Is dating just a means to an end for 50+ men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Yet you chose her over all the options of financially secure women you could have equally adored. You like that she is financially insecure.

Yes, he liked her being dependent on him when the relationship began. He was in charge of their planning, budgeting all dates etc.
Now he realizes that long term she has impediments to be fully integrated in his life. If she has a lower paying job, she can’t leave it to travel with him. She needs more support from him to being able to travel jointly etc. Or he would have to take on even larger financial commitments to make up for her lost income and time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

“Showing up” can be in different ways. I’m not in town 50% of the time. But I’m available over the phone, texts, sexting etc. Nobody would cancel a trip that was planned months ago just to go out on a few dates. Men who make this kind of money also travel a lot, often internationally. A man can show his presence by being available and maintaining a connection long distance initially. By being an equal partner navigating through our logistics.
But it’s a challenge to coordinate schedules for both well-off women and men. I dated a person who traveled globally managing a multi-billion business. We met in different cities when we could and texted and there is just no other way to kick off a relationship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

Would a businessman cancel his trip to negotiate a corporate acquisition for hundreds of millions to date someone they just met ? Cancel his trip to see mum in Italy ? Of course not. But there are other ways to show excitement and be present

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

Would a businessman cancel his trip to negotiate a corporate acquisition for hundreds of millions to date someone they just met ? Cancel his trip to see mum in Italy ? Of course not. But there are other ways to show excitement and be present

There are differences between business trips and hanging out with family and friends. I wouldn't mind if a family or friend canceled a trip for a man, as long as it didn't happen often. I will tell them they are out of their minds to cancel a business trip to date someone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

Would a businessman cancel his trip to negotiate a corporate acquisition for hundreds of millions to date someone they just met ? Cancel his trip to see mum in Italy ? Of course not. But there are other ways to show excitement and be present

Is that why you are cancelling? I did not get the impression you are currently negotiating corporate acquisitions. No one expects you to cancel a trip with your mom in Italy. Seems like you are picking the most extreme examples.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

I’m a woman. I wouldn’t want to date a man who didn’t seem excited to be with me and had a million other things. Although you put it in terms of control and leading, but it’s more basic. People want to be with people who are excited to see and be with them. You show that by showing up.

Would a businessman cancel his trip to negotiate a corporate acquisition for hundreds of millions to date someone they just met ? Cancel his trip to see mum in Italy ? Of course not. But there are other ways to show excitement and be present

Is that why you are cancelling? I did not get the impression you are currently negotiating corporate acquisitions. No one expects you to cancel a trip with your mom in Italy. Seems like you are picking the most extreme examples.

My trips are visiting mom, a work trip, a trip with son etc. All booked a long time ago. Let’s say, I met someone in my city and we dated for 1 month and had a great time. Shall I cancel my trips ? He’s also busy -had to take off on a business travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

You don’t have time for them in the short term, but you expect people to think you’ll have time in the long term? Why would anyone believe that?

Also if you talk to these dates about your schedule the way you do on this board, I can see why it would be off putting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

That's not a challenge for men: it's a challenge for men with big jobs, and it makes perfect sense. You are drawn to these men because of their big jobs or the income that comes with these big jobs, but at the same time you don't want to compromise so that they can love you and keep these jobs. And they don't want to compromise their jobs either. It makes sense that you guys are incompatible.

A female CPA or nurse practitioner or pharmacist making 200K will have time for these men on the weekends, so they have options beyond women like you and women who are financially dependent on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

That's not a challenge for men: it's a challenge for men with big jobs, and it makes perfect sense. You are drawn to these men because of their big jobs or the income that comes with these big jobs, but at the same time you don't want to compromise so that they can love you and keep these jobs. And they don't want to compromise their jobs either. It makes sense that you guys are incompatible.

A female CPA or nurse practitioner or pharmacist making 200K will have time for these men on the weekends, so they have options beyond women like you and women who are financially dependent on them.

A female CPA making 200k will be tied up to her job and also have 2-3 kids and split custody and college tuitions in her 40-50s. Add to that her elderly parents and need to travel to see them on the weekends. She’ll be financially insecure in a large metropolitan area. That’s what men are taking about on this post.
Of contras it’s easier for men to find someone like that short term. But statistically, high net worth individuals match with the likes and are more aligned long term, by the life-style and values .
I dated high net worth men and it was fine if both understood that the relationship initially begins long distance and few dates . Once both are equally in it, it’s way easier to coordinate as both have money and that buys the ability to plan around other person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

That's not a challenge for men: it's a challenge for men with big jobs, and it makes perfect sense. You are drawn to these men because of their big jobs or the income that comes with these big jobs, but at the same time you don't want to compromise so that they can love you and keep these jobs. And they don't want to compromise their jobs either. It makes sense that you guys are incompatible.

A female CPA or nurse practitioner or pharmacist making 200K will have time for these men on the weekends, so they have options beyond women like you and women who are financially dependent on them.

A female CPA making 200k will be tied up to her job and also have 2-3 kids and split custody and college tuitions in her 40-50s. Add to that her elderly parents and need to travel to see them on the weekends. She’ll be financially insecure in a large metropolitan area. That’s what men are taking about on this post.
Of contras it’s easier for men to find someone like that short term. But statistically, high net worth individuals match with the likes and are more aligned long term, by the life-style and values .
I dated high net worth men and it was fine if both understood that the relationship initially begins long distance and few dates . Once both are equally in it, it’s way easier to coordinate as both have money and that buys the ability to plan around other person

Nope.

I listed these professions because I have family and friends working in these areas. Even when divorced, these women are worth at least a couple of millions. 2 mil worth of investments + a paid off apartment/ townhouse + a stable 200k job and in some cases + a pension, is not financial insecure anywhere in the US. There are many many women in these fields with this profile ( at least in this large metro areas).

Paying for an expensive international trip for your girlfriend does not make her financially dependent on you. So wealthy men can actually have their cake and eat it by seeming like knights in shining armour when they spoil these ladies rotten but at the same time feeling no pressure if they want out because these women can pay their own bills.

I agree with you however, that wealthy people are better suited for each other. I think you( wealthy people) are much more self centered than everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with being self centered in an individualistic soceity like this one, so this is not an insult or an accusation. It's more likely that the more self centered person in a relationship takes advantage of the other person, even when it's not intentional. So the level of self-centeredness should match if possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 49 m and I find it very weird that men are put off by women with money. I make about $750,000 without trying too hard (and no alimony). I can take care of a woman financially, but that doesn't mean I want to. I adore my gf, but the one thing that makes me uncomfortable about our relationship is that she's financially insecure. I don't for a second think she's with me for my money, but I just don't like feeling like she's dependent on me.

Part of insecurity for the men I dated was my flexible personal schedule. I travel a lot, and it takes commitment and planning to merge two schedules . Men who travel for with and earn a lot of money expected me to be available to them on call, when they are back in town. But I need commitment (eg living together, him being open to marriage), to stop planning my life around my friends and relatives. I can’t put off my winter vacation with my family for a wealthy boyfriend who may dump me for another chick before winter. Men expect a lot of time commitment without committing much themselves in return. I would expect my boyfriend to plan vacations together, discuss how we would sync our requirements etc. So far few people are at the same financial position and stage of life to get to that level of commitment .
I assume it’s easier for them to date a financially insecure woman and pay for all vacations themselves, as long as she allows him to control her time. If her office job is not paying much, anyway.

How is your inflexible schedule any different from the average woman who works a full time job and has friends and family on their schedule on top of that.

You are missing something here.

Yo

I determine my schedule and it’s only MY decision to be flexible or not for the right man. I can be extremely flexible to take off for a vacation or join him on his business trip when it’s a really strong relationship.
But I’m also very booked for the next few months with my other travel to family, friends and for pleasure as I’m not tied to an office job. Thus in a short term, women who are always in the city going to office jobs 9-5 would be more available for the men to date in the evenings. To date a woman like me would require more coordination initially and men don’t like not to be in control and not feeling “leading” initially in the relationship. They need a woman who is always available to them initially . That would be a lower paid woman.
While long term I have huge flexibility and advantages to integrate an equal partner in my life, it’s hard to kick off initial dating and maintaining the connection for two busy wealthy people

Does it make sense?

Yes it does.

However, it seems equally likely that dating is not that important to you, and they pick up on that. If you were interested in them, you'd make the changes. Family and friends understand if you have to make changes sometimes to see a man you are interested in. I remember when my sister was dating: she'd call and cancel plans with the family, and we'd be excited and cheering her on.

I would cancel and change plans if I’m seeing someone for a few months. But I also would expect them showing presence and adjusting their plans for me, or joining me on some of my trips. Mutual time management is a core of any relationship. That’s the challenge for men: they prefer women being available on demand. Thus initially lower paid woman who is in town 100% wins. Long term a wealthier woman would be more flexible to develop mutual plans and also a contributor to joint travel, more flexible to move with him anywhere, and not requiring major financial sacrifices to do so.
Open seeking.com - the site that tailors to high income men. Availability is a specific field. Women who need money adjust their schedules to men.

That's not a challenge for men: it's a challenge for men with big jobs, and it makes perfect sense. You are drawn to these men because of their big jobs or the income that comes with these big jobs, but at the same time you don't want to compromise so that they can love you and keep these jobs. And they don't want to compromise their jobs either. It makes sense that you guys are incompatible.

A female CPA or nurse practitioner or pharmacist making 200K will have time for these men on the weekends, so they have options beyond women like you and women who are financially dependent on them.

A female CPA making 200k will be tied up to her job and also have 2-3 kids and split custody and college tuitions in her 40-50s. Add to that her elderly parents and need to travel to see them on the weekends. She’ll be financially insecure in a large metropolitan area. That’s what men are taking about on this post.
Of contras it’s easier for men to find someone like that short term. But statistically, high net worth individuals match with the likes and are more aligned long term, by the life-style and values .
I dated high net worth men and it was fine if both understood that the relationship initially begins long distance and few dates . Once both are equally in it, it’s way easier to coordinate as both have money and that buys the ability to plan around other person

Nope.

I listed these professions because I have family and friends working in these areas. Even when divorced, these women are worth at least a couple of millions. 2 mil worth of investments + a paid off apartment/ townhouse + a stable 200k job and in some cases + a pension, is not financial insecure anywhere in the US. There are many many women in these fields with this profile ( at least in this large metro areas).

Paying for an expensive international trip for your girlfriend does not make her financially dependent on you. So wealthy men can actually have their cake and eat it by seeming like knights in shining armour when they spoil these ladies rotten but at the same time feeling no pressure if they want out because these women can pay their own bills.

I agree with you however, that wealthy people are better suited for each other. I think you( wealthy people) are much more self centered than everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with being self centered in an individualistic soceity like this one, so this is not an insult or an accusation. It's more likely that the more self centered person in a relationship takes advantage of the other person, even when it's not intentional. So the level of self-centeredness should match if possible.

Rich mostly marry rich. “Regular” men making 200k at a 9-5 job with 2 kids and child support are struggling comparing to me. They can’t afford dates, pay their way on trips etc. Men who golf are more likely to stay with me long term. I tried to date 9-5 guys and it never lasted. I would think that in a long term relationship rich men would have similar obstacles with 9-5 office women. No woman who has kids and works full time would be able to join him on business trips, plan many outings, vacations, unless he marries her and takes a full financial responsibility. So yeah, the dynamic is usually that the rich guy takes her on one vacation, enjoys the lady short to mid term and then it falls apart when things get down to commitment.

Overall, people with big money have more share time to devote to their personal life, self care, sports and cultural events. It’s not because of self-centered attitude that they match. I traveled to same charity events with my ex; joined him on business trips while working remotely as I don’t have a full time job.