Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 29 year old guy who finds this thread hilarious mostly because of the people who think this story couldn't possibly be true.

Men are about as faithful as their options. I promise you this sort of thing is happening all around you. When I was in my early 20s I was fooling around with a married billionaire. No joke. He was a closeted guy who would never and I mean NEVER reveal his attraction to men.

The sort of things he was buying for me at the time are somewhat unbelievable. I wasn't with him because of the money but the money certainly helped initially. He's incredibly intelligent, built a commercial real estate business from nothing, donates millions per year to various charities, etc. He was also fun to talk to. All of that but he KNEW that his money was just another tool for him to use.

I wouldn't go back to do it again but at the time we were both having fun. We took trips together on his private planes to anyplace I wanted to go. Sometimes the hotel suites he would book were $10,000 per night. Eventually he bought me a condo in SoCal so I could be closer to him when he was there with his wife. A condo, a couple of cars, a dog, and my own Amex (centurion). This guy spent his days negotiating the lease/purchase of his many buildings to government entities and massive corporations. Our relationship was a way for him to buy some peace of mind. When he would go on an executive retreat per an agreement with his company at The Pritikin in FL he would fly me on his jet to Miami to be around once his stay was done.

So, reading through the thread I realize how ridiculous the OPs posts seem, but honestly I can definitely see it happening. When I stopped seeing the billionaire, he told me he would pay me $50,000 to set him up with one of my friends. For some men, the money means they get what they want when they want. It was an exchange. All in all my net worth increased by about $4 million over 2 years. I'm not complaining and while it wasn't right or the best thing for me emotionally, it certainly wasn't a waste of time.

OP, do what works for you but be ready to walk away from whatever arrangement you have once it no longer works.

If the guy set you up with 4 million, you had the freedom to leave him when the time was right for you. No strings attached. I don't necessarily "approve" of that but you were both consenting adults and he didn't use you and dump you with nothing to show for it. At least he cared enough about you to make sure that you would be o.k.

In contrast, if Op's arrangement were to end suddenly she would be SOL. She really can't just walk away because she would lose the roof over her head and her only income in the process.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a 29 year old guy who finds this thread hilarious mostly because of the people who think this story couldn't possibly be true.

Men are about as faithful as their options. I promise you this sort of thing is happening all around you. When I was in my early 20s I was fooling around with a married billionaire. No joke. He was a closeted guy who would never and I mean NEVER reveal his attraction to men.

The sort of things he was buying for me at the time are somewhat unbelievable. I wasn't with him because of the money but the money certainly helped initially. He's incredibly intelligent, built a commercial real estate business from nothing, donates millions per year to various charities, etc. He was also fun to talk to. All of that but he KNEW that his money was just another tool for him to use.

I wouldn't go back to do it again but at the time we were both having fun. We took trips together on his private planes to anyplace I wanted to go. Sometimes the hotel suites he would book were $10,000 per night. Eventually he bought me a condo in SoCal so I could be closer to him when he was there with his wife. A condo, a couple of cars, a dog, and my own Amex (centurion). This guy spent his days negotiating the lease/purchase of his many buildings to government entities and massive corporations. Our relationship was a way for him to buy some peace of mind. When he would go on an executive retreat per an agreement with his company at The Pritikin in FL he would fly me on his jet to Miami to be around once his stay was done.

So, reading through the thread I realize how ridiculous the OPs posts seem, but honestly I can definitely see it happening. When I stopped seeing the billionaire, he told me he would pay me $50,000 to set him up with one of my friends. For some men, the money means they get what they want when they want. It was an exchange. All in all my net worth increased by about $4 million over 2 years. I'm not complaining and while it wasn't right or the best thing for me emotionally, it certainly wasn't a waste of time.

OP, do what works for you but be ready to walk away from whatever arrangement you have once it no longer works.

I'm a 29 year old guy who finds this thread hilarious mostly because of the people who think this story couldn't possibly be true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. I am a 22 year old female who shares a *similar* experience as op.

When I was 18 to 21 I had an older man (35) as my 'keeper' for lack of better terms...

although he did no pay my apartment and car he lavished me with gifts, messages, mani/pedis, vacations etc all while cheating on his wife.

Op, you only get to be this alive once. I wasted three years of my life being someone's pet. I only recognized after he started to feel entitled to treat me as more of a possession that, that's all I was to him all along. I was something to do.

I thought that I was ahead in life, I had beautiful things and went amazing places.... I didn't see that my self esteem and self worth were all depending on what HE thought of me.

Please recognize that you cannot get this time back.

I urge you OP, get out. Life is so much sweeter on the other side.

Thank you for sharing your story. I'm glad that you were able to move beyond that role and wish you the best of luck.

Op - listen to her!

Anonymous wrote:New poster here. I am a 22 year old female who shares a *similar* experience as op.

When I was 18 to 21 I had an older man (35) as my 'keeper' for lack of better terms...

although he did no pay my apartment and car he lavished me with gifts, messages, mani/pedis, vacations etc all while cheating on his wife.

Op, you only get to be this alive once. I wasted three years of my life being someone's pet. I only recognized after he started to feel entitled to treat me as more of a possession that, that's all I was to him all along. I was something to do.

I thought that I was ahead in life, I had beautiful things and went amazing places.... I didn't see that my self esteem and self worth were all depending on what HE thought of me.

Please recognize that you cannot get this time back.

I urge you OP, get out. Life is so much sweeter on the other side.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

PP/SAHM here: PP, your post smacks of envy. I too have been married for more than two decades. Marriages fail at the following rates: 1st, 55%; 2nd, 65%; 3rd, 73%. Obviously, neither mine nor yours has failed. The difference between us is that I realize that OP's BF made a commitment to DW rather than OP. Since it's lasted for five years, odds are in favor of it lasting yet another five. As for nannies (sic), gym, and housekeepers, who care? I have none of those things. I have kids and a budget. I have a friend with all of those things but an only child due to fertility issues. Every family has its luck and its challenges. Get a little empathy, OK?

I feel free to pontificate on DCUM because everybody else does. I hold OP in judgment as an idiot because she continually makes bad decisions which destroy her earning power and her future ability to support herself. If your jealousy over what other women has eats you up, that's your problem.

Re "PP, your post smacks of envy"

Not sure what you are suggesting that I envy? If it is OP's lifestyle - not now or ever.

If it is the women who don't work but are financially supported by their husbands - not even close. We both retired in our forties and enjoy a life of leisure. We worked hard over the years and between a combination of shrewd financial decisions and some luck we were able to retire early. Our kids are settled and well employed. We just enjoy life - a life of comparative luxury as some of our friends suggest we have.

I just find the judgmental b-s about OP's lifestyle over the top including those who do their pop psychoanalysis about what ails OP from her purported lack of self-esteem to her family upbringing.

But you are right about one thing ..... DCUM is full of those who pontificate and I am sure quite a few of those doing so are "kept" whether married or not.

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?

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.

PP/SAHM here: PP, your post smacks of envy. I too have been married for more than two decades. Marriages fail at the following rates: 1st, 55%; 2nd, 65%; 3rd, 73%. Obviously, neither mine nor yours has failed. The difference between us is that I realize that OP's BF made a commitment to DW rather than OP. Since it's lasted for five years, odds are in favor of it lasting yet another five. As for nannies (sic), gym, and housekeepers, who care? I have none of those things. I have kids and a budget. I have a friend with all of those things but an only child due to fertility issues. Every family has its luck and its challenges. Get a little empathy, OK?

I feel free to pontificate on DCUM because everybody else does. I hold OP in judgment as an idiot because she continually makes bad decisions which destroy her earning power and her future ability to support herself. If your jealousy over what other women has eats you up, that's your problem.

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?

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.

PP/SAHM here: PP, your post smacks of envy. I too have been married for more than two decades. Marriages fail at the following rates: 1st, 55%; 2nd, 65%; 3rd, 73%. Obviously, neither mine nor yours has failed. The difference between us is that I realize that OP's BF made a commitment to DW rather than OP. Since it's lasted for five years, odds are in favor of it lasting yet another five. As for nannies (sic), gym, and housekeepers, who care? I have none of those things. I have kids and a budget. I have a friend with all of those things but an only child due to fertility issues. Every family has its luck and its challenges. Get a little empathy, OK?

I feel free to pontificate on DCUM because everybody else does. I hold OP in judgment as an idiot because she continually makes bad decisions which destroy her earning power and her future ability to support herself. If your jealousy over what other women has eats you up, that's your 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:

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.

With most couples that's a given, that's what they do. But, yes.

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.

But, given the "Girls"-style sexual culture rampant among 20-somethings, there is no guarantee that she'd experience what you describe even if she wasn't involved in a long-term adulterous relationship.

OP has been with one guy for 4 years. Few 24 year olds can say that. I suspect he knows what she likes and doesn't like in bed. Sounds like she enjoys his attentions and enjoys pleasuring him. A woman can feel special, cherished and loved, but still never have an orgasm. I suspect OP is bemoaning the lack of the special cherished feeling. She's too busy having orgasms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A *married* woman who stays at home is not a "kept" woman. SAHMs are not akin to prostitutes. In your view both spouses must work and bring in money or they are not valuable. That's your opinion, that's your marriage, that's YOU. Just realize that in plenty of other marriages it works best for one spouse to SAH and it is a team decision for the spouse to SAH.

The underhanded, secret arrangement that the Op has with her married boyfriend is NOT the same thing. No way, no how. Why an intelligent, educated person can not seem to get that is beyond me.

And it is a "team decision" that OP and the guy supporting her have made that she will SAH and be available to him when he has the time and inclination. Also, just for the record, OP has said that they both spend time together sometimes for several days at a time when presumably they are not copulating non-stop. So they must see in each other something they gain beyond just sex.

A married woman who merely stays at home is a "kept" woman because her husband is supporting her. It may be an arrangement that both people are fine with - and more power to them - but that is no different than the arrangement that OP has with her benefactor.

You want to sanctify the relationship that the married woman by virtue of her marriage and that is fine. But it does not change the reality that she is also a "kept" woman in that all of her financial needs are met by her husband.

Anonymous wrote:

A *married* woman who stays at home is not a "kept" woman. SAHMs are not akin to prostitutes. In your view both spouses must work and bring in money or they are not valuable. That's your opinion, that's your marriage, that's YOU. Just realize that in plenty of other marriages it works best for one spouse to SAH and it is a team decision for the spouse to SAH.

The underhanded, secret arrangement that the Op has with her married boyfriend is NOT the same thing. No way, no how. Why an intelligent, educated person can not seem to get that is beyond me.