We do not have the full details regarding the guy's situation and you certainly have a legit point based on the evidence that you saw. Each to his own when drawing his conclusions based on the lack of full evidence.Findog said:There's not enough to go on in the details provided for me to say the guy's a loser or not. Maybe he is, but it's kind of offensive to me to label a guy a "loser" because he hasn't accumulated as much material possessions as the next guy. What makes a person a loser? Is it a benchmark of things they should have accomplished by a certain age? Is it their attitude and disposition? Is it what they chose to do with their free time?
He's a supervisor at a "nice restaurant" in a state with double-digit unemployment at the age of 27. That's not the mark of a "loser" to me. Maybe the guy is living with roommates and keeping his living costs down because he's saving up money for a rainy day, his eventual retirement or a place of his own. Who knows? Just not enough details. Or maybe he really is drifting through life. The OP never presented any evidence of the guy being a loser other than his car wasn't as nice as the BMW the new guy has, and he's living with roommates whereas the new guy has a nice condo of his own. I can certainly agree that on paper and the surface the new guy has a bit better resume, but it's kind of offensive to me to slam the old guy as a "loser" solely because he doesn't have as much stuff or toys.
I'm all for being ambitious and striving to better ourselves personally and professionally, and if the OP's point was to not get complacent in a relationship and that women value men that are ambitious and going places in life, I have no argument with that. This was just a very poor example to try and illustrate that maxim. Defending a cheater and blaming the guy for her infidelity is just obnoxious, and he got pissy and couldn't handle it when some of the posters pushed back on him for that.
However, I draw a different conclusion b/c of the way we perceive what is defined as a "loser". I routinely see you state that this guy isn't a loser b/c he is a restaurant manager making decent enough money in an economy that is in shambles. I think he's a loser NOT b/c of his status but b/c of statements from BB that point to the guy's intrinsic lack of alphaness.
Very rarely does a guy just pigeonhole another guy into a loser category simply b/c the guy doesn't make enough money. It seems to me what happened was that BB saw this guy as weak and a loser from the very beginning and backward rationalized why he thought was a loser using examples such as the guy's sh*tty job or inability to pay for his trips to Hawaii when in fact there are other underlying reasons. If he truly felt a guy's status/job defined whether or not a guy was a loser, there would be no way he would support someone like Warrior74, who seems to be in a financial mess b/c of unfortunate circumstances.
One thing I know is this. I have a friend who is a restaurant manager. He's about as young as the guy in this thread and makes about 50k a year (probably less than the guy mentioned in the post). Not a great looking guy but classy and alpha as f--k. My friends from Harvard Med School, Rhodes Scholars, Fulbright, and investment banking friends making 250k+ respect the guy. He is quite a character and I bet you if I replace this guy with BB's acquaintance, BB will not be saying the same things. Not even close.
Again, to make sure that my comments are not misconstrued, I'm NOT condoning the behavior of the woman for cheating. I f--king hate branch swinging and cheating women. I sympathize with the guy for that. We all went through something like this and that's why we are here.
However, I don't buy that this guy is at 0 fault. He doesn't get a free pass for simply having a stable job. I see some red flags in both directions and some of them point to him for the mess he's in.