Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

And they shouldn't be ok with that, TBH. When I was dating my now exH, I was younger and still contributed to our vacations pro-rata our incomes. And I do think he married me in part due to seeing me as partner, not a bimbo. A lot of men in their 50s become incredibly cheap, and even if they make serious money (200k+), they are just staying back home, not traveling etc. I think it's part of a mental decline for that age group, not necessarily a sign of financial instability. I've met men who were making $500k but incredibly cheap relative their income. Generosity is a character train, and it's always related to ability to give in a relationship in many other ways. That cheap guy was also pretty a bad lover, and a multi-dater.

A man paying for a woman is the gentlemanly thing to do. Why is the girl a bimbo? Isn’t this whole thread about men who can’t afford to pay for himself let alone the woman???

DH earns a high income now but he also paid for me when he was a poor grad student. He has always given me his all.

I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

Of course I paid for some things. I often picked up groceries or take out. This was before Uber eats 20+ years ago. DH, then bf, took me on vacations but I also treated Dh on vacations. In fact, we got engaged on a birthday trip for DH. I guess I just don’t like going Dutch. It is just a personal preference. I thought it was weird if a couple went to Starbucks and ordered separate drinks. That had never happened to me but I would think the guy was so cheap not getting me a drink.

I always thought going Dutch on a date was a bad look. If a guy liked me, the least he could do is buy me dinner. Worked out fine for me. I think only one guy made me go Dutch. It was probably very obvious that I was not into him during the meal so he split the bill with me when the meal was over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

People who are currently in their mid 40s did not start working at the WB/IMF/IFC before 1998. That's when we graduated high school or were in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What wealth?

At age 55 only one or two percent of the population have $1 million or more in retirement savings. Of that one or two percent, 95 percent are married.

For my $1 million, that's just what I've been able to create since a divorce 9 years ago. By the time I retire I hope it's 2-3 times larger.

90%ile of every age bracket above 45 has NW over $1M.

I don't think so. The median household net worth (and we were discussing retirement funds not net worth) at age 55 is around $110,000, no where close to $1 million. And much of that net worth is in the form of housing, which is not liquid and which can crash in value.

If you think people in this area or on this board represent the mean I don’t know what to tell you. Op is clearly not the mean and would match well with someone who is. The mean in this country is a pathetic standard.

This board is chock full of lies and delusions. If everyone here was $5 million in net worth, the owner of the site would be an idiot to not have a huge membership fee. Also, the targeted ads are pretty middle-class.

You are delusional. A pretty average home in NW DC or Bethesda is worth $1.5mm now. How much in NW do you think the women living there have ? Of course it’s well over $1mm. Read finance forum. People who started at WB/IMF/IFC before 1998 have 300k/year pensions. Feds have military pensions, current salaries and rentals. 300k combined income from all sources is pretty common for the area and nothing to brag about.
Signed $4.5mm NW mid 40s female. In addition to this current NW, I’m very frugal and save around $170k/year in my brokerage and pension combined.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

And they shouldn't be ok with that, TBH. When I was dating my now exH, I was younger and still contributed to our vacations pro-rata our incomes. And I do think he married me in part due to seeing me as partner, not a bimbo. A lot of men in their 50s become incredibly cheap, and even if they make serious money (200k+), they are just staying back home, not traveling etc. I think it's part of a mental decline for that age group, not necessarily a sign of financial instability. I've met men who were making $500k but incredibly cheap relative their income. Generosity is a character train, and it's always related to ability to give in a relationship in many other ways. That cheap guy was also pretty a bad lover, and a multi-dater.

A man paying for a woman is the gentlemanly thing to do. Why is the girl a bimbo? Isn’t this whole thread about men who can’t afford to pay for himself let alone the woman???

DH earns a high income now but he also paid for me when he was a poor grad student. He has always given me his all.

I was always uncomfortable when men tried to pay for me everything, even in my 20s. I would attempt to reciprocate in some way, or pay at least something. But I come from a family with 3 generations of working/breadwinners women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

And they shouldn't be ok with that, TBH. When I was dating my now exH, I was younger and still contributed to our vacations pro-rata our incomes. And I do think he married me in part due to seeing me as partner, not a bimbo. A lot of men in their 50s become incredibly cheap, and even if they make serious money (200k+), they are just staying back home, not traveling etc. I think it's part of a mental decline for that age group, not necessarily a sign of financial instability. I've met men who were making $500k but incredibly cheap relative their income. Generosity is a character train, and it's always related to ability to give in a relationship in many other ways. That cheap guy was also pretty a bad lover, and a multi-dater.

A man paying for a woman is the gentlemanly thing to do. Why is the girl a bimbo? Isn’t this whole thread about men who can’t afford to pay for himself let alone the woman???

DH earns a high income now but he also paid for me when he was a poor grad student. He has always given me his all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

And they shouldn't be ok with that, TBH. When I was dating my now exH, I was younger and still contributed to our vacations pro-rata our incomes. And I do think he married me in part due to seeing me as partner, not a bimbo. A lot of men in their 50s become incredibly cheap, and even if they make serious money (200k+), they are just staying back home, not traveling etc. I think it's part of a mental decline for that age group, not necessarily a sign of financial instability. I've met men who were making $500k but incredibly cheap relative their income. Generosity is a character train, and it's always related to ability to give in a relationship in many other ways. That cheap guy was also pretty a bad lover, and a multi-dater.

Anonymous wrote:See men would totally be willing and want to pay for a girlfriend to go on vacation together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you ladies ever enjoy -some- downscaled experiences? Less elaborate, expensive travel. Less costly entertainment. No one is flexible?

I agree. You don't need to spend 20k on a long trip to have a good time. Using money as the only measure of entertainment/experience is unimaginative.

I posted before about often paying for lodging for my friends and family. I don’t want to stay at a $200 hotel when I’m used to $2000 hotels. If that is what OP wants, that is fine but it is unrealistic to find someone who can afford 20k vacations. She should pay for the 20k trip she wants and let her boyfriend join and spend 3k to fly there and hang out with her and maybe chip in for some meals. If they are not getting married and never joining finances, I don’t think the guy’s financial should matter so much.

A woman can find plenty of men to hang out with her on trips for free, at any age. I can find 5-10 years younger men to sponsor, but I just won’t respect them, so no thank you. If the boyfriend wants the benefits of a shared partnership he should pay 50% of vacation cost. The benefits are plentiful for men in middle age: lower rent, better meals, staying in a good health of the woman is a good homemaker in addition to be secure financially.

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.

That’s me as well and that income makes it very easy to date women in their 20s if you’re still attractive. Own a home in a cool neighborhood. Can afford fun dates and inevitably end up spending less when dating younger than on dates with the type who make a big deal about being a “strong successful badass.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Y'all who claim the government workers are broke are quite ignorant:

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2024/general-schedule

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2023/executive-senior-level

Max is 200k. That really isn’t a lot at the peak of your career.

I made that fresh out of grad school at age 26.

What grad school , and in which specialty ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't you ladies ever enjoy -some- downscaled experiences? Less elaborate, expensive travel. Less costly entertainment. No one is flexible?

I agree. You don't need to spend 20k on a long trip to have a good time. Using money as the only measure of entertainment/experience is unimaginative.

I posted before about often paying for lodging for my friends and family. I don’t want to stay at a $200 hotel when I’m used to $2000 hotels. If that is what OP wants, that is fine but it is unrealistic to find someone who can afford 20k vacations. She should pay for the 20k trip she wants and let her boyfriend join and spend 3k to fly there and hang out with her and maybe chip in for some meals. If they are not getting married and never joining finances, I don’t think the guy’s financial should matter so much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't want men like yourself who aren't wealthy, failed at marriage and have children to support then just focus on your career and raising your children. Times have changed, women don't need men, they can be independent.

There aren't that many single, child free rich men out there in that age range, most are married to mothers of their own children who actually are good partners. It would be counterintuitive to marry women who already failed at making wealth, being good and loyal partners and bring little to the table but children to be raised and financial needs to be fulfilled.

This is it right here.

Any HVM isn’t going to want an older, bitter divorced woman with her dirty unruly kids. If you’re in a marriage that failed why would he be interested? If they’re doing well they’re already married to HVW who bring a lot to the table.

If they are divorced they’re dating younger women with no kids.

Many divorced women did succeed in making wealth, have highly successful kids and had long and productive marriages, just growing apart with men. You sounds bitter: it’s not a HVW man by definition if he’s still single in his 40-50s, and never had a relationship or kids. These are men with deep issues or usual sexual preferences.
I date divorced men with kids and many of them are more stable emotionally and financially than never married crowd

Attractive successful NICE women at any age can find a man.

80% of women want 20% of the top men. When the women start aging (40+), most men their age are already taken. The good ones are mostly still married. The good divorced ones are just picking others, not OP. They may have found someone like OP sooner or found a younger version of OP.

I have friends with older single moms. They are widowed or divorced but all have money. My adult friends are so upset at all the losers their moms are hanging out with. If you think it is slim pickings at age 45, you have 55 and 60 to look forward to.

My current partner is 48, I’m 45. I did date mostly men 50-59 but ended up with someone close to my age. Men over 50 were telling me on dates that unfortunately very few 50+ women look as good as their pictures, or these women don’t want sex so men end up dating younger.

Anonymous wrote:No some of us are fat.