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.
You do have the spare time, but you are not willing to commit it until you are shown commitment. You and these men have the same issue. You both want commitment before you can commit. That's the real issue, not time. And it's okay. But it does not mean that they are insecure about your wealth, like you suggested in your earlier post. They want others to show their cards first, and so do you.
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.
You do have the spare time, but you are not willing to commit it until you are shown commitment. You and these men have the same issue. You both want commitment before you can commit. That's the real issue, not time. And it's okay. But it does not mean that they are insecure about your wealth, like you suggested in your earlier post. They want others to show their cards first, and so do you.
Others have no relevance for my relationship with a specific man. If he shows presence, even if it's not in person that matters a lot. For busy people sexting is the first initial step bulding a relationship. People who have "only in person dating" attitude won't match with me, for sure.
In my experiences dating as a 40 something year old woman-sometimes dating guys in their 50s- this isn’t true at all.
The first date it’s not even on the table. We have dinner &/or drinks somewhere nice, maybe kiss when they walk me to my car or uber.
I’ve usually saved sex for a 3rd or 4th date and it’s never been an issue.
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
Are you the wealthy woman who posted about time inflexibility?
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.
You do have the spare time, but you are not willing to commit it until you are shown commitment. You and these men have the same issue. You both want commitment before you can commit. That's the real issue, not time. And it's okay. But it does not mean that they are insecure about your wealth, like you suggested in your earlier post. They want others to show their cards first, and so do you.
Others have no relevance for my relationship with a specific man. If he shows presence, even if it's not in person that matters a lot. For busy people sexting is the first initial step bulding a relationship. People who have "only in person dating" attitude won't match with me, for sure.
Most people have been burned too many times by doing sexying/ online dating beyond a week or two, so they stop giving it a chance. Keep that in mind and give them some grace.
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.
I'm PP. I don't agree. I met other women. I adored none of them and doubt I would have. I adore my gf because of many other things about her. As for this whole debate about availability: She's not available half the time because of child custody. Beyond that, she has a job that is hard to be away from. So, I'm often fitting my schedule to hers. In our 8 months together, I can't recall a single time she cancelled something important or passed up an important opportunity to be with me. I'm fine with that.
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.
I'm PP. I don't agree. I met other women. I adored none of them and doubt I would have. I adore my gf because of many other things about her. As for this whole debate about availability: She's not available half the time because of child custody. Beyond that, she has a job that is hard to be away from. So, I'm often fitting my schedule to hers. In our 8 months together, I can't recall a single time she cancelled something important or passed up an important opportunity to be with me. I'm fine with that.
She is a lucky woman, PP!
I am still side eyeing you for picking a financially insecure woman when it bothers you, even though you had so many options. Rich men truly do have options. But I am happy for her that she found a nice guy who does not mind working with her schedule.
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.
I'm PP. I don't agree. I met other women. I adored none of them and doubt I would have. I adore my gf because of many other things about her. As for this whole debate about availability: She's not available half the time because of child custody. Beyond that, she has a job that is hard to be away from. So, I'm often fitting my schedule to hers. In our 8 months together, I can't recall a single time she cancelled something important or passed up an important opportunity to be with me. I'm fine with that.
She is a lucky woman, PP!
I am still side eyeing you for picking a financially insecure woman when it bothers you, even though you had so many options. Rich men truly do have options. But I am happy for her that she found a nice guy who does not mind working with her schedule.
I don't feel like I "picked" her. I fell for her. How could I think, "She completes me but her bank account sucks, so I'm kicking her to the curb"?
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.
You do have the spare time, but you are not willing to commit it until you are shown commitment. You and these men have the same issue. You both want commitment before you can commit. That's the real issue, not time. And it's okay. But it does not mean that they are insecure about your wealth, like you suggested in your earlier post. They want others to show their cards first, and so do you.
Others have no relevance for my relationship with a specific man. If he shows presence, even if it's not in person that matters a lot. For busy people sexting is the first initial step bulding a relationship. People who have "only in person dating" attitude won't match with me, for sure.
Most people have been burned too many times by doing sexying/ online dating beyond a week or two, so they stop giving it a chance. Keep that in mind and give them some grace.
I meant sexting for people who already met in RL, went on several dates, became physical but not yet entirely committed. Then one of them or both need to travel. In that case staying in touch by saying warm good mornings and good nights, regular check-ins etc is absolutely necessary. If I slept with a guy for a month I am not yet ready to cancel all my other plans for him. But it would be hard to maintain a relationship momentum if he just disappears from air waves while I travel. I would think he's not that interested and is busy dating/sleeping with other women, and will cool down to him myself
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.
I'm PP. I don't agree. I met other women. I adored none of them and doubt I would have. I adore my gf because of many other things about her. As for this whole debate about availability: She's not available half the time because of child custody. Beyond that, she has a job that is hard to be away from. So, I'm often fitting my schedule to hers. In our 8 months together, I can't recall a single time she cancelled something important or passed up an important opportunity to be with me. I'm fine with that.
She is a lucky woman, PP!
I am still side eyeing you for picking a financially insecure woman when it bothers you, even though you had so many options. Rich men truly do have options. But I am happy for her that she found a nice guy who does not mind working with her schedule.
I don't feel like I "picked" her. I fell for her. How could I think, "She completes me but her bank account sucks, so I'm kicking her to the curb"?
Hope she gets out of her financial insecurity and you guys live happily ever after!
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}