Jump to content

Asexuals are poorer?


ily

Economics...  

  1. 1. What economic level are you at?

    • Asbolutely impoverished
      8
    • Poor
      24
    • Lower middle class
      35
    • Middle class
      53
    • Upper middle class
      23
    • Well-off
      11
    • Rich
      4
    • Really rich
      0
    • Sky's the limit
      3

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

According to everyone's favorite study by Anthony Bogaert, asexuals are of lower socio-economic status than sexuals. I'm wondering if that's true for the folks here. I know talking about money is awkward, so please don't be offended. ;) I used the categories I did because currencies vary, and what's poor in one place could be considered well-off in another. These are terms that I know are familiar to most in America, at least. Poll away...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm lower middle class by UK standards, which I'm not too sure but might be a bit different by American standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
spoonsfromdenmark

I voted for my mother and father's economic status since I'm still a dependent. I wrote a sociology paper about my Dad a couple of a years ago and had to figure out his status for that. I don't think it's changed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our family is:

Asset rich and debt-free.

Usually cash and income poor (by choice: made possible by the above and a non-consumerist/non-materialist lifestyle), but we can get high freelance income if needed. Frankly we'd rather spend our time enjoying what we have than working our backsides off to get more than we need.

So poor, and well-off, both at the same time :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
PatrickOOOMazing

i voted skys the limit, as i really dont know where i would fall otherwise

im a smart investor with a conscious mind for my future well being, and the means to achieve most all of my desires (the luxury personal submarine [80 million] might have to wait however. http://www.ussubs.com/submarines/phoenix_1000.php3 )

like most other topics which might lead one to believe that asexuals are in some way apart from the rest of society in faculties not directly relating to sexuality, i find myself confused with this connection drawn between wealth and asexuality.

however this keeps cropping up, what with topics questioning whether asexuals are more emotional or more intelligent than their average sexual counterpart.

im on the fence. however, i find this an interesting topic none the less.

on a personal note, i have experienced a heightened degree of scrutinization by lending institutions for factors in my life which are at least partly the result of my sexual orientation. for instance, trying to get a decent mortgage without a spouse is nearly impossible here.

also, could you cite the reference to anthony bogaert's claim? im curious as to the thought process behind such a claim, or whether there are any statistics to back it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nalle Neversure

Those economic levels aren't so much in use in here, but I give it a try.

According to Finland's way of defining poor I am one. Students rarely are rich in here... But my parents are doing well and I'm still dependent on them, as much as I try to pretend I wasn't. If I ever manage to graduate and get a job I'm gonna be well-paid. :P

So as a compromise I voted for lower middle class.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still dependant on my parents, but we do seem to have a lot more disposable income with a lack of debts considering how much my parents object that they are poor.

So i went for middle class.

Rix

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to everyone's favorite study by Anthony Bogaert, asexuals are of lower socio-economic status than sexuals. I'm wondering if that's true for the folks here. I know talking about money is awkward, so please don't be offended. ;) I used the categories I did because currencies vary, and what's poor in one place could be considered well-off in another. These are terms that I know are familiar to most in America, at least. Poll away...

Well, let's just say I'm not poor.

(Actually, I am poor, and have no money to my personal name whatsoever, but considering I still live at home and don't actually pay for anything, I'll go with the family.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
borrowedTime

Surely if you answer based on your family, that's likely to distort the results... because most families are based around a sexual couple, and their income level and class has little to do with the sexuality or lack thereof of one member of the family.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have money, but I also don't place any value in it.

I quite dislike the fact that we need it to live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i've no idea where to vote, so i just won't vote...

for my needs.. i am quite poor, though :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

I know that a lot of asexuals are less than thrilled with some of the stats in the Bogaert's first paper on asexuality (as I understand it, he was a bit surprised himself.) The asexuals were more likely than sexuals to be non-white, on average, came from a lower socioeconomic background, be somewhat less educated. The average height of asexuals was a little lower, as were weight, and they tended be a little less healthy. The predictors were a little bit different for men and women. it is a bit depressing.

anyway, as a whole, i think differences weren't that big. It would be nice to see if these were replicated. Also, I think it would be good if a better operational definition for asexuality were used (but we'll have to wait a long time for that.) Anyway, a lot of AVEN polls have been done to see if these are true (pretty much never confirming them.) to me, this just shows that AVEN users aren't anywhere representative of asexuals in general, not that the results of the Bogaert study are invalid.

I also suspect that the concentation of students on AVEN indicates that most of us don't have a lot of money.

Also, like most Americans, I consider myself "middle class."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Surely if you answer based on your family, that's likely to distort the results... because most families are based around a sexual couple, and their income level and class has little to do with the sexuality or lack thereof of one member of the family.

I suppose that if your parents claim you as a dependent, then you should answer based on your parents' status. Otherwise, it's all you. I'm poor, and here I am thinking most Americans are poor, too...funny, that... :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The asexuals were more likely than sexuals to be non-white (I'm white), on average, came from a lower socioeconomic background (middle class), be somewhat less educated (three college degrees). The average height of asexuals was a little lower (five foot eight), as were weight, and they tended be a little less healthy (and I jog two miles, four times a week, which is better than most people can do!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd seem odd if asexuals were collectively in worse financial shape than the norm given asexuals are probably (much) less likely to have children than the norm and children are very expensive. Among the people I work with those with the highest net worths are often those who never married or had children.

Also, aromantic asexuals are less likely to spend money on courtship or courtship related expenses (e.g. expenses to improve one's image).

Link to post
Share on other sites
borrowedTime
I suppose that if your parents claim you as a dependent, then you should answer based on your parents' status.

Well, yes, I suppose it depends on whether the hypothesis being studied is "being poorer makes you asexual" or "being asexual makes you poorer". For the former, your parents' status is important; for the latter, it could conceal or alter the results (and in this case I were doing a study I'd distinguish the groups of subjects, or establish poverty in a different way).

It'd seem odd if asexuals were collectively in worse financial shape than the norm given asexuals are probably (much) less likely to have children than the norm and children are very expensive. Among the people I work with those with the highest net worths are often those who never married or had children.

Also, aromantic asexuals are less likely to spend money on courtship or courtship related expenses (e.g. expenses to improve one's image).

On the other hand, living together is cheaper than living alone.

But I would ask whether there were other factors in play.

For instance, many people have noted a correlation between asexuality and depression: it wouldn't be surprising if this were leading to an increase in poverty and a decrease in health.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd seem odd if asexuals were collectively in worse financial shape than the norm given asexuals are probably (much) less likely to have children than the norm and children are very expensive. Among the people I work with those with the highest net worths are often those who never married or had children.

Also, aromantic asexuals are less likely to spend money on courtship or courtship related expenses (e.g. expenses to improve one's image).

On the other hand, living together is cheaper than living alone.

But I would ask whether there were other factors in play.

For instance, many people have noted a correlation between asexuality and depression: it wouldn't be surprising if this were leading to an increase in poverty and a decrease in health.

I'd agree that there's potential for greater financial well-being with shared expenses, however I suspect it's relatively rare due to children; divorces; difficulty being stingy when loved one's are affected; and gift giving.

I agree that if asexuals have a higher rate of depression that'd probably have a negative impact on finances among asexuals as a whole (not so for individuals since I can think of ways depression can express itself that'd actually improve finances, however those forms of expression are probably atypical).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bellatrixx

My family is fairly well-off for where I live and I live in one of the richest areas of the country...

But that's not me at all, I'm still financially dependent on my parents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Left to my own devices, I'd be dirt poor, as I'm making grad student money at the moment. But I'm considerably better off by virtue of continuing to live with my parents.

As for the study, I'd be on the lookout for lurking variables. I doubt the correlation is really that simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the study, I'd be on the lookout for lurking variables. I doubt the correlation is really that simple.

Oh, totally. First rule is always that correlation doesn't equal causation. There's no way to know for sure, but it's interesting to speculate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
It'd seem odd if asexuals were collectively in worse financial shape than the norm given asexuals are probably (much) less likely to have children than the norm and children are very expensive. Among the people I work with those with the highest net worths are often those who never married or had children.

Also, aromantic asexuals are less likely to spend money on courtship or courtship related expenses (e.g. expenses to improve one's image).

On the other hand, living together is cheaper than living alone.

But I would ask whether there were other factors in play.

For instance, many people have noted a correlation between asexuality and depression: it wouldn't be surprising if this were leading to an increase in poverty and a decrease in health.

I'd agree that there's potential for greater financial well-being with shared expenses, however I suspect it's relatively rare due to children; divorces; difficulty being stingy when loved one's are affected; and gift giving.

I agree that if asexuals have a higher rate of depression that'd probably have a negative impact on finances among asexuals as a whole (not so for individuals since I can think of ways depression can express itself that'd actually improve finances, however those forms of expression are probably atypical).

OK, here I am, middle class background provided by my parents, lower end of middle working class income earned by myself. Yes I'm slightly depressed, sure my mood saves me money, my phone bill is low and I don't drive much further than to work and back home... don't buy no fancy clothes, have no child support to pay and hardly ever go out... So yes, although my wage is crummy my accounts are properly black and I do get along. My coworkers with families and stay at home wifes even claim me to be well off.

About the depression thing and family costs: I'm a dreamer valuing my alone time spend here on the Internet. - The family people I know live slightly differently. Working & side jobbing their asses off and buying fancy toys although they hardly have any time to use them. - why should I work harder and more than I really have to? - I'm getting along with what debtor protection would leave me...

IMHO I'm no loser since I'm not competing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By UK (income and asset based) definitions, I am poor. But then I realised, I'm sitting here in front of a computer, we have 3 TVs in our house, and I own a car. So voting "poor" would be taking the piss.

Lower Middle Class it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am middle class or lower middle class, maybe somewhere between. But I am financially responsible. I have no debt, and I plan for my future. I do not buy new cars, or new gadgets ever day, and I live within my means. Whatever I am, I am happy. I do what I need to get by, and live comfortably.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I voted "lower middle class" since my wage is below the national average.

Like with the "Pink Pound" phenomenon, a greater proportion what I earn is "disposable income" since I have no dependents (kids, spouses etc.) to support. More so than gay people as in my case I don't spend any money persuing potential partners, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
CrazyCatLover

I'm currently a poor college student, so I went with my parents' status (mine will probably be the same once I'm gainfully employed).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess over all asexual people that I know in real life tend to be much calmer and less ambitious than sexuals. Also I agree with the whole shared expenses thing. I live alone and own my own place and car, but nether are super nice, but still seem to be doing better than most people my age, even though I had to go back to uni for 4 years.

Over all I think polling on this board is probably a little bias anyway because most people are young and computer literate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between well-off, rich, really rich? and sky's the limit?

Is this net worth or annual income? And if you're rich, you're well off aren't you? It would be easier if they were in dollar signs as I know what I consider middle class is different than someone else considers middle class.... I don't know which one to pick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...