19 year gap - Will everything be okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

I'll take Daddy Issue for $1000 Ken.

That always boggles my mind why, to soothe dad/abandonment issues, a young woman schtups (sp) older men. Like you're going to sex him into loving you/staying? It makes no sense, especially when young men in ops age range are physically desirable in the extreme. If you're going to bang your way through issues, it should be with hotties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

I'll take Daddy Issue for $1000 Ken.

That always boggles my mind why, to soothe dad/abandonment issues, a young woman schtups (sp) older men. Like you're going to sex him into loving you/staying? It makes no sense, especially when young men in ops age range are physically desirable in the extreme. If you're going to bang your way through issues, it should be with hotties.

Plea men really become like children after age 58-62, so she’s looking to be his mommy anyways at some point.

Doesn’t she want a strong man in his prime to take charge next to her ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

Ugh. When true maturity sets in, likely around 35-40, she will feel so dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Many rich guys try to impress young girls with their $

[Anonymous]

The answer to your question, "Will everything be okay?" is no. You will be absolutely miserable with teenage stepchildren and a rapidly aging husband. This life choice is horrible for you for all the reasons everyone else has shared. Be a 20-something and take a gap year to backpack around Southeast Asia and meet fun people your own age. When you get back, your current bf will seem like a grandpa to you. You need a change of scenery to clear the fog in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Many rich guys try to impress young girls with their $

You think it's believable that 60% of the guys a ~22 yo woman dates (3 out of 5 guys) have a NW of over $26M? She's claiming that at least 3 of the 5 guys she's dated since age 19 (she's now 27) are worth $26M or more. I would believe one rich guy, just don't believe 3 out of 5, since she doesn't sound like she comes from family wealth. If she did, she wouldn't be swayed by a 46 yo divorced "wealthy" dad with 2 teenagers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Many rich guys try to impress young girls with their $

You think it's believable that 60% of the guys a ~22 yo woman dates (3 out of 5 guys) have a NW of over $26M? She's claiming that at least 3 of the 5 guys she's dated since age 19 (she's now 27) are worth $26M or more. I would believe one rich guy, just don't believe 3 out of 5, since she doesn't sound like she comes from family wealth. If she did, she wouldn't be swayed by a 46 yo divorced "wealthy" dad with 2 teenagers.

Why wouldn’t it be? This is DCUM.

You sound kind of miserable, bitter, & envious of this 20-something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of family and friends do you all have that everyone 65 plus is an invalid requiring full time caregiving?

I don't know any 65 year olds who are dependent on their spouse and unable to care for themselves.

Lots of ageism in this thread!

Nobody on this thread suggested anything like the bolded, which is a stupid overgeneralization. But there's a big biological shift that happens around age 60 that makes people more susceptible to a variety of chronic and acute diseases which could require significant care, the likelihood of which progressively increases from there. These include metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular issues, kidney disease, and a susceptibility to flu or other viral illnesses that could result in long term health issues. And of course, there are cancers and dementia risks. This is also the age when genetic predispositions and habits really affect quality of life.

Not that my anecdote or yours matter much, but FWIW, my aunt is only 10 years younger than my uncle, and she has been a caregiver for both him and her 90 year old mother (who both live with her) for over a decade now. It has taken a big toll on her own health, and she looks mid-70s instead of 62. This is such a common scenario that it's not really noteworthy.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/08/massive-biomolecular-shifts-occur-in-our-40s-and-60s--stanford-m.html

Multiple posters have said that these younger wives will be caregivers by the time their spouses are in their 60s. I will look into more research but where I live, many people work past 60. Many are still active and independent. I was responding to the posts that people by their 60s will be dependent on these younger wives for caregiving - as I just don't see that at all in society. It is an ageist view to see anyone over 60 as a helpless person in need of caregiving because they are clearly so old that they can't do anything by themselves and their wives will need to do all their care. Maybe I live in a healthy area compared to most but I don't see those in their 60s needing caregivers just by virtue of their age.

No, they were pointing out that he'll be 70 by the time their kids would graduate from school and at that point, when they should be enjoying being empty nesters, OP would end up being a caretaker. Not when he was in his 60s.

He is 46. His kids would graduate high school at 18. He doesn't turn 70 for 24 more years. And I would also contend that the majority of 70 year olds don't need caregivers either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of family and friends do you all have that everyone 65 plus is an invalid requiring full time caregiving?

I don't know any 65 year olds who are dependent on their spouse and unable to care for themselves.

Lots of ageism in this thread!

Nobody on this thread suggested anything like the bolded, which is a stupid overgeneralization. But there's a big biological shift that happens around age 60 that makes people more susceptible to a variety of chronic and acute diseases which could require significant care, the likelihood of which progressively increases from there. These include metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular issues, kidney disease, and a susceptibility to flu or other viral illnesses that could result in long term health issues. And of course, there are cancers and dementia risks. This is also the age when genetic predispositions and habits really affect quality of life.

Not that my anecdote or yours matter much, but FWIW, my aunt is only 10 years younger than my uncle, and she has been a caregiver for both him and her 90 year old mother (who both live with her) for over a decade now. It has taken a big toll on her own health, and she looks mid-70s instead of 62. This is such a common scenario that it's not really noteworthy.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/08/massive-biomolecular-shifts-occur-in-our-40s-and-60s--stanford-m.html

Multiple posters have said that these younger wives will be caregivers by the time their spouses are in their 60s. I will look into more research but where I live, many people work past 60. Many are still active and independent. I was responding to the posts that people by their 60s will be dependent on these younger wives for caregiving - as I just don't see that at all in society. It is an ageist view to see anyone over 60 as a helpless person in need of caregiving because they are clearly so old that they can't do anything by themselves and their wives will need to do all their care. Maybe I live in a healthy area compared to most but I don't see those in their 60s needing caregivers just by virtue of their age.

No, they were pointing out that he'll be 70 by the time their kids would graduate from school and at that point, when they should be enjoying being empty nesters, OP would end up being a caretaker. Not when he was in his 60s.

He is 46. His kids would graduate high school at 18. He doesn't turn 70 for 24 more years. And I would also contend that the majority of 70 year olds don't need caregivers either.

Do you agree that he would be way slower, will have different interests, older friends circle than his 50 yo wife?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of family and friends do you all have that everyone 65 plus is an invalid requiring full time caregiving?

I don't know any 65 year olds who are dependent on their spouse and unable to care for themselves.

Lots of ageism in this thread!

Nobody on this thread suggested anything like the bolded, which is a stupid overgeneralization. But there's a big biological shift that happens around age 60 that makes people more susceptible to a variety of chronic and acute diseases which could require significant care, the likelihood of which progressively increases from there. These include metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular issues, kidney disease, and a susceptibility to flu or other viral illnesses that could result in long term health issues. And of course, there are cancers and dementia risks. This is also the age when genetic predispositions and habits really affect quality of life.

Not that my anecdote or yours matter much, but FWIW, my aunt is only 10 years younger than my uncle, and she has been a caregiver for both him and her 90 year old mother (who both live with her) for over a decade now. It has taken a big toll on her own health, and she looks mid-70s instead of 62. This is such a common scenario that it's not really noteworthy.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/08/massive-biomolecular-shifts-occur-in-our-40s-and-60s--stanford-m.html

Multiple posters have said that these younger wives will be caregivers by the time their spouses are in their 60s. I will look into more research but where I live, many people work past 60. Many are still active and independent. I was responding to the posts that people by their 60s will be dependent on these younger wives for caregiving - as I just don't see that at all in society. It is an ageist view to see anyone over 60 as a helpless person in need of caregiving because they are clearly so old that they can't do anything by themselves and their wives will need to do all their care. Maybe I live in a healthy area compared to most but I don't see those in their 60s needing caregivers just by virtue of their age.

No, they were pointing out that he'll be 70 by the time their kids would graduate from school and at that point, when they should be enjoying being empty nesters, OP would end up being a caretaker. Not when he was in his 60s.

He is 46. His kids would graduate high school at 18. He doesn't turn 70 for 24 more years. And I would also contend that the majority of 70 year olds don't need caregivers either.

Do you agree that he would be way slower, will have different interests, older friends circle than his 50 yo wife?

I disagree he will need someone to change his diapers in 20 years, I disagree he will be receiving elder care in 20 years, I disagree he will need his wife to drive him around in 20 years, I disagree he will be unable to engage in any shared activities or hobbies or social activities in 20 years. Those are the types of comments in this thread I disagree with. The view by many that by your mid 60s, you are no longer able to maintain any independence or have any quality of life. That your spouse will be your full time caregiver as by your mid 60s, there is little you can do on your own.

[Anonymous]

it will work if there is a 19 million gap in income

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of family and friends do you all have that everyone 65 plus is an invalid requiring full time caregiving?

I don't know any 65 year olds who are dependent on their spouse and unable to care for themselves.

Lots of ageism in this thread!

Nobody on this thread suggested anything like the bolded, which is a stupid overgeneralization. But there's a big biological shift that happens around age 60 that makes people more susceptible to a variety of chronic and acute diseases which could require significant care, the likelihood of which progressively increases from there. These include metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular issues, kidney disease, and a susceptibility to flu or other viral illnesses that could result in long term health issues. And of course, there are cancers and dementia risks. This is also the age when genetic predispositions and habits really affect quality of life.

Not that my anecdote or yours matter much, but FWIW, my aunt is only 10 years younger than my uncle, and she has been a caregiver for both him and her 90 year old mother (who both live with her) for over a decade now. It has taken a big toll on her own health, and she looks mid-70s instead of 62. This is such a common scenario that it's not really noteworthy.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/08/massive-biomolecular-shifts-occur-in-our-40s-and-60s--stanford-m.html

Multiple posters have said that these younger wives will be caregivers by the time their spouses are in their 60s. I will look into more research but where I live, many people work past 60. Many are still active and independent. I was responding to the posts that people by their 60s will be dependent on these younger wives for caregiving - as I just don't see that at all in society. It is an ageist view to see anyone over 60 as a helpless person in need of caregiving because they are clearly so old that they can't do anything by themselves and their wives will need to do all their care. Maybe I live in a healthy area compared to most but I don't see those in their 60s needing caregivers just by virtue of their age.

No, they were pointing out that he'll be 70 by the time their kids would graduate from school and at that point, when they should be enjoying being empty nesters, OP would end up being a caretaker. Not when he was in his 60s.

He is 46. His kids would graduate high school at 18. He doesn't turn 70 for 24 more years. And I would also contend that the majority of 70 year olds don't need caregivers either.

Do you agree that he would be way slower, will have different interests, older friends circle than his 50 yo wife?

I disagree he will need someone to change his diapers in 20 years, I disagree he will be receiving elder care in 20 years, I disagree he will need his wife to drive him around in 20 years, I disagree he will be unable to engage in any shared activities or hobbies or social activities in 20 years. Those are the types of comments in this thread I disagree with. The view by many that by your mid 60s, you are no longer able to maintain any independence or have any quality of life. That your spouse will be your full time caregiver as by your mid 60s, there is little you can do on your own.

Well, majority disagrees with you. We all have aging parents and know of health issues that begin around age 65. Medicare and Medicaid programs exist for a reason for that age group - these people do have higher incidence of medical visits and hospitalizations. Of course, it will be hard for OP to go through this with teenage kids
Yes, he'll be still active, but not to the same extent as OP and their kids and it's unfair to their future kids at a minimum, and very selfish of him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...I’ve dated guys who’ve had even more money than he does, so money isn’t why I’m attracted to him, I just like who he is...

You're 27 and have dated this guy 1.5 years, so starting around age 25. But prior to 25, you dated guyS who've had even more money than 26M?

So you were 21 or 23 (obviously busy in college) dating random wealthy guys, who somehow shared their investment portfolio with you, and you saw they had 50M or 100M?

This is BS! And so is your insisting that it isn't the money you're attracted to, you just like "who he is". Except "who he is", is a divorced dad of 2 teens - who you don't want to step-parent. So of the two major descriptors of his life - parent and wealthy - neither of those appeal to you. He's just a down-to-earth nice guy who appreciates poetry.

I think this whole discussion topic is made up BS!

"His kids (17/g & 14/b) like me (though some might think I’m closer in maturity to them, I’m more aligned with him in terms of maturity and life perspective)."

If this whole thing isn't BS, I want you to write this down and tuck it in your sock drawer and read it in 10 or 15 years. Whether you're married to him or not, you will have a good laugh and eyeroll at how immature you were back at age 27. And that you thought your "life perspective" matched that of a 46yo divorced dad.

OP: I’ve dated 30+ men since I was 19. Some were wealthy, some were not. I’ve never sought out men with money. The one commonality among the men I’ve dated is age, not wealth.

I’m from DC originally and currently on the West Coast, so I’ve been exposed to people from a wide range of backgrounds. What I’m attracted to is who someone is as a person. Yes, he’s a divorced dad, but he’s also a nice guy which is why I’m still dating him even though I’m 90% sure I don’t want to marry him.

If I didn’t genuinely like him and were only motivated by money or status, I wouldn’t be dating him — I’d still be dating some of the men I dated previously.

YOU DATED OVER 30 MEN IN 6 YEARS?!?

She corrected it and meant men aged
over 30. But I’m wondering why she only dated guys way older than her so young?

Right, she corrected it and said she has dated a total of 5 men, including this one, since she was 19 (all over 30yo). She also said prior to this guy, she dated guyS who had more money than this guy who has $26M NW. So at least 3 out of 5 guys are worth $26M plus.

I don't believe her, nor do I believe that some dude with $50M is showing a 21 year old college girl his investment portfolio. Yet she is positive at least 2 of the previous boyfriends/dates were worth *more than* $26M.

She seems to think that dating guys in their 30s when she was 19 and now a 46yo when she is 27 is because of her maturity. What it really says is the guys she is choosing are immature for their age to want to hang out with someone so much younger than themselves.

Why is that so hard to believe?

Many rich guys try to impress young girls with their $

yes and it works

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of family and friends do you all have that everyone 65 plus is an invalid requiring full time caregiving?

I don't know any 65 year olds who are dependent on their spouse and unable to care for themselves.

Lots of ageism in this thread!

Nobody on this thread suggested anything like the bolded, which is a stupid overgeneralization. But there's a big biological shift that happens around age 60 that makes people more susceptible to a variety of chronic and acute diseases which could require significant care, the likelihood of which progressively increases from there. These include metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular issues, kidney disease, and a susceptibility to flu or other viral illnesses that could result in long term health issues. And of course, there are cancers and dementia risks. This is also the age when genetic predispositions and habits really affect quality of life.

Not that my anecdote or yours matter much, but FWIW, my aunt is only 10 years younger than my uncle, and she has been a caregiver for both him and her 90 year old mother (who both live with her) for over a decade now. It has taken a big toll on her own health, and she looks mid-70s instead of 62. This is such a common scenario that it's not really noteworthy.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/08/massive-biomolecular-shifts-occur-in-our-40s-and-60s--stanford-m.html

Multiple posters have said that these younger wives will be caregivers by the time their spouses are in their 60s. I will look into more research but where I live, many people work past 60. Many are still active and independent. I was responding to the posts that people by their 60s will be dependent on these younger wives for caregiving - as I just don't see that at all in society. It is an ageist view to see anyone over 60 as a helpless person in need of caregiving because they are clearly so old that they can't do anything by themselves and their wives will need to do all their care. Maybe I live in a healthy area compared to most but I don't see those in their 60s needing caregivers just by virtue of their age.

No, they were pointing out that he'll be 70 by the time their kids would graduate from school and at that point, when they should be enjoying being empty nesters, OP would end up being a caretaker. Not when he was in his 60s.

He is 46. His kids would graduate high school at 18. He doesn't turn 70 for 24 more years. And I would also contend that the majority of 70 year olds don't need caregivers either.

Do you agree that he would be way slower, will have different interests, older friends circle than his 50 yo wife?

I disagree he will need someone to change his diapers in 20 years, I disagree he will be receiving elder care in 20 years, I disagree he will need his wife to drive him around in 20 years, I disagree he will be unable to engage in any shared activities or hobbies or social activities in 20 years. Those are the types of comments in this thread I disagree with. The view by many that by your mid 60s, you are no longer able to maintain any independence or have any quality of life. That your spouse will be your full time caregiver as by your mid 60s, there is little you can do on your own.

Well, majority disagrees with you. We all have aging parents and know of health issues that begin around age 65. Medicare and Medicaid programs exist for a reason for that age group - these people do have higher incidence of medical visits and hospitalizations. Of course, it will be hard for OP to go through this with teenage kids
Yes, he'll be still active, but not to the same extent as OP and their kids and it's unfair to their future kids at a minimum, and very selfish of him

Exactly. There is a lot of ageism on this thread. Ageism is exactly your view that once you hit your 60s you are nothing but a burden with no value to society.