and added a paragraph to my last post to this effect. That its having consistent, long-term figures that the child can bond with that's important. I don't give a hoot if they are biologically related to the child, or if there are two of them (parents) or three (parents plus long-term nanny).

[Julie]

I think your just offended about him saying that he (and the average guy) isn't attractive to highly ambitious women, or rich ones, and don't know how to express it properly so you pull out the sexist card.

 

Please do not make such assumptions when reading my posts. Check with me first, before going on and on about how what you think I meant but wouldn't say would have been wrong had I said it. What I meant was what I said :

 

women who make $ or are intelligent are "more like men". That's the part of the statement I found sexist. Had he simply said "less attractive to me", it would have been completely different".

So yeah, no need to go on, I had already understood the whole "personal choice" concept. Feel free to choose your mate any way you'd like, I'm not about to tell you who you should or shouldn't be attracted to! Same goes for all other "average guys" (& special guys, for that matter! ).

 

I thought it was clear, but let me explain my reasons for finding the comment sexist : saying that a women is more like a man when she is more intelligent/successfull than her husband is like saying that the quality of being intelligent/successfull are those that caracterize men, and not women. This, in my opinion, is not true & is why many were offended.

[mcater2006]

there are those who will disagree with me on this... but I do not believe it is ever a good idea to not be able to support yourself financially. Ever. I do not believe in relying on your spouse (or otherwise) to provide for you. Each person should be able to provide for themselves, even if they don't technically need to. Again, you never know what the future will bring.

 

I completely agree...I never want to rely on anyone. By the same token, I don't want anyone relying on me. There can be differences in pay, but as long as each person can support themselves...that's important.

 

Then I don't see what the point of marriage is anymore. Might as well go common-law/cohab and adopt a kid from third-world country or something.

[mcater2006]

Then I don't see what the point of marriage is anymore. Might as well go common-law/cohab and adopt a kid from third-world country or something.

 

But then again I'm not a big believer in marriage anyways, just a lot of pressure from my old man with his out-of-date Confucian ideals on filial piety and his threatening to disown me unless I find a wife soon and bear him a son, but I think that my 12-year Canadian education would give me enough courage and knowledge to stand up to such an unreasonable (not to mention sexist) demand.

[Sheena815]

Then I don't see what the point of marriage is anymore.

 

For me, its largely a symbolic gesture of your love for each other and your intention to stay together for the rest of your lives. But yeah, symbolic meaning only to me (not that that's not significant).

[vip_138]

The woman I pair up with and potentially impregnate will be happy

 

LOL. I just found your phrasing hilarious

 

that is all.

[jelly31]

YAY! There are still guys in the world who actually THINK that there is stuff to do at home aside from watch soaps and paint toenails. My ex-bf nearly flipped through the roof when I suggested that I stay at home to look after kids - he said that it wasn't fair that he had to do all the "hard work" but he thinks I should work and then do childcare afterwork or his parents will take care of it. Hence "ex."

 

I really want to spend time at home, but I'm afraid medicine will not allow me the luxury of this - I am hoping to be a GP in a small town, though, so I hope that I will be able to have personal time. My bf is very afraid that I will dump the kids on him and tell him that I"m too busy with work and healing others to care for kids - at the same time I'm afraid that he's going to spend all his time working on his car and watching TV shows to actually have a real family. So many things to think about!

 

And as for men's dating potential increasing once they become a doctor, I think it's true in some cases, but not all. I would not preferentially date someone because they were a med student (or a doctor) - I know a few med students and I wouldn't date them if my life depended on it... I guess docs date nurses sometimes because they're available. Maybe I'll reverse the trend and find a male nurse? haha!!

 

Sometimes I like to think that I'd like a househusband. Why not? Get home from a long day of work, put my feet up, he'd look after the kids, have supper on the table, and all the housework done! Man, I'd have loved to be a husband in the housewife/suburbia days! I'd probably want to be more involved with my kids though, and really, "YOu kids! Just wait until your mother gets home!" isn't really a threat.

 

Ha ha I want a house husband. My bf has offered if I agree to get pregnant. Not sure about that one. He's actually met a guy who is a house husband and his wife is an endocrinologist or something. She works, brings home the bacon, he raised their 3 kids and does all the cooking. They have a housekeeper who comes in to do the cleaning.

[jelly31]

Hey Julie,

 

Sorry I didn't phrase that properly. I definitely don't mean to offend. However, it's an emotional topic so I understand your reaction. What I meant was that my attraction to the women goes to zero. Of course they aren't closer to being a man at all. I think a women that is ambitious and makes a great living for herself is GREAT!! These women are AMAZING!

 

However, there's a tendency (not all men but the majority) for men to lose attraction when the woman's ambition is higher than the mans.

 

Zuck

 

 

I am all about messing with stereotypes! My bf will have 3 fewer degrees than me when I'm done med! I will have a BA, an MEd and an MD, he dropped out of high school. No one ever thought it could work but I seriously wouldn't be where I am if it wasn't for him. Lack of education does not necesarily equal lack of intelligence and drive.

[supafield]

My father is a year shy of a college degree and my mom has her PhD and have been happily married for 33 years....

 

different things work for different people.... despite the beliefs of overly assertive premeds. on a forum....

 

I've been reading some of these posts and been thinking.. really?!.... but then again If some 2nd year came up to me on campus and announced their keys to a successful marriage I'd laugh in their face. So I've been trying to take some of these posts less seriously.

[Wolvenstar]

Alright, well sorry guys but I am not going to respond in order of who posted, but I am going to try to respond to everything lol.

 

First off Julie,

 

please don't make....bla bla bla...saying a woman is more like a man when he is more intelligent/success...

 

you think this is sexist only because you read what he writes literally and not what he is trying to say...even though I think you know perfectly well what he is trying to say, which just doesn't make sense. But again what he was trying to say is that a woman who is more intelligent or successful than a guy (lets call him frank shall we?). Frank will look at this woman, realize she is more intelligent/success than himself. At this point he no longer considers her a potential mate/girlfriend/spouse/whatever you wanna call it. That is what he meant by saying "she is more like a man", he just said it in a really really bad way. I am still pretty sure you knew exactly what he meant, and what he meant was not sexist. Thus it makes me believe that:

 

A) your mad that he wasn't more politically correct....As to this all I can say that this is an online forum not a televised conference, I don't see the problem if you knew exactly what he meant.

 

you just felt like causing a stir

 

C) you really did misunderstand what he was trying to say.

 

 

Either way I have responded. Goodbye.

 

 

 

 

Dear Sheena815,

 

Sorry I was speed reading and misread your statistics in relation to divorce rates and socioeconomic status, my mistake.

 

When I say expect women to stay at home with the kids, I was hoping you combine that with the part when I said that I tend to date woman who want this. If your significant other wants to be a nurse, you expect them to go get qualified to be a nurse, this sorta thing. If I am dating a woman who has made it clear beforehand that she would like to stay at home to raise the kids...or even work casual, I would expect that once we had kids that this is what would happen.

 

as for your question: what if your wife changes? well barring a traumatic event or mid-life crisis, change like that tends to be gradual not abrupt. Thus a person has time to adjust, two people have time to discuss and plan things. So what I am trying to say, is that this what would happen would be variable. However I would not marry a woman who wanted to work full-time, at least not until the after the kids were young adults. Sure it sounds bad, but I know if I did, the marriage would eventually end in ruin, so better to understand now what works and save myself and someone else heartbreak and misery. Also please don't think that I would be telling my wife what to do, as I said earlier I would marry a woman who wanted to be a stay at home mom, and so would expect her to do that because it's what she wants, not because I expect her to conform to my wishes. Nor is this more only criteria for finding a wife, lol.

 

As for your question about the why must it be my wife. I actually stated in the paragraph that while I want to work less hours, I have a desire to be the breadwinner, and that my dad was a workaholic and instilled a little of that in me. More the desire to work rather than the workaholic mentality. Now it doesn't have to always be the woman, just in the case of my family it would be. I did say in the previous post:

 

"(notice how I don't say because women work so much. someone has to be a housewife, and it most often ends up being the female)"

 

If the man wants to be the housewife for scenario X, then that is great. But again I do not believe this is the normal, and having both spouses viaing for position of breadwinner makes for a poor childhood environment and a poor marriage (although no so poor of a marriage if there is no desire for kids). This isn't every case, just the norm.

 

I agree with the studies about high quality caregivers, later on in life I actually had one. However considering that in the present day situation, in most city and large town environments there are waitinglists for daycares and not every family can get a good one, the average child does not get a high quality caregiver.

 

 

Just to clarify for everyone, I always argue about the average or the normal. I won't ever try to argue that something happens in every case. Nor will I consider a statement about the norm (mine or anyone elses) to be false, because someone can tell mer about how it is different in a minority (less than half) of cases. This thread has been good for it, but sometimes people think that one case where it is different means that the norm is wrong.

 

 

 

Meredith,

 

First let my say your post was wonderfully written (so few people do this, no offense to the majority of people in this thread).

 

Now hopefully I can gone over this enough times, but I try to make it crystal clear.

 

Fact of Life: One of the spouses will have to be a breadwinner, and by this I mean that they need to work for the family to eat, sleep, etc.

 

This load can be born by both spouses who both work, but generally one of the pair is the dominant worker. By this I mean, that if one of them had to quit their job for whatever reason, and they got to choose who quit, the dominant one would keep their job. Traditionally this has been the male, and I believe it to still be the norm today (by norm, I mean that this is true for at least 50% of the married population)

 

Now I do not believe that if a woman wants a career she values her children less. If two people get marriage, have kids, and neither sacrifice work to make time for the child(ren), then they were too immature and got married before understanding that this dilemma might come up.

 

Now my statement about guys being able to tell if a girl's family or job is more important to her. This was a bit of a blanket statement I admit. For you I will clarify. What I meant was that most guys can tell if the girl they are dating (or want to date, it's variable depending on how quickly you can learn a person's character) would be willing or unwilling to give up (if only temporarily) on their career to spend the majority of their time raising the kids.

 

Again Meredith I thank for your wording of your post, It has honestly earned you alot of respect in my eyes...and with me everyone must earn respect, no one is entitled to it. I just want to point out that in my previous post, I wasn't defending my statements, it was a post by another that was accused of being sexist. In all truthfullness, (I hope this isn't too blunt) but unless I have great respect for someone or they are a good friend (these tend to coincide) I really couldn't care less what they thought about me. This doesn't mean I walk around being an ass to everyone though.

 

 

 

Blackjack,

 

I really like your description of family, and I will agree that children raised without consistent parental figures will have more problems, but I won't blanket all the children with having those exact problems, I think there is some variation.

 

 

 

Aranndil,

 

Perhaps traditionally the Housewife/husband has been the one to do all the chores around the house, and I'll grant it may still be the norm. But when I speak about my wife being the housewife, I mean that she will be raising the kids, and did housework. Sure she will prolly do more than me, but I will deffinetely try to make sure the choirs(vacuuming, dishes, laundry, lawnmowing, general house repair, cooking, pretty much everything that needs to be done around the house) are split almost evenly between us. Unless of course my wife gets sick of me doing so much around the house, and tells me to stop doing so much...but who would really say no to help with the choirs?

 

 

 

Jelly31 if you don't mind me asking how old are you and your hubby?

 

 

If anyone has been offended by anything in this post...well I am generally not an ass, but nobody's perfect.....and I'll just stop there before I get myself in trouble, lmfao.

[SpanishFly]

For example, I would never date an obese woman.

 

Now I could become the housewife, but my dad managed to instill part of his love of working in me, so I wouldn't be comfortable staying at home full-time.

And of course you can join in on the job security. The mafia is like big family and we love to make it bigger. I dub thee honorary an honorary italian, don't forget to use some italian lingo every now and then. "Mamma Mia!" lol

 

lol I would laugh if you met your wife while working in an obesity clinic

 

ok now let me break this post down:

a) I agree with the whole "men need to feel like they're taking care of their women" theory, its true, men dooo need their egos stroked and this is the ultimate ego boost, but just because its true doesnt mean its right

ok fine, you can't imagine yourself staying at home full-time but what if your wife's mother and father instilled the same value in her?? then what? would you think shes wrong for wanting the very same thing for herself that you want for yourself?

c) using my great psychoanalytical skills (), I'm getting a clearer picture as to where these ideas of yours stem from-your family. You've witnessed all teh women that you love in your life playing the perfect domestic godess and therefore you want one too, I don't blame you.

and lastly, I've always wanted to be a mafia princess, so I'm very glad you decided to induct me into your mafia family, or else I might have been tempted to hurt you-capiche? (note my use of Italian )

 

I also believe that my wife should spend more time at home than I do, while I make the majority of the money for the family. I definitely find a woman who can cook very attractive too!! My ideal partner would work part-time and place ultimate emphasis on the family. Family before career.

 

lol its a good thing you and I are probably not going to the same school, because you would definitely hate me haha

 

 

She got all hysterical (like some women do when they get emotionally overwhelmed).

another clever dig at women (or not).

 

I would not preferentially date someone because they were a med student (or a doctor)

 

I agree, I have very little interest in doctors (or pre-meds).

[noncestvrai]

@Spanish-Fly

 

You don't believe that on average women think more with emotions than with logic? Granted that "going hysteric" is pushing it to some kind of extreme, but the main principle applies.

 

noncestvrai

[supafield]

 

you just felt like causing a stir

 

.

 

Haha the hypocrisy in that accusation is mind boggling...

[Zuckman]

I am all about messing with stereotypes! My bf will have 3 fewer degrees than me when I'm done med! I will have a BA, an MEd and an MD, he dropped out of high school. No one ever thought it could work but I seriously wouldn't be where I am if it wasn't for him. Lack of education does not necesarily equal lack of intelligence and drive.

 

 

Well, you support my whole argument. You would NEVER date him if he was less intelligent than you. This is an example of you wanting to date 'higher'. So, I'm assuming that he is MORE intelligent than you and his drive and ambition are not towards degrees but to other areas. This makes sense to me and supports my argument.

 

Zuck

[Sheena815]

Well, you support my whole argument. You would NEVER date him if he was less intelligent than you. This is an example of you wanting to date 'higher'. So, I'm assuming that he is MORE intelligent than you and his drive and ambition are not towards degrees but to other areas. This makes sense to me and supports my argument.

 

lol, did you even read what she wrote? The conclusion you've drawn here is completely ridiculous and I'm almost sure, completely wrong. jelly31 can confirm this.

 

Seriously though, are you being sarcastic with your post? How on earth did you get "jelly31" would NEVER date someone less intelligent" from the fact that she said "lack of education doesn't = less intelligent"

[lostintime]

Wow too much reading for my exhausted brain.

 

I think in the end, no matter what anyone says, people have their preconceived notions already of what they want in a partner, whether it's for their partner to give up jobs to take care of the kids or to earn the bread, etc.

 

I would PREFER someone who contributes as much or more to the family income, but it's not a fast and hard rule. I mean, if I had the choice, that would be nice....but I'm not going to snub everyone who makes less or anything.

 

Someone told me yesterday that as you get older, you start to throw your lists out the window lol.

[Zuckman]

lol, did you even read what she wrote? The conclusion you've drawn here is completely ridiculous and I'm almost sure, completely wrong. jelly31 can confirm this.

 

Seriously though, are you being sarcastic with your post? How on earth did you get "jelly31" would NEVER date someone less intelligent" from the fact that she said "lack of education doesn't = less intelligent"

 

When Jelly31 says 'lack of education doesn't = less intelligent' - it seems to imply her boyfriend who doesn't have an education. She mentioned that in the sentence preceding that one. Anyway, even if I'm incorrect, my point is that Jelly31 would PREFER to date someone more intelligent than herself. This is how women work. Men work the opposite way. How is this so controversial? This is obvious stuff.

 

Zuck

[SpanishFly]

When Jelly31 says 'lack of education doesn't = less intelligent' - it seems to imply her boyfriend who doesn't have an education. She mentioned that in the sentence preceding that one. Anyway, even if I'm incorrect, my point is that Jelly31 would PREFER to date someone more intelligent than herself. This is how women work. Men work the opposite way. How is this so controversial? This is obvious stuff.

 

Zuck

Ok before I make this post just know that I don't mean anything all that seriously, so don't take it too personally.

 

Having said that lol:

 

I think its pretty condescending for you to tell us what a woman wants. Maybe you should stop reading so many stats on the matter and find a real woman (FYI-a book that tells you about women isn't the same thing).

 

 

oh @ noncestvrai, while women do tend to be more emotionally responsive then men on average, I think the picture depicted by men of a crazy hysterical woman who rather than using logic and sense uses her heart and intuition (God forbid) is not only a very sketchy stereotype but its also denigrating. First of all, I don't dispute that women do use their emotions more so (or at least seemingly so) in their decision making processes, but what I don't know is why this has the negative stigma that is attached to it. I blame society for the negative connotation associated to a women in the professional world. I think its crap, I mean who decided its a bad thing to actually be human and use emotions in our daily lives...isn't that what separates us from the primitive animals? (oh and when i wrote this, I can assure you I wasn't fuming and I didnt need a pint of ben and jerry's to get me through it:rolleyes: ).

[Sheena815]

Anyway, even if I'm incorrect, my point is that Jelly31 would PREFER to date someone more intelligent than herself. This is how women work. Men work the opposite way. How is this so controversial? This is obvious stuff.

 

NO. Its not. Your logic is completely absurd. But obviously you don't see it, so I'm not going to beat my head against the wall trying to discuss it further.

 

ETA: Okay, still trying to wrap my head around this.. perhaps you think she meant lack of education does not = less intelligent than HER? I think she meant less intelligent in general.

 

But still, good lord, I do not prefer to date someone more/ less intelligent then myself. As long as we get along and have stuff in common I do not CARE who is more "intelligent".

[Zuckman]

NO. Its not. Your logic is completely absurd. But obviously you don't see it, so I'm not going to beat my head against the wall trying to discuss it further.

 

ETA: Okay, still trying to wrap my head around this.. perhaps you think she meant lack of education does not = less intelligent than HER? I think she meant less intelligent in general.

 

But still, good lord, I do not prefer to date someone more/ less intelligent then myself. As long as we get along and have stuff in common I do not CARE who is more "intelligent".

 

loooooool :D

[Ollie]

When Jelly31 says 'lack of education doesn't = less intelligent' - it seems to imply her boyfriend who doesn't have an education. She mentioned that in the sentence preceding that one. Anyway, even if I'm incorrect, my point is that Jelly31 would PREFER to date someone more intelligent than herself. This is how women work. Men work the opposite way. How is this so controversial? This is obvious stuff.

 

Zuck

 

WTF dude? I'm so glad that you have women and men all figured out. Please let all the sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists of the world know.

 

In the future, please speak only for yourself and not for all of womankind and mankind.