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

[HallowedBeThyName]

 

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

 

 

 

Cool, so you're in the 0.0001% of women whose principles are not swayed in such a case

 

 

 

Explain the hypocrisy for the other 99.9999%

[zengirl]

Cool, so you're in the 0.0001% of women whose principles are not swayed in such a case

 

Explain the hypocrisy for the other 99.9999%

 

I cannot explain made up statistics for opinions held by people other than myself, obviously. THAT would be irrational.

[udolipixie]

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?

Nothing happened to guys living at home being considered unattractive to gals who perceive them as not independent as they're likely still unattractive.

 

What happened to female principle in finding trust fund guys attractive is that some gals don't share that principle and some who do share that principle are hypocrites.

 

It's a bit of a logical fallacy to equate since trust fund guys are attractive to gals to what happened to female principles unless you're working under the notion gals are a hive mind. That some gals saying they prefer independence means all, most, or other gals operate in the same way. If so again having a vagina doesn't mean one's preferences are for all, most, or those in general who have a vagina.

 

I haven't seen any gals on her talking for the principles of all, most, or gals in general just their principles. Your rationale is a bit skewed and a strawman argument similiar to how when a guy says he likes chubby gals he's told 'what happened to guys liking chubby gals' as X amount of guys like thin gals and other guys like thin gals or how some guys who say they like chubby gals go for thin gals.

[dasein]

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.

 

A "preference" with no or faulty underlying reasoning is simply a prejudice, and disproving a prejudice by demonstrating the underlying factual premises invalid is a different matter than disagreeing with a preference.

 

Someone could state the preference that taller men make their panties wet, for example. That's a preference. I can't disagree with that because they aren't my panties getting wet. They could also argue that they prefer taller men because they will do better in a fight. That's a prejudice. I can argue with that because it contains faulty underlying assertions of fact.

 

Louder sex, undue comfort seeking, undue focus on material things, being at "the next stage of life," struggling more, being more independent, as necessarily following living outside the parental home are all factual assertions, faulty ones IMO.

 

This thread contains none of the former "wet panty" type preferences (without reading back) and lots of the latter assertions of fact... prejudice.

 

Moreover, this board is cram full of posters calling the preferences of others superficial, calling to task for preference. In fact, it's a primary function of a dating board, so are you really caught unaware by such responses here?

[HallowedBeThyName]

What happened to female principle in finding trust fund guys attractive is that some gals don't share that principle and some who do share that principle are hypocrites.

 

 

Stop playing a semantics game for god f*cking sakes

 

 

 

You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's not "some who do share that principle are hypocrites", it's the overwhelming majority of women who share that principle that are hypocrites

 

 

I can show you pictures of my rich acquaintances who have been had everything handed to them on a silver platter since childhood that get more female attention than anybody could know what to do with. I thought not being independent was very unattractive to women?

Edited May 24, 2012 by HallowedBeThyName

[dasein]

No, that's not the definition of rational. Check out a dictionary if you don't believe me.

 

I don't have to check out a dictionary, rational means several things. In the context of this colloquial board and thread it obviously means "reasonable" or "based on a process of reason." If you want to start a thread on Kant, Leibniz, or discussing "rational" numbers, feel free to do so.

[borkus]

It's another great debater's thread. Sometimes I wonder if some people are more interested in getting a debating trophy versus having a pleasant discussion. I wonder if some of you flirt by breaking down people's arguments and pointing out where they made logical fallacies.

 

"Cutie, you just made a logical fallacy. If I were a philosophy professor, I would have given you an F." I could see a guy approaching a woman and presenting a convincing arguemnt about why she should date him.

 

I have to say that the guys I know who live with their parents aren't living with them because they are saving money or taking care of their elderly parents. They're living with them because they lack basic life skills. It's really hard to save money for a house when you are working in some minimum wage job. I wonder how one of my friends is trying to save money for a house when he hasn't had a job in a long time.

 

The guys I know who live at home are shy, older guys. None of the guys are rich guys who acculmated large amounts of money staying at home. Even if these guys had a lot of money, they still don't have the guts to take out a large loan to buy a house because they have been playing it safe their entire lives.

 

Another thing is that the guys I know who live at home are antisocial and don't approach women. All the bling in the world won't mean anything if you don't talk to women. How are you supposed to meet women if you neither approach women nor do online dating? I wonder if these guys don't approach women because they don't need to. Maybe when these guys are eating at a restaurant, waitresses might slimp them their phone numbers. A lot of women are attracted to rich guys.

 

Another thing I noticed is that these guys don't care about their appearance. They dressed really sloppy. This one 60-year old shy guy looks really disheveled. I guess he doesn't want to dress up because he doesn't want to attract the gold diggers.

[EasyHeart]

A "preference" with no or faulty underlying reasoning is simply a prejudice, and disproving a prejudice by demonstrating the underlying factual premises invalid is a different matter than disagreeing with a preference.

 

Someone could state the preference that taller men make their panties wet, for example. That's a preference. I can't disagree with that because they aren't my panties getting wet. They could also argue that they prefer taller men because they will do better in a fight. That's a prejudice. I can argue with that because it contains faulty underlying assertions of fact.

 

Louder sex, undue comfort seeking, undue focus on material things, being at "the next stage of life," struggling more, being more independent, as necessarily following living outside the parental home are all factual assertions, faulty ones IMO.

 

This thread contains none of the former "wet panty" type preferences (without reading back) and lots of the latter assertions of fact... prejudice.

 

Moreover, this board is cram full of posters calling the preferences of others superficial, calling to task for preference. In fact, it's a primary function of a dating board, so are you really caught unaware by such responses here?

I think you're trying to create a false distinction. None of our dating preferences are rational. We can rationalize them by trying to think of some reasons we might have those preferences, but that's not how our minds work. The preference is intuitive or instinctual. What the women here are trying to do (I assume) is try to put some explanation behind it for the OP.

 

What I don't understand is the common practice on this board of trying to bully people out of their preferences. It makes no sense. If the general population has a preference for people who aren't like you, you're options are to change or to accept it. You'll never convince women that they should like a guy who lives at home. Or who's short. Or who's poor. Or whatever the current excuse that prevents the poster from dealing with his or her real issues.

 

We see these types of posts all the time and each one seems sillier than the next. I seriously doubt the OP's failure with women has anything to do with his housing situation.

[HallowedBeThyName]

I have to say that the guys I know who live with their parents aren't living with them because they are saving money or taking care of their elderly parents. They're living with them because they lack basic life skills. It's really hard to save money for a house when you are working in some minimum wage job. I wonder how one of my friends is trying to save money for a house when he hasn't had a job in a long time.

 

 

Just anecdotal nonsense really. I have friends who lived at home till 28 who are wildly successful

 

 

 

This is why you do what we call - meet a person, evaluate their personality and their life direction on a case by case basis. This is why you don't blindly judge somebody without knowing anything about them - which is what you have seen over and over and over in this thread

 

 

 

I know people who lived at home until 28 who are wildly successful and I know people who moved out at 18 who have a trainwreck of a life with mounting debt and a dead end job. You judge people on a case by case basis

[udolipixie]

Stop playing a semantics game for god f*cking sakes

 

You know exactly what I'm talking about. It's not "some who do share that principle are hypocrites", it's the overwhelming majority of women who share that principle that are hypocrites

 

I can show you pictures of my rich acquaintances who have been had everything handed to them on a silver platter since childhood that get my female attention than anybody could know what to do with. I thought not being independent was very unattractive to women?

It's not a semantics game.

 

You stated guys who aren't independent aka trust fund guys are very attractive to gals so what happened to female priniciples. You seem to be playing a game of since trust fund guys are attractive to gals that means gals can't have such principles overlooking that some gals that are attracted to the guy may not have the principles.

 

Not being independent is very unattractive to some gals and some gals don't care as I said:

"It's a bit of a logical fallacy to equate since trust fund guys are attractive to gals to what happened to female principles unless you're working under the notion gals are a hive mind. That some gals saying they prefer independence means all, most, or other gals operate in the same way. If so again having a vagina doesn't mean one's preferences are for all, most, or those in general who have a vagina.

 

I haven't seen any gals on her talking for the principles of all, most, or gals in general just their principles. Your rationale is a bit skewed and a strawman argument similiar to how when a guy says he likes chubby gals he's told 'what happened to guys liking chubby gals' as X amount of guys like thin gals and other guys like thin gals or how some guys who say they like chubby gals go for thin gals."

[EasyHeart]

Okay, but seriously: Why don't women go nuts over balding, middle-aged nerdlingers?!?!

 

It's not rational!!!

[HallowedBeThyName]

It's not a semantics game.

 

You stated guys who aren't independent aka trust fund guys are very attractive to gals so what happened to female priniciples. You seem to be playing a game of since trust fund guys are attractive to gals that means gals can't have such principles overlooking that some gals that are attracted to the guy may not have the principles.

 

 

Can you respond with an ounce of logic? Nothing you say makes any sense at all

 

 

What I'm telling you is that the avg woman doesn't like a man who lives at home past a certain age because it's deemed that man is not independent or whatever other bullsh*t women say

 

 

Yet when it comes to a man who is very dependant on his parents but is very rich so he doesn't live with his parents, that man has all the options in the world

 

 

Explain this hypocrisy and for the love of god, stop saying "Some girls might like that man and some may not". It's simply not true, the overwhelming majority of women would like the spoonfed rich boy who has always had everything handed to him on a silver platter and you know it

 

"Avg woman when asked about a man living at home

[shorty7]

Honestly darling, I wouldn't want to date you even if I was your age and looking to casually date because you have no respect for other people.

[HallowedBeThyName]

Okay, but seriously: Why don't women go nuts over balding, middle-aged nerdlingers?!?!

 

It's not rational!!!

 

 

 

It's perfectly rational

 

 

 

Balding and being middle age is not the peak of physical attractiveness. It's far removed from physical attractiveness. Women want to date studly looking men with masculine features and chiseled physique because that is what's most attractive and most healthy looking

[HallowedBeThyName]

Honestly darling, I wouldn't want to date you even if I was your age and looking to casually date because you have no respect for other people.

 

no I just have no respect for hypocrisy and idiotic viewpoints that are not based on logic

[dasein]

None of our dating preferences are rational. We can rationalize them by trying to think of some reasons we might have those preferences, but that's not how our minds work. The preference is intuitive or instinctual.

 

And those intuitive or instinctual -reasons- are in fact rational. I want to sex a woman because she elicits sexual response in me. Though based on an involuntary, instinctual response, the act of -acknowledging- such is a rational basis for attraction, a preference.

 

But that's not what is going on in this thread. Posters are making invalid factual assertions about another person's -character- based merely on their living situation with little added detail. For example, if someone mooches off their family, fine red flag, but such mooching is not a function of living under the same roof. Mooches can live anywhere, as posters have pointed out and been ignored. The same kind of analysis applies to independence, the freedom of having sex, comfort seeking behavior, being in a certain "stage of life." Just like height is no indicator of fighting prowess, living at home, without -more- is not indicative of any of the negative associations offered in the thread. Prejudice. If they admitted, "I feel less family competition from a man living away from his family," or simply, "guys with their own place make me horny," THAT'S a preference.

 

What I don't understand is the common practice on this board of trying to bully people out of their preferences.

 

Offering bogus factual underpinnings for a prejudice is the real bullying going on. I don't like OP's tone and some of his insults in later posts, but understand them to a degree because undue character assessments are being made about a class he belongs to, many of them absurd and ludicrous. Who would have thought we would see anyone here on LS trying to twist money saving behavior as some kind of a disadvantage or negative trait in seeking a mate? Yet here it is in this thread, posing as a "preference." Bizarro and total BS.

[Teknoe]

Haven't read through this entire thread. I did make a thread asking who's still living at their parents' house a while back, though. I have some experience in this field.

 

I turn 29 this summer and I'm still living at home. It's a bit embarrassing indeed. Not something I shout from the rooftops, or tell people. I dread conversations where people talk about their roommates because I always fear it will eventually zip to me "So Tek, how about you?"

 

I perfectly understand why girls see it as a turn off. Although, 22-25 to me is OK. It's not uncommon, but yes, around 27+ it gets to be a bigger issue. Since I will be turning 29, I know there are some things I need to work on first before I can even have a healthy relationship.

 

It's not natural for a person to be in their 30s still living at home. So my goal is to better myself to the point where I can move out and function on my own. It's basically a "failure to launch."

 

I have been working part time the last 4 years. I haven't really searched for a full time job -- instead being content living at home (the comforts of home life) and working part time / chilling in my excessive free time.

 

Bottom line, I hope to move out before 30. At worst, before 31. I think people these days are simply taking more time to grow up.

[HallowedBeThyName]

 

But that's not what is going on in this thread. Posters are making invalid factual assertions about another person's -character- based merely on their living situation with little added detail. For example, if someone mooches off their family, fine red flag, but such mooching is not a function of living under the same roof. Mooches can live anywhere, as posters have pointed out and been ignored. The same kind of analysis applies to independence, the freedom of having sex, comfort seeking behavior, being in a certain "stage of life." Just like height is no indicator of fighting prowess, living at home, without -more- is not indicative of any of the negative associations offered in the thread. Prejudice. If they admitted, "I feel less family competition from a man living away from his family," or simply, "guys with their own place make me horny," THAT'S a preference.

 

 

 

Mooching off your parents means nothing if you're a rich kid who has a house and car bought for you

 

 

I mean you live in an entirely different structure so obviously you're independent. It makes no difference that you've never worked a day in your life, had your parents pay for your college tuition, your apartment and your car. It's about the principles man

[Ruby Slippers]

If they admitted, "I feel less family competition from a man living away from his family," or simply, "guys with their own place make me horny," THAT'S a preference.

However you want to define it, all I can say is that a guy living with his parents turns me off, big time. And a guy who strikes out on his own and takes his lumps as a self-sufficient adult turns me on.

[HallowedBeThyName]

However you want to define it, all I can say is that a guy living with his parents turns me off, big time. And a guy who strikes out on his own and takes his lumps as a self-sufficient adult turns me on.

 

 

Let's say you meet a man who lives at home with his parents at the age of 24-25 as he pays off his student loans and saves up for a house downpayment, earns about $70,000 dollars a year and will likely buy a house in a year or two. This man could have the perfect personality and perfect appearance for what you want and will likely make six figures before he's even 28

 

 

 

So based on all that you would turn him down right?

[dasein]

OK here's an example of the difference.

 

However you want to define it, all I can say is that a guy living with his parents turns me off, big time.

 

Preference, right or wrong, superficial or not, it's how she feels. No argument really possible unless someone claims "you don't really feel that way" which is a nonstarter for obvious reasons.

 

And a guy who strikes out on his own and takes his lumps as a self-sufficient adult turns me on.

 

Prejudice, undue character assessment in attempted justification of the preference. There is not any way to tell, due to living circumstances alone, whether someone is a "self-sufficient adult" or not without other facts. No way, no how.

[udolipixie]

Can you respond with an ounce of logic? Nothing you say makes any sense at all

 

What I'm telling you is that the avg woman doesn't like a man who lives at home past a certain age because it's deemed that man is not independent or whatever other bullsh*t women say

 

Yet when it comes to a man who is very dependant on his parents but is very rich so he doesn't live with his parents, that man has all the options in the world

 

Explain this hypocrisy and for the love of god, stop saying "Some girls might like that man and some may not". It's simply not true, the overwhelming majority of women would like the spoonfed rich boy who has always had everything handed to him on a silver platter and you know it

 

"Avg woman when asked about a man living at home

 

It isn't even an ounce of logic sense that trust funds guys being attractive to gals doesn't mean 'what happened to female principles' in regards to independence as not all gals share the same that some of those gals that find him attractive have different principles.

 

It isn't even an ounce of logic that a gal's preference doesn't speak for all, most, or gals in general.

 

Some gals that don't like a guy living at home past a certain age list reasons other than not independent such as 'not enough money', 'no loud sex' or 'can't currently provide'. For the ones with reasons other than independence it's not hypocrisy when they go for the trust fund guy and the hypocrites explanation is people may go against priniciples if they like what is presented.

 

I know some gals don't like trust fund guys and some gals do as my experiences and many other guys/gals have been that.

 

I also know it's a bit of a logical reach to me to the majority of gals who have such a principle go for trust fund guys unless you have researched which gals that go after trust fund guys had the independent principle?

[HallowedBeThyName]

It isn't even an ounce of logic sense that trust funds guys being attractive to gals doesn't mean 'what happened to female principles' in regards to independence as not all gals share the same that some of those gals that find him attractive have different principles.

 

It isn't even an ounce of logic that a gal's preference doesn't speak for all, most, or gals in general.

 

Some gals that don't like a guy living at home past a certain age list reasons other than not independent such as 'not enough money', 'no loud sex' or 'can't currently provide'. For the ones with reasons other than independence it's not hypocrisy when they go for the trust fund guy and the hypocrites explanation is people may go against priniciples if they like what is presented.

 

I know some gals don't like trust fund guys and some gals do as my experiences and many other guys/gals have been that.

 

I also know it's a bit of a logical reach to me to the majority of gals who have such a principle go for trust fund guys unless you have researched which gals that go after trust fund guys had the independent principle?

 

 

 

 

I don't know if you're foreign or what the problem is, but your writing fluency is absolutely terrible and I have no idea what you're saying in the above post

 

 

Please learn to express your thoughts clearly with proper and well constructed sentences. I don't know how to respond to that because I have no idea what your points are

[udolipixie]

Prejudice, undue character assessment in attempted justification of the preference. There is not any way to tell, due to living circumstances alone, whether someone is a "self-sufficient adult" or not without other facts. No way, no how.

Offnote: Absolutely amusing how you're on about prejudice when you often go into how gals are X, Y, Z because they prefer this & that such as gals who like height or have a requirement due so out of vanity to impress others and the need to gain status. By your logic there is not any way to tell, due to likeing tall guys, whether a gal is doing it out of vanity to impress others and the need to gain status.

[Ruby Slippers]

Let's say you meet a man who lives at home with his parents at the age of 24-25 as he pays off his student loans and saves up for a house downpayment, earns about $70,000 dollars a year and will likely buy a house in a year or two. This man could have the perfect personality and perfect appearance for what you want and will likely make six figures before he's even 28

 

 

 

So based on all that you would turn him down right?

Yeah. It's not about the money. It's about the man.

 

Like I said, I left the nest at 17 and haven't gone back. For me, this was natural. Adults birds don't stay in the nest collecting all the materials for their own nest someday. They fly to another branch and start building it up bit by bit. I admire the courage and hard work involved in that.

 

And by the way, I did have one serious relationship with a guy who lived at home into his 20s. He sounded exactly like you while he still lived at home, going on and on about how he didn't want to live in some crappy, expensive, dangerous apartment when he could live in a spacious home with all the creature comforts and save his money. His mother had convinced him that only "drifters" lived in apartments. To me, this was an amusing and obvious ploy to get him to stay with her longer.

 

Once he finally moved out, he said he couldn't believe he had waited so long, and that going back would feel like being a fish out of water. He also says he now loves apartment/condo living, where other people take care of the tedious yard work, expensive building repairs, etc.