Men 45+ on OLD: are they all broke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

Yes. The truly wealthy ones have no need for OLD.

Ok then where are they meeting IRL?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

You have no wealth to dissipate.

Ok got it. 200k/yr and 1M in assets is “broke” by the standards of single over the hill women who are shopping on OLD.

Maybe that explains the problem?

You have no wealth to dissipate, but perhaps you can dance? Perhaps you can be better looking? Perhaps you can pick up an instrument, say the guitar? Perhaps you can be a supportive partner for a single mom.

If all else fails, go back to basic principles of demand and supply: lower your standards.

[Anonymous]

Wealth/money has been the easiest filter for me when I started dating after my divorce. I knew my financial situation was precarious and it wasn't going to get better soon. So I easily filtered out a lot of women who I felt won't be a good match given my financial situation
It worked. I have been exclusive for 2 years with a woman I met on OLD. She is similarly divorced..and from the start from her choice of activities etc I knew money/wealth wasn't going to be an issue with her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

There’s also the serious possibility that they are only coming across as broke or hiding their wealth because there are way too many gold diggers out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

There’s also the serious possibility that they are only coming across as broke or hiding their wealth because there are way too many gold diggers out there.

Nah. They each told me their salaries and some are verifiable with deep googling; I know their home values and it all checks out. Plus I made it clear I’m looking for someone similarly situated so it’s to their advantage to come across better than they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm cheap af, and also poor by DC standards (only $1 million in the bank and $200k income).

But the bigger problem is that I have no intention of dissipating my wealth on an over-the-hill woman.

You have no wealth to dissipate.

Ok got it. 200k/yr and 1M in assets is “broke” by the standards of single over the hill women who are shopping on OLD.

Maybe that explains the problem?

You have no wealth to dissipate, but perhaps you can dance? Perhaps you can be better looking? Perhaps you can pick up an instrument, say the guitar? Perhaps you can be a supportive partner for a single mom.

If all else fails, go back to basic principles of demand and supply: lower your standards.

No wealth = broke, no? Or do I not understand English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

There’s also the serious possibility that they are only coming across as broke or hiding their wealth because there are way too many gold diggers out there.

Nah. They each told me their salaries and some are verifiable with deep googling; I know their home values and it all checks out. Plus I made it clear I’m looking for someone similarly situated so it’s to their advantage to come across better than they did.

So in other words, you’re a good digger. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Asking bc that has been my experience. Met multiple nice good looking men who all have enormous financial liabilities. Either they earn very little or are broke after divorce and are too old to fully recover, or earn well but have huge obligations and/or are cheap AF. It’s a pity bc I’ve really liked several of them, but need someone similarly secure and am not getting into a financial quagmire.

There’s also the serious possibility that they are only coming across as broke or hiding their wealth because there are way too many gold diggers out there.

Nah. They each told me their salaries and some are verifiable with deep googling; I know their home values and it all checks out. Plus I made it clear I’m looking for someone similarly situated so it’s to their advantage to come across better than they did.

So in other words, you’re a good digger. Got it.

“Similarly situated” means looking for a peer. People look for peers in all areas—looks, education, values, and finances. That’s common sense. You’re just bitter.

[Anonymous]

Example 39487372821 why men don't need women and the institution of marriage. It is a losing financial proposition that overwhelmingly is biased in favoring women.

Getting married is the stupidest idea of all time for men. And no, you don't even have to date a woman regularly in order to get laid. There's really no point to a long term relationship with toxic women.