If I ever want to get depressed on the state of the world, DCUM never fails to deliver. Seriously, people??? What is wrong with you all and what you value in life... sisters mad at sisters because they are too pretty and too rich, women measuring men by their paycheck, men measuring women by their bra size.

Please start reading some history books and realize how, d*&^ good we have it even if living on a teacher's salary, if our sister is more successful than we are or if you wife has a AA bra size and doesn't want to have sex with you two times a day.

Jeez. So get some self-help books on fulfillment/ happiness/ etc.

Anonymous wrote:
I see you cut out part of my response, so I'll say it again

Women who are financially secure on their own are less likely to put up with abuse, addiction and adultery (the three main reasons for divorce). That doesn't mean they need their spouse to out earn them.

I am financially secure on my own. I did not/do not have a salary requirement for my husband. At times he has out earned me, but for the past three years, and for the foreseeable future, I out earn him. It doesn't matter to my relationship. I do not think less of him because I have a higher salary. My marriage is not any more likely to end in divorce than if our earnings were reversed. Why? Because we do not (have addiction, abuse or adultery issues. If any of those issues arose, I do not have as much incentive to stay married because again, I am financially secure on my own.

Spew whatever non-facts you want, but you do not speak for most marriages, especially in the DC metro area where many women are educated with good careers.

You are wrong. If women have financial security, that is irrelevant. Such women still want their men to out-earn them, and are still more likely to divorce a man who earns less than them than a man who earns more.

Also, you and your personal anecdotes are irrelevant. They are, to quote you, non-facts. I am talking about most marriages, you are only talking about you. The overall divorce rate for women who out-earn men, even among women who are educated and have good careers, is higher than the rate for women who do not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you know that when they say "no" there is the unspoken proviso, "but you have to make more than I do".

Also not true. Sorry you are jaded.

Nope. It is true. That's why marriages where she makes more than him are more likely to end in divorce than when he makes more than her.

You are trying to draw a simple conclusion to a complicated issue (reasons for divorce). Even if divorce rates are higher where the woman earns more that doesn't mean she had an unspoken proviso that her husband must earn X.

It is simple. Women don't want to marry a guy who makes less than them, and if they do marry a guy who makes less, they are more likely to pull the plug on the marriage. You just don't like this simple and obvious conclusion because it makes women sound bad.

I see you cut out part of my response, so I'll say it again

Women who are financially secure on their own are less likely to put up with abuse, addiction and adultery (the three main reasons for divorce). That doesn't mean they need their spouse to out earn them.

I am financially secure on my own. I did not/do not have a salary requirement for my husband. At times he has out earned me, but for the past three years, and for the foreseeable future, I out earn him. It doesn't matter to my relationship. I do not think less of him because I have a higher salary. My marriage is not any more likely to end in divorce than if our earnings were reversed. Why? Because we do not (have addiction, abuse or adultery issues. If any of those issues arose, I do not have as much incentive to stay married because again, I am financially secure on my own.

Spew whatever non-facts you want, but you do not speak for most marriages, especially in the DC metro area where many women are educated with good careers.

Interesting I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. My Ex dh died last July. His family was very wealthy, not why I married him. We met in college and had a lot of fun. We had a amicable divorce with one lawyer. I wanted it because we were going in different directions. My friends and family thought I was nuts, but there wasn't any love left. I ended up re-marrying someone else with a average income. Now 20 something years later we have 2 heavily funded pensions, one home paid off. We are very comfortable. One of my problems with my ex was he was too materialistic. He wanted to take over his dad's business which he did after his dad died. That was 3 years ago. Talking with his wife apparently there was a lot of debt on the business. And my ex was bad with money so who knows what he did in those 3 years. In fact we found missing money over 9k from accounts etc. he forgot about. My point is don't assume everything is going to be great because you found a rich spouse. Real life doesn't necessarily work that way.

The dollars didn't matter to me.

BUT, being financially responsible, stable in work, able to manage income/debt/credit, sharing my values about money and how to spend it, strong commitment to financial smarts, etc.... - those were requirements.

Anonymous wrote:No because I make enough money to support my family. I wanted a husband who works, but I didn’t need him to support the lifestyle I want.

Same here. I was/am very career oriented and got an MBA from a top school. I make more than enough money to support myself and my family. I hate the idea of being dependent on someone else. DH had high profile jobs but in the federal government so even at the top of the scale was way below me. It's all worked out very well.

I had a full time employment requirement. I didn't aim high enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope you know that when they say "no" there is the unspoken proviso, "but you have to make more than I do".

Also not true. Sorry you are jaded.

Nope. It is true. That's why marriages where she makes more than him are more likely to end in divorce than when he makes more than her.

You are trying to draw a simple conclusion to a complicated issue (reasons for divorce). Even if divorce rates are higher where the woman earns more that doesn't mean she had an unspoken proviso that her husband must earn X.

It is simple. Women don't want to marry a guy who makes less than them, and if they do marry a guy who makes less, they are more likely to pull the plug on the marriage. You just don't like this simple and obvious conclusion because it makes women sound bad.

Anonymous wrote:The one person I know who did/does is still single at almost 39 (and not by choice, and not because she's unattractive - she is beautiful).

I didn't. I, however, wanted someone college-educated and self-sufficient/employed, with similar goals/interests that required being decent with money - international travel, home ownership, the occasional nice dinner out, children. Part of the reason I broke up with my college boyfriend is that he dropped out of school and was content working a low-paying job with no growth potential and taking handouts from his wealthy parents. Hard pass!

Also. The truly wealthy people I know (college friends) dated around with all sorts of people but married in their own socioeconomic circle. I've tried explaining that to my friend when she wonders why yet another high earning guy dated her for a year with no progress and then proposed to a less attractive woman he's known since boarding school, but she shrugs me off.

The one person I know who did/does is still single at almost 39 (and not by choice, and not because she's unattractive - she is beautiful).

I didn't. I, however, wanted someone college-educated and self-sufficient/employed, with similar goals/interests that required being decent with money - international travel, home ownership, the occasional nice dinner out, children. Part of the reason I broke up with my college boyfriend is that he dropped out of school and was content working a low-paying job with no growth potential and taking handouts from his wealthy parents. Hard pass!

Anonymous wrote:Dafuq? I hope you are a troll because no one should think like this.

but in reality, many women do think like this but just don't have the balls to admit it.

I didn’t think I had income requirements until I dated an actor. I was 25, he was 32. I was making around $25,000 (this was the mid-90’s). He had his most successful year ever $19,000. He usually made $15-17,000. As an actor (who didn’t want to move to LA or NYC unless he’d booked a job already), he wasn’t going to make much more than that. Ever.

I knew if I stayed with him we’d have a very different life than what I expected. We had other issues, so we broke up. But in the back of my mind, I knew I could never marry him.

From what i could cyber stalk, he’s left acting. Writing on the side. In his 50’s now in a lower paying job. But married to a successful lawyer. No kids.

Yes
Rich

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Eww. You're perpetuating the worst stereotypes about women being gold-diggers.

When I started dating my husband, he was a scruffy guy just out of grad school making $35K/year. He drove a crappy car that barely worked and survived on tacos from 24-hour taco stands. I saw his potential and fell in love with him. Fast forward 6 years and he's making $230K/year + stock.

Hilarious. You tried to say ‘no’ but really said ‘yes’ — obviously you were not happy with his current salary when you were dating.

"Potential" is a horrible reason to marry. Almost every relationship advice says the #1 mistake women make is marrying for "potential." You should marry as spouse when you marry them for who they are then at that time. Otherwise, you can really find a lot of disappointment, if the "potential" does not work out. You got lucky.

Slight OT but I have to agree and was going to post the same. When people start talking about the "potential" in their partner I cringe. You haven't learned from all the "DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT WHEN YOU DATED HIM???" responses? You should love the person for who they are - and not with an * of them getting better/more mature/make more money/less mean/less jealous or whatever - because while we all may grow, it doesn't mean that we all get better in that growth.

You're dense. Potential isn't solely about what the person doesn't have -- it's about their capacity to accomplish (personally, professionally, etc.) the things you value in a partner. Am I to believe, then, that you assume no one can ever change and so you choose a partner based on who they are at the exact moment you start to date? That's ridiculous. People change throughout their lives. It's natural. None of us are static.

I'm dense because I have a different opinion? Get over yourself.

I said what I said. And no, I'm not dense - I know that what potential is - thanks for 'splaining it. I simply don't agree with you. I'm talking about who people are at their core and yes, I've encountered situations wherein someone thinks that if they love/support the other person enough, that the other person will change - for the better because of that love. And I don't believe it to be true. Do people change? Yes. But if you're telling me that I should take a change on an unhealthy person, suffering from depression on the verge of bankruptcy because I see "potential" you can kick rocks.

I mean, I guess the answer is yes in that I would not have dated someone who was unemployed. So having a salary was a requirement. Being the kind of person who would not be chronically under or unemployed was a requirement. But that is it, I didn't care what they did I just wanted to know we'd be equal partners in it. Yes, I work as well and have no plans to be a SAHM before anyone asks.