How low on the socio-economic ladder would you go?

As inspired by Scruff. Ta mate.
Be honest now.

tallaght01

I'm have a vested interest in the results of this thread, as I sit here on my 50 euro couch, with no TV, about to eat a 3day old chicken which is the only thing in my fridge lol

I'm saving up to go back to uni and do a masters degree, so it's not even gonna get any better when I've finished saving lol

btw I'm willing to date as high up the socio-economic ladder as is possible

Edit....theoretically, is any of the above cancelled out by the fact that I'm quite tall? :P

tribulus

I await the latest Wibbism to explain this all.

panda100

Honestly, money really doesnt matter that much, but I would like someone who is passionate about what they do for a living, so I would take a charity aid worker over a multi billionare anyday of the week.

Saying that I was dating this scruffy anarchist guy for a while a few years back who hadnt a penny to his name,or at least I thought so, when we were dating. I recently discovered that he's actually sitting on a small fortune and I have to admit that I thought of him in a differnet light! Maybe I am superficial!!

Lockstep

I wouldn't give a toss how poor she was.

As long as she's a good 'un and her poverty doesn't mean she compulsively eats outta trash I can't say it'd be a barrier.

Silly question IMHO.

Oryx

Terrible question imo. Its like saying 'council tenants/low wage earners/menial workers need not apply'.

Its about the person, not the wallet, ya know.

GirlInterrupted

tallaght01 wrote: »

I'm have a vested interest in the results of this thread, as I sit here on my 50 euro couch, with no TV, about to eat a 3day old chicken which is the only thing in my fridge lol

I'm saving up to go back to uni and do a masters degree, so it's not even gonna get any better when I've finished saving lol

btw I'm willing to date as high up the socio-economic ladder as is possible

Edit....theoretically, is any of the above cancelled out by the fact that I'm quite tall? :P

Lol, yes tall helps!

I've had my fill of passionate about their career types.
Your needs are never going to be a priority to a person who doesn't rate themselves as one.
Note. I'm not saying I always want to come first, but it would be nice to feel considered at least some of the time.

I couldn't see myself with an Anto-Deco type tbh.
Money itself isn't particularly important, but attitude to money is it.
I don't find it attractive when people measure themselves or others by their material worth.

litup

What a ridiculous question.

Does a person's standing on some imaginary 'ladder' actually affect your perception of them or impact on any potential relationship with them?

If so, I think you need to re-consider your value system.

The reason behind a person's current financial status maybe an element of their personality which you do not like (e.g. someone who chooses to be on the dole and not contribute to society due to laziness), and so fair enough, you won't date them. But writing off whole sections of society because of where they were born/the level of education they received/how much they currently earn etc is very closed minded.

So knock off the socio and focus on the economic.
Does a future partners economic prospects effect your choice to build a future with them or not?

Although I think it is natural for people to want to build a life with somone with a similar upbring to themselves.
Therefore from a similar socio-economic background.

justsomebloke

Oryx wrote: »

Terrible question imo. Its like saying 'council tenants/low wage earners/menial workers need not apply'.

Its about the person, not the wallet, ya know.

ye and that is all fine in theory but reality is never the same

Predhead

This thread is gas!!

Money wouldn't matter to me, although I'm a guy. What I mean is I wouldn't care if she was a volunteer or an astronaut! In fact if she got lost in space it'd be easier to break up, but that's a different matter! :pac:

I don't think money should matter to anyone the way looks do ya know. I've a good job and sitting on a bit of fortune to be fair so I guess it's easy for me to say but...I'm really not doing what I love and I'm trying to figure that out. I mean I'd lose a lot of money if I left this job so I guess it matters more to the person than the person's potential partner if you get me...that was a load of waffle wasn't it?!

Dudess

Oryx wrote: »

Terrible question imo. Its like saying 'council tenants/low wage earners/menial workers need not apply'.

Its about the person, not the wallet, ya know.

litup wrote: »

What a ridiculous question.

Does a person's standing on some imaginary 'ladder' actually affect your perception of them or impact on any potential relationship with them?

If so, I think you need to re-consider your value system.

The reason behind a person's current financial status maybe an element of their personality which you do not like (e.g. someone who chooses to be on the dole and not contribute to society due to laziness), and so fair enough, you won't date them. But writing off whole sections of society because of where they were born/the level of education they received/how much they currently earn etc is very closed minded.

I don't think just because the OP asked the question it means she'd only go for high-earning guys herself. She did just ask the question.
I personally wouldn't give a sh1t where the person's from/what class bracket they fitted into when they were growing up/what they're parent(s) did for a living... but, I wouldn't have any interest in a guy who doesn't have a job or is stuck in a crappy one and won't bother getting out of it. But that's a different issue anyway, however it's also relevant.

Actually if a guy grew up in a really impoverished area with few prospects and made something of himself, then that would be extra attractive.

Nevyn

tribulus wrote: »

I await the latest Wibbism to explain this all.

lollers.

gollyitsolly

"When Poverty comes in the window, Love goes out the door". Old Irish Proverb.:)

Black Swan

I'm a starving student, so when you are on the bottom, there's only one way and that's up!

Predhead

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think just because the OP asked the question it means she'd only go for high-earning guys herself. She did just ask the question.
I personally wouldn't give a sh1t where the person's from/what class bracket they fitted into when they were growing up/what they're parent(s) did for a living... but, I wouldn't have any interest in a guy who doesn't have a job or is stuck in a crappy one and won't bother getting out of it. But that's a different issue anyway, however it's also relevant.

Actually if a guy grew up in a really impoverished area with few prospects and made something of himself, then that would be extra attractive.

But you would still find it 'extra attractive'. Would you not be attracted enough otherwise? So on some level, it does something for you in that respect..no?

lorweld

Dudess wrote: »

.... but, I wouldn't have any interest in a guy who doesn't have a job or is stuck in a crappy one and won't bother getting out of it.

What if they are happy in the crappy job? It might seem like a crappy job to you but they might actually enjoy the job! Whats crappy to some people doesn't mean its crappy to all.

Oryx

jsb wrote: »

ye and that is all fine in theory but reality is never the same

Its just asking a question like that is making it all very black and white. You dont consider a good person as a mate/partner because they are at x point on the socio-economic ladder? In theory and in reality I wouldnt do that.

Reku

As long as she'd decent hygiene, didn't have the nasal skanger accent and didn't have a scumbag sense of morality, oh yeah, and didn't make a habit of adopting the oompah-loompah look or going out in her nightclothes, I wouldn't care about her position in the "socio-economic ladder".

I've known some girls who would've been from the lower-bottom rungs of that ladder but they were really nice and sweet, better people IMO than many I've encountered who'd be placed higher up on that ladder.

tallaght01

I think a lot more people find it important, or at least attractive, than are admitting it here.

Drift

The "outrage" at such a shallow question is laughable considering the responses to the thread regarding mens height. Turning down someone solely based on their bank account is seen as terrible but yet it seems acceptable to turn down someone based solely on their height!

dewsbury

I think this is an excellent thought provoking thread!

I suspect that those who refer to the thread as "silly" are perhaps younger and somewhat more idealistic! ??? Either way I think it unlikely that they will be dating "travellers" or Roma beggars........

...perhaps I am wrong tho'

Predhead

Drift wrote: »

The "outrage" at such a shallow question is laughable considering the responses to the thread regarding mens height. Turning down someone solely based on their bank account is seen as terrible but yet it seems acceptable to turn down someone based solely on their height!

Well I wouldn't really equate the two. I'd be more inclined to go for some girl who's at the bottom of the ladder that I'm attracted to than someone nearer the top that I'm not. Thing is, looks to some extent, are important to everyone. It's what first catches your eye. I mean you're not going to walk up to some minger in a nightclub on the basis she might have a good personality.

Reku

Predhead wrote: »

Well I wouldn't really equate the two. I'd be more inclined to go for some girl who's at the bottom of the ladder that I'm attracted to than someone nearer the top that I'm not. Thing is, looks to some extent, are important to everyone. It's what first catches your eye. I mean you're not going to walk up to some minger in a nightclub on the basis she might have a good personality.

Damn our failure to develop telepathy!:mad:

Predhead

farohar wrote: »

Damn our failure to develop telepathy!:mad:

Being honest, if I was telepathic and she had a great personality, though mingin', I wouldn't go near her.

Malari

MY boyfriend and I are both earning similar amounts, but I would never get rid of him if his situation changed. It would be difficult, but shouldn't matter in a relationship.

I think it's a different matter starting out on a relationship. I woudn't like to be with someone who hadn't a lot of money, not because I expect him to buy me stuff but because I don't want to have to pay for things like nice food, meals out, cinema, holidays, etc. Things I like doing and can afford.

To be honest I'd prefer to be called shallow than hypocritical.

Dudess

Predhead wrote: »

But you would still find it 'extra attractive'. Would you not be attracted enough otherwise? So on some level, it does something for you in that respect..no?

How do you mean? A guy from a "standard" working class or middle class background getting himself a qualification/trade and making a career that allows him to be self sufficient is one thing, but a guy from a really impoverished area with high crime rates doing the same thing instead of falling into the trap of crime himself - that's even more commendable and I think there's something particularly attractive about it.

lorweld wrote: »

What if they are happy in the crappy job? It might seem like a crappy job to you but they might actually enjoy the job! Whats crappy to some people doesn't mean its crappy to all.

Sorry, but if you're willing to stay stuck in a job that pays barely above minimum wage and has no prospects, then call me judgemental but I'm not gonna apologise for viewing such a person as less than ideal partner material.

I think there's a danger of misinterpretation in this thread though. Moonbaby, are you asking whether we'd be concerned about where the person's from etc, or how ambitious they are?

Predhead

Malari wrote: »

MY boyfriend and I are both earning similar amounts, but I would never get rid of him if his situation changed. It would be difficult, but shouldn't matter in a relationship.

I think it's a different matter starting out on a relationship. I woudn't like to be with someone who hadn't a lot of money, not because I expect him to buy me stuff but because I don't want to have to pay for things like nice food, meals out, cinema, holidays, etc. Things I like doing and can afford.

To be honest I'd prefer to be called shallow than hypocritical.

What if you could afford to pay for both of you? Or would you expect him to? I wouldn't mind paying for my other half if that was the case.

Predhead

Predhead wrote: »

Well I wouldn't really equate the two. I'd be more inclined to go for some girl who's at the bottom of the ladder that I'm attracted to than someone nearer the top that I'm not. Thing is, looks to some extent, are important to everyone. It's what first catches your eye. I mean you're not going to walk up to some minger in a nightclub on the basis she might have a good personality.

Looks aren't that important to me. I personally wouldn't like to be with someone where looks were are that high up on the priority list.
At least money affects the quality of your lifestyle.
TBH I couldn't commit to a person who's passion, (even if it was for saving babies in Africa etc). Meant that we couldn't afford a home and family of our own. Unless I funded it. Because I wouldn't feel that we had a partnership with common goals.

Predhead

Dudess wrote: »

How do you mean? A guy from a "standard" working class or middle class background getting himself a qualification/trade and making a career that allows him to be self sufficient is one thing, but a guy from a really impoverished area with high crime rates doing the same thing instead of falling into the trap of crime himself - that's even more commendable and I think there's something particularly attractive about it.

Yeah I get what you mean. Commendable is one thing, but being attracted to it is another. Meaning that it would somehow swing it for you if you were thinking of dating him, rather than say the guy from a 'standard' background ya know...that's just what I from the post.