3 ms·

The point was to say it without saying it, to provoke introspection in their arbitrary associations. The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the f

The point was to say it without saying it, to provoke introspection in their arbitrary associations. The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job. And yet, this person chose that specific aspect of the relationship and elevated that to relevance for other relationships. Even further, they are applying this to people in other cities and geographies, amplifying the absurdity.

diputsmonro 5y ago
- vmception 5y ago
  Structure of a dating discussion: vilify anyone that doesn't pretend its awesome
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Says the person vilifying someone for stating their requirement for romantic consideration is that the other person has the basic requisite for a stable lifestyle. *No I don't want to hear edge cases about what constitutes a job; the context here was clear enough.
    - vmception 5y ago
      I think they didn't say unemployed for a reason, which is why I didn't say unemployed for a reason. Not having a job is different than needing a job for food and shelter and any flexibility, the former is "not having a job" the latter is "unemployed". I don’t consider that an edge case. What I got out of it is that they had a bad experience with someone not occupying their time with something. I "vilify", or more-so call out, their overfitting. You’re assuming they didnt have a basic stable lifestyle AND that they became a burden to OP. I’m assuming they could have had any level of stability and became a burden to OP for any reason, that at least removes the predictive capability for determining if the other potential partners would become a burden to OP.
      - MathCodeLove 5y ago
        They didn't "overfit" though. They shared their experience - they didn't say that their experience is normative (although I expect it is). People are allowed to share anecdotes.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
RHSeeger 5y ago
> The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job. Maybe not. However, - If they haven't been able to identify what the real issue _is_, AND - Avoiding dating people that don't have a day job limits (or completely prevents) dating people that do have the real issue, AND - Avoiding said people doesn't limit the number of available people to date below a reasonable threshold, THEN - Using "doesn't have a day job" as a filter seems to be a reasonable compromise for them. Sure, it may prevent them from finding the "best" match, since there could be a person without a job that doesn't exhibit the real problem. But it's possible that removing that filter would cause so much wasted time (on dates with bad matches) that the odds of meeting a good match, nonetheless the best match, as significantly diminished (as is QoL).
- 999900000999 5y ago
  There are a few excellent reasons to never get involved with someone who doesn't have a job. The first one is the vast majority of divorces are due to financial issues, my last partner left both of her husbands because they weren't making enough money. Her first husband didn't really want to work and they ended up moving in with her parents. A close family member had to break up with her husband since he wasn't working and kept overdrafting the joint account The second reason, is this person who doesn't work is probably being supported by someone else. Their sugar daddy's going to want to hurt you. I made the mistake once when I was younger of going out with a girl who didn't have a job, and this is basically what happened. Finally, people with jobs tend to be much more straightforward. You have a right to whatever dating criteria you choose. Some people won't date someone whose below a certain height. It's easier to fill out a job application than to become taller.

diputsmonro 5y ago

vmception 5y ago
Structure of a dating discussion: vilify anyone that doesn't pretend its awesome
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  Says the person vilifying someone for stating their requirement for romantic consideration is that the other person has the basic requisite for a stable lifestyle. *No I don't want to hear edge cases about what constitutes a job; the context here was clear enough.
  - vmception 5y ago
    I think they didn't say unemployed for a reason, which is why I didn't say unemployed for a reason. Not having a job is different than needing a job for food and shelter and any flexibility, the former is "not having a job" the latter is "unemployed". I don’t consider that an edge case. What I got out of it is that they had a bad experience with someone not occupying their time with something. I "vilify", or more-so call out, their overfitting. You’re assuming they didnt have a basic stable lifestyle AND that they became a burden to OP. I’m assuming they could have had any level of stability and became a burden to OP for any reason, that at least removes the predictive capability for determining if the other potential partners would become a burden to OP.
    - MathCodeLove 5y ago
      They didn't "overfit" though. They shared their experience - they didn't say that their experience is normative (although I expect it is). People are allowed to share anecdotes.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

RHSeeger 5y ago

> The "it" being that the issue wasn't that they - and the future potential partners - didn't have a day job. Maybe not. However, - If they haven't been able to identify what the real issue _is_, AND - Avoiding dating people that don't have a day job limits (or completely prevents) dating people that do have the real issue, AND - Avoiding said people doesn't limit the number of available people to date below a reasonable threshold, THEN - Using "doesn't have a day job" as a filter seems to be a reasonable compromise for them. Sure, it may prevent them from finding the "best" match, since there could be a person without a job that doesn't exhibit the real problem. But it's possible that removing that filter would cause so much wasted time (on dates with bad matches) that the odds of meeting a good match, nonetheless the best match, as significantly diminished (as is QoL).

999900000999 5y ago
There are a few excellent reasons to never get involved with someone who doesn't have a job. The first one is the vast majority of divorces are due to financial issues, my last partner left both of her husbands because they weren't making enough money. Her first husband didn't really want to work and they ended up moving in with her parents. A close family member had to break up with her husband since he wasn't working and kept overdrafting the joint account The second reason, is this person who doesn't work is probably being supported by someone else. Their sugar daddy's going to want to hurt you. I made the mistake once when I was younger of going out with a girl who didn't have a job, and this is basically what happened. Finally, people with jobs tend to be much more straightforward. You have a right to whatever dating criteria you choose. Some people won't date someone whose below a certain height. It's easier to fill out a job application than to become taller.