Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Role Reversed World?

Page 2 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

27 Apr 2011, 10:30 pm

Fnord wrote:
In my single days, I enjoyed being asked out for a date with a woman.

The drawback is that more than half of the time, the woman who invited me on a date still expected me pick them up in my own car and pay for everything.

The person making the invitation for the date should expect to pay, and not the person being invited.

agreed.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

28 Apr 2011, 7:24 am

hyperlexian wrote:
hale_bopp wrote:
Well as far as the first move goes, I wouldn't care as it's what i've always done.
As for the rest.. meh, i'm not really looking for a boyfriend.

interesting! i wonder how common it is with other aspie women? i am the same way. i can't read signals anyways so i just dive in and hope for the best.


Hey, me too! When I find someone I'm attracted to, that is. A rare occurrence, unfortunately.



mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

28 Apr 2011, 7:25 am

Fnord wrote:
In my single days, I enjoyed being asked out for a date with a woman.

The drawback is that more than half of the time, the women who invited me on dates still expected me pick them up in my own car and pay for everything.

The person making the invitation for the date should expect to pay, and not the person being invited.


Oh my goodness, how rude of those women!



hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,054
Location: None

28 Apr 2011, 7:27 am

Fnord wrote:
In my single days, I enjoyed being asked out for a date with a woman.

The drawback is that more than half of the time, the women who invited me on dates still expected me pick them up in my own car and pay for everything.

The person making the invitation for the date should expect to pay, and not the person being invited.


Weird. I would expect everyone to pay for themselves.



Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

28 Apr 2011, 8:22 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Umm.... your income only matters if you are not attractive socially. Money can make up for many deficiencies. If you are talking about long-term relationships... that's different, what I say above is for short-term hook-ups. For Long-term relationships, especially one that leads to marriage or life-long companionship, money tends to be more important unless you marry someone rich.

Women rank men on their social value. Women care about their own social value(especially around other women) but men have tunnel vision(which is not exactly a bad thing) and only see what's in front of them, so thats why women stress on their looks.

Men rank women on their looks. Men also care about their own looks, but only to increase their social value because thats what women want.

It's an annoying dance, but one that we've been doing for thousands of years, so it's genetically built in. Though a default... it is changeable but requires social constructs like equality and ideologies and understandings based on that to to tame these primitive impulses.


I agree with all this basically. When I said in the OP that most women care about money what I really meant is that they care about status. Women are very reluctant to date men who they consider beneath them in life's pecking order. Women define this pecking order by different things, depending on the woman's social environment, e.g.:

- the cool, popular, crowd in school/college
- the highly educated professional crowd
- or just the modestly ambitious middle class

However, if you're broadly from a middle class background, but not posh (like me), your income does matter to women as it confirms that you've retained your status. If you're not earning much at the moment (because of the economy, career rebuilding, etc.) you're almost considered a dropout (even though you haven't dropped out). If a middle class woman isn't earning much, though, nobody cares. As long as she looks good she can marry a high status guy who'll support her. The househusband 'phenomenon' is a myth. In the vast majority of cases it happens by accident (e.g. the husband loses his job).

It's going to be really interesting to see how things develop over the next few decades as women become more professionally successful, and earn more. Women seem to want complete equality in the workplace, whilst still wanting the social pecking order of the 1950s, and ultimately it's impossible to have both of these things.



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

30 Apr 2011, 9:38 pm

Another_Alien wrote:
A lot of men on WP complain that it's unfair that we have to make the first move etc? Personally, I'm not bothered about this, but I am bothered that women care so much about a man's income (oh yes they do). It puts men in a very difficult position if we're trying to rebuild our careers, and we have to think carefully before taking financial risks (as men don't really care how much women make, from a dating perspective, women are much freer in this regard).

On the flipside, though, women on WP complain that they have to put so much effort into their appearance, and men's standards are unrealistically high when it comes to a woman's looks. And I don't deny this is true.

Sooo....

Who wishes sometimes that the social roles of the genders were reversed? This is nothing to do with fetish, just a practical wish.

In this role reversed world women would be expected to make decent money, make the first move, pay for the first date, etc., but they wouldn't have to put quite as much effort into their appearance as they do now.

On the flipside, men would have to put a bit more effort into their appearance (more hours down the gym, etc.), but they wouldn't have to make great money, make the first move, etc.

I don't know if I'd really want to live in a world like this. But I sometimes think my life would be easier if I did. :?


You forgot about all of the relationship maintenance and emotional upkeep women are tasked with doing in a relationship.

Women are expected to be energetic and graceful, warm, and spontaneous and free spirited yet also down to Earth, on top of things, and "put together". And most importantly, they are expected to have good intuition.

What is easier for someone with AS to obtain whether they are a man or a woman? Money or the above?



Chronos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,698

30 Apr 2011, 9:50 pm

Another_Alien wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Umm.... your income only matters if you are not attractive socially. Money can make up for many deficiencies. If you are talking about long-term relationships... that's different, what I say above is for short-term hook-ups. For Long-term relationships, especially one that leads to marriage or life-long companionship, money tends to be more important unless you marry someone rich.

Women rank men on their social value. Women care about their own social value(especially around other women) but men have tunnel vision(which is not exactly a bad thing) and only see what's in front of them, so thats why women stress on their looks.

Men rank women on their looks. Men also care about their own looks, but only to increase their social value because thats what women want.

It's an annoying dance, but one that we've been doing for thousands of years, so it's genetically built in. Though a default... it is changeable but requires social constructs like equality and ideologies and understandings based on that to to tame these primitive impulses.


I agree with all this basically. When I said in the OP that most women care about money what I really meant is that they care about status. Women are very reluctant to date men who they consider beneath them in life's pecking order. Women define this pecking order by different things, depending on the woman's social environment, e.g.:

- the cool, popular, crowd in school/college
- the highly educated professional crowd
- or just the modestly ambitious middle class

However, if you're broadly from a middle class background, but not posh (like me), your income does matter to women as it confirms that you've retained your status. If you're not earning much at the moment (because of the economy, career rebuilding, etc.) you're almost considered a dropout (even though you haven't dropped out). If a middle class woman isn't earning much, though, nobody cares. As long as she looks good she can marry a high status guy who'll support her. The househusband 'phenomenon' is a myth. In the vast majority of cases it happens by accident (e.g. the husband loses his job).

It's going to be really interesting to see how things develop over the next few decades as women become more professionally successful, and earn more. Women seem to want complete equality in the workplace, whilst still wanting the social pecking order of the 1950s, and ultimately it's impossible to have both of these things.


Actually it's not really money or status. In fact most women shy away from the rich, influencial or super model type because they don't trust them to be loyal.

Women care about drive, and if they want a family, then stability and responsibility which translates to, yes, a fairly decent income, but not necessarily high. Most families live paycheck to paycheck and a lot families are two income families.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

01 May 2011, 12:24 am

Another_Alien wrote:
Women aren't slaves, whatever feminists may claim.

Feminists claim nothing, save that sex is not a legitimate basis on which to deny people equal opportunities and freedoms,
and often, that gender roles are harmful.
Another_Alien wrote:
They do most of the housework, but it's all part of a grand trade-off, i.e. they have more options.

Uh...what? What part of "more options" is involved with two people having children, both working full time often at multiple jobs, and yet one does the majority of work INSIDE the home to boot because they have a certain set of genitals?


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 01 May 2011, 12:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

01 May 2011, 12:32 am

Another_Alien wrote:

However, if you're broadly from a middle class background, but not posh (like me), your income does matter to women as it confirms that you've retained your status. If you're not earning much at the moment (because of the economy, career rebuilding, etc.) you're almost considered a dropout (even though you haven't dropped out). If a middle class woman isn't earning much, though, nobody cares. As long as she looks good she can marry a high status guy who'll support her.


Arguably, "looking good" is far more labor-intensive, physically and emotionally painful, and generally excrutiatingly difficult than maintaining a middle class income. Try living in a society where you're not only undatable but repulsive and mockable if you can't starve yourself thin or aren't willing to rip out your body hair south of your eyelashes and then come back. Those are just basic things. That's not even discussing hairstyling, conditioning, dying, makeup, clothes, tanning, nails, and on, and on, and on. What's more, THOSE THINGS COST MONEY.

Do you see how from the other side of the fence you essentially wrote off what is an inherently painful, time-intensive, EXPENSIVE, and degrading JOB as nothing?

There are far far more middle class women than there are "upper status men". You're living in a fantasy world if you think millions of women are a push-up bra away from being a rich housewife.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Last edited by Bethie on 01 May 2011, 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2011, 12:35 am

Another_Alien wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Umm.... your income only matters if you are not attractive socially. Money can make up for many deficiencies. If you are talking about long-term relationships... that's different, what I say above is for short-term hook-ups. For Long-term relationships, especially one that leads to marriage or life-long companionship, money tends to be more important unless you marry someone rich.

Women rank men on their social value. Women care about their own social value(especially around other women) but men have tunnel vision(which is not exactly a bad thing) and only see what's in front of them, so thats why women stress on their looks.

Men rank women on their looks. Men also care about their own looks, but only to increase their social value because thats what women want.

It's an annoying dance, but one that we've been doing for thousands of years, so it's genetically built in. Though a default... it is changeable but requires social constructs like equality and ideologies and understandings based on that to to tame these primitive impulses.


I agree with all this basically. When I said in the OP that most women care about money what I really meant is that they care about status. Women are very reluctant to date men who they consider beneath them in life's pecking order. Women define this pecking order by different things, depending on the woman's social environment, e.g.:

- the cool, popular, crowd in school/college
- the highly educated professional crowd
- or just the modestly ambitious middle class

However, if you're broadly from a middle class background, but not posh (like me), your income does matter to women as it confirms that you've retained your status. If you're not earning much at the moment (because of the economy, career rebuilding, etc.) you're almost considered a dropout (even though you haven't dropped out). If a middle class woman isn't earning much, though, nobody cares. As long as she looks good she can marry a high status guy who'll support her. The househusband 'phenomenon' is a myth. In the vast majority of cases it happens by accident (e.g. the husband loses his job).

It's going to be really interesting to see how things develop over the next few decades as women become more professionally successful, and earn more. Women seem to want complete equality in the workplace, whilst still wanting the social pecking order of the 1950s, and ultimately it's impossible to have both of these things.

status means nothing to me. i am not a typical female, but i'm not that weird either. my friends are like me too (and they are NT).

anyways, if it is genetically built in, then why do some many po' boys get marrried? the cashier at the local mcdonald's who lives in the trailer park is making babies faster than changing your dollar, but he surely doesn't have "status".

i'm a modern woman who worked as a professional and had a househusband for a while. it was heavenly.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

01 May 2011, 12:41 am

Forget it. Any attempt to counter "Women are status-obsessed gold-diggers" with "Uh...I'm not...nor is any woman I know"

will be met with references to your Aspieness, or magical uniqueness among the prostitute class that is apparently womankind.

Been there, done that, thread got locked.

:roll:


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 May 2011, 12:44 am

Bethie wrote:
Forget it. Any attempt to counter "Women are status-obsessed gold-diggers" with "Uh...I'm not...nor is any woman I know"

will be met with references to your Aspieness, or magical uniqueness among the prostitute class that is apparently womankind.

Been there, done that, thread got locked.

:roll:

true true. interesting but not shocking how many of the people who really believe that silliness happen to be single. letting go of stereotypes can be freeing...


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


RICKY5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Dec 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

01 May 2011, 1:46 am

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Umm.... your income only matters if you are not attractive socially. Money can make up for many deficiencies. If you are talking about long-term relationships... that's different, what I say above is for short-term hook-ups. For Long-term relationships, especially one that leads to marriage or life-long companionship, money tends to be more important unless you marry someone rich.

Women rank men on their social value. Women care about their own social value(especially around other women) but men have tunnel vision(which is not exactly a bad thing) and only see what's in front of them, so thats why women stress on their looks.

Men rank women on their looks. Men also care about their own looks, but only to increase their social value because thats what women want.

It's an annoying dance, but one that we've been doing for thousands of years, so it's genetically built in. Though a default... it is changeable but requires social constructs like equality and ideologies and understandings based on that to to tame these primitive impulses.


Image

"This guy wins $181 million in the lottery on wednesday, and then finds the love of his life just 2 days later!

Talk about LUCK!! !"



hale_bopp
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,054
Location: None

01 May 2011, 2:33 am

RICKY5 wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
Umm.... your income only matters if you are not attractive socially. Money can make up for many deficiencies. If you are talking about long-term relationships... that's different, what I say above is for short-term hook-ups. For Long-term relationships, especially one that leads to marriage or life-long companionship, money tends to be more important unless you marry someone rich.

Women rank men on their social value. Women care about their own social value(especially around other women) but men have tunnel vision(which is not exactly a bad thing) and only see what's in front of them, so thats why women stress on their looks.

Men rank women on their looks. Men also care about their own looks, but only to increase their social value because thats what women want.

It's an annoying dance, but one that we've been doing for thousands of years, so it's genetically built in. Though a default... it is changeable but requires social constructs like equality and ideologies and understandings based on that to to tame these primitive impulses.


Image

"This guy wins $181 million in the lottery on wednesday, and then finds the love of his life just 2 days later!

Talk about LUCK!! !"


That's your classic gold digger, not the average woman.



trojan51
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: Seattle, Washington, United States

01 May 2011, 3:06 am

Makes me feel bad for that poor chump. A role reversed world would benefit me, but then again, being an aspie means im used to routine, and a change of routine can sure be difficult.



MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland

01 May 2011, 4:40 am

Bethie wrote:
Arguably, "looking good" is far more labor-intensive, physically and emotionally painful, and generally excrutiatingly difficult than maintaining a middle class income. Try living in a society where you're not only undatable but repulsive and mockable if you can't starve yourself thin or aren't willing to rip out your body hair south of your eyelashes and then come back. Those are just basic things. That's not even discussing hairstyling, conditioning, dying, makeup, clothes, tanning, nails, and on, and on, and on. What's more, THOSE THINGS COST MONEY.[/b]


i dunno... I don't think looking good takes that much effort or money, unless you are barely scraping by - like I was two summers ago - then thats a another matter. A concealer can make up for a lot on your face by hiding dark circles under your eyes and getting rid of redness for an even, and shall I say "effortless" look. A lot of people in the city look good, but these days, it's getting even more difficult to tell which ones just have good skin, and which wear concealer. One could get a gym membership for under 25 a month. You could buy two complete outfits from H&M for under $100, or if you can afford more, 2 from Zara for under $300. For about 300 a month(you could probably do it for even less), 75 a week, you can get fit at the gym, have good skin (or at least the perception of it), and wear legit clothes while maintaing a decent level of hygiene and getting your hair done at some place affordable.


_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.