What (if anything) should be salary/NW/age parameters for a life partner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

Your situation is different. Your husband is with you almost whole adult life in a committed relationship with two kids. That’s not happening for most women and men dating in their 40-50s. Yes, I would want to date someone with similar lifestyle as I don’t want to argue over joint budget etc. BHDT

I agree that you shouldn't combine incomes or a budget with a boyfriend. But I was trying to say that if we can afford that much on 300k, a man with adult independent kids or no kids can afford more without. Infact a retired millitary man with one kid in college might be paying no tuition because the GI bill is covering his kid's education. He might not live in your neighborhood though.

But yes, absolutely do not subsidize a boyfriend's lifestyle.

I don’t think that 300k buys much in dmv. In fact I had to move to a different state to afford the lifestyle I wanted as a single person. One skiing vacation is now $8-10k for 2 persons. Tennis that I like playing $2-3k/year min . A man I’m seriously considering for a LTR would need to be interested in that same active lifestyle and able to pay in his way. That’s more like a $500-600k joint income, if the couple eventually moves in together or buy a joint home for retirement. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with anyone who doesn’t have at least equivalent disposable income to mine. I make $350k gross my spent is $120k/year as single person and I’m a net saver. I don’t think I have a luxurious lifestyle - just not counting penni.

I agree that military pensions and benefits can altogether add to a high net worth but there are not as many men who are military and also interesting people

Women don’t respect men who make less or have cheaper lifestyle than their own

Just like I don't respect women who weigh more and eat more than I do. I earn a high salary and have a high NW so I can be picky.

This does not sound so picky if you are tall .. 😆

[Anonymous]

I don't settle cheap. I want a NW of over 10 million.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

Your situation is different. Your husband is with you almost whole adult life in a committed relationship with two kids. That’s not happening for most women and men dating in their 40-50s. Yes, I would want to date someone with similar lifestyle as I don’t want to argue over joint budget etc. BHDT

I agree that you shouldn't combine incomes or a budget with a boyfriend. But I was trying to say that if we can afford that much on 300k, a man with adult independent kids or no kids can afford more without. Infact a retired millitary man with one kid in college might be paying no tuition because the GI bill is covering his kid's education. He might not live in your neighborhood though.

But yes, absolutely do not subsidize a boyfriend's lifestyle.

I don’t think that 300k buys much in dmv. In fact I had to move to a different state to afford the lifestyle I wanted as a single person. One skiing vacation is now $8-10k for 2 persons. Tennis that I like playing $2-3k/year min . A man I’m seriously considering for a LTR would need to be interested in that same active lifestyle and able to pay in his way. That’s more like a $500-600k joint income, if the couple eventually moves in together or buy a joint home for retirement. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with anyone who doesn’t have at least equivalent disposable income to mine. I make $350k gross my spent is $120k/year as single person and I’m a net saver. I don’t think I have a luxurious lifestyle - just not counting penni.

I agree that military pensions and benefits can altogether add to a high net worth but there are not as many men who are military and also interesting people

Women don’t respect men who make less or have cheaper lifestyle than their own

Just like I don't respect women who weigh more and eat more than I do. I earn a high salary and have a high NW so I can be picky.

Im with you that. You are entitled to have dating preferences as a man to match with partners who are similar to you by looks and lifestyle. I workout and slim so I also don’t respect people (men and women) who can’t get their overeating habits under control

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

100k around this area is near poverty level. I would not marry someone who makes that little. But those are my priories and what I have taught my children as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mid-50s divorced straight woman, earn $250K, NW $4M, one adult child. Thin, pretty, nice.

Hypothetical partner must be a decent human and not currently married.

Character
Health
Absence of addictive habits
No debt unless unforeseeable like family health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

Your situation is different. Your husband is with you almost whole adult life in a committed relationship with two kids. That’s not happening for most women and men dating in their 40-50s. Yes, I would want to date someone with similar lifestyle as I don’t want to argue over joint budget etc. BHDT

I agree that you shouldn't combine incomes or a budget with a boyfriend. But I was trying to say that if we can afford that much on 300k, a man with adult independent kids or no kids can afford more without. Infact a retired millitary man with one kid in college might be paying no tuition because the GI bill is covering his kid's education. He might not live in your neighborhood though.

But yes, absolutely do not subsidize a boyfriend's lifestyle.

I don’t think that 300k buys much in dmv. In fact I had to move to a different state to afford the lifestyle I wanted as a single person. One skiing vacation is now $8-10k for 2 persons. Tennis that I like playing $2-3k/year min . A man I’m seriously considering for a LTR would need to be interested in that same active lifestyle and able to pay in his way. That’s more like a $500-600k joint income, if the couple eventually moves in together or buy a joint home for retirement. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with anyone who doesn’t have at least equivalent disposable income to mine. I make $350k gross my spent is $120k/year as single person and I’m a net saver. I don’t think I have a luxurious lifestyle - just not counting penni.

I agree that military pensions and benefits can altogether add to a high net worth but there are not as many men who are military and also interesting people

Women don’t respect men who make less or have cheaper lifestyle than their own

You make perfect sense, except for wanting to combine homes. That will be a big mistake. Why would you do that at this stage in life? Back to the income issue: So you make 350k and are okay with 500-600k joint. Scaling down those numbers to OP's, she makes 250k and can be okay with 400-450k joint. That's a man at 150K-200K with similar disposable income as OP's.

There are not as many single men( and women!) in their 50s with the right package of disposable income, looks, personality etc, so it is even more important to move smart and realize that there are a few men who may not meet the income on paper but can fully carry themselves.

I own several properties if I meet someone worthy to spend most of my days with, it would make sense to buy a joint apartment or a small house. $200k downpayment will be affordable to me he would need to invest same or more.

Yes I’m primarily considering $5m+ NW men which includes their pension. If a dude is a former military, fed or international organization employee their pension alone would be $2-4m so despite lower income he will have a similar disposable income to mine

[Anonymous]

I don’t think OP expecting any serious potential partner to match her lifestyle is unreasonable. We all plan retirements, certain bucket lists of things and activities we want to do. Marriage or LTR with cohabitation this late in life is a financial caretaking agreement. You are adding a relative basically. You don’t want another dependent to subsidize.

And it’s not misogynistic it’s a basic common sense.

I’m bisexual and date women as well. I apply the same criteria to my female dates. To all men’s justice, my dating experience for LTR women is way worse ! Lots of “artistic” sugar baby types who are looking for sponsors. With men it’s not common at all.

It’s way easier to me to meet a man who wants a real partnership than to find a good match woman

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

100k around this area is near poverty level. I would not marry someone who makes that little. But those are my priories and what I have taught my children as well.

PP is referring to a 100k difference, not 100k total income. And a 100k difference on paper can quickly disappear when you account for pensions and disability benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

Your situation is different. Your husband is with you almost whole adult life in a committed relationship with two kids. That’s not happening for most women and men dating in their 40-50s. Yes, I would want to date someone with similar lifestyle as I don’t want to argue over joint budget etc. BHDT

I agree that you shouldn't combine incomes or a budget with a boyfriend. But I was trying to say that if we can afford that much on 300k, a man with adult independent kids or no kids can afford more without. Infact a retired millitary man with one kid in college might be paying no tuition because the GI bill is covering his kid's education. He might not live in your neighborhood though.

But yes, absolutely do not subsidize a boyfriend's lifestyle.

I don’t think that 300k buys much in dmv. In fact I had to move to a different state to afford the lifestyle I wanted as a single person. One skiing vacation is now $8-10k for 2 persons. Tennis that I like playing $2-3k/year min . A man I’m seriously considering for a LTR would need to be interested in that same active lifestyle and able to pay in his way. That’s more like a $500-600k joint income, if the couple eventually moves in together or buy a joint home for retirement. I wouldn’t be seriously involved with anyone who doesn’t have at least equivalent disposable income to mine. I make $350k gross my spent is $120k/year as single person and I’m a net saver. I don’t think I have a luxurious lifestyle - just not counting penni.

I agree that military pensions and benefits can altogether add to a high net worth but there are not as many men who are military and also interesting people

Women don’t respect men who make less or have cheaper lifestyle than their own

You make perfect sense, except for wanting to combine homes. That will be a big mistake. Why would you do that at this stage in life? Back to the income issue: So you make 350k and are okay with 500-600k joint. Scaling down those numbers to OP's, she makes 250k and can be okay with 400-450k joint. That's a man at 150K-200K with similar disposable income as OP's.

There are not as many single men( and women!) in their 50s with the right package of disposable income, looks, personality etc, so it is even more important to move smart and realize that there are a few men who may not meet the income on paper but can fully carry themselves.

I own several properties if I meet someone worthy to spend most of my days with, it would make sense to buy a joint apartment or a small house. $200k downpayment will be affordable to me he would need to invest same or more.

Yes I’m primarily considering $5m+ NW men which includes their pension. If a dude is a former military, fed or international organization employee their pension alone would be $2-4m so despite lower income he will have a similar disposable income to mine

Very reasonable. 5 million networth which includes pension and disability is reasonable for officers. Many of them have 50-75k pensions and 45k in disability( non - taxable).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

100k around this area is near poverty level. I would not marry someone who makes that little. But those are my priories and what I have taught my children as well.

PP is referring to a 100k difference, not 100k total income. And a 100k difference on paper can quickly disappear when you account for pensions and disability benefits.

Your opinions on if 100K is significant are entirely irrelevant to the point being made about being materialistic. Keep up. You are free to not care about an extra 100k per annum and a man is free to care your extra 20 pounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

I am not shaming. Women should want these preferences especially because men get more out of these relationships than women do. Women should not be subsizing them too. But they are missing out on people who actually meet these preferences when they don't dig deeper.

An actual 100k difference in lifestyle is huge. But is it really 100k? Is this pre tax or post tax? What if some of his money is non-taxable, e.g disability benefits? What about free heath care? What about free college for his own child while yours goes to Ivy League at full cost? What if his own children are fully launched and yours still has to depend on you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married.

oh please. Would you tell a man to not care about a woman's appearance when searching for a mate?

I hate the misogynist hypocrisy.

Everyone has preferences and preferring a beauty is no more or less valid or noble than preferring resources.

DP.

"Beauty" however someone describes it can make someone hard and wet. That is useful in a romantic relationship. I am not sure that a high income from a man does that to a woman who makes 250k and has 4 million in net worth at 45, unless we are talking Jeff Bezos level of income. As long as the man is not counting on OP to subsidize his lifestyle, his income does not matter as much. She is not looking to have children with him or even to marry him ( she would be stupid to consider marriage at this stage in life).

A 45-50 year old NIH researcher who makes 150K and has a 1 million TSP who is good looking is just as attractive to many women in OP's bracket as a lawyer with OP's salary and networth.

My one single friend who is worth millions dates mostly firefighters and recently retired marines because of their fitness level. She likes chivalrous, handsome men with good bodies. These people work and have pensions so they are not looking for her to take care of them.

Does she take all her firefighters boyfriends out at her own expense ? Finances all travel?

I’m in a similar situation as OP and nothing is less attractive than man not being able to contribute at par with me to the joint expenses. They need to have a similar lifestyle to mine otherwise I either need to subsidize them (a sexual turn off) or always vacation in a tent

This is ridiculous. You don't need two 250k incomes and two 4 million dollar portfolios to take good vacations. Our combined household income is 300k, and we spend 25k on vacation as a family of 4. Our Kids are in expensive sports and extracurriculars (easily 20k a year). We eat out a lot. We will be living in luxury when our kids are adults on this income.

If you are on 250K and have a partner on 150K (yes, retired military are very easily on 150k by the time you add their pensions, post retirement careers and sometimes disability benefits) you don't have to take every vacation with your partner. If he can afford 4 a year and you can afford 6, you can do 2 without him if that is a turn off for you. You can take some with your girlfriends or family. Most women do. Are you willing to reduce your dating pool because of a couple of expensive vacations? Are you willing to eliminate nice looking men for that?

The main difference between 250k and 150k will be housing. He might live 30 minutes further into the burbs than you do or live in a much smaller house. Why would this matter if you don't share kids? A 30 minute extra drive is nothing if to most men. Let him drive to you.

No, no one needs 250K incomes to have a nice life, you are correct.

And no one “needs” to marry a super model with perfect proportions to procreate.

But some people prefer to marry a partner with millions and some people prefer a partner with blonde hair and blue eyes and symmetrical features. Neither of these preferences is inherently more or less valid than the other.

I get what you are saying, but I somewhat disagree. People want a partner with millions because it affords them stability and security especially when having children. OP already has stability, it does not look like she is looking to have any children. A guy making 250k does not bring her any more stability than one making 150K with a higher proportion of disposable income. And hopefully, she is not planning to marry these men -- women carry the burden in marriages. Why get into that at that age when you can date them and dump them when they start getting comfortable and self-centered?

Looks are different. Dating in 50s should be very fun because by that age, you are confident enough to be single and hanging with your girlfriends, but you want some sex and romance. Looks can make a difference in the sex and romance. Again, Jeff Bezos money can make a difference in the romance, but the difference between 250K and 150k for certain professions like retired millitary officers is probably not going to do it.

You are imposing your own preferences on to others.

100K per year is a significant amount of money for many people regardless of assets. Probably not for Bezos, probably is for a 50 year old woman with 2M in retirement.

Similarly 20 extra pounds may be too much extra weight for many, but perfectly beautiful for others.

Preferring 100K per year is not inherently better or worse than preferring a slim body on a partner.

Shaming women for their preferences while embracing men for theirs is anti-feminist.

100k around this area is near poverty level. I would not marry someone who makes that little. But those are my priories and what I have taught my children as well.

PP is referring to a 100k difference, not 100k total income. And a 100k difference on paper can quickly disappear when you account for pensions and disability benefits.

Your opinions on if 100K is significant are entirely irrelevant to the point being made about being materialistic. Keep up. You are free to not care about an extra 100k per annum and a man is free to care your extra 20 pounds.

Who said women should not be materialistic? I certainly did not. I am saying women should be smart about being materialistic 😀

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think OP expecting any serious potential partner to match her lifestyle is unreasonable. We all plan retirements, certain bucket lists of things and activities we want to do. Marriage or LTR with cohabitation this late in life is a financial caretaking agreement. You are adding a relative basically. You don’t want another dependent to subsidize.

And it’s not misogynistic it’s a basic common sense.

I’m bisexual and date women as well. I apply the same criteria to my female dates. To all men’s justice, my dating experience for LTR women is way worse ! Lots of “artistic” sugar baby types who are looking for sponsors. With men it’s not common at all.

It’s way easier to me to meet a man who wants a real partnership than to find a good match woman

If marriage or cohabitation is on the table, then OP should look for a man with more than she has. She will end up taking care of him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We must be similarly yoked, so mid-6-figure salary, be within 10 years of each other, ivy league grad at some point in their education

I was a professor at two Ivy League universities but did not graduate from one. I have lots of Stanford and MIT Ph.D. friends too. Would a quick online/hybrid masters degree from Penn, Brown School of Professional Studies, Harvard Extension School, or Columbia School of Professional Studies make us worthy of your love? Or does your 4-year victim studies degree place you out of our intellectual league?