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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Imagine a political science grad from an Ivy thinking they are smarter than an engineer grad from UMBC just because they went to an Ivy. 😆

[Anonymous]

My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thin and a size 14 do not align. Do you mean that’s your shoe size?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

A 50Y man at 500k would have to be very stupid to consider someone much younger unless he wanted kids.

And all of this has nothing to do with PP. That's her criteria, and it dies not really matter whether there are many or few men who meet it. If she does not find a match, oh well life goes on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

A 50Y man at 500k would have to be very stupid to consider someone much younger unless he wanted kids.

And all of this has nothing to do with PP. That's her criteria, and it dies not really matter whether there are many or few men who meet it. If she does not find a match, oh well life goes on.

He doesn't have to have kids just because the woman might. The PP is totally right. No guy with that income is going to go for some dumpy late middle aged woman, no matter her earnings.

[Anonymous]

Ha; as a man making way over $500k, I have many more options than your “purse.”

Luckily I am nice guy, so I don’t have to humble brag my net worth to find a mate…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

A 50Y man at 500k would have to be very stupid to consider someone much younger unless he wanted kids.

And all of this has nothing to do with PP. That's her criteria, and it dies not really matter whether there are many or few men who meet it. If she does not find a match, oh well life goes on.

He doesn't have to have kids just because the woman might. The PP is totally right. No guy with that income is going to go for some dumpy late middle aged woman, no matter her earnings.

Because he looks so much better than a 50 year old lady... Again, incredibly stupid no matter his earnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha; as a man making way over $500k, I have many more options than your “purse.”

Luckily I am nice guy, so I don’t have to humble brag my net worth to find a mate…

To find a younger mate, you do have to humble brag your networth to get many more "options".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

A 50Y man at 500k would have to be very stupid to consider someone much younger unless he wanted kids.

And all of this has nothing to do with PP. That's her criteria, and it dies not really matter whether there are many or few men who meet it. If she does not find a match, oh well life goes on.

He doesn't have to have kids just because the woman might. The PP is totally right. No guy with that income is going to go for some dumpy late middle aged woman, no matter her earnings.

Because he looks so much better than a 50 year old lady... Again, incredibly stupid no matter his earnings.

Haha, indeed these dudes are incredibly stupid. They think younger women are attracted to the, whereby in reality they are just old, frumpy fart$s that no woman wants
I see so many profiles of men over 50 yo and maybe 5% men look attractive to me. I like back maybe 2 men a day and as long as there are men within my age group available (+- 5 years from my 48 yo) I won't be dating anyone older. Regardless of his income. I have my own money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My total comp is close to 700k, and just turned 50. Would be open to men over 500k. Dont have stringent NW requirement.

Trying to avoid being a purse but focused on professional who is kind and compatible with me.

A 50yo man at 500K would have to be hideously ugly or significantly older than you to consider someone that age.

A 50Y man at 500k would have to be very stupid to consider someone much younger unless he wanted kids.

And all of this has nothing to do with PP. That's her criteria, and it dies not really matter whether there are many or few men who meet it. If she does not find a match, oh well life goes on.

He doesn't have to have kids just because the woman might. The PP is totally right. No guy with that income is going to go for some dumpy late middle aged woman, no matter her earnings.

Because he looks so much better than a 50 year old lady... Again, incredibly stupid no matter his earnings.

LOL - there was a thread a week ago about problems in modern dating: women find most men utterly, hopelessly unattractive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So your biggest concern with finding someone else while in your mid-50s is their wealth? Can't imagine why you are single.

No her concern is not losing her wealth…. And her life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thin and a size 14 do not align. Do you mean that’s your shoe size?

Short skinny men need not apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha; as a man making way over $500k, I have many more options than your “purse.”

Luckily I am nice guy, so I don’t have to humble brag my net worth to find a mate…

“I am nice guy”

[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.

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?

So all women should want your preferences for a partner? OK ego-maniac.

Your off topic rant is irrelevant to the point of this thread. You are free to not care about an additional 100K per year, but some people do care and that desire is their prerogative.