Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d go with choice 1 as long as he is not actively bad with money (gambling, overspending etc) he just yhas a lower paying job.

UMC isn’t good enough for me to be treated “ok”

OP here. He is not bad with money, just has very little. His earning are low, and he has almost no wealth. We are middle aged, so this is a retirement issue. He has a much lower standard of living than me. If we combine households, I would be majority contributor to the bills. But he loves the hell out of me and shows it fiercely.

So you make money and he makes some. What's the problem here?

And he can always get a second job. Nursing assistants make 17 an hour in MD. It's 3 weeks part time training and jobs are abundant. 3 nights a week and he has atleast 30k more in income a year.

You plan to have kids ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d go with choice 1 as long as he is not actively bad with money (gambling, overspending etc) he just yhas a lower paying job.

UMC isn’t good enough for me to be treated “ok”

OP here. He is not bad with money, just has very little. His earning are low, and he has almost no wealth. We are middle aged, so this is a retirement issue. He has a much lower standard of living than me. If we combine households, I would be majority contributor to the bills. But he loves the hell out of me and shows it fiercely.

Huh, I assumed there was a fertility clock running down. Why marry either? Just afraid to be alone?

Anonymous wrote:I’d go with choice 1 as long as he is not actively bad with money (gambling, overspending etc) he just yhas a lower paying job.

UMC isn’t good enough for me to be treated “ok”

OP here. He is not bad with money, just has very little. His earning are low, and he has almost no wealth. We are middle aged, so this is a retirement issue. He has a much lower standard of living than me. If we combine households, I would be majority contributor to the bills. But he loves the hell out of me and shows it fiercely.

Who makes me laugh? My gay male bestie? I choose him.

Uh neither.

I would much prefer to adopt ten cats 🐈 & live the rest of my years in bliss.

I’d go with choice 1 as long as he is not actively bad with money (gambling, overspending etc) he just yhas a lower paying job.

UMC isn’t good enough for me to be treated “ok”

#2 then cash in at the divorce

I don't care what the answers are to this post. Every woman chooses 2. All men have wandering eyes.

Of the 2, I'd choose the first guy. Especially if he's coachable in the sack.

I make my own money.

Anonymous wrote:If you are a woman who independently earns pretty well, which would rather marry. You must choose one.

1) a poor man who treats you like gold, is very handsome, fun, very loyal, good with kids, and ok in bed
2) an upper middle class man who treats you ok, is intelligent, great in bed, could have a wandering eye

One you love as nothing is set in stone, anybody's eye can start to wander, income can decrease, sexual power can dwindle etc.

Definitely 1

Neither. There are tons of men out there better than those 2 sad options.

“treats you (just) ok” is what I couldn’t deal with. Everything else you can overcome

Anonymous wrote:OP here. The poor man is a hardworking mechanic. His money does not go far
In this area, and he does not have financial
Know how so has little wealth.

This could be a problem. I knew a couple where the guy was like your 1 - a great guy overall, very kind and loving, but horrible with money. As soon as he made money he spent it on things for “work”. They couldn’t afford to live anywhere nice because of his spending. His poor wife had to hide money from him so they had an emergency fund, and she told her adult kids how to access it if anything happened to her after they swore to never tell their dad about it.

2 is a definite no, he sounds gross. 1 is a maybe if he can be taught financial literacy.