Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is he good in bed?

She met him when she was ***19***. How would she know?

Just because she hasn't had a decade of short term relationships and one night stands to compare doesn't mean she can't recognize what she likes.

Ha. I wasn't talking about ONS and sordid flings...

Indications are that Op has never experienced a committed relationship where she and the guy are head over heels in love with each other and 100% into each other. Exclusive. Makes a rather BIG difference.

The majority of 24 year olds have never experienced what you described. Doesn't mean they can't recognize great sex.

I think many 24 year olds have experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person even if only for a short time. Op has never been "the one" for anyone. She has no clue what it means to be special, cherished, loved exclusively even if only for a short time. And she is missing out. Big time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

If I was a "trophy wife" that might be a concern (I am not, never have been, we married for love and to raise a family together). But even so, if my husband decided to dump me for a younger woman, I would still be entitled to my share of our assets.

Vs.

A "kept woman" is kept as long as the man wants her. When he ceases to want her, that's it for her. She is completely relying on his whims of today. Tomorrow, she might be yesterday's news, dirty laundry, a skeleton pushed way back in his closet...on her own.

I'm not a trophy wife or a kept woman. I actually make more. I think that if a woman is going to willingly engage in a lifestyle that is 100% subsidized by someone else, it would be smart of her to make sure that the apartment is in her name (so that she will not instantly become homeless if he moves on all of a sudden), that the car or whatever large gifts are also in her name (for same reasons). If I was in the OP's situation, I would try to find a way to put some of the money into savings, investments, etc. I would do the same if I was a SAHM with no income of my own. It would be important to me to create savings accounts in case something changed in the future. An emergency fund, a nest egg - call it whatever you want.

The OP is trusting that she will be able to cover her expenses if this man ends their arrangement. I don't think her ideas about her career prospects are realistic, but you know what? It's not my problem.

+1! Every SAHM should assure that her name is on the title to the car, the house and as the beneficiary of the insurance and retirement policies. This is financial/Econ 101 for any woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

If I was a "trophy wife" that might be a concern (I am not, never have been, we married for love and to raise a family together). But even so, if my husband decided to dump me for a younger woman, I would still be entitled to my share of our assets.

Vs.

A "kept woman" is kept as long as the man wants her. When he ceases to want her, that's it for her. She is completely relying on his whims of today. Tomorrow, she might be yesterday's news, dirty laundry, a skeleton pushed way back in his closet...on her own.

I'm not a trophy wife or a kept woman. I actually make more. I think that if a woman is going to willingly engage in a lifestyle that is 100% subsidized by someone else, it would be smart of her to make sure that the apartment is in her name (so that she will not instantly become homeless if he moves on all of a sudden), that the car or whatever large gifts are also in her name (for same reasons). If I was in the OP's situation, I would try to find a way to put some of the money into savings, investments, etc. I would do the same if I was a SAHM with no income of my own. It would be important to me to create savings accounts in case something changed in the future. An emergency fund, a nest egg - call it whatever you want.

The OP is trusting that she will be able to cover her expenses if this man ends their arrangement. I don't think her ideas about her career prospects are realistic, but you know what? It's not my problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

As a SAHM w/3 kids and a substantial degree/resume of my own, I call BS on your nonsense, PP! MY DH may very likely become a SAHD in the next five years because we are taking turns with child rearing and pooling our resources. Get over your screaming misogyny and jealousy. So many posters on DCUM -- many, many of you are lonely men, I suppose -- write these comments about SAHMs, but you know in your dateless hearts that the classic one income relationship is a rare experience now. Other posters on other threads have written miles on nonsense on the topic.

Bottom line: a marriage involves two people making a lifetime commitment of trust to each other and to the kids they produce. OP doesn't have that. In fact, she has absolutely nothing. No job. No resume. Not youth for very much longer. The reality is that she's unemployed and as she gets older is dooming herself to longterm unemployment and reduced lifetime earnings.

SAHMs -- as I've been told over and over again by former SAHMs who've reentered the workforce once their kids are in MS -- don't face that difficulty. In DC at least, once a SAHM or SAHD gets his/her first job, each subsequent employer says "S/he stayed home with the kids", points out four or five others in the office who did the same thing (sometimes the supervisors themselves, as many are women in their 60s and even early 70s now -- my DH's boss being one of them) and say "you'll do just fine."

False equivocation = B.S.

Your response is ridiculous at so many levels.

But just to pick one: "a lifetime of commitment"? Are you even aware of the divorce statistics? Also, go take a look at the relationship forum where women are tired of their husbands sometimes for entirely frivolous reasons. A lifetime of commitment indeed!

And just FYI, I am married and have been in a committed relationship for over two decades. But I find the pontificating about the lifestyle of the OP nauseating because some of the very people who are criticizing her for being a "kept" woman probably associate without a second thought with "kept" married women.

I live in a fairly affluent area where at least half the women don't earn any money. Their lives revolve around dropping kids to school, going to the gym, lunch with other wives in the same position they are in, going to the hairstylist, an occasional massage, a housekeeper who comes weekly, some have nannys who are there when the kids come back from school and their mother is out doing her thing - and some don't even have children. They are "kept" wives and there is no other way to describe it if you want to call the OP a "kept" woman who lives a shallow existence. They are no better than the OP.

It is not that I would recommend the OP's lifestyle to my daughters but she is doing what many other women do every single day of their lives.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

As a SAHM w/3 kids and a substantial degree/resume of my own, I call BS on your nonsense, PP! MY DH may very likely become a SAHD in the next five years because we are taking turns with child rearing and pooling our resources. Get over your screaming misogyny and jealousy. So many posters on DCUM -- many, many of you are lonely men, I suppose -- write these comments about SAHMs, but you know in your dateless hearts that the classic one income relationship is a rare experience now. Other posters on other threads have written miles on nonsense on the topic.

Bottom line: a marriage involves two people making a lifetime commitment of trust to each other and to the kids they produce. OP doesn't have that. In fact, she has absolutely nothing. No job. No resume. Not youth for very much longer. The reality is that she's unemployed and as she gets older is dooming herself to longterm unemployment and reduced lifetime earnings.

SAHMs -- as I've been told over and over again by former SAHMs who've reentered the workforce once their kids are in MS -- don't face that difficulty. In DC at least, once a SAHM or SAHD gets his/her first job, each subsequent employer says "S/he stayed home with the kids", points out four or five others in the office who did the same thing (sometimes the supervisors themselves, as many are women in their 60s and even early 70s now -- my DH's boss being one of them) and say "you'll do just fine."

False equivocation = B.S.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is he good in bed?

She met him when she was ***19***. How would she know?

Just because she hasn't had a decade of short term relationships and one night stands to compare doesn't mean she can't recognize what she likes.

Ha. I wasn't talking about ONS and sordid flings...

Indications are that Op has never experienced a committed relationship where she and the guy are head over heels in love with each other and 100% into each other. Exclusive. Makes a rather BIG difference.

The majority of 24 year olds have never experienced what you described. Doesn't mean they can't recognize great sex.

I think many 24 year olds have experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person even if only for a short time. Op has never been "the one" for anyone. She has no clue what it means to be special, cherished, loved exclusively even if only for a short time. And she is missing out. Big time.

You are ASSuming alot there. OP is that true? Have you "experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person"? Have you ever been "the one" for anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is he good in bed?

She met him when she was ***19***. How would she know?

Just because she hasn't had a decade of short term relationships and one night stands to compare doesn't mean she can't recognize what she likes.

Ha. I wasn't talking about ONS and sordid flings...

Indications are that Op has never experienced a committed relationship where she and the guy are head over heels in love with each other and 100% into each other. Exclusive. Makes a rather BIG difference.

The majority of 24 year olds have never experienced what you described. Doesn't mean they can't recognize great sex.

I think many 24 year olds have experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person even if only for a short time. Op has never been "the one" for anyone. She has no clue what it means to be special, cherished, loved exclusively even if only for a short time. And she is missing out. Big time.

She was a TEENAGER when she started seeing this older (at the time engaged) man. I don't think it's a huge leap to assume that she was pretty inexperienced, terribly naive in the romance department, kwim?

You are ASSuming alot there. OP is that true? Have you "experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person"? Have you ever been "the one" for anyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

If I was a "trophy wife" that might be a concern (I am not, never have been, we married for love and to raise a family together). But even so, if my husband decided to dump me for a younger woman, I would still be entitled to my share of our assets.

Vs.

A "kept woman" is kept as long as the man wants her. When he ceases to want her, that's it for her. She is completely relying on his whims of today. Tomorrow, she might be yesterday's news, dirty laundry, a skeleton pushed way back in his closet...on her own.

I'm not a trophy wife or a kept woman. I actually make more. I think that if a woman is going to willingly engage in a lifestyle that is 100% subsidized by someone else, it would be smart of her to make sure that the apartment is in her name (so that she will not instantly become homeless if he moves on all of a sudden), that the car or whatever large gifts are also in her name (for same reasons). If I was in the OP's situation, I would try to find a way to put some of the money into savings, investments, etc. I would do the same if I was a SAHM with no income of my own. It would be important to me to create savings accounts in case something changed in the future. An emergency fund, a nest egg - call it whatever you want.

The OP is trusting that she will be able to cover her expenses if this man ends their arrangement. I don't think her ideas about her career prospects are realistic, but you know what? It's not my problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is he good in bed?

She met him when she was ***19***. How would she know?

Just because she hasn't had a decade of short term relationships and one night stands to compare doesn't mean she can't recognize what she likes.

Ha. I wasn't talking about ONS and sordid flings...

Indications are that Op has never experienced a committed relationship where she and the guy are head over heels in love with each other and 100% into each other. Exclusive. Makes a rather BIG difference.

The majority of 24 year olds have never experienced what you described. Doesn't mean they can't recognize great sex.

I think many 24 year olds have experienced young, blissful, sincere and exclusive love with another single and available person even if only for a short time. Op has never been "the one" for anyone. She has no clue what it means to be special, cherished, loved exclusively even if only for a short time. And she is missing out. Big time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

If I was a "trophy wife" that might be a concern (I am not, never have been, we married for love and to raise a family together). But even so, if my husband decided to dump me for a younger woman, I would still be entitled to my share of our assets.

Vs.

A "kept woman" is kept as long as the man wants her. When he ceases to want her, that's it for her. She is completely relying on his whims of today. Tomorrow, she might be yesterday's news, dirty laundry, a skeleton pushed way back in his closet...on her own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is he good in bed?

She met him when she was ***19***. How would she know?

Just because she hasn't had a decade of short term relationships and one night stands to compare doesn't mean she can't recognize what she likes.

Ha. I wasn't talking about ONS and sordid flings...

Indications are that Op has never experienced a committed relationship where she and the guy are head over heels in love with each other and 100% into each other. Exclusive. Makes a rather BIG difference.

The majority of 24 year olds have never experienced what you described. Doesn't mean they can't recognize great sex.

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?

Anonymous wrote:To those who are so critical of OP's lifestyle, how many women do you know who don't earn any money and rely on their husband's income for their lifestyle?

Do you view them as "kept" women who lack self esteem and do you warn them that when they get older and they lose their looks, their husbands will dump them for a younger woman?