Fussy finances

Last week news broke of a survey conducted by online dating company Parship, which found that Irish women are the fussiest in Europe.

Money was a big issue for most, with 55 per cent of women saying they wouldn’t date an unemployed man and almost one-third saying they could ‘barely accept it’. Eighty-four per cent of women don’t want their partner to be financially dependent on them, while just 46.4 per cent of men say this is an important issue.

What the survey completely fails to mention is that a fairly high proportion of men in their twenties and thirties are now unemployed. During the Celtic Tiger, being unemployed was pretty unusual and in a lot of cases, it showed nothing more than a lack of motivation, but we ain’t in Kansas any more.

This leaves us in something of a quandary; do these ‘fussy’ women lower their standards in order to acknowledge the prevailing realities, or will they just have to take a vow of chastity until the recession ends and all the former young up-and-coming professionals regain their jobs along with their eligibility?

Women were fussier than men about almost everything in this survey, and men were only more choosy in two categories; the importance of good looks and ‘a toned body’.

With some experts predicting that the recession could last more than five years, a lot of women could reach age barriers they haven’t yet considered. By the time the recession is over, they could have a whole new set of worries – ticking biological clocks, wrinkles and even, as Celia Holman Lee is currently advising us from a pharmacy window near you, thinning hair!

So here’s the equation. With 55 per cent of women refusing to date someone who’s unemployed, five years to wait before the 10 per cent of unemployed people see a rise in the jobs market, and 60 per cent of men, in the same survey, saying good looks are very important to them… how do you add it all up?

They say quality is one of the first casualties of a recession – cutbacks are resulting in poorer products and fewer options in every sector, but has anyone thought of how it’s impacting on our love lives? It’ll be interesting to see if next year’s survey has the same results.

Being sexy in politics

Ok , so most of us would agree that being sexy is no bad thing. Most of the time. But why is this even an issue in something like the US Presidential Election?

It's human nature that we prefer someone who is good looking to someone who isn't. But overcoming our natural instincts and letting logic have a role is part of what makes us human.

So, hearing Sam Smyth, for whom I generally have great respect, asking Ed Hayes, the Sunday Supplement's US snitch, if he "fancies" Sarah Palin, was a bit of a pain.

Why should fancying a candidate make them any better at their job? And why should this question only be asked about women?

Hillary Clinton is perceived as too intellectual, too tough and too 'willing to do anything to succeed' for most voters, particularly most men. All these 'unfeminine' characteristics are part of what lost her the Democratic nomination. Also, she just isn't hot.

Granted, Obama is attractive. And granted, this won't have done his chances any harm. But have you heard anyone asked recently, on a quality current affairs programme, if they "fancy" him?

Grow up, Sam.