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

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Try not being so materialistic, OP. Might have helped you stay married. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics