Why Do Girls Look Down on Guys That Live With Their Parents Around the Ages of 22-27?

[zengirl]

At least men don't sit there and lie about it

 

 

 

Women will get on their high horse about all this nonsense about a man who lives at home being less independant, being at a different lifestage, blah blah. It's all bullsht, they care about their status and a man living at home is deemed to be lower status. That's all it comes down to

 

Huh? It sounds like you care a lot about status by your posts and you deem home ownership to make you of higher status.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Paying all your own bills, managing your own financial crisis, and so forth make one independent. I agree that someone taking a check for their rent is just as "not independent" and would be just as undateable, ftr.

 

 

 

Why lie about it? I just don't understand, why lie?

 

 

 

None of you women, absolutely none of you have would have a problem with the trust fund baby who gets an apartment or a house given to him by his millionaire parents at a very young age. That's why those guys get more female attention than they know what to do with

 

 

 

Stop pretending it's about the principals, it's not

[bean1]

I sympathized in the beginning but now you've just turned into an *******.

 

I left home at 17, not of my own choice (we don't all have families we can stay with, you are BLESSED to live in a home that seems to not be riddled with alcoholism and domestic violence), had my own mortgage at 21. At the time, my boyfriend lived with his mother because that was his religious beliefs, which I honoured and respected.

 

I had no problem with this. YOU, however, seem to have no respect for women in general (there are around 3+ billion of them), spouting on about how they only care about "society's ideals" and such, have you dated 3 billion people?

 

I would wager that some women take issue with you living at home because you come off like an insecure ******* with a chip on his shoulder.

 

Some people just don't get it. You sit and bitch about money grubbing "illogical" women, what makes you think any woman with a good head on her shoulders isn't going to walk away from a condescending attitude.

[udolipixie]

sit there and tell me otherwise because every one of them used to get swarmed with female attention

 

This is why me and dasein are arguing that none of this nonsense being spewed in this thread has any logical underlying, because it doesn't

 

It may have some logical underlying if a person doesn't have a skewed perception where no matter what is said the person gets what suits their mindset such as when a gal says she doesn't want to date a guy who lives at home it's being brainwashed by society or caring what society thinks.

 

It may have some logical underlying if a person isn't 'reading between the lines' such as with this:

For me, an adult guy living with his parents is a big turn-off, mainly because I've been independent, living on my own (or with roommates during college), and supporting myself since I was 17, and want a guy who's also independent and supporting himself. If a guy is still living with his parents past high school, we are simply at different developmental stages mentally, financially, and practically.

 

Most of my friends also moved out and began supporting themselves after high school, so it's not that I'm particularly special - just that I'm fairly independent and get along best with others who are, too.

This has to be a joke right? A man living at home past HIGH SCHOOL means that he's somehow lesser of a man? :laugh:

I didn't say he's a lesser man - just at a different life stage than I am.

[HallowedBeThyName]

I left home at 17, not of my own choice (we don't all have families we can stay with, you are BLESSED to live in a home that seems to not be riddled with alcoholism and domestic violence)

 

 

 

absolutely agreed. How many times have you seen me here state that I love my parents to death and have a fantastic relationship with my parents that I'm grateful to have?

 

 

 

Apparently that makes me less independent, it means I'm not making my own way in the world and I'm not dateable. I know it makes zero sense to me too

[udolipixie]

Finally a girl who works on logic

Female logic is truly hilarious. The way you let society brainwash you is just funny to me

female logic

/female logic

:lmao::laugh:

That's female logic at it's best

Great post buy you should know better than that by now

 

Women don't work based on logic or rationale. They work based on emotions and they care more about fitting what society says than anything else

Women don't care about the principals, anybody who believes that nonsense is just a complete idiot

 

They care about emotions and fitting into what society wants. They care about their status and dating a man who lives at home is deemed to be lower status

 

Again with such posts likely you living at home may not be the biggest contributor of dating issues, not being considered LTR material, or gals looking down on you.

 

Bit curious as to why you bother with gals entertainment/amusement and/or sex?

[HallowedBeThyName]

It may have some logical underlying

 

 

I'll finish this sentence

 

 

 

"it may have some logical underlying if trust fund babies who are completely dependent on their parents for money didn't get worshipped by women for having a nice place and a nice car at a young age"

 

 

 

Don't sit there and act like it's not true. I have friends who fit that definition to a tee who get more girls than they know what to do

 

 

 

They're not even half as independent as I am. I knew a guy who was 23, living in a 2,000 square foot house that his dad bought for him and had never worked a day in his life. He got more girls than anybody I've ever seen. He doesn't pay his college tuition, he doesn't pay his mortgage, he has everything handed to him and I guarantee you that not one girl in this thread would have an issue with that

[udolipixie]

I'll finish this sentence

 

"it may have some logical underlying if trust fund babies who are completely dependent on their parents for money didn't get worshipped by women for having a nice place and a nice car at a young age"

 

Don't sit there and act like it's not true. I have friends who fit that definition to a tee who get more girls than they know what to do

 

 

They're not even half as independent as I am. I knew a guy who was 23, living in a 2,000 square foot house that his dad bought for him and had never worked a day in his life. He got more girls than anybody I've ever seen

I'm not sitting there and acting like some gals don't worship trust fund guys what am I doing is at a strawman argument.

 

Are you under the notion that a gal can't have a logical underlying for her preferences if it goes against other gals preferences? A gal stating she likes brunettes and some other gals stating they like blondes doesn't mean there's no logical underlying for the gal who likes brunettes. A guy stating he likes chubby gals and others stating they like thin gals doesn't mean there's no logical underlying for the guy who likes the chubbs.

 

That guy got gals who liked his traits and/or money however those gals having a vagina doesn't mean their actions apply to all, most, or gals in general. Some gals wouldn't bother with such a guy and prefer you while some gals wouldn't bother with either of you.

[zengirl]

Why lie about it? I just don't understand, why lie?

 

None of you women, absolutely none of you have would have a problem with the trust fund baby who gets an apartment or a house given to him by his millionaire parents at a very young age. That's why those guys get more female attention than they know what to do with

 

Stop pretending it's about the principals, it's not

 

Who's lying? Some women are wildly attracted to wealth, certainly, but I'm not one of them. I already explained how I feel about trust funds. Personally I'm not a huge fan, but if someone were to choose not to rely on their trust fund and to make their own way in the world and/or use their trust fund for schooling and then make their own way in the world, I wouldn't hold the trust against them. If their a trust fund hipster or something, no not for me. All hypothetical since I'm already married to a non-trust fund guy who hasn't lived at home since HS.

[bean1]

Why do misogynists sit around and complain that women don't want to date them? Oh, is blaming society/the economy/3 billion humans just easier than admitting that they aren't pleasant people to be around?

 

Oh that would be too easy.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Who's lying? Some women are wildly attracted to wealth, certainly, but I'm not one of them. I already explained how I feel about trust funds. Personally I'm not a huge fan, but if someone were to choose not to rely on their trust fund and to make their own way in the world and/or use their trust fund for schooling and then make their own way in the world, I wouldn't hold the trust against them. If their a trust fund hipster or something, no not for me. All hypothetical since I'm already married to a non-trust fund guy who hasn't lived at home since HS.

 

 

 

You keep trying to snake your way of giving real answers and I'm not gonna tolerate it

 

 

The overwhelming majority of women are wildly attracted to wealth, which is why these trust fund babies who get everything handed to them always have a bevy of women going after them

 

 

What happened to Independence? Why are those women who would judge me for living at home going after the guy who is completely dependent on his parents?

 

 

When are you gonna come out and admit it's got nothing to do with principals for the majority of women? Maybe you're in the small minority, but it's a minority regardless

[dasein]

I wouldn't agree with that assessment.

 

An extra roof is an extra roof, with extra expenses. You can come up with any number of examples where one can live away and still conserve, but doesn't change the general truth that living apart from the family generally entails greater expense, greater resource consumption and greater environmental footprint than living at home.

 

Many people have given rational basis for it -- both pragmatic (no place to have loud sex) and philosophical (he's overly comfortable at home and has never had to struggle on his own, he's not valuing independence and is overvaluing his comfort/money) and so forth. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it irrational.

 

None of those are rational because they don't include specifics, and can't be determined by the mere fact of someone living at home. I could live at my parents' home and have all the loud sex I want (and have) because of the structure of the house. People can go to motels/hotels to have sex. People can arrange their sex times when no one else is home. Anyone with a roommate(s) can have the exact same sex issues living away so the sex point is moot and not a rational basis for the prejudice without more detail.

 

You nor anyone else knows anything about someone's level of "struggle" in life based merely on their living situation... nada. We've already dealt with "independence," which can be defined rationally as in financial stability, or irrationally as "living under a different roof" in and of itself = independence. As far as comfort goes, you are claiming that living apart = more comfort in having sex for example, so you are in the same boat where seeking comfort is concerned. As far as money goes, get women to affirm that they like guys with less money versus more and we can talk, so will just stick at money as being a neutral factor in the general analysis. Do you really want to stick to the judgment that someone living at home has more money and that's a -rational- basis for the prejudice against them?

 

You are right, disagreement doesn't equate to irrationality, but making irrational arguments does.

[bean1]

All this talk of principals and living at home is giving me nightmares of Seymour and Agnes Skinner.

[HallowedBeThyName]

An extra roof is an extra roof, with extra expenses. You can come up with any number of examples where one can live away and still conserve, but doesn't change the general truth that living apart from the family generally entails greater expense, greater resource consumption and greater environmental footprint than living at home.

 

 

 

None of those are rational because they don't include specifics, and can't be determined by the mere fact of someone living at home. I could live at my parents' home and have all the loud sex I want (and have) because of the structure of the house. People can go to motels/hotels to have sex. People can arrange their sex times when no one else is home. Anyone with a roommate(s) can have the exact same sex issues living away so the sex point is moot and not a rational basis for the prejudice without more detail.

 

You nor anyone else knows anything about someone's level of "struggle" in life based merely on their living situation... nada. We've already dealt with "independence," which can be defined rationally as in financial stability, or irrationally as "living under a different roof" in and of itself = independence. As far as comfort goes, you are claiming that living apart = more comfort in having sex for example, so you are in the same boat where seeking comfort is concerned. As far as money goes, get women to affirm that they like guys with less money versus more and we can talk, so will just stick at money as being a neutral factor in the general analysis. Do you really want to stick to the judgment that someone living at home has more money and that's a -rational- basis for the prejudice against them?

 

You are right, disagreement doesn't equate to irrationality, but making irrational arguments does.

 

 

Don't keep going with all this logic and rationale. Her brain might explode

[zengirl]

An extra roof is an extra roof, with extra expenses. You can come up with any number of examples where one can live away and still conserve, but doesn't change the general truth that living apart from the family generally entails greater expense, greater resource consumption and greater environmental footprint than living at home.

 

As I said, house takes up a greater footprint than an individual apartment and even several in most cases. Your general truth is hardly true. Also, ecological mindedness is more applicable to habits than roofs - water usage, A/C usage, power usage, etc, are somewhat dependent on the house (insulation being more important but square footage being an issue -- though if the square footage per person in OP's large house is more per person than a studio apartment it's not really more green at all!) but mostly dependent on choices.

 

None of those are rational because they don't include specifics

 

Methinks you don't know what rational means. Rational and specific have nothing to do with each other.

 

You nor anyone else knows anything about someone's level of "struggle" in life based merely on their living situation... nada.

 

When I speak of struggle, I'm speaking to the OP's comments on the reasoning for living at home which is for greater comfort and less struggle.

 

We've already dealt with "independence," which can be defined rationally as in financial stability

 

That's not a good definition of independence in my book, neither is purely a different roof. Independence to me is dealing with life, economically and practically, on your own. Both independence and interdependence are important in life and important to cultivate.

 

At any rate, none of my arguments are irrational at all, nor are you using the word rational correctly in saying nonspecific (which hypotheticals always are) makes something irrational. But I know from your posting style that the real definitions of real words are no use in such arguments.

[HallowedBeThyName]

As I said, house takes up a greater footprint than an individual apartment and even several in most cases. Your general truth is hardly true. Also, ecological mindedness is more applicable to habits than roofs - water usage, A/C usage, power usage, etc, are somewhat dependent on the house (insulation being more important but square footage being an issue -- though if the square footage per person in OP's large house is more per person than a studio apartment it's not really more green at all!) but mostly dependent on choices.

 

 

I love all this talk in this thread about being independent and making your own way in the world

 

 

 

Yet somehow, just somehow, the guys I know in my life who had everything handed to them on a silver platter in terms of tuition payed for, fancy car bought, fancy house bought have had a beavy of women on their tail their entire life. On the flipside, I know guys who came from terrible backgrounds, who have fought, sweat and bled their entire life to be able to afford a little place in southside of Chicago (one of the worst neighborhoods in the country). These guys supported their siblings from the age of 15

 

 

 

Yet for some bizarre reason, these kids who work their asses off and have been independent since mid teens don't even get a fraction of the female attention that my rich friends get. Why is this?

 

 

Where are your principles then?

[zengirl]

I love all this talk in this thread about being independent and making your own way in the world

 

Yet somehow, just somehow, the guys I know in my life who had everything handed to them on a silver platter in terms of tuition payed for, fancy car bought, fancy house bought have had a beavy of women on their tail their entire life. On the flipside, I know guys who came from terrible backgrounds, who have fought, sweat and bled their entire life to be able to afford a little place in southside of Chicago (one of the worst neighborhoods in the country). These guys supported their siblings from the age of 15

 

Yet for some bizarre reason, these kids who work their asses off and have been independent since mid teens don't even get a fraction of the female attention that my rich friends get. Why is this?

 

Where are your principles then?

 

How does any of that apply to me? Hubby was from a lower-middle class family back in the day who didn't get a dime of support from his family and made his own way in the world. He and I come from similar backgrounds in that way, though my family got rich when I was in HS and my parents are pretty rich nowadays and his Ma is still pretty poor.

 

I never went for rich pretty boys. The fact that some women do doesn't apply to my comments or opinions.

[HallowedBeThyName]

How does any of that apply to me? Hubby was from a lower-middle class family back in the day who didn't get a dime of support from his family and made his own way in the world. He and I come from similar backgrounds in that way, though my family got rich when I was in HS and my parents are pretty rich nowadays and his Ma is still pretty poor.

 

I never went for rich pretty boys. The fact that some do doesn't apply to my comments or opinions.

 

 

This thread isn't about you

 

 

This thread is about women in general and you're being awfully ignorant when you claim that you don't seem to understand what I'm talking

 

 

Why do these principles that women claim to have seemingly disappear when they're dealing with a rich boy who is completely dependent on his parents?

[dasein]

Methinks you don't know what rational means. Rational and specific have nothing to do with each other.

 

All reason is based on the assertion and truth of specific underlying facts. You are of course free to argue your POV based on assertions that living at home necessarily makes sex more difficult, entails more comfort seeking behavior, a preoccupation with material things, or you can argue that bigfoot or a magic 8 ball told you so. The rationality of the assertion, or lack thereof, still hinges on the truth of the underlying factual assertions, which have been disproven with respect to the topic.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Yeah, people are certainly free to behave as judgmentally and irrationally as they choose in their preferences. With that I agree. They can then complain one day about "the rich" and "raising tax brackets" on those who made wise wealth building decisions early on also as they become more and more "dependent" on the government throughout their lives. Certainly their right to do so, hypocritical, but their right.

 

 

 

Best part of the entire thread right here ^^^^^

 

 

 

I love it when people make awful financial decisions in their life and then when they're 40 years old, they look at people like me as just being another one of the snotty elite who needs to pay higher taxes. In reality, I'm just your average person who is going to make smart decisions in his life, work very hard and be very very well off when I'm in my 30s and 40s

 

 

 

It's a beautiful thing really

[EasyHeart]

OK, I'm confused again.

 

The OP raised the question of why women might not like to date someone who lives at home. Several women responded and gave legitimate responses about why women would consider living at home to be a negative in the dating pool.

 

The rest of the thread has been arguing that women's preferences are illegitimate because they don't match what the men in the thread THINK women should prefer. What's the point of this sort of reaction? Do you think you'll change anyone's mind? And even if you bully one or two posters into finally giving up trying to reason with you, how do you plan on persuading the other 150,000,000 women in the country?

 

I think women should go nuts over balding, middle-aged nerdlingers. But it ain't gonna happen.

[udolipixie]

I love all this talk in this thread about being independent and making your own way in the world

 

Yet somehow, just somehow, the guys I know in my life who had everything handed to them on a silver platter in terms of tuition payed for, fancy car bought, fancy house bought have had a beavy of women on their tail their entire life. On the flipside, I know guys who came from terrible backgrounds, who have fought, sweat and bled their entire life to be able to afford a little place in southside of Chicago (one of the worst neighborhoods in the country). These guys supported their siblings from the age of 15

 

Yet for some bizarre reason, these kids who work their asses off and have been independent since mid teens don't even get a fraction of the female attention that my rich friends get. Why is this?

 

Where are your principles then?

The trust fund guys have gals on them likely because those gals liked their traits and/or money. The working their a** off guys don't have gals as many gals likely because their aren't as many gals interested in them due to their traits and/or money as liking a guy with X trait doesn't necessarily mean a gal likes or is attracted to all or most guys with X.

 

This seems to be a strawman argument as I haven't heard anyone state, suggest, or imply the amount of gals for either preference is more, less, or equal.

 

Seems you're under the notion that some gals saying they prefer independence means all, most, or other gals operate in the same way. As for 'where are your principles then?' do you think gals are a hive mind where one is responsible for other's actions?

 

The answer to where are the principles is likely the principles for said gals were different some want wealth no matter what & some want independence regardless of wealth with the amounts varying.

[HallowedBeThyName]

The trust fund guys have gals on them likely because those gals liked their traits and/or money.

 

 

Hold on a second, what happened to men who live at home being unattractive because they're supposedly "not independant", even though they pay for everything and have done so since they were 18?

 

 

 

Yet when it comes to the true meaning of "not independant" - as in rich kids who have everything handed to them on a silver platter who have never worked a day in their life - those men are undoubtedly very attractive to women

 

 

 

What happened to female principles?

[kaylan]

useless thread is useless.

[zengirl]

This thread isn't about you

 

Never said the whole thread was was, but you said, "Where are your principles now?" directly to my post.

 

This thread is about women in general and you're being awfully ignorant when you claim that you don't seem to understand what I'm talking

 

Why do these principles that women claim to have seemingly disappear when they're dealing with a rich boy who is completely dependent on his parents?

 

As I said, as a woman, my principles are not swayed in such a case.

 

All reason is based on the assertion and truth of specific underlying facts. You are of course free to argue your POV based on assertions that living at home necessarily makes sex more difficult, entails more comfort seeking behavior, a preoccupation with material things, or you can argue that bigfoot or a magic 8 ball told you so. The rationality of the assertion, or lack thereof, still hinges on the truth of the underlying factual assertions, which have been disproven with respect to the topic.

 

No, that's not the definition of rational. Check out a dictionary if you don't believe me. Hypothetical rationale is, by the nature of hypotheticals, not going to have specificity to the individual. As to the OP's specific assertions, situations, and reasoning, I've addressed that repeatedly.

 

OK, I'm confused again.

 

The OP raised the question of why women might not like to date someone who lives at home. Several women responded and gave legitimate responses about why women would consider living at home to be a negative in the dating pool.

 

The rest of the thread has been arguing that women's preferences are illegitimate because they don't match what the men in the thread THINK women should prefer. What's the point of this sort of reaction? Do you think you'll change anyone's mind? And even if you bully one or two posters into finally giving up trying to reason with you, how do you plan on persuading the other 150,000,000 women in the country?

 

I think women should go nuts over balding, middle-aged nerdlingers. But it ain't gonna happen.

 

I'm glad someone gets it!