do the problem over. This time, you are the HI person. How would you cope with someone much less well off financially than you, with kids that need to go to college, aging parents losing their independence, and some looming health problems peeking over the horizon, say... plain ol diabetes or something, and about to be phased out of his job of twenty something years that had cadillac insurance. Would you give a guy like that a chance, or just bail becuase of the $$ situation... anyone, anyone, Bueller? Anyone female?

LOL! you shoulda heard the men moaning and groaning about that one last night!

Do I need to place "independent" in my profile to weed out the chafe?

How many women can truly do every repair that's neccessary on their home??? How many cook more than the ready made meal??? How many know how to stretch the value of a dollar???

Sooo...as a debt free man...with a decent income...college tuitinon ready for my children...why would I want to sidle-up to a woman with 50 credit cards..paying the minimum monthly...heavily leveraged home...and kids ready to go to college, but not a plan in sight on how to pay for it...oh, and the 2010 car...with 0% down payment on it...

We will see if you would be King Awesome.
A face/body pic would help the argument.

Well Boo Boo...if you're one that kneels before the King, you KNOW what he's gonna holler...

But I prefer the title of King personally

Pissed off about all the "work" you do at the home front while he's off at his job? Then go back to the workforce yourself and split the nanny cost. Problem solved.

Chit, I do all those things that followed in the list living on my own (as I did when I was married)....where do I sign up for my extra $30,000 per year?? Damn...where is that greedy mentality of mine when I need it??...must have left it behind at the same place where I left not expecting spousal support too, even though he made twice as much as me. Oh, I know...I was more interested in getting on with my life and letting him get on with his. Too bad most people live off of revenge and an over-inflated feeling of their own worth in a relationship. Gotta agree with the fair play ethic stated above by the boo boo woman.

where do I sign up for my extra $30,000 per year??

Yanno, if women wanna play the "I'm still oppressed" card and wanna now declare monetary value to things they should be doing at home while the other is out bringing home the bacon...maybe we just need to focus on the BOLD entry above for a moment...

boo boo. that would yet make material gains priority. that is the solution for those of you which want more or greater control. at close to zero risk of loss.

Consider this little modification and you know why men are bitter.
Well... I married a woman. Ended up losing everything to this bad investments.
She managed to force me out of my all my savings. Supported her, supported her living standard. Lost everything, including my good name.
She took off...probably to find the next victim...

Guess which scenario is more common???

But I found the idea of depending on someone else's goodwill for my wellbeing in terms of having a roof over my head and food in my cupboard, downright SCARY.
Everybody should be responsible for themselves, by and large. This doesn't mean that one can't treat the other, that one can't take a greater share of paying if the other one has hit a bit of a bad patch, as long as it doesn't become an ongoing parasitic inertia. And if 2 people of discrepant incomes are dating, then they need to sit down and work out how that gets handled if the one with higher income wants to partake of more expensive entertainments. But it's my feeling that generally speaking, the relationships that function the best are with people from similar income and education levels and background. I'm not saying that rich/poor or city/country CAN'T work, but it's gonna have some unique challenges.

Marriage is a sharing arrangement. A husband does not hire his wife, nor does the wife hire her husband. When the marriage is doing well both benefit, and in hard times both suffer: “for better or for worse.” Some shares are better than others. A spouse who gets a small share of the pie has little incentive to work within the marriage. The gains from an increased share to this person will more than offset the disincentives caused by reducing the share to the other spouse. Economists have shown that for a given man and woman there is an “optimal share” which creates the best incentives for the husband and wife to contribute to the marriage.

The interesting thing about the optimal share is that, with one exception, it never pays the average contribution of each spouse. For example, if one spouse were contributing 90% of the marriage value and the other spouse was contributing 10%, the optimal share turns out to always be lower than 90% for the more productive spouse. This is a good deal for the low productive spouse, but a bad deal for the partner. The only time this is not true is when each spouse is equally productive and they share 50-50.

In a marriage of unequals then, to have the optimal share means that one of the spouses is unhappy. On the other hand, to share in proportion to unequal contributions means the share is not optimal and the incentives are not right: the marriage will be low valued. In either case, there is a problem.

Food Buyer, 3 hr per week @17.60hr =52.80 per week
Nurse, 1 hr per week @24.63hr =24.63 per week
Teachers Aide/Tutor 2 hr per week @ 8.97hr =17.94 per week
Waitress 2.25 per week @ 7.58hr =17.05 per week
Seamstress .75 hrper week @10.68hr = 8.01 per week
Laundress 3 hr per week @ 8.07hr =24.21 per week
Driver 3.5 hr per week @ 9.71hr =33.99 per week
Gardener 2.25hr per week @12.03hr =26.69 per week
Family Counselor 2 hr per week @17.11hr =34.22 per week
Maintenance Worker 1 hr per week @13.40hr =13.40 per week
Child Care WOrker 40 hr per week @ 8.32hr =332.80 per week
Janitor/Cleaning 7.5 hr per week @ 9.77hr =73.28 per week
Main/Housekeeper 2.5 hr per week @ 8.42hr =21.05 per week
Cook 12 hr per week @ 8.30hr =99.60 per week
Errand runner 3.5 hr per week @ 9.01hr =31.54 per week
Budget Analyst 3.5 hr per week @26.65hr =93.28 per week
Interior Decorator 1 hr per week @21.39hr =21.39 per week
Child Psychologist 5 hr per week @27.79hr =138.95 per week
Household buyer 2 hr per week @10.99hr =21.98 per week
Dishwasher 6.2 hr per week @ 7.45hr =46.19 per week
Dietitian 1.2 hr per week @20.68hr =24.82 per week
Secretary 2.0 hr per week @12.69hr =25.38 per week
Public Relations 1 hr per week @23.19hr =23.19 per week
Animal Caretaker 1.50 per week @ 9.28hr =13.92 per week

In a marriage of unequals then, to have the optimal share means that one of the spouses is unhappy. On the other hand, to share in proportion to unequal contributions means the share is not optimal and the incentives are not right: the marriage will be low valued.

a significant proportion of the males and females which make $$$$$$$$$ earn that money at the expense of young life and relationships others.

and kindly return the human rights to those that will need to remove themselves from the graves which you all did dig for them.

otherwise. plenty of fish is plenty offish of human rights or democratic rights...

and most certainly divergent of christian values.

OK now you ticked me off. I happen to think a few of these guys on this thing are good men. What the F are you doing in a site designed for single people anyway? Don't you have enough to keep you occupied? Take a vacation or better yet a hike. Hopefully off this thread lady. Get off your high horse. Your not the only chick with grown kids and debt free. Your a B that thinks your better than everyone else and I've had enough of you. Go have sex with your man and leave us singles to a site designed for US. Your the fisrt snob I've encountered on this thing that has managed to get a rise out of me. Go experience life with your cash.

On a less-unserious note: those sortsa women UNDERSTOOD what men really consider important, and weren't trying to fluff up their own egos by "showing up" men at every turn.

I remember, back in the early 80s, when the survivalist/Soldier of Fortune thing was in vogue, a lot of magazine writers were reporting that survivalist shows had a fair number of women showing up with no discernable survival/weapons skills -- just a KILLER rack.

So what you are saying is that a woman can't be feminine and swing a hammer, be strong, be caring, be nurse, a doctor or just a carpenter. It isn't just the muscle strong women who are valuable in a disaster. Such a shame that there are women who think because a woman is feminine or likes pink that she in a useless human being in a disaster or anything else that would be a challenge in life.

I have found that men who date me like a quality of life that I bring and it is feminine. Oppps sorry, I can't fix brakes on a car and I can't drive a big rig. But sadly as it must seem to some I have different qualities that men just seem to like. So at least we aren't cat fighting over the same man !!!

I know there are women who hate me because I have a pretty smile, wear pink lipstick, and giggle with my gal pals. But see those people who prejudge are only judging a book by its cover.

Hahaha Here is an example of laughable. There are men who use to be so strong, but now just big rollos, and can't heave themselves off the sofa let alone carry on in a disaster, and out of shape manly women ... are you saying those people have no value in a disaster? Fuuk ... Who will answer the calls, who will direct.

So you can quit with the bull shiit about which women are better than the others. And which women can be counted on to lift and lug are so much more desirable than those women who would care for the children, while others build a building. While some made the food to care for those who are more physically able. Who is the better person??? I dare you to answer.

Who would give to a partner a better quality of life ... the nurturer or the ballzie ones.

To fall in love with someone is completely a subjective matter, and the criteria is obviously going to vary from person to person. I'm thinking its possible that women on a dating site might be more likely to have certain things they are looking for in a man, and financial stability might be one of thosethings- after all you haven't even met the other person, so it's not like there is something about them which blows you away before you know what kind of job, etc, they have.

It went like this, if you cant provide for her why should she stay around. As sadly a statement as it sounds, I come to agree in many situations, men have no chance at a successful relation if they cant provide finances, stability, and other check lists many women have regarding essentials for a relationship.

Survival is paramount. Anarchy exists.

You have no choice of running around with your Marxist placards ranting equal rights. If you do, some leader of the many tribes and gangs formed from all of this is going to shut you up PDQ. Why? It's not about rights anymore. It is about survival. He will want you to work...physical labour. Do you think some guy running around screaming Marxist sentiments would've been listened to when Katrina hit New Orleans?
When a large disaster hits, then you will find out about who is above another human being.

It's also possible that women are ruling out someone who could be perfect for them in every way except for financial success.

is the $350.00 my new tax above my premium or is it my new premium?

$350.00 is a ball park...not knowing the true amount.

US Senate unveils $849 bn health care reform bill
Press Trust of India / Washington November 19, 2009, 18:00 IST

A sweeping health care reform bill backed by President Barack Obama that promises to expand insurance coverage to 31 million more Americans at a whopping cost of $849 billion over a decade was unveiled today and is now set for a key test vote in the US Senate.

"We have travelled a long way to where we are, and (now) begins the last leg of this journey," Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said while unveiling the 2,074-page Senate bill.

"The finish line is really in sight," Reid said as the Senate is expected to vote on the bill as early as Saturday.

Obama, who has made health care overhaul his top domestic priority, hailed the new legislation as "a critical milestone" that brought the United States "closer than ever" to a better health care system.

"From day one, our goal has been to enact legislation that offers stability and security to those who have insurance and affordable coverage to those who don't, and that lowers costs for families, businesses and governments across the country," Obama said in a statement, adding that the Senate proposal "meets those principles."

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has determined that the Senate bill would cut federal deficits by $130 billion over the next decade.

The proposal drafted from two separate bills approved by Senate committees now goes to the full Senate, where Republicans have vowed to try to block it.

Democrats on paper have the 60 votes needed to win on a procedural vote to formally launch the debate in the 100-member Senate. However, they must keep two independents and a handful of waverers in their own party to do so.

The House of Representatives approved its own trillion dollar version of the legislation on November 7 by a 220-215 margin after imposing tough restrictions on federal funds subsidising abortions.

The US is the world's richest but the only industrialised country that does not ensure that all of its 350 million citizens have health care coverage. It is estimated that some 36 million Americans do not have health insurance.

Officials say the legislation would require most Americans to carry health insurance and would mandate large firms to provide coverage to their workers. It also bans insurance company practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions.

The Senate bill includes a range of tax increases and new fees. The Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000 a year would increase by half a percentage point, from the current 1.45 per cent to 1.95 per cent, CNN reported.

The bill would require individuals to purchase health insurance, with a fine for non-compliance of $95 in the first year that would escalate to $750 by 2016. Parents would be responsible for providing coverage for their children up to 18 years old, CNN said.

If the Senate manages to pass a bill, a congressional conference committee would need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

I don't thinks its as common as it used to be for employees to stay that long with one company..people tend to job hop now more than in other generations. I know I won't even be close when I'm 53.....yea I'm jealous!!

Many people may think it's trivial to ask what a person does for their living, but to me it tells me if they are happy and in the life they want to be in. At the age of 40 they should have figured out who they are by now and almost be there or working on it diligently.

How do they become responsible for the bad things in life... We teach children all the time about the importance of wearing their helmet when cycling, not playing near water in case they drown, there are numerous warnings on detergents, electrical appliances and yet every day you are guaranteed a child will end up in the emergency room... Do you blame the child??? No

I date a man who lives his life similar to mine. Likes to do the things that I do, loves life and values family ... just like me. I am VERY lucky that I not only like alpha men, but I also attract them. That turns me on ... I can't help that I am hard wired that way. I don't walk up and down a mans back, shove in his face that ANYTHING you can do I can do better. I just look and accept that there are things I am really good at and there are things a man I date is really good at ... and often they are not the same at all.

What you claim are Alpha.
I doubt you have known any true Alphas.
True Alphas seek those who they respect for strong and exceptional attributes, who they see at a peer level, not lesser and weaker attributes.

alpha or beta or gamma are hypothetical identities which say almost nothing of anything except to characterize and/or justify the class creation system.

the human facility is so much more intriguing and complex...that the lowly educated and socially accepted of society are permitted to distract and mislead from it. as they try for advancing their own purposes or justifying injustice.
they will not respond to me because they are not alpha...beta...or gamma enough.
they are not of the same class of intelligence and ethical quality.
but they do have rights of theft...deception...and even murder coming their way.
do you want to be served by them...?

Shouldn't we start to teach children at the earliest possible age of the possible dangers out there. Make it a factual and non-traumatic lesson. Young children and teenagers haven't got the emotional maturity to deal with guilt, fear or shame so will act it out by being violent or retreating inwards, much to the frustration/dismay of the parent / guardian. If a child was taught the facts of life from a young age, then telling a parent/teacher that "my uncle touched my penis/vagina and I did not like it" would become just as easy to them as telling someone they do not like a certain food...

Is that a euphemism for 'unemployed'?

As the link I posted above shows, about 70% of the US population is christian. Your 30% figure is nothing more than fiction. 51.3% are Protestants, and 23.9% are Catholic

What you claim are Alpha.
I doubt you have known any true Alphas.

True Alphas seek those who they respect for strong and exceptional attributes, who they see at a peer level, not lesser and weaker attributes.

Why would an Alpha male want an Alpha female when he wants to be in charge? Why would an Alpha female want an Alpha male when she needs to be in control?

In order to understand why this apparent oxymoron exists, one has to understand biology; in fact, one needs to understand wolf biology because the whole tagging of people as Alphas and Betas is based on observance of wolf pack behavior.

In the jungle, wolves live in packs. The pack is usually led by a dominant male, which animal sociologists call the Alpha male. The Alpha male mates with one female. She is the dominant female of the pack and she is called the Alpha female. She is dominant over the rest of the pack, males and females alike. She is submissive to only one wolf and that is the Alpha wolf. The male values her because she has the strength and intelligence to produce strong offspring

I'm discussing wolf behavior simply to point out an obvious fact. The Alpha female is dominant over all except her Alpha male. Alpha women do not need to feel ashamed that we want men to lead after all. We are still leaders on our jobs and in our places of worship.

The subject line asks "who molests children?". The answer is "Christians"

I've known guys who learned within the framework of an FWB, that what they REALLY want is the stability of an LTR.

3. Men earn more than women, and some people see $ as a big plus (whether it's security, things or buy, status, or whatever) in choosing a mate. So just based on numbers of men with $ versus numbers of women with $, you will see more younger women with older men. (And it has definitely been either said or strongly hinted by some on this thread that the only [or main] reason a younger woman would marry an older man was for the $$.)

The ones who are locked in a time frame they cant see past as they wait for Prince Charming to swoop down and rescue them from themselves will not ALLOW themselves to be seen with a younger man...Dont ya know ...it just wont do!

But, I CAN NOT tolerate a woman that feels accomplished by being able to attract wealthy men. As if it were some kind of proving point of her selfworth. As if being attractive (or female) is an accomplishment that entitles her to be privy to a man's (or anyone's) hard earned financial status. That, to me, is the definition of a (OMG, I'm gonna write it!) gold digger, AND, borders on prostitution.

I'd venture that MOST of us find this annoying at the very least. Like I've said before, amongst MY circle of friends, NO golddiggers, many women who make much much more than the man, accomplished educated women. I sometimes think people just need to find a better class of people to hang out with. Were I to come across a person--male or female--who overvalues money and the making of it, I just sort of don't become friends with him/her. I'd feel we don't have much in comon. Notice I did NOT say I'd try to change the way that person thinks/feels--it's futile. And I CERTAINLY don't date him!

Money does garner respect; you would not know that because you’ve not been around moneyed persons. Money=power=respect. Persons admire the wealthy and powerful.

C o u g a r !

uh oh,,,
yikes!

Hey G-Boo ... I just learned at 50!!!!

Is this because men have standards and women will sleep with just about anything

This isn't the tradional "cougar related question" I am only attracted to older women but have never been in a relationship with someone older. Yes I have went on dates with some women as much as 15 years older. But what I'm curious about is deep down how do you women feel when it time to introduce this person to family/friends? Are you concerned about what their reactions will be?

And for those who are ignorant and like to throw the "well you'd feel differently if you were a man and lost everything/were used for your money/blahblahblah...let me personally ASSURE you that it's not just men who lose/are used for their money - I didn't just lose a few hundreds or a few thousands - I lost much MUCH more than I'm willing to disclose here and although it was hurtful in every way and I will continue to suffer the consequences of his actions/my mistakes for a long time to come, I refuse to believe that all men are bad or "out to get me" because he was/I choose poorly.

The only other thing i could think of is if they enjoy talking down to men so this place is their way of degrading the men without screwing up their chances in the society they reside within.

The AVERAGE yearly HOUSEHOLD income in the US (2008, according to U.S. Dept. of Labor) just over $50K per year. In fact, less than 25% of of American households reach $100K combined household income. I guess that makes well over 75% of us very trivial (picayune).

Hmmm, I dunno....I consistently earned 30%-50% more than either of my husbands......and I didn't find it a significant enough difference to worry about. LOL! we still had a combined annual income that was almost triple the national average. (in 2004....$46,242 was the national average combined household income)

First off ... 50k to me is chump change. Sorry if that offends anyone. I can and have made more than that on ONE deal. And as average I do a deal every two months, the commissions vary. I have never lorded that over any man. Well I have never dated a man who earns less than me.

I am not bragging, hell there are so many wealthy men ... earning over a half million a year, they are floating around EVERYWHERE. I also have tons of friends, men and women who make well over 100k a year. That is more common than a peanut butter n jam sandwich.

But as usual the broke men flock on to **free** POF to try to convince women that we offer no quality their life unless we split the coffee ... no gala for us unless we pay our share and that a good woman would rather watch paint dry than an SO spring a whole $150 to take us out on them.

It is seriously sad ... I feel sorry for the men who are trying so hard to convince the women that we are gold diggers if we can't afford to pay half of their paltry life.

t is pretty clear to me from over the years that most, NOT ALL, men on pof are poor. Many and yes I do mean many not only don't have any spending cash for even a gala, but haven't a pot to piss in nor a window to throw it out of. I do know that the men in the worst financial position are the ones who try to blame women on their lack of love life (awww those gold diggers) ... although they also pretend that they could have any woman they wanted ... but chose to be alone because they have to have a woman split 50/50 hahahaha seriously funny.

Your claws are showing. Another presumptuous one. Jealous?
You’ve never been in a relationship with a man of great wealth?
Don’t know what it is like to dine on a yacht with more crew than guests?
Too bad; don’t take it out on me.

ROFL, of course it is a fantasy ……..to you…. I agree, not in your world.
It is not even within the realm of your imagination.

However, you can believe whatever turns you on, no skin off my back.

As for making men feel insecure; isn’t that what you do?

You have bragged of your superiority, believe 50k, earned mostly by you, puts you above the “national average”.
Are you so obtuse as to think persons of wealth do not exist and that every person on PoFdom is below your imagined superior income status?
One thing is certain and not anomalous is that successful men, from skilled laborers to CEOs, is that they are not with emasculating women.
Earning $50,000, or more money than her spouse, does not give a woman the right to humiliate her mate.

Anyone with even a modicum of intellect would realize that my example was an extreme one in order to emphasize that most men do not lower their lifestyles when dating a women with a lesser income. Simply a fact. In my world these men exist; although I do not doubt they are not in your world except as a “fantasy, a dream”. Pfffftttttt

Anyone with even a modicum of intellect would realize that my example was an extreme one in order to emphasize that most men do not lower their lifestyles when dating a women with a lesser income. Simply a fact. In my world these men exist; although I do not doubt they are not in your world except as a “fantasy, a dream”. Pfffftttttt

A Straw Man is a classic logical fallacy where a person manufactures a caricature (usually a misinterpretation or oversimplification) of his opponent's argument, and then sets out to attack or dismiss the exaggeration. i.e. Building a straw man and then knocking it down. This is a very dishonest line of argument, since a person puts words into his opponent's mouth then ridicules them.

Maybe the men you chose could not afford to give? Or they are stingy?

Prove me wrong, PLEASE.

Now, I want the questioned I asked before answered:
Does a woman's sexual desire play any role in her getting pregnant? And here's an additional question: if men choose abstinence as a form of birth control, then does this affect women negatively in any way?

Most men earn more than I do although I do very well. I like to buy them things and I do at my income level. They are just grateful with the thought and would never, ever judge me on the basis of whether I had equalled out his contribution. I have no interest in men who have the attitude that now that women are liberated they can pay their own way. These are men with latent resentment for the way things are and for women's independence. They usually have a huge chip on their shoulders. Who needs that. Life is short, and we all have the right to choose. I don't engage in the debate or try to justify. I just pass these men by. Too many others to choose from.

I have a right to want to meet a man at my level. And if those men who don't cut it resent that, so be it. My right- worked hard for what I have and the reason I'm single, is I don't choose to spend my time with men who don't suit me. Until then, I'm busy, have lots of friends, can do what I want, when and I want. If a fantastic man can enhance my life, fantastic. If not, it's pretty good already.

I've rebuilt my life, piece by piece, after my husband's death. I've worked hard to build a successful business. I've earned the right to be particular. And if men don' t like that, why would I care? I am what I am. And I like who I am.

I've rebuilt my life, piece by piece, after my husband's death. I've worked hard to build a successful business. I've earned the right to be particular. And if men don' t like that, why would I care? I am what I am. And I like who I am.

Quite a few women expect men to be miracle workers and give them more than they can give themselves. There are chicks like me out here that get PISSED about it too cause I've never had a man give me SQUAT but love.

Why wouldn't a man resent a woman who expects him to pay just because he's a man and she's a woman; that's gender discrimination. It's sexism, pure and simple. You are also directly telling him that his presence is worth less than your own and that he has to compensate you for your time, which is absolutely revolting. It would be like going out with someone who has dark skin and expecting him to pay because he's got dark skin.

They are not, in any way, being cheap for not giving you their own money, you are not a charity case. Your gender does entitle you to any part of his income; not for a dollar, not for a penny. Period.

I come to agree in many situations, men have no chance at a successful relation if they cant provide finances, stability, and other check lists many women have regarding essentials for a relationship. I cant help to think are we as a society that shallow, bypassing good people for holding out on material gains, and loosing characteristics, chance at love in the name of materials?