How much would screening change if LE was no longer an issue?

I assured her it was just some overly-nosey woman.
.............................. ....

Hey, nothing wrong with being a gold-digger if that's a lady's thing; she's just not my "type."
Originally Posted by Laurentius

yes - that was so far out of line, there is zero reason for her to investigate you. You're paying for her services, not dating her for a life. Good for you for cancelling the appointment.

I have a question though: in the civilian world is it wrong for a women hold her lovers to certain standards? Don't you have certain intellectual and physical standards? I have intellectual and financial standards (and mine don't suck - I am debt free; own two companies, both my cars and my home - so I'm bringing something to the table here....). I have a past that I'm proud of, but I assume will bring some problems with a long term relationship at some point, should I start dating again: but for the most part - I'm a good catch and I want one too...

Having been a sucker for love (I've dated a bank robber from mexico and a buddhist from a yoga retreat in Costa Rica; both were big fat liars) and being a little type A - like a lot of men I am attracted to: don't want to waste a lot of time and I don't want to be dating bozo's. So cutting to the chase is efficient for both me and my potential partners.

I understand the desire to protect yourself, but I think that you would want a woman that has minimum standards -- standards that aren't all about finance: but if a man doesn't have it together by my desired age range of 45-55; they're not going to, so finance is part of being a good catch....so is kindness and doing good works in the world (I do those too and want that in a partner); do you think you limited yourself to someone who doesn't ask for much? Do any of the accompaning character traits of a woman like that have anything to do with why you're here now?

Seems like a lot of trouble to make your self look like what you claim that you are not....just patience, calmness, and a realistic view of human nature. She can reaserch what she wants...but I ain't telling much. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I was younger then ... than I am now. Now I have less reason to hide it and, really, at this point, anyone who types my name into google would know better. But I still call myself "janitor."

But, at the time, that is what I did.

To put it in perspective, I had married as a virgin and had never dated or anything. I got cut loose when I was 30 and was naive as hell. I was really clueless about the games people play, and was seriously ill equipped to play them. Basically, I was meeting 30-40 year old women with tons of dating experience compared to me basically being like an 18 year old.

Rather quickly I found myself enmeshed with women who were experts where I was a novice. After a time or two around of relationships where I was seriously attached to the woman but she was seriously attached to my wallet; while I was still not equipped to play in that league; I was smart enough to exit.

So instead of personal ads mentioning I was a business owner; they would instead mention that I am a hunter. It gives a totally different impression and attracts a different kind of woman. Due to stereotypes, a lot of folks would look at that and make some pretty negative assumptions. Those that wouldn't make such assumptions were what I was looking for.

Not that the other kind of woman is a bad thing for some other guy. But it was just a bad thing for *me*.

and being a little type A Originally Posted by Sydneyb

In the "real world" a while back, I was dating on one of the mainstream sites and used my screening skills learned as a provider and stepped it up a notch or two.

Because I am not someone who could work as a provider while dating someone exclusively - and dating someone exclusively was my desire at the time - there was an opportunity cost involved in dating someone. Therefore, lifestyle mattered. I would be giving up a lot to date someone; I wanted it all or not at all.

For every 100 inquires, I went out with approx 3-5 men. This part was screened on basic compatibility. Did I like his style of communication, did he want more children (no thank you!), etc. Once we got past that and self selected to a low 3-5%, I would do my research.........

. Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Helpful, so at least for you in the civie world the vetting is less about personal safety and much more about saving time by not wasting it on someone that ultimately meet your criteria. But, oh yeah, you do it...

I have a question though: in the civilian world is it wrong for a women hold her lovers to certain standards? Don't you have certain intellectual and physical standards? I have intellectual and financial standards .....
........ So cutting to the chase is efficient for both me and my potential partners.
Originally Posted by Sydneyb

The question is not right or wrong, because they always will...

Women always have (going back to the days of the caveman -- the stronger, fitter man ostensibly would be the better hunter, etc.).

The markers have changed: schools, jobs, family name, cars, houses etc. Now you can add to that some more sophistication with online databases of public records, etc.

I think the more practical question is how do you broach the conversation of means (or any other delicate topic) in a relationship? Research is imperfect - at best suggestive of reality. Custom and courtesy require you reach some level of commitment/intimacy before you have a direct candid discussion about the topic. (Obviously an over the top example, but) You don't sit down at your first meeting and say, "You look great on paper but I have few questions: about the collateral on the line of credit...."

Personally I don't think it is wrong make finances or anything else if it truly is a prerequisite for your happiness. On the otherhand, should you decide to take a trip down the aisle and utter the words for better or worse I would hope they aren't empty promises should things go south.

Very insightful, Sydneyb.


“I have a question though: in the civilian world is it wrong for a women hold her lovers to certain standards?”


It is NOT wrong for you to have standards of whatever type you desire – intellectual, financial, ethical or physical. In fact, you should, IMO, have standards. No such standards, IMO, could be labeled as “wrong.”


There are some realistic limitations, of course. If you set your intellectual standards to only include men with IQ exceeding 170; you'd have very few men from which to choose. If you set your financial standards to men with net worth exceeding $20M you'd have the same issue. But these are practical rather than moral issues.


“So cutting to the chase is efficient for both me and my potential partners.”


Personally, I agree. Letting a man know up-front what you require is admirable. However, if prior to even a first date I discovered a woman had been digging up financial data on me; I would feel violated even if the data could be gathered via public means. But if you figured out I was the Director of Nonesuch at XYZ it wouldn't bother me.


I DO realize that men lie; and you'd want to check these things out. But IMO, prior to a first date is too soon – ESPECIALLY since a huge proportion of publicly available data is wildly inaccurate. A man is then, unknowingly, waging a battle of credibility he is likely destined to lose even if he is being honest. If you want a man to bring a copy of the prior year's income tax return, you should tell him in advance and you should bring yours. That's just my opinion because, in all cases of this sort, a woman's prerogative prevails.


“... but I think that you would want a woman that has minimum standards -- standards that aren't all about finance: “


Absolutely! I am a bit of an intellectual – one of those guys who was finishing college while others were still in high school. I won't elaborate further, but at 43 I'm still in college (and sometimes teach) so you can guess. So I'd want a woman who could appreciate that. But I am also a former mercenary, a martial artist and stuff. So I'd want the woman to not be depending on me being some sort of geek. I'm involved in all sorts of stuff – charities, political, etc. – and even if she didn't quite echo my views, I'd want her to accept and maybe even admire some of the good I do and have done. And I am constantly starting and spinning off small businesses and stuff. (It is more an outlet for my creativity than anything else. They just happen to usually (not always) make money.)


And, yes, I think any mature woman with even a grain of sense (in my opinion) should seek a man who is financially stable at least. Losers living in mom's basement and stuff should be out of the running. By the time a guy is 40, again just my opinion, if he has any debt at all it shouldn't extend beyond maybe a mortgage and a car loan and his income should be consistent and sufficient.


I guess what I objected to, in a sense, wasn't so much that a woman would want a financially stable guy; but the concentration on the appearances – the trappings. There was a certain superficiality to it that bothered me a lot. It seemed all they cared about was the dollar figure; and they couldn't care less if I had achieved it by stealing pension funds from little old ladies or finding cures for cancer. They were more impressed with the car than they were with the essential “me.” I'm not sure if I'm explaining that well, but you are insightful so I think you know what I am getting at.


“Do any of the accompanying character traits of a woman like that have anything to do with why you're here now?”


I don't think so. My wife had standards aplenty, though I admit she got a pleasant surprise two weeks after we married and I added her to the bank accounts. But it is not like I was pretending to be indigent either. It's not like I could hide being bright, or being a caring person.


My wife had some pre-existing psychological issues of which I was unaware that kicked in within a year of marriage that rendered her incapable of self-care much less sex.


She is beautiful, smart and a truly kind and caring woman of the highest caliber. I am sure you hear men complaining about their wives all the time – but, really, there isn't a malicious or evil bone in her body. She'd love me if the stock market crashed wiping out our investments, my businesses all went under, etc. Because she loves me for who I am, not the trappings.


For now, her sexual role is outsourced. But I look forward to a time when her issues are sufficiently resolved that won't be needed.

For now, her sexual role is outsourced. . Originally Posted by Laurentius

LOL......never heard it put like that!

Very insightful, Sydneyb.


“I have a question though: in the civilian world is it wrong for a women hold her lovers to certain standards?”


It is NOT wrong for you to have standards of whatever type you desire – intellectual, financial, ethical or physical. In fact, you should, IMO, have standards. No such standards, IMO, could be labeled as “wrong.”


There are some realistic limitations, of course. If you set your intellectual standards to only include men with IQ exceeding 170; you'd have very few men from which to choose. If you set your financial standards to men with net worth exceeding $20M you'd have the same issue. But these are practical rather than moral issues.


“So cutting to the chase is efficient for both me and my potential partners.”


Personally, I agree. Letting a man know up-front what you require is admirable. However, if prior to even a first date I discovered a woman had been digging up financial data on me; I would feel violated even if the data could be gathered via public means. But if you figured out I was the Director of Nonesuch at XYZ it wouldn't bother me.


I DO realize that men lie; and you'd want to check these things out. But IMO, prior to a first date is too soon – ESPECIALLY since a huge proportion of publicly available data is wildly inaccurate. A man is then, unknowingly, waging a battle of credibility he is likely destined to lose even if he is being honest. If you want a man to bring a copy of the prior year's income tax return, you should tell him in advance and you should bring yours. That's just my opinion because, in all cases of this sort, a woman's prerogative prevails.


“... but I think that you would want a woman that has minimum standards -- standards that aren't all about finance: “


Absolutely! I am a bit of an intellectual – one of those guys who was finishing college while others were still in high school. I won't elaborate further, but at 43 I'm still in college (and sometimes teach) so you can guess. So I'd want a woman who could appreciate that. But I am also a former mercenary, a martial artist and stuff. So I'd want the woman to not be depending on me being some sort of geek. I'm involved in all sorts of stuff – charities, political, etc. – and even if she didn't quite echo my views, I'd want her to accept and maybe even admire some of the good I do and have done. And I am constantly starting and spinning off small businesses and stuff. (It is more an outlet for my creativity than anything else. They just happen to usually (not always) make money.)


And, yes, I think any mature woman with even a grain of sense (in my opinion) should seek a man who is financially stable at least. Losers living in mom's basement and stuff should be out of the running. By the time a guy is 40, again just my opinion, if he has any debt at all it shouldn't extend beyond maybe a mortgage and a car loan and his income should be consistent and sufficient.


I guess what I objected to, in a sense, wasn't so much that a woman would want a financially stable guy; but the concentration on the appearances – the trappings. There was a certain superficiality to it that bothered me a lot. It seemed all they cared about was the dollar figure; and they couldn't care less if I had achieved it by stealing pension funds from little old ladies or finding cures for cancer. They were more impressed with the car than they were with the essential “me.” I'm not sure if I'm explaining that well, but you are insightful so I think you know what I am getting at.


“Do any of the accompanying character traits of a woman like that have anything to do with why you're here now?”


I don't think so. My wife had standards aplenty, though I admit she got a pleasant surprise two weeks after we married and I added her to the bank accounts. But it is not like I was pretending to be indigent either. It's not like I could hide being bright, or being a caring person.


My wife had some pre-existing psychological issues of which I was unaware that kicked in within a year of marriage that rendered her incapable of self-care much less sex.


She is beautiful, smart and a truly kind and caring woman of the highest caliber. I am sure you hear men complaining about their wives all the time – but, really, there isn't a malicious or evil bone in her body. She'd love me if the stock market crashed wiping out our investments, my businesses all went under, etc. Because she loves me for who I am, not the trappings.


For now, her sexual role is outsourced. But I look forward to a time when her issues are sufficiently resolved that won't be needed. Originally Posted by Laurentius

Because I don't watch any television.

But he looks AWFULLY hunky.

If only all clients looked like that -- I sure don't!

:-)

Becky, I have your headache

Very insightful, Sydneyb.
.....



...... Originally Posted by Laurentius

But I guarantee you it is *very* easy for a woman to render me speechless.

If she's really good, she can even do it with my clothing intact.

Helpful, so at least for you in the civie world the vetting is less about personal safety and much more about saving time by not wasting it on someone that ultimately meet your criteria. But, oh yeah, you do it...
..........

I think the more practical question is how do you broach the conversation of means (or any other delicate topic) in a relationship? Research is imperfect - at best suggestive of reality. Custom and courtesy require you reach some level of commitment/intimacy before you have a direct candid discussion about the topic. (Obviously an over the top example, but) You don't sit down at your first meeting and say, "You look great on paper but I have few questions: about the collateral on the line of credit...."

Personally I don't think it is wrong make finances or anything else if it truly is a prerequisite for your happiness. On the otherhand, should you decide to take a trip down the aisle and utter the words for better or worse I would hope they aren't empty promises should things go south. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Agreed ALT: I wouldn't approach a conversation about means until it became my business (that's not to say I wouldn't be a nosy jerk before it was my business, but that's just me ;-). Certainly not overtly ever. But I would invite him to charity events that I work on, he would invite me to his; I would invite him to my season tickets at the theatre, he would invite me to one of his interests. It would play out by the way we dated and our lifestyle together.

I think it would become my business when we started to discuss a life with one another, what that's going to look like and an evaluation of our resources to sustain/create/maintain it together.

And yes, once I we're walking down the aisle, I'm over the finance part. If that is all I want, I have all the independence and access to resources I need now and a commitment to be his mistress until one of us is dead. Its the life partnership that's missing and will need to be fufilled someday.

L - I LOVED the sexual outsourcing reference. Talk about cutting to the chase! Love it!

It is easier for me to just look like what I am. But looking like what I am doesn't mean I have to be a patsy...nor do I have to be Mr. Big. I am neither. But it doesn't take a lot of sophistication (God knows, I ain't a sophisticate ) to feel your way through a woman...just patience, calmness, and a realistic view of human nature. She can reaserch what she wants...but I ain't telling much. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I disagree with this. I truly believe some women can be devious enough to use you for not other reason than their gain. And although I probably was never as naive as L, I was close. My saving grace, if there was one, is that I never trusted any woman until I met my SO, who is sooooo transparent I am convinced she could not be devious or be a manipulator [break that word down, LOL].

I think it would become my business when we started to discuss a life with one another, what that's going to look like and an evaluation of our resources to sustain/create/maintain it together.

And yes, once I we're walking down the aisle, I'm over the finance part. If that is all I want, I have all the independence and access to resources I need now and a commitment to be his mistress until one of us is dead. Its the life partnership that's missing and will need to be fufilled someday.

L - I LOVED the sexual outsourcing reference. Talk about cutting to the chase! Love it! Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Since the major reason for divorces in the US is finances, I would expect that subject to come up very early if the parties see that the relationship is going some place. The only other things that I think need early discussion are kids (how many and theory of discipline) and where to live/whose career to follow. All these discussions should be blunt, to the point and sincere. Any sidestepping (I was going to say pussyfooting, but ) of the issue should bring any plans to a screeching halt. You cannot plan for every bump in the road, but you can practice preventive care.

I disagree with this. I truly believe some women can be devious enough to use you for not other reason than their gain. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I think it would be more accurate to say that there are people who will do so. It is not purely the domain of one gender.

Since the major reason for divorces in the US is finances, I would expect that subject to come up very early if the parties see that the relationship is going some place. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Good point. I must say though that if things progressed and I then found out that a gal had researched my finances before a first date I would be quite upset about it; probably would end things right there and then.

I think it would be more accurate to say that there are people who will do so. It is not purely the domain of one gender. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yeah, I'll concede the point, but we were talking in the context of a heterosexual relationship, and I was seeing it from the man's POV.

Agreed ALT: I wouldn't approach a conversation about means until it became my business (that's not to say I wouldn't be a nosy jerk before it was my business, but that's just me ;-). Certainly not overtly ever. But I would invite him to charity events that I work on, he would invite me to his; I would invite him to my season tickets at the theatre, he would invite me to one of his interests. It would play out by the way we dated and our lifestyle together.

I think it would become my business when we started to discuss a life with one another, what that's going to look like and an evaluation of our resources to sustain/create/maintain it together.

! Originally Posted by Sydneyb

Since the major reason for divorces in the US is finances, I would expect that subject to come up very early if the parties see that the relationship is going some place. The only other things that I think need early discussion are kids (how many and theory of discipline) and where to live/whose career to follow. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I tend to follow Sydney here. There should be some natural courtship and maybe exposure to each others lives before the finance (and career talk) need to come up.

The kids (present & future) thing might come up sooner. Isn't that even one of the screener questions on those date sites?

Good point. I must say though that if things progressed and I then found out that a gal had researched my finances before a first date I would be quite upset about it; probably would end things right there and then. Originally Posted by discreetgent

I'm in that camp too. It would at least count as two strikes to the negative. I'm talking about a hard core vetting not just politely asking around town about a potential new beau.