To get all indignant about this stuff is ridiculous. Knowing what the opposite sex wants tells you what you need to do to be wanted.

100% correct Amy. It's just that today, so many women appear so unwilling to understand the equally basic truth that (gasp!) men are individuals too. Not everyone is destined, or even ever going to even get the chance, to be a Fortune 500 CEO, a top-level CIA spy, a stunning Clooney-level actor/star, or an Olympic-level weightlifter.

It's especially frustrating for guys like me who have learned to *take the hint*, approach women who are what you might call less-than-perfectly-attractive... and find that even those are so quick-on-the-draw with the pepper spray, you'd be lucky to get through your first pickup line without incurring major retinal damage. (Thank God I wear glasses.) So many of them just seem so insistent on waiting for Brad Pitt to saunter into the bar at Applebee's and ask, oh so hunkily, if they happen to have a AAA membership, as his Maserati's front tire just blew a flat nearby but he left his gold-plated tire iron at the garage to his mansion in Aruba. Sigh. Meanwhile, lots of great guys with real hearts and decent futures, but unfortunately were too lazy to be born into the Kennedy family, get their hearts stomped.

But back to that quote... to get all indignant about this stuff is ridiculous. Oh well, at least the TSA hasn't yet managed to suspend the Constitutional right to still complain about it here at Amy's place. :-)

"approach women who are what you might call less-than-perfectly-attractive... "

Yup I see it with my female friends all the time. My guy friend was complaining he got rejected by a 5 because um....he just didn't meet all those qualifications.

I had one friend do online dating and check their resumes! Geez...........

Some chicks are just not that hot and dont realize it? And regular guys are pretty good at admitting they are regular guys. Girls....not so much.

Me I've got that half gay male brain in me, and half straight woman so it's a clusterfuck in my head .

How many of these women would find a well-paid engineer to be more date-able than an unemployed guy?

If not many of them would, then it means that ability to provide per se is not actually the trait that the women are looking for.

(Programing note = More here coming soon!)

A man with money but no pretty will always find women.

A woman whats pretty but no money will always find men.

A man with looks but no money can find A woman.

A woman with money but no pretty can find A man.

Anyone who tries to argue against those fundamental truths is an idiot.

Anyone trying to argue them as moral rights or wrongs is misguided at best, an idiot at worst.

And anyone having unrealist beliefs about themselves in any of the above categories will find themselves having great difficulty finding man, woman, men, or women.

They'll reject what is offered in favor of what is not, and wonder why they're alone.

They'll reject Average Joe because he's short, then wonder why Hunky Super Rich John is all over those sexy blonde sylvan twins, when she, the perfectly average Jane, is sitting four stools down from him at the bar. Never considering that when a man has lots of options, he'll pick the best ones, and that may not include her.

Meanwhile at the other end of the bar, average john who made widgets until they were replaced by widJits, can't get a date with those sylvan blonde twins and will completely ignore Plain Judy who would say yes if he'd just realize HE's not the peak prize to the rest of the world either.

How powerful is self delusion, that it allows the homely, the poor, or those who share both those traits, that it allows the grandiose delusion that they are alone because no others are good enough for them, and that those lucky few who are...are to defective of their senses or to blind, to know how truly great and wonderful for them this homely or poor person is.

A woman with money but no pretty can find A man.
____________________________

But would she want to, when, if he has half or less of what she has, there's a chance he's just trying to swindle her and disappear? Security means a lot to women, after all. "Better to be alone than to wish you were."

Yes, I know about those desperate women who become pen-pals to inmates. Most women aren't like that, though.

I think that if one is young but has a truly homely face and smiling all the time is too much of a strain (no surprise), the best way to raise one's chances of getting a date - at school, especially - is to keep busy at other things and pretend not to be looking for a date while building up one's casual friendships until the others become truly friendly and relaxed in return. Then one can find casual excuses to be working with certain people, which can lead to casual lunches.

But finally, it's worth remembering that even if you find and marry the perfect person, that person can still get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic for decades. Are you willing to take on THAT financial risk?

If I were single...

I probably would not date an unemployed guy, because my fear there would be that I would end up supporting him.

I would date a guy who makes the same amount as me or a little less.

I would date a guy who makes considerably less--e.g., a high school science teacher, a lawyer who does mostly pro bono work for people in need, a guy who runs a business related to something I love, a military officer--if he was smart and doing work that I deemed to be noble and/or that had status in my world. Intelligence is a huge turn-on.

The last time I dated a guy who earned less than me was maybe 1998, but since that time I have been interested in some guys who earned less and not interested in many guys who earned more.

One guy I dated (the /only/ much older guy) impulsively quit his executive job over some political issues at work. He had nothing else lined up, and then he didn't start job hunting, and the resulting stress helped end the relationship. He started talking about pursuing furniture building and other unrealistic career paths that could not provide a livelihood. I didn't realize how much his professional status was influencing my attraction to him, and his terrible judgment made me feel scared, like he was undependable.

We didn't have a foundation of many happy years together, or perhaps I could have withstood it.

BTW, I'm pretty sure he was having a midlife crisis, and I was nowhere near menopausal.

On both sides of the gender aisle, a certain segment of delusional people have an unrealistic sense of the quality of the mate they can pull.

The delusional guys too often think they can be that sweet, wonderful man women claim to want, and then they too can get that hot-looking gal whose current bad-boy, hot-as-hades boyfriend is just not such a sweetheart as *he* is. Why, oh why, can the cheerleader not see the quarterback is just not her type?! Because you are 5'6", average-looking, and don't drive a Mustang, like the quarterback does. Duh! That guy (status, looks, resources) is *every* woman's type, the cheerleader is the just gal who can pull him. Sorry.

The delusional gals seem to think that men are a slightly hairier version of themselves, so if they befriend the hot-as-hades, bad boy quarterback, the love they deserve from him (and him in particular) will inevitably flourish. She will find her unicorn-rate personality irresistable as she discusses her complex, heartfelt emotional life with him. And of course, (modest smile) they occasionally will share romantic liasons like those hinted at in the Twilight novels she obsessively reads. Surely, the well-muscled, dark-haired quarterback she lusts, er, loves from afar would not choose that leggy, blonde, nymphomaniac cheerleader with an oral fetish over her!? Of course he would. So would every guy. Because the cheerleader is hot, you are not, and no amount of wonderful personality is going to make up for that. Sorry.

Since most people do not get past high school level thinking, the delusionals remain in that mode until they fall out of the mating market some decades later. You can spot them, because they babble about soulmates while claiming the other gender really sucks.

Without a shred of empirical support, I blame the modern media, which allows all of us to see people of sparkling, ethereal physcial beauty at all times. In short, porn images for guys and rom com lies for gals.

20,000 years ago, we humans only saw, at most, a few thousand people over our entire lives, so you had a better sense of the beauty bell curve distributions we live on. That allowed us to make realistic estimations of our ability to pull a mate. We knew the average, and we acted accordingly.

Now delusionals think the world is littered with incredibly attractive people, because we see them constantly everywhere...on the screen. Those screen-dwelling lies live the lives we think we should have.

We fail to translate the reality of our everyday lives--half of all people are below average in attractivenss--to our dating lives. So even if we are average, or even below average, we think that with *all* those beautiful people in the world, living the love/sex lives we want, we need not settle for below average. Heck, even above average is too low, given how many hotties we seem to see everyday, goes the "thinking".

So you get fairly unattractive delusionals refusing to settle for anything less than a person who really "wows" them. But how many people do you meet in person who "wow" you? How many of the people who "wow" you would actually date YOU?

Exactly.

So the delusionals wander the earth, like ghostly doomed souls of the mating world, bemoaning their inability to land high-quality mates, without fully appreciating their own relative lack of quality.

"I think that if one is young but has a truly homely face and smiling all the time is too much of a strain (no surprise)..."

I think it is a RARE young woman who can't be made attractive with the help of styling, fitness, and cosmetics.

Do you suppose plastic surgery has ever made a non-beautiful woman beautiful? It's a sincere question.

I'm mostly aware of its being used to "tweak" movie stars and models.

If I were single, I would probably not date a guy who was unemployed long-term. If it were obviously a temporary situation, maybe. I've never been into guys who were prettier than me; I'd rather date someone 10 years older with a big nose and a good job. I have a cousin who is about the same age who likes really good-looking artist-types. She supports her live-in boyfriend, who is very good looking but has already filed for bankruptcy once and doesn't have any real career prospects. I think she has a screw loose.

She supports her live-in boyfriend, who is very good looking but has already filed for bankruptcy once and doesn't have any real career prospects.

Hehehehee! made me think of that old joke about the drummer without a girlfriend. You know, the homeless one...

At least the one I live with has a steady day job!

When I was going to grad school just recently a friend in the same program set me up with an acquaintance of his. The date was going really well (at least that is how it seemed to me) until I mentioned something that made it clear that I was not working but rather going to school full time. Many in this program take the option of the "Professional" version which means they only go part time and continue to work. I didn't as I went because I was laid off. Just kicked me to the curb basically as soon as she heard that though she suggested that I should contact her when I was done and had a job.

I ran into her again at a gather that same friend had -- she suggested we could get together again as long as it was a "real" date that I paid for. I had not another date in that time so I took that up, however this time it became clear we had a few really incompatible things.

While I was unemployed I had dates with three women. The one above. Another that turned out to be a professional - the "date could have a happy ending if I had $200", and one where she wierded out - rejecting me because her roommate didn't approve of me (I don't know that I ever met her) and then changed it in the same conversation to her neighbors not liking me (again, I don't know that I ever met them).

I think men and women alike owe it to their dates to be out of DEBT. Or at least at the point where they don't feel justified in bashing innocent people over the head for money.

@Flynn... You know what a stripper does with her a$$hole before work, right?
Drops him off at band practice.

heh, if you are boring old Mr. Normal, it may be more worthwhile to just opt out...

"But finally, it's worth remembering that even if you find and marry the perfect person, that person can still get hit by a car and become a quadriplegic for decades. Are you willing to take on THAT financial risk?"

Sarcasm aside... it's much more likely "that person" may eventually get tired of you, change the locks on your doors, and take at least half of everything you have. Especially if she has convinced herself over the years that she "SETTLED" for you, and she deserves more. Even IF she is delusional that she will find better, it doesn't help if she craters your life to get that.

I'd be curious if there is a study to see when people bail on marriages or long term relationships with the respective genders... Might be too stereotypical to imagine that for women it's when they are fairly young, for men, more in middle age.

For men and women, there's a range of beauty and status that's acceptable, and we choose our mates from within that range, based on a number of factors. I don't see many women trading up because her new boyfriend makes 5k more than her old one, or a man trading up because his new girlfriend has a slightly nicer ass than the old one. And in time, other factors become equally important as status and hotness.

I would date a man who was clearly in a temporary rough patch but had a stable work history. I would not date someone chronically unemployed. That was my ex husband, and I'm over it.

I would never seriously date someone who is unemployed. My second husband worked 6 months a year - October to April and I worked full time, the usual M-F, 9-5 grind and our salaries were pretty close to the same. He was an accountant so he was great at budgeting and between our two incomes we had a very comfortable lifestyle. But that was how we set up our life, and I agreed to it. But I would never have tolerated completely unemployed.

But, before meeting my hubby I casually dated a guy who didn't really have a job - he had his own business at one point, but I couldn't tell you what really happened to it and I think his grandmother supported him. Anydigression...14 years later, he's still unemployed. Thinks he's too good to work a common job, can't figure out why he's not getting hired in his dream job, and has a very high opinion of himself and always has a girlfriend. He says being unemployed bothers him, but refuses to even consider going to work anywhere other than Apple, who won't hire him. Still trying to figure that guy out and really trying to figure out how he ends up with women who are willing to take care of him.

Sara, sometimes it's because women with low self esteem are willing to take anyone. Sometimes they have the "stand by your man" attitude, where they feel like they can't leave over something as "trivial" as money.

But I think it's easy to forget that status doesn't always mean money. I have know more than a few men who never had much money or steady jobs but always seemed to have a girlfriend, or several. These particular men were part of violent cultures in which being able to command physical respect was more important than cash. Those women would never have chosen a geeky doctor over someone who could crush skulls.

The trouble with dating a new person who is currently unemployed is that you (probably) don't know how much of a pattern it is with him, or whether he will decide he doesn't mind not working, ie just what kind of character he has.

So you'd be taking a going along with it too long if it could turn into the situation sara describes, a guy still not working after 14 years. Going with him may even send a signal he doesn't need to work.

It gets really pathetic when the guys reach their 50s and seriously start seeking out sugar mamas to take care of them. It goes for both sexes, but seems to me like women usually have something figured out by then.

Monica...I love the geeks, as evidenced by my dating past, i.e, accountant, rocket scientist, mechanical engineer...give me a geek any day of the week!

Spartee your comment is brilliant. I always love reading your insights.

I'm not surprised at all by the study, but I wonder if it also has something to do with differences in how men and women define "dating"--ie are they thinking short-term or long-term, casual or serious, open or exclusive? If you're just interested in casual dating, then financial status doesn't matter that much. But if you're thinking about getting serious and merging finances, it starts to matter a lot more.

I would as long as he was motivated to find a job and keep it.

Well, my husband would frown on me dating anyone, and I have no desire to inspire such frowning. :) But, hypothetically:

Unemployed as in lives in parents' basement, has hit his 30s without ever having had a steady full-time job, is making no effort to change the situation? No.

Unemployed as in attending grad school full-time with a future career path? Yes. (I met my husband while I was doing this, BTW.)

Unemployed as in has a steady work history but was caught up in massive layoffs a couple of months ago and is currently in the midst of either heavy networking or retooling of career focus? Yes.

We're in the midst of a recession and some people worked hard doing things that they quite reasonably assumed would lead to steady, comfortable careers (in areas such as law) only to find out that the rules had changed. I wouldn't penalize people for that -- I'd be a hypocrite to do so (long story). But I wouldn't be interested in supporting someone who has no desire to work at *something*.

BTW, I would have been fine with someone who was interested in being a stay-at-home or work-part-time dad. (I asked my husband if he was interested; he said most definitely not.) Taking care of small children qualifies as working at something, IMHO. However, I've found that the best stay-at-home dads are men who were, if not would-be CEOs, at least decent at their jobs. I have met women who did as little in the working world as possible who turned out to be (in my opinion) awesome full-time moms, but the same does not seem to be true for men, in my experience.

Heh.

I find it interesting that women seem to go after hot, but as a more minor factor compared to attitude and display of wealth / support ability.

And men go after looks.

So far, not much in dispute there.

Sooo.....

It seems - can't remember where I stumbled across this - that women consider roughly 80% of men "below average" in attractiveness.

OTOH, in the same study, men found roughly 50% of women below average in attractiveness.

It sort of makes sense that women, without secondary indicators for wealth, success, social status, etc., only consider the top 20% "above average" enough to attract attention, since that's not what primarily attracts them (see all the VERY fashionably clothed guys in women's mags).

But guys, using "looks" as a primary filter, appear to have a more realistic understanding of what constitutes "average" looks, which may draw some interesting conclusions.

I wouldn't date a guy who was unemployed because I've had bad experiences with guys expecting me to support them. Even if it's just dating, if they have no job and no money, they will wind up at your place all the time, on your couch and expect you to supply them with food and booze. Also, you won't be able to go out to a movie or for dinner, never mind travelling together.

You would have to get a good sense of the guy's work ethic. If he's responsible and knows he has to work, even if he has a job now but got fired, you know he would be out there looking and have something, anything, very soon.

My ex-husband was always complaining about any job he had, would never keep it, and had no concept of bills that had to be paid, money wasn't his problem. I didn't have a partner, I was supporting a child, and since I never wanted kids, it destroyed me and the relationship. I couldn't get divorced fast enough, and I shouldn't have married him in the first place.

I think that's why women don't like the idea, because they get nothing out of supporting a guy.

No surprise that more men than women would be willing to date someone who's unemployed. (Also no surprise that "what do you do?" is one of the first questions a woman asks a man. It's her way of getting a rough fix on how much money he makes.)

People can (and do) debate why (nature or nurture?) women prioritize men's social status and ability to provide but I think most people would agree that they do.

"I think that's why women don't like the idea, because they get nothing out of supporting a guy." Chrissy

Curious to discover what you think guys get out of supporting women.

I think that's why women don't like the idea, because they get nothing out of supporting a guy." Chrissy

Curious to discover what you think guys get out of supporting women.

Posted by: SwissArmyD at June 28, 2012 1:53 PM

---------------------

I can't answer for Chrissy, but I imagine they get or at lest hope to get, a consistent supply of sex (which men typically want more often than women, and have to work harder to get from casual acquaintances and strangers). If they're married to that woman, they often also hope to get a clean house and meals and scut work like grocery shopping done (which women are said to be better at providing; I'm not so sure) and one or more healthy, well-raised child. Women are certainly better at at least part of that---you'd have to support *some* woman to some degree to get a child, either a birth mother or a surrogate---and when women stay at home it's certainly easier to do some of the things that are healthier for the baby (namely breastfeeding). If someone, male or female stays home, being supported, with the kid(s) full-time life is usually much easier, and usually it usually makes the most sense for that person to be the woman who has already had at least some loss of status in her job because she's had to take time off work to have the baby and/or nurse it.

I don't think it's surprising at all to see that women prioritize employment more than men; it's expected that the man's employment will matter more in the future.

> the same does not seem to be true for men,
> in my experience.
>
> Posted by: marion at June 28, 2012 11:29 AM

The marion?

I would be very cautious about dating an unemployed man. Of course, with the economy in the tank, there are many valid reasons why a man might be presently unemployed, so context would be important. I'd probably be more likely to date an unemployed man with a history of ambition and self-sufficiency than a middle-aged man whose aspirations never reached beyond crew member in the fast food industry.

For me, it's not about being a gold digger. I decided as a child that I never wanted to be financially dependent on others. And I don't need child related support because I never wanted and never had children (except for my nephew, but that was an exception that had to be done). I don't expect anybody to pay my way through life, but I still find success, intelligence, competence, and compassion to be very attractive traits in a companion.

I also don't complain about men only wanting hot young women. I'm 37, which I know to some means my vagina has suddenly become a portal to the Cryptkeeper's lair. I'm not concerned about 20-something guys finding me hot, because I'm not interested in 20-something guys (on a romantic level; I'll chat anybody up who's interesting). I prefer older men. Not the older men who desperately chase 20-year old skirts. But those who appreciate what women in my age-bracket bring to the table, like interesting conversation, the ability to contribute financially to activities, etc.

So, Jenny, what of those things, can a man not do for himself? Are they things that he actually cares about? Do men starve waiting to be fed, die from living in filth? Were they incapable of living before?

The point about having a consistent bedmate perhaps used to be more true than it is now, because the incentives and consequences have changed. The constructs that made this a value proposition once upon a time, are largely gone.

Those guys above that are largely able to con women into taking care of them, prolly do OK, because they gamed the system.

But when I look at the current generation of guys in their late 20's... I'm seeing an awful lot of them opt out. So they can go to aruba when they feel like it, and maintain control of their lives as they wish.

Interestingly they 'dun seem to lack for bedmates, since they have quite good jobs ATM, but they have no illusions as to what the payoff is.

Dude, didn't I say that I'm not as sure that women are any better at the cleaning, cooking and scut work thing? There are only two things that a man literally cannot do by himself, gestate and lactate, but, yeah, the point still stands. When individual men find it fine to support a woman, they probably do so because of all those things. As a group, men tend to prefer that arrangement to being supported by a woman, and women tend to prefer being supported. I don't know why you think this means that I'm saying men can't cook or clean for themselves or get laid---of course they can, but supporting a wife or SO to some degree appeals to many of them more than getting this things/services in other ways. Sure, probably less of them now than in any earlier generations.

Individual women, too, find it fine to support a man (or another woman) because they get whatever it is they do----ego boosts, sex, housework, car maintenance, childcare, whatever---out of the bargain and don't want to get those things another way. Of course they still can get those things other ways, but they prefer supporting the spouse to those ways. As a group, women prefer this arrangement less often, but probably more often than in previous generations.

You asked what guys could get out of supporting a woman, and that's an answer...the same things, plus two (breastmilk and biological children) that women could get from supporting men. It doesn't have to be what every man wants, or needs.

But, yeah. It's kind of the point that your rich friends who can fly off to Aruba on a whim (who are outliers, anyway, in this economy) don't lack for bedmates; the whole point is that success and money appeal to women because it's a signal that you would likely be a successful provider for offspring. Likewise, a woman who is beautiful with big breasts attracts men because her beauty is a signal that she is healthy and will be a successful mother to offspring. That's the point of the article, not who people eventually settle with. If they both (the beauties and the rich guys) opt out of marriage/family, that really doesn't change the broader point, that their beauty and their success make them attractive.

Also, sorry about the name thing, I decided I like my old one better after all.

@ahw...excellent! I had heard that one before but forgot it; thanks for the reminder!

Jenny, you're right, you know. SwissarmyD is just being cantankerous, but you made your point. And did it well.

As to the basic point, that it's beauty and success that makes one sex attracted to the other, that hasn't changed, and probably never will. There are those who will refuse to accept that (some militant feminists come to mind), but the song remains the same.

It seems - can't remember where I stumbled across this - that women consider roughly 80% of men "below average" in attractiveness.

OTOH, in the same study, men found roughly 50% of women below average in attractiveness.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

Adding on to Jenny Had a Chance: Men are more likely than women to seek out romantic partners who can nurture them and be their best friends. A reasonably attractive woman who likes taking care of guys will have an advantage in the dating world that a man who likes taking care of women will not necessarily share. That doesn't mean that EVERY man seeks this out -- only that men are more likely than women to seek this out, in my experience.

The marion?

Well, not Marion Cummingham, Marion Morrison, Marion Barry or Marion Jones...

I also don't complain about men only wanting hot young women.

Nor do I, though I'm glad my husband was looking more for someone his own age. However, I don't have much sympathy for forty-something men who focus like a laser on twenty-something hot women and then complain that everyone they date seems immature, self-centered, etc. etc. While there is a small group of men (such as the George Clooneys of the world) who can get whoever they want whenever they want, the average forty-something man who wants to date a hot twenty-something woman will largely end up picking from the ones with issues, because the ones without issues tend to end up with younger guys (though, obviously, younger bankers have a wider selection of available women than younger fast-food workers).

Which brings me to another point: While very wealthy and powerful men can and often do take advantage of that wealth and power to behave however they want, in general there is a correlation of consistent work success with other characteristics that make one a good romantic partner -- stability, diligence, intelligence, pleasantness of behavior, etc. Yes, yes, there are brilliant jerks who rise high...but most people who do well in their careers over time bring a lot to the table that applies outside of work as well. Physical beauty, on the other hand, is terrific, but doesn't have to correlate with any of that -- and, in fact, in the extreme often correlates with quite the opposite. I have no patience for women who are unrealistic about their prospects and options, but I also have no patience for men who pick and keep their romantic partners largely on the basis of physical attractiveness and then complain that those partners aren't loyal, reliable and/or intelligent.

It would depend on my phase of life, and the guy. I did in my 20s. If I were suddenly widowed and on the market which I hope will never happen, I wouldn't, because I have to think of my kid and would need someone who can pull his own weight and not divert resources from my kid. What an insult it would be to my husband if I did otherwise!

Marion: However, I don't have much sympathy for forty-something men who focus like a laser on twenty-something hot women and then complain that everyone they date seems immature, self-centered, etc. etc.
_______________________

Reminds me of a man who, when he was almost 50, groused that youngish adults often say things like "why should I know about (some major event in world history), I wasn't even born yet!" He added that when chatting even with very bright adults in their 20s, they'll often reveal an ignorance of one sort or another that make him want to shout "I can't believe they let you out of school not knowing that!"

Which, of course, immediately made me think, "oh, so that's why you only date women that age."

His name?

Bill Maher.

Marion, are you the Harvard Marion?

> Which, of course, immediately made
> me think, "oh, so that's why you only
> date women that age."

Great shot, Len...

I've always had the feeling that Mahar is an undercooked personality, even when he's funny.

(He was funny on Letterman once in 1989. You could probably find it on a VHS somewhere.)

Ah, Marion saw it too:

> I don't have much sympathy for forty-something
> men who focus like a laser on twenty-something
> hot women and then complain that everyone they
> date seems immature, self-centered, etc.

The thing about this isn't that they complain about their dates— Their romantic disappointments are never going to be that interesting to me.

The reason I like this observation so much is that these guys build their worldview around this kind of complaint. Mahar (etc.) sincerely believes, on the basis of nothing, that he has a wizened, big-picture grasp of human forces... Despite a personal fascination with girlish (rather than womanly) tail, and a career in entertainment (which always collects its first dollar from the young and easily-amused).

It's as if he's put his office in a kindergarden classroom so he can cluck about how short everyone is.

It's as if he's put his office in a kindergarden classroom so he can cluck about how short everyone is.

I plan to steal that line in the future. Just warning you now.

Marion, are you the Harvard Marion?

Yes, though now with a few more offspring and thus less time to post than before.

> now with a few more offspring

What are they, beasts? Your children can fend for themselves... Nothing is more important than blog commentary.

MAKE time, Marion.

> I plan to steal that line in the future.

Why not? I certainly stole it from somebody.

I hate the guy's politics. His ironies are always so teenaged and shopworn... It was like when Stewart started prattling about 'the corporations' a few years ago, as if corporations hadn't made him supremely wealthy.

Well, marion, you're always missed when you're not around.

Thank you, Amy! I have been reading diligently. The real problem is that (for various reasons) I mostly surf the Web on my tablet now, which sucks as a vehicle for entering blog commentary. Any chance of getting an Advice Goddess app?

(That having been said, I have been trying to go through your Amazon.com reference links when I order products...and I have been ordering a lot of products on Amazon. Hope that has been successful...)

I'm an old married lady so I don't date.

But... I would not date a man that was unemployed. Mostly because I would wonder how he could afford it.

A young man may not be launched in his career and I am not really interested in boys. An older man would probably have obligations and expenses and if he was also unemployed, why is he spending money frivolously?

I am not a gold digger but I am frugal and I would question his judgment.

1) Your site looks just fine on the iPad. I may be the only dumkopf who has trouble entering comments on the iPad, though I can confirm that entering comments on the iPhone is well-nigh impossible. An AG iPhone app would be terrific. You know, in your and Gregg's ample spare time. :)

2) Any way you can convince Amazon to let folks refer purchases to you from yesterday retroactively, given the technical issue with the search function? I ask because I made a BIG purchase yesterday, and I used your (what now appears was non-functioning) "Powered by Amazon.com" link to try to refer the purchase to your affiliate account. Just wondering...

"Also no surprise that "what do you do?" is one of the first questions a woman asks a man. It's her way of getting a rough fix on how much money he makes."

Isn't that one of the first questions that anybody asks anybody? Maybe in a handful of cases there's an ulterior motive, but in general it's more like the conversational equivalent of commenting on the weather.

That is exactly what I bought! Yay!

And, back on topic: I agree with Shannon. In the U.S., at least, "What do you do?" is typically one of the first questions asked when two people meet for the first time. Other countries can and do differ, but I wouldn't assume that that question is anything more than typical conversational fodder that is seen as being less controversial than questions about, say, politics.

> Other countries can and do differ

Yes. The older I get, the less guilt I feel for offending people from other cultures with the question (always accidentally, I promise). It speaks directly from the audacity of American excellence.

If we meet at a cocktail party, why am I supposed to care about you? Am I supposed to be interested in your daydreams of descent from royalty, and perhaps agree that you shouldn't be expected to be useful to others (because you're fabulous on some invisible psychographic level)?

No.

And for the record, my life is not some rollicking narrative of success and fulfillment... Almost everyone who tries to do better succeeds, and Americans have a thousand ways of conversationally acknowledging the achievements of others without fawning servility or shame.

...But show me that you've tried.