# Men: Financial Limitations During New Single Life



## moco82

Sometimes I think how I would have spent my paycheck had I been single without any obligations. I picture a nice apartment, perhaps with a view, and although I don't understand overspending on cars, I'm sure I wouldn't be driving a Civic. Then a decent % would go on restaurants, bars, and vacations (miles accrued from work can go a long way for just two people). Obviously, when you're newly single but retain most of the financial obligations, things are going to be a lot more Spartan.

Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?


----------



## Ynot

So far I have not seen it as an issue for them. More so for me. I am used to paying my own way. I was proud of my house and my property and the things that I possessed when I was married. During the divorce I liquidated much of my possessions and have very little remaining. I live in a nice enough apartment and drive a nice enough car, but I am not proud of what I have. But this doesn't seem to matter much to women. In fact one of the things that I have found is that many of the women I meet are fairly well established themselves. They are no longer looking for someone to take care of them or support the children. Instead they are looking for companions to share their life with. I get somewhat intimidated at times, because I am used to paying for everything, being the provider and taking care of my SO. But that is my problem with me, not their problem with me. Most women, while they aren't looking to be supported (although you will find plenty that still do, but I avoid them and so should you) don't want to be used either. So unless you don't have a means to support yourself, can't pay your own way, and in general become a leach to them, you should be fine.
As a post script, I would add, that post divorce I find budgeting my money is much easier. I buy what ever I want whenever I want it. I have been able to save more and have more than I ever was before. Eventually I will probably buy at least a condo but for the time being I enjoy the benefits of not having the chores of ownership.
In fact, seeing so many of these self-sufficient women out there leaves me more optimistic about the future. Should I happen to enter into a LTR relationship with one, I know that there will be financial benefits to me as well, as I will no longer be on the hook for two and be able to contribute more for a better experience, than just surviving as I felt I was doing when I was married.


----------



## SecondTime'Round

I'm a woman, but just agreeing with what @Ynot says. He speaks the truth, at least from my perspective.


----------



## moco82

Ynot, if you don't mind me asking: How were the assets split up? Did you retain any of your prior obligations? Are children involved?


----------



## Bananapeel

moco82 said:


> Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?


Doesn't just about every adult have some financial limitations regardless of whether they are single, married, or recently divorced? I'm not really seeing what is different and how it would affect your dateability. Unless of course you're broke and living in your parent's basement...'cause that would suck!


----------



## EleGirl

From the perspective of one female (I can only speak for myself.)

After my divorce I dated 4 guys. The men were divorced just as I was. Some had younger children, some not.

What we did was that we took turns asking the other out. The one who asked paid. (I hate going Dutch.) I like this arrangement because the asker can plan the date to be something that they could afford. What mattered to me was not how much money a guy spent but how much thought he put into the date.

For example a date to do the river walk and have a picnic basket with wine, cheese and crackers can be as romantic as it gets. Or finding the best hole-in-the wall taco/burrito place in town is fun too.

Now if the dates are all going to his place to watch tv because it's essential free... too much of that is not cool... no thought, no effort. And it speaks of the goal to have sex, not to spend special time together.

IMO, it's not the money that is spent that is the issue.


----------



## Ynot

moco82 said:


> Ynot, if you don't mind me asking: How were the assets split up? Did you retain any of your prior obligations? Are children involved?


No children, they had just flown the coop as my daughter had just finished college. I did spend four years paying out over a $1000 a month putting her thru school, with no help from my ex. 
Admittedly I was very stupid going thru this process. I really imagined there was a possibility of reconciliation so I left a LOT on the table. 
Basically the only shared debt was the mortgage. That was paid off when the house sold. We split the equity 50/50.
I took some furniture, she took some furniture. The rest we sold. We used that money to pay expenses involved with the break up - cleaning, dumpster, etc. 
I had a car payment, that I kept along with the car. She had a furniture bill that she kept a long with the couch.
I had a business debt that I kept and paid off after the divorce.
She had a 401k with about $15,000 that I agreed not to include in the settlement. She also had a 1 year old paid in full car with about $20,000 in equity that I also left out of the settlement. 
We were married for 24 years and had so few assets to argue about that it sort of made me sick to think of how little I actually had.
In the end I think we both walked away with about $12,500. No further obligations towards each other. No alimony and no child support. 
I had a small savings account. I ended up giving her $1500 to get an apartment because she told me it was only temporary and I believed her. I took the remaining $2500 and spent it setting up my own apartment.
I later found out that she had spent all of the money that she was supposed to have been setting aside for our daughter's wedding.
So we split mine and our assets, she took her assets and we parted company. I kick myself sometimes for not exercising my legal rights and having her include the 401k and her car in the settlement. She would have ended up paying me money that was rightfully mine as she wouldn't have had either had I not been funding everything else. But at least now I can hold my head high and know that it won't be my fault when/if she ends up on the street due to her own financial stupidity. And my kids will never be able to say I didn't bend over backwards to try to make it work.
After she left, I closed my business. I took a job working for a client. I hated it. I made enough to pay my living expenses, but little else. So I left. Went back out on my own. I now make as I was making before. But have a much smaller foot print and enjoy spending my money as I see fit on what I want to spend it on. 
Sorry for the rambling.


----------



## NoMoreTears4me

I feel like I hit the lottery. My electric bill and food bill has dropped way more than half. 

Its staggering now that I see what I was paying.

Im not loaded now but I have some breathing room with budget.


----------



## moco82

Ynot said:


> Sorry for the rambling.


Not at all, thank you for the perspective.

My obligations will actually be voluntary. I have a young child whom I'm determined to support, beginning with keeping him in the same house.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

When I first got divorced, part of my criteria for my new partner was that he was self-sufficient without any help from me and I wanted to ensure there was never a chance I'd be on the hook financially to take care of anyone else but myself and my own children.

But other than that, I wasn't picky about how much someone had. Any woman that's worried about how much money you have is probably interested in having you support her and you need to avoid women like that like the plague.

My now husband is very well off but I always pay for my half of everything...even now that we're married. I'm not interested in taking financial advantage of anyone...certainly not my husband.


----------



## moco82

Bananapeel said:


> Unless of course you're broke and living in your parent's basement...'cause that would suck!


Or with roommates or in a quite crappy studio.


----------



## Holland

EnigmaGirl said:


> When I first got divorced, part of my criteria for my new partner was that he was self-sufficient without any help from me and I wanted to ensure there was never a chance I'd be on the hook financially to take care of anyone else but myself and my own children.
> 
> *But other than that, I wasn't picky about how much someone had. Any woman that's worried about how much money you have is probably interested in having you support her and you need to avoid women like that like the plague.
> *
> My now husband is very well off but I always pay for my half of everything...even now that we're married. I'm not interested in taking financial advantage of anyone...certainly not my husband.


A big generalisation there.

For casual dating I never cared what they earned but for a serious relationship it was/is very important that he be either a big earner and/or have a reasonable amount in assets.

Post divorce and at this stage in life one of the most important considerations for me was compatibility and financial compatibility is no less important than sexual, moral or any other issue.
Post divorce I would suggest people look for others that are in a similar situation, no matter which part of the scale you are on, low income to very high income/wealth then look for potential mates in the same financial category as you.


----------



## Wolf1974

You will find some women aren't concerned with money and others are. How many for sure I don't know. One nice thing about online dating is you can list your salary range so those looking for a payday and keep walking. I make a modest living and I have never had problems finding women. Only had two women, to my face anyway, admit that they were interested in me but wanted something more (money in other words). Never got upset by this I appreciated thier honesty


----------



## moco82

Wolf1974 said:


> Only had two women, to my face anyway, admit that they were interested in me but wanted something more (money in other words). Never got upset by this I appreciated thier honesty


I think their face would betray it all when they see super-modest living quarters disproportionate to the salary range.


----------



## Married but Happy

I found that most women I was interested in were not materialistic. My financial burdens didn't bother them, and while they were a burden on me, I was fortunate to be better off financially than a majority of my peers.


----------



## joannacroc

I am not a man, but have found that it can be a turnoff when men take you on a lavish date and then pay for it. Sure, initially it's nice, but then it creates really uncomfortable feelings of obligation. Think it's more about how considerate the dates you plan are. In other words, look up free concerts or events in your area. Find out what interests the woman you like and put some thought into planning a date. That is what is going to impress her. Not how much money you lay down.


----------



## FeministInPink

Holland said:


> EnigmaGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I first got divorced, part of my criteria for my new partner was that he was self-sufficient without any help from me and I wanted to ensure there was never a chance I'd be on the hook financially to take care of anyone else but myself and my own children.
> 
> But other than that, I wasn't picky about how much someone had. *Any woman that's worried about how much money you have is probably interested in having you support her and you need to avoid women like that like the plague.*
> 
> My now husband is very well off but I always pay for my half of everything...even now that we're married. I'm not interested in taking financial advantage of anyone...certainly not my husband.
> 
> 
> 
> A big generalisation there.
> 
> For casual dating I never cared what they earned but for a serious relationship it was/is very important that he be either a big earner and/or have a reasonable amount in assets.
> 
> Post divorce and at this stage in life one of the most important considerations for me was compatibility and financial compatibility is no less important than sexual, moral or any other issue.
> Post divorce I would suggest people look for others that are in a similar situation, no matter which part of the scale you are on, low income to very high income/wealth then look for potential mates in the same financial category as you.
Click to expand...

I agree with Holland here. BIG generalization. I am, by no means, a golddigger.  I am well-educated, make a decent living, and am relatively financially stable. (I'm paying off some debt incurred during/after my divorce because adjusting was a challenge, but I'm taking care of that now.) I can take care of myself, and I choose to live my life and plan for the future as if that will always be the case, that I will always be financially independent. And I'm proud of that fact. I put myself college and grad school, which I'm also proud of. (Granted, I got a really big scholarship for college, partially based on need--see below--but the way I see it, I also earned that money, because I couldn't have gotten into that school if I hadn't done well in high school. And it was partially merit-based.)

However--it's important to me that a potential partner be financially stable and make a good living. Not because I want him to support me. Hardly. I'm am looking for someone who won't compromise MY financial stability and MY quality of life. If, financially, I am better off single than partnering with a guy because his financials are a mess, I'm going to stay single. I was married to a guy who was horrible with money, and if I had stayed with him... he would have ruined both of us financially, I'm sure of it. Or, at the very least, we would have spent the rest of our life struggling. 

Growing up, I watched my parents struggle financially, on the cusp between lower and middle class. We never had fresh fruit in our house because it cost too much money. We didn't have birthday parties because it cost money. (The only reason I had a 16th birthday party is because I paid for it with money from my summer job.) I was the oldest child and I almost never had new clothes--I wore hand-me-downs from my friend Amy, who was 5 yrs older than me, and those were the hand-me-downs from her 3 older sisters. There was never money for anything, and I never heard then end of how much my sister and I cost. When I was 17 years old, my dad was laid off, and he has spent the last 20 years, going from job to job, been laid off a few more time, never making much more than half or 2/3 of what he was making at that job he lost when I was 17. They have struggled my entire life, and they will never be able to completely retire. Even when they are pulling social security, and even though they've put money aside, they will always have to work at least part-time. 

Honestly, I am TERRIFIED that could become my reality if I choose a partner who isn't financially stable, who doesn't have a good career. (This definitely would have happened to me if I stayed with my XH.) If that happens, there is no safety net. My family doesn't have money. I'm not getting an inheritance from anyone.

So, YES. Financial stability, a good career, and a healthy savings/retirement account is VERY IMPORTANT to me, and I'm not ashamed of it. I don't want someone who is going to spend a boatload of money on me, but I wouldn't mind it if he wanted to spoil me a little, because I've never had anyone spoil me before. But I don't want a big-ass house or expensive cars; I'd rather keep my Fiat and have a cozy, old house. I'm happy to live modestly. STUFF won't make me happy. BUT the security aspect is very important to me, and I'm not going to apologize for that.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> I'm am looking for someone who won't compromise MY financial stability and MY quality of life.


Well, this is what I said so clearly I wasn't interested in being financially responsible for any man either.



> my new partner was that he was self-sufficient without any help from me and I wanted to ensure there was never a chance I'd be on the hook financially to take care of anyone else but myself and my own children.





> BUT the security aspect is very important to me, and I'm not going to apologize for that.


I need security too but can provide my own security. I don't need a man to do that for me. All I needed was a man that could take care of his own financial health.


----------



## FeministInPink

Enigma, was referring to the one bolded statement, not your whole comment. I can get behind nearly everything else you said


----------



## Holland

EnigmaGirl said:


> Well, this is what I said so clearly I wasn't interested in being financially responsible for any man either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need security too but can provide my own security. I don't need a man to do that for me. All I needed was a man that could take care of his own financial health.


No you didn't say that clearly at all. In the bolded statement you have claimed most of these women are gold diggers and to be avoided. You have insulted the integrity of a large group of women for doing exactly what you did. You seem to have the hates on women, you are not superior to the rest of us at all.

Most of the women I know IRL are financially capable of taking care of themselves but also require a man with at least equal financial means. Just because a woman is savvy enough to partner up with a wealthy man does not mean they are gold diggers, in fact they are intelligent women that understand the importance of financial equality.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> No you didn't say that clearly at all.


Actually this is exactly what I said...I just again pulled it from my post.

Your failure to comprehend what I wrote doesn't negate the fact that I wrote it.



> *When I first got divorced, part of my criteria for my new partner was that he was self-sufficient without any help from me and I wanted to ensure there was never a chance I'd be on the hook financially to take care of anyone else but myself and my own children.*





> In the bolded statement you have claimed most of these women are gold diggers and to be avoided.


That's because I believe a lot of them are gold-diggers and men should absolutely avoid them. My opinion doesn't require your agreement. My opinion is that there are far too many women who seek men for monetary gain.



> You seem to have the hates on women, you are not superior to the rest of us at all.


lol, I don't hate anyone. I simply have zero respect for women who don't act like financially responsible adults and I make no secret of that. Last time I checked, I can pretty much admire or not admire whomever I please.


----------



## moco82

Holland said:


> For casual dating I never cared what they earned but for a serious relationship it was/is very important that he be either a big earner and/or have a reasonable amount in assets


It seems that a man would need considerable earning power to be back in your league after a divorce before retirement. Gotta get that first marriage right, or at least manage not to have kids in the failed marriage, boys!


----------



## Holland

moco82 said:


> It seems that a man would need considerable earning power to be back in your league after a divorce before retirement. Gotta get that first marriage right, or at least manage not to have kids in the failed marriage, boys!


Yes he did need to have considerable earning power to be considered a long term partner, what is the problem? Like I said financial equality is important to me, I have to protect myself and my kids future. We have a pre nup which protects ALL of us, me, him and our respective kids.


----------



## Holland

> *Any woman that's worried about how much money you have is probably interested in having you support her and you need to avoid women like that like the plague*.


This is the statement in question.

Any woman but just not you EG?


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Gotta get that first marriage right, or at least manage not to have kids in the failed marriage, boys!


Nah, just find a woman who's financially stable on her own, wants to be an equal partner and isn't looking for someone else's to take care of them monetarily. There are a lot of good women out there who just want a good man and aren't after a cash payout.



> Any woman but just not you EG?


You have the right to have whatever opinion you please about me or anything/anyone else. I assure you that your bad opinion of me won't be keeping me up at night.


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

moco82 said:


> Sometimes I think how I would have spent my paycheck had I been single without any obligations. I picture a nice apartment, perhaps with a view, and although I don't understand overspending on cars, I'm sure I wouldn't be driving a Civic. Then a decent % would go on restaurants, bars, and vacations (miles accrued from work can go a long way for just two people). Obviously, when you're newly single but retain most of the financial obligations, things are going to be a lot more Spartan.
> 
> Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?


they speak nicely and move on (or are really damaged looking for support)


----------



## moco82

Holland said:


> Yes he did need to have considerable earning power to be considered a long term partner, what is the problem?


Maybe we should define "considerable earning power". Can you please cite a pre-tax annual income you would deem "considerable"?


----------



## FeministInPink

Play nice, kids. No threadjacking!


----------



## Holland

Considerable Earning Power or CEP for short lol is around the $250k p/yr mark plus bonuses. Any other questions?


----------



## EleGirl

moco82 said:


> It seems that a man would need considerable earning power to be back in your league after a divorce before retirement. Gotta get that first marriage right, or at least manage not to have kids in the failed marriage, boys!


From my experience and that of a lot of my female friends, there are a lot of male gold diggers out there as well.

Any woman who has a good income and/or assets needs to be very careful because there are plenty of men out there who are looking to take advantage.


----------



## Holland

EnigmaGirl said:


> Nah, just find a woman who's financially stable on her own, wants to be an equal partner and isn't looking for someone else's to take care of them monetarily. There are a lot of good women out there who just want a good man and aren't after a cash payout.
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to have whatever opinion you please about me or anything/anyone else. I assure you that your bad opinion of me won't be keeping me up at night.


Causing insomnia is not my intent, just pointing out the hypocrisy.


----------



## MEM2020

Elegirl,

The post below is beautiful. It's what most women REALLY are like. 

My ex friend routinely dropped $500 on an all day date. But he also resented it. Like I said - ex friend. 




EleGirl said:


> From the perspective of one female (I can only speak for myself.)
> 
> After my divorce I dated 4 guys. The men were divorced just as I was. Some had younger children, some not.
> 
> What we did was that we took turns asking the other out. The one who asked paid. (I hate going Dutch.) I like this arrangement because the asker can plan the date to be something that they could afford. What mattered to me was not how much money a guy spent but how much thought he put into the date.
> 
> For example a date to do the river walk and have a picnic basket with wine, cheese and crackers can be as romantic as it gets. Or finding the best hole-in-the wall taco/burrito place in town is fun too.
> 
> Now if the dates are all going to his place to watch tv because it's essential free... too much of that is not cool... no thought, no effort. And it speaks of the goal to have sex, not to spend special time together.
> 
> IMO, it's not the money that is spent that is the issue.


----------



## Holland

OK back to topic............

life lessons post divorce: discuss all things openly and honestly, sex, kids, morals and financial issues. Some of these have emotion attached (speaking personally) and some are black and white. Issues around kids and finances are non emotional for me, B&W we were either compatible in these areas or not, if not then it would never have progressed to a LTR.

Most people are not gold diggers IME but yes some are. Like most things to do with relationships my POV is start how you intend to finish which means no pretences, no bait and switch just plain old honesty.
4 years down the track Mr H and I are still on the same page with all these issues, no blind siding as we were honest from day one. We have a very balanced financial situation and contribute in an equitable way.

Post divorce we should all have finally grown up into becoming real adults and to avoid conflict it is good that "like finds like" ie partner up with someone that has the same/similar financial level as yourself so it takes away the possible complications.


----------



## MEM2020

Enigma,

I want to understand your viewpoint a bit better. Do you consider it an unequal exchange of a woman stays home with a bunch of kids and treats her SAHM job like a pro? Meaning:
- Kids get a high quantity of high quality attention 
- Mom specifically chooses activities with educational value - such as reading to them in a way that gradually teaches them to read.
- Runs the house like a Swiss clock, everything is clean and organized
- Spends carefully AND efficiently - prizes her ability to find bargains/negotiate
- Puts the husbands sexual desires ahead of her own - by having sex more frequently than maybe she'd like, because she knows his job is stressful
- Without hesitation gets up and deals with any night time disturbances so he can get a good nights sleep

In the spirit of proactive reciprocity I'll go first. 

I absolutely dislike the politically correct nonsense of the current day which favors statements such as: being a stay at home mom is the HARDEST job in the world. 

The post below is from 5 years ago. And  we had some - control issues - which have since been resolved. 

When we met we both earned about the same and made good money for our ages. When we had kids I did not WANT 100 percent of the financial responsibility. We fought about it. She prevailed. I wanted 2 kids - she wanted 3. We had 3. Our first child took 2 two hour naps a day and slept through the night. I am NOT a messy guy and I like to cook. While we had one child - her life was definitely easier then mine and she will tell you so without hesitation. And I will also say that she is a great mom and would read the kids the same book 50 times in a row if they asked or play candy land 100 times in a row if they wanted even though she hated that game. She was 10 times better in her role then I would have been. 

This whole idea of men being beholden to women because the women have a 7/24 job is a fine concept but in reality:
- There is a HUGE difference between a 6 month old and a 7 year old in terms of labor intensiveness. 
- And between an easy kid and a difficult kid. And between a difficult kid and a special needs kid. 
- Between 1 child and 4 children

So if you have 4 preschool kids then you trump ANY person working for money in terms of workload. If you have 1 easy child who is 2 years old and a hard working husband then IME your life is in a very real sense easier then his. 

As for the "house". I have been the house husband for the last year plus. So lets start with the whole 7/24 thing. You are ON CALL 7/24 sure. But actual work hours can be a LOT less then 60 hours a week and as for what is a work hour well lets address that. 

If I spend 3 hours a day on the house - which is the MOST it takes - on the house - how do I compute hours worked when:
- I watch tv while folding the laundry which is the only labor intensive part. Sorry doesn't feel like work. 
- I can unload the dishwasher while on the phone with friends. Same for picking up the house a bit - using my telephone headset. If I do a bunch of "work" while chatting with friends and watching tv how does that compare to a stressful job dealing with demanding customers? Not saying it is effortless - I AM saying that it feels political when I read how women have it so hard and men have it so easy. 

On the revenue side:
- There is a difference between a 40 hour work week and a 60
- Between a low travel job and a high travel job
- Just as there is a huge difference between being a librarian and being a technology consultant in stress level. So instead of speaking in gross generalizations I will be specific. 

In my house:
- When we had 1 child her life was easier. 
- When we had 2 children her life was still easier since the first was almost 5 when the second was born. 
- When we had 3 children 2 of whom were quite young her job was harder and I should have helped more
- When all 3 of them were in school full time her job became easier again - details below.


Fast forward 13 years:
- All 3 kids are now in school - youngest is in first grade
- I am now working a job that is very difficult and emotionally draining - and yes time consuming. 
- I am earning per month what I earned per year when we met
- She is taking great care of the kids - as always - but treats any extra requests I have as a very low priority

We had intense conflict over this last bit - for over a year - at which point she made my requests a high priority - they were never things that were very time consuming - things like getting me a house key made. And you know what I emotionally started to burn out ON MY MARRIAGE. Because I really started to feel used. And - amazingly - I got so angry about it - that it did effect our sex life for a while. 

So I can understand how the reverse is true - when the reverse REALLY is true. I just don't think women always address the specifics of their situation. 





EnigmaGirl said:


> Actually this is exactly what I said...I just again pulled it from my post.
> 
> Your failure to comprehend what I wrote doesn't negate the fact that I wrote it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because I believe a lot of them are gold-diggers and men should absolutely avoid them. My opinion doesn't require your agreement. My opinion is that there are far too many women who seek men for monetary gain.
> 
> 
> 
> lol, I don't hate anyone. I simply have zero respect for women who don't act like financially responsible adults and I make no secret of that. Last time I checked, I can pretty much admire or not admire whomever I please.


----------



## EleGirl

MEM11363 said:


> Enigma,
> 
> I want to understand your viewpoint a bit better. Do you consider it an unequal exchange of a woman stays home with a bunch of kids and treats her SAHM job like a pro? Meaning:
> - Kids get a high quantity of high quality attention
> - Mom specifically chooses activities with educational value - such as reading to them in a way that gradually teaches them to read.
> - Runs the house like a Swiss clock, everything is clean and organized
> - Spends carefully AND efficiently - prizes her ability to find bargains/negotiate
> - Puts the husbands sexual desires ahead of her own - by having sex more frequently than maybe she'd like, because she knows his job is stressful
> - Without hesitation gets up and deals with any night time disturbances so he can get a good nights sleep
> 
> In the spirit of proactive reciprocity I'll go first.
> 
> I absolutely dislike the politically correct nonsense of the current day which favors statements such as: being a stay at home mom is the HARDEST job in the world.
> 
> The post below is from 5 years ago. And  we had some - control issues - which have since been resolved.
> 
> When we met we both earned about the same and made good money for our ages. When we had kids I did not WANT 100 percent of the financial responsibility. We fought about it. She prevailed. I wanted 2 kids - she wanted 3. We had 3. Our first child took 2 two hour naps a day and slept through the night. I am NOT a messy guy and I like to cook. While we had one child - her life was definitely easier then mine and she will tell you so without hesitation. And I will also say that she is a great mom and would read the kids the same book 50 times in a row if they asked or play candy land 100 times in a row if they wanted even though she hated that game. She was 10 times better in her role then I would have been.
> 
> This whole idea of men being beholden to women because the women have a 7/24 job is a fine concept but in reality:
> - There is a HUGE difference between a 6 month old and a 7 year old in terms of labor intensiveness.
> - And between an easy kid and a difficult kid. And between a difficult kid and a special needs kid.
> - Between 1 child and 4 children
> 
> So if you have 4 preschool kids then you trump ANY person working for money in terms of workload. If you have 1 easy child who is 2 years old and a hard working husband then IME your life is in a very real sense easier then his.
> 
> As for the "house". I have been the house husband for the last year plus. So lets start with the whole 7/24 thing. You are ON CALL 7/24 sure. But actual work hours can be a LOT less then 60 hours a week and as for what is a work hour well lets address that.
> 
> If I spend 3 hours a day on the house - which is the MOST it takes - on the house - how do I compute hours worked when:
> - I watch tv while folding the laundry which is the only labor intensive part. Sorry doesn't feel like work.
> - I can unload the dishwasher while on the phone with friends. Same for picking up the house a bit - using my telephone headset. If I do a bunch of "work" while chatting with friends and watching tv how does that compare to a stressful job dealing with demanding customers? Not saying it is effortless - I AM saying that it feels political when I read how women have it so hard and men have it so easy.
> 
> On the revenue side:
> - There is a difference between a 40 hour work week and a 60
> - Between a low travel job and a high travel job
> - Just as there is a huge difference between being a librarian and being a technology consultant in stress level. So instead of speaking in gross generalizations I will be specific.
> 
> In my house:
> - When we had 1 child her life was easier.
> - When we had 2 children her life was still easier since the first was almost 5 when the second was born.
> - When we had 3 children 2 of whom were quite young her job was harder and I should have helped more
> - When all 3 of them were in school full time her job became easier again - details below.
> 
> 
> Fast forward 13 years:
> - All 3 kids are now in school - youngest is in first grade
> - I am now working a job that is very difficult and emotionally draining - and yes time consuming.
> - I am earning per month what I earned per year when we met
> - She is taking great care of the kids - as always - but treats any extra requests I have as a very low priority
> 
> We had intense conflict over this last bit - for over a year - at which point she made my requests a high priority - they were never things that were very time consuming - things like getting me a house key made. And you know what I emotionally started to burn out ON MY MARRIAGE. Because I really started to feel used. And - amazingly - I got so angry about it - that it did effect our sex life for a while.
> 
> So I can understand how the reverse is true - when the reverse REALLY is true. I just don't think women always address the specifics of their situation.


Mem, this is a good post. Clearly there is no one size fits all in marriage with children.


----------



## Holland

MEM11363 said:


> Enigma,
> 
> I want to understand your viewpoint a bit better. Do you consider it an unequal exchange of a woman stays home with a bunch of kids and treats her SAHM job like a pro? Meaning:
> - Kids get a high quantity of high quality attention
> - Mom specifically chooses activities with educational value - such as reading to them in a way that gradually teaches them to read.
> - Runs the house like a Swiss clock, everything is clean and organized
> - Spends carefully AND efficiently - prizes her ability to find bargains/negotiate
> - Puts the husbands sexual desires ahead of her own - by having sex more frequently than maybe she'd like, because she knows his job is stressful
> - Without hesitation gets up and deals with any night time disturbances so he can get a good nights sleep
> 
> In the spirit of proactive reciprocity I'll go first.
> 
> I absolutely dislike the politically correct nonsense of the current day which favors statements such as: being a stay at home mom is the HARDEST job in the world.
> 
> The post below is from 5 years ago. And  we had some - control issues - which have since been resolved.
> 
> When we met we both earned about the same and made good money for our ages. When we had kids I did not WANT 100 percent of the financial responsibility. We fought about it. She prevailed. I wanted 2 kids - she wanted 3. We had 3. Our first child took 2 two hour naps a day and slept through the night. I am NOT a messy guy and I like to cook. While we had one child - her life was definitely easier then mine and she will tell you so without hesitation. And I will also say that she is a great mom and would read the kids the same book 50 times in a row if they asked or play candy land 100 times in a row if they wanted even though she hated that game. She was 10 times better in her role then I would have been.
> 
> This whole idea of men being beholden to women because the women have a 7/24 job is a fine concept but in reality:
> - There is a HUGE difference between a 6 month old and a 7 year old in terms of labor intensiveness.
> - And between an easy kid and a difficult kid. And between a difficult kid and a special needs kid.
> - Between 1 child and 4 children
> 
> So if you have 4 preschool kids then you trump ANY person working for money in terms of workload. If you have 1 easy child who is 2 years old and a hard working husband then IME your life is in a very real sense easier then his.
> 
> As for the "house". I have been the house husband for the last year plus. So lets start with the whole 7/24 thing. You are ON CALL 7/24 sure. But actual work hours can be a LOT less then 60 hours a week and as for what is a work hour well lets address that.
> 
> If I spend 3 hours a day on the house - which is the MOST it takes - on the house - how do I compute hours worked when:
> - I watch tv while folding the laundry which is the only labor intensive part. Sorry doesn't feel like work.
> - I can unload the dishwasher while on the phone with friends. Same for picking up the house a bit - using my telephone headset. If I do a bunch of "work" while chatting with friends and watching tv how does that compare to a stressful job dealing with demanding customers? Not saying it is effortless - I AM saying that it feels political when I read how women have it so hard and men have it so easy.
> 
> On the revenue side:
> - There is a difference between a 40 hour work week and a 60
> - Between a low travel job and a high travel job
> - Just as there is a huge difference between being a librarian and being a technology consultant in stress level. So instead of speaking in gross generalizations I will be specific.
> 
> In my house:
> - When we had 1 child her life was easier.
> - When we had 2 children her life was still easier since the first was almost 5 when the second was born.
> - When we had 3 children 2 of whom were quite young her job was harder and I should have helped more
> - When all 3 of them were in school full time her job became easier again - details below.
> 
> 
> Fast forward 13 years:
> - All 3 kids are now in school - youngest is in first grade
> - I am now working a job that is very difficult and emotionally draining - and yes time consuming.
> - I am earning per month what I earned per year when we met
> - She is taking great care of the kids - as always - but treats any extra requests I have as a very low priority
> 
> We had intense conflict over this last bit - for over a year - at which point she made my requests a high priority - they were never things that were very time consuming - things like getting me a house key made. And you know what I emotionally started to burn out ON MY MARRIAGE. Because I really started to feel used. And - amazingly - I got so angry about it - that it did effect our sex life for a while.
> 
> So I can understand how the reverse is true - when the reverse REALLY is true. I just don't think women always address the specifics of their situation.


As usual a fantastic post MEM, we are getting way off track here but relevant in a way because in the end this is the end goal that is primary for me personally....

my son, my first born, the one that had lived longer than the other two in an "intact" family unit has just passed his VCE (higher school cert) with incredible results, was second DUX of school by .5%, 98% ATAR, VCE Baccalaureate, Cert in CISCO IT, School award for the State Govt. level for leadership, Defence Force recognition Medal for leadership and will without any doubt will get his first preference for Uni entrance. 
My "job" as a SAHM and WAHM for all those years was to cater to my family, to run around and drive for up to 3 hours a day taking kids to this and that. We are post divorce and he is an "intact" human being, he is amazing. I did an amazing job, his dad did an amazing job. One of us earned great money, one of us did the hard yards with our kids but we are equal value to our children. Some things are more important than money.

BTW my second born we have been told is going to give her brother a run for his money and is set to be an even higher achiever, not bad for a two house hold family.


----------



## Ynot

To get back to the OP, I really think the issues of post divorce financial arrangements vs those pre-marriage or during marriage are completely different. Or at least should be for mature responsible adults. Our motivations are different or at least should be. We are no longer looking for someone to support us (that works both ways guys) but someone to enhance what we have.

When we were younger few of us had a clue about life. And we had the all the time in the world to figure it out. As we have gotten older, we have all learned lessons along the way. We have developed new boundaries which we are more eager to enforce and a lot less likely to compromise.

Regardless of what someone's threshold of acceptable is, it still goes back to you just being you. If you are a responsible, self sufficient human being, you will find someone who is willing to accept you for who you are. Heck even if you aren't you will still probably find someone - but that is a whole different discussion. Striving to meet someone else's standards are a recipe for unhappiness. If a woman doesn't want to be with me because I don't make 250k or don't have a 7 figure retirement package, it's good to know. I am much more focused on the things that make me happy to worry about her expectations. As far as I am concerned, it is her loss, not mine. And I am not saying that in a vindictive way. If she thinks a salary and assets are important, that is her choice. It just isn't mine.


----------



## moco82

Holland said:


> Considerable Earning Power or CEP for short lol is around the $250k p/yr mark plus bonuses. Any other questions?


Does that leave a wide pool of eligible bachelors in your geographical area?


----------



## FeministInPink

moco82 said:


> Does that leave a wide pool of eligible bachelors in your geographical area?


Ha ha, I was thinking if that's her ceiling, then I need to shoot higher, because my expectations are clearly too low.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> A big generalisation there.
> 
> For casual dating I never cared what they earned but for a serious relationship it was/is very important that he be either a big earner and/or have a reasonable amount in assets.
> 
> Post divorce and at this stage in life one of the most important considerations for me was compatibility and financial compatibility is no less important than sexual, moral or any other issue.
> Post divorce I would suggest people look for others that are in a similar situation, no matter which part of the scale you are on, low income to very high income/wealth then look for potential mates in the same financial category as you.


This doesn't resonate with me. 

If I was to divorce, I would still be pretty well off. I would be open to anyone that I got on well with. If they had tons of money fine, but if they were low income, it wouldn't matter to me. I don't see a need for 'financial compatibility'.


----------



## Holland

moco82 said:


> Does that leave a wide pool of eligible bachelors in your geographical area?


No idea but I do live in a big city. Anyway I did meet the right man so it doesn't concern me how many are in this bracket but it is not uncommon most of my circle earn this or more.


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> This doesn't resonate with me.
> 
> If I was to divorce, I would still be pretty well off. I would be open to anyone that I got on well with. If they had tons of money fine, but if they were low income, it wouldn't matter to me. I don't see a need for 'financial compatibility'.


All good if it doesn't resonate with you. As you are not divorced and have previously built up assets to protect for yourself or your children then it is a moot point anyway.

If you had a large asset base to protect do you think you would want to do that or it wouldn't matter to you to leave yourself and your kids financially vulnerable?


----------



## Holland

Ynot said:


> ..........you will still probably find someone - but that is a whole different discussion. Striving to meet someone else's standards are a recipe for unhappiness. If a woman doesn't want to be with me because I don't make 250k or don't have a 7 figure retirement package, it's good to know. I am much more focused on the things that make me happy to worry about her expectations. As far as I am concerned, it is her loss, not mine. And I am not saying that in a vindictive way. If she thinks a salary and assets are important, that is her choice. It just isn't mine.


Being wealthy and focusing on things that make us happy are not mutually exclusive. 

And yes salary and assets are important to me because I have a lot to protect for myself and my kids. Not sure why that is hard for some to understand.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> All good if it doesn't resonate with you. As you are not divorced and have previously built up assets to protect for yourself or your children then it is a moot point anyway.
> 
> If you had a large asset base to protect do you think you would want to do that or it wouldn't matter to you to leave yourself and your kids financially vulnerable?


It would be smart to have a prenup to protect your Assets. May set up trusts for the kids. But that doesn't have anything to do with how well off my partner is. Would do that whether they were rich or poor.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> Being wealthy and focusing on things that make us happy are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> And yes salary and assets are important to me because I have a lot to protect for myself and my kids. Not sure why that is hard for some to understand.


Wouldn't you protect your assets whether you date a rich person or a poor person. What does it matter?


----------



## SadSamIAm

intheory said:


> I stay at home now. Most times we both worked.
> 
> He stayed at home once for about 3 years. I made so little money it was downright scary.
> 
> But it I had made adequate money, it would have been fine.
> 
> I kind of like the idea of letting him stay home and spoiling him that way.
> 
> I personally think that if you both love each other and there's enough for you not to be "homeless and hungry", it's okay. I'm not really financially ambitious, obviously.
> 
> I do think that people of roughly the same incomes should pair up. I can totally understand a wealthy person not wanting to get taken to the cleaners; or marrying someone not at their level.


I think I would get a great deal of satisfaction falling in love with someone that didn't have much and making their life better by providing a nice home and holidays, etc. for them/us. My hope would be that they were also in love with me and not using me for things.


----------



## SadSamIAm

intheory said:


> Awww! I hope your wife/gf. appreciates your generous nature.
> 
> It's a great thing to have; you just have to be careful whom you share it with.


That is my point. You need to be careful who you end up with. It is about their character. Not about how much money they make.

Who would you trust more, someone that earns say $50,000 a year or someone that earns $150,000 a year?

Seems like a dumb question to me. What they make has nothing to do with how trust worthy they are.

I think the people that are concerned about how much their partner makes are the kind of people that want some of it. It isn't about protecting themselves. They should protect themselves whether they end up with a rich person or a poor person. Either one could take advantage of them.


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> Wouldn't you protect your assets whether you date a rich person or a poor person. What does it matter?


As I said in my earlier post this was not a concern when simply dating the difference was that to be in a LTR then for me financial compatibility is as fundamental as sexual, moral, religious etc compatibility. 

The difference in a LTR (for me) is that it is just easier to get on with life with a man of similar assets, there are no potential inequalities, I don't want to support him and his kids and I don't want to be supported. That just leaves equality which is perfect for me. This is everyone's choice surely? Regardless it has worked out over here so all good.


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> That is my point. You need to be careful who you end up with. It is about their character. Not about how much money they make.
> 
> Who would you trust more, someone that earns say $50,000 a year or someone that earns $150,000 a year?
> 
> Seems like a dumb question to me. What they make has nothing to do with how trust worthy they are.
> 
> *I think the people that are concerned about how much their partner makes are the kind of people that want some of it. It isn't about protecting themselves.* They should protect themselves whether they end up with a rich person or a poor person. Either one could take advantage of them.


A gross unfounded generalisation.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> As I said in my earlier post this was not a concern when simply dating the difference was that to be in a LTR then for me financial compatibility is as fundamental as sexual, moral, religious etc compatibility.
> 
> The difference in a LTR (for me) is that it is just easier to get on with life with a man of similar assets, there are no potential inequalities, I don't want to support him and his kids and I don't want to be supported. That just leaves equality which is perfect for me. This is everyone's choice surely? Regardless it has worked out over here so all good.


So if you met the nicest guy, very good looking, great in bed, very honest, makes you laugh and makes you feel great about yourself you would not help support him? Why not?


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> Considerable Earning Power or CEP for short lol is around the $250k p/yr mark plus bonuses. Any other questions?


And exactly what do you bring to the table that corresponds to an income is in the top fraction of 1% of the population?


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> It would be smart to have a prenup to protect your Assets. May set up trusts for the kids. But that doesn't have anything to do with how well off my partner is. Would do that whether they were rich or poor.


Yes a prenup is the norm post divorce and then into second marriage.

I get it, you are not in this situation so it is hard to get your head around just like some of the stuff I read here but as I have never been in their shoes (thinking things like infidelity) then I don't comment as there are some things you need to experience to understand.

Here is another aspect to it all, Mr H and I are financially compatible, we have protected ourselves and our kids because as anyone post divorce knows life does not always go to plan.
Now we are free to build more assets together, equally and have lots of fun with it. As an almost 50 yr old with wealth I really don't want to be stuck with a man with no wealth, I have no intention of life stagnating, want to do lots of things such as have our country property and do extensive travel. I need an equal to do those things. 

Maybe if you ever get divorced and have assets to protect you could come back and tell us if you think this is all so silly.


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> And exactly what do you bring to the table that corresponds to an income is in the top fraction of 1% of the population?


As you asked so nicely, a high end 7 figure asset base that generates enough income that I can spend my time volunteering and working 2 days a week through choice. I also work from home trading equities and can generate a months wages in a week when I am disciplined enough. Any other questions?

ETA my wealth is Nett, not one cent of debt, own all my properties, car etc outright.


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> So if you met the nicest guy, very good looking, great in bed, very honest, makes you laugh and makes you feel great about yourself you would not help support him? Why not?


I am happy to answer questions as long as they are in the spirit of healthy discussion. I get it that my life is not the norm, never has been.

The honest answer is NO, I would not support a man at this stage of my life, not financially anyway.
I support my partner in many ways, cook for him, wash and iron his shirts, cater to his needs as much as possible as long as my kids needs have been met. We have a rocking sex life and are a true partnership. He is honest, good looking and makes me laugh so hard that I almost wet myself.

I have lived through enough to know now what I want and what I will not settle for. If that is a problem for anyone then it is their problem, not mine.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> Yes a prenup is the norm post divorce and then into second marriage.
> 
> I get it, you are not in this situation so it is hard to get your head around just like some of the stuff I read here but as I have never been in their shoes (thinking things like infidelity) then I don't comment as there are some things you need to experience to understand.
> 
> Here is another aspect to it all, Mr H and I are financially compatible, we have protected ourselves and our kids because as anyone post divorce knows life does not always go to plan.
> Now we are free to build more assets together, equally and have lots of fun with it. As an almost 50 yr old with wealth I really don't want to be stuck with a man with no wealth, I have no intention of life stagnating, want to do lots of things such as have our country property and do extensive travel. I need an equal to do those things.


So people that aren't wealthy have stagnated lives? 

People that don't have a country property or do extensive travel aren't happy? 

They aren't your equal?

I have a vacation property. I travel a fair amount. Have a large income. People with these things aren't automatically happy.


----------



## Holland

SadSamIAm said:


> So people that aren't wealthy have stagnated lives?
> 
> People that don't have a country property or do extensive travel aren't happy?
> 
> They aren't your equal?
> 
> I have a vacation property. I travel a fair amount. Have a large income. People with these things aren't automatically happy.


You are projecting too much into my words, I never said the above. I said that for me to move forward financially and do the things I choose to then it is with a man that is financially compatible. I know plenty of happy, fulfilled people of lesser wealth it is crazy to say I said the opposite.

OK bowing out now, projecting and accusations are not in the spirit of healthy discussion. Cheers


----------



## arbitrator

*For what it is worth, I have found that a lot of divorced women, more especially those that either came from or had divorce provide them with an opulent lifestyle, almost universally make the statement to the effect that "I really don't want some handsome, prospective romantic interest to use me as some "Sugar Mama" to support, promote, or sponsor them"; but these very same women usually have nary a problem with these same "beau's," provided that they can have unfettered access to and can readily make use this man's money!

Now as far as I'm concerned, I never have ever wanted to look at any woman's bank account or savings dossier just to see what they've got in there! I'm far more interested in what it is they've got clicking between their ears, and what they have going on inside of their heart! To me, money and wealth means absolutely "jack!"

Been there; done that ~ and I sure as hell don't ever want to go back! *
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist

Holland said:


> As you asked so nicely, a high end 7 figure asset base that generates enough income that I can spend my time volunteering and working 2 days a week through choice. I also work from home trading equities and can generate a months wages in a week when I am disciplined enough. Any other questions?
> 
> ETA my wealth is Nett, not one cent of debt, own all my properties, car etc outright.


Then it sounds like you are in fact the equivalent of what you are looking for, which makes your requirements reasonable.

Unfortunately many people think they deserve more than they provide, which is not reasonable.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> Wouldn't you protect your assets whether you date a rich person or a poor person. What does it matter?


I said pretty much the same thing.

Protecting your assets after a divorce is fine.

But it doesn't follow that to do that, you need to find a man with a huge income. You can protect your assets against someone with whatever income.

The reason to want to seek someone with a huge income is because you want some of what they own/have. 

My earlier post was simply that fact. Personally, I don't want or need someone else's money. I have my own and am not interested in being a financial dependent.


----------



## Holland

technovelist said:


> Then it sounds like you are in fact the equivalent of what you are looking for, which makes your requirements reasonable.
> 
> Unfortunately many people think they deserve more than they provide, which is not reasonable.


Yes and TBH I have no problem with it all, if others do then that is theirs to wallow in. My ex and I started out financial equals as well albeit much less to ours names. While we were not compatible sexually we were compatible in other areas and as a team worked very hard to build our portfolio, I mean hard physical work doing reno's and flicking them, we made fantastic money doing this. While our friends were living it up in luxury and in massive debt we lived very modestly and built our wealth.
We split our assets 50/50 and are both OK post divorce.

Many do think they deserve more than they provide, I never subscribed to that way of thinking which is why bottom line, I would not partner with a wealthy man if I wasn't and I would not enter into a serious relationship with a man that is not my financial equal. 

Really cannot see the problem here, surely after divorce people should be able to be honest about their wants/needs in a partner. I still put sexual and financial compatibility at the top of my list, no emotion involved in this, it is a head decision not a heart one.


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> The reason to want to seek someone with a huge income is because you want some of what they own/have.


If, in a situation like Holland's, the parties are financially equal, the above does not hold. Why? Because each is equally entitled to what the other owns/has/earns. It is a pretty good balance.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> If, in a situation like Holland's, the parties are financially equal, the above does not hold. Why? Because each is equally entitled to what the other owns/has/earns. It is a pretty good balance.


I actually never commented on her situation...its not at all interesting to me.

What I did say is that generally when a woman is seeking a man with a huge salary its too often because she's interested in his money.

A woman who's only interested in protecting her own assets doesn't necessarily have to seek a partner who makes a huge sum of money...those two things are not equal at all. In fact, I know people that have had huge sums of money and still go after the other partner in divorce.


----------



## SadSamIAm

Holland said:


> Yes and TBH I have no problem with it all, if others do then that is theirs to wallow in. My ex and I started out financial equals as well albeit much less to ours names. While we were not compatible sexually we were compatible in other areas and as a team worked very hard to build our portfolio, I mean hard physical work doing reno's and flicking them, we made fantastic money doing this. While our friends were living it up in luxury and in massive debt we lived very modestly and built our wealth.
> We split our assets 50/50 and are both OK post divorce.
> 
> Many do think they deserve more than they provide, I never subscribed to that way of thinking which is why bottom line, I would not partner with a wealthy man if I wasn't and I would not enter into a serious relationship with a man that is not my financial equal.
> 
> Really cannot see the problem here, surely after divorce people should be able to be honest about their wants/needs in a partner. I still put sexual and financial compatibility at the top of my list, no emotion involved in this, it is a head decision not a heart one.


"Many do think they deserve more than they provide"

Sounds so superficial when talking about money. Same as if you talk about any object like this. Cars, houses, clothes, investments, Etc. Why do these need to be equal? 

I would be much more upset if my partner felt they deserved more love than the provided. More kindness. More honesty. The amount of effort. 

Not just some THING like money. 

I think it is fine that you and your husband are both wealthy. But I think what will keep you happy and together is your other priority (sex). I hope your husband also has integrity, compassion and honesty. Without those, money is not worth much.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Spotthedeaddog

FeministInPink said:


> I was married to a guy who was horrible with money, and if I had stayed with him... he would have ruined both of us financially, I'm sure of it. Or, at the very least, we would have spent the rest of our life struggling.
> 
> So, YES. Financial stability, a good career, and a healthy savings/retirement account is VERY IMPORTANT to me, and I'm not ashamed of it. I don't want someone who is going to spend a boatload of money on me, but I wouldn't mind it if he wanted to spoil me a little, because I've never had anyone spoil me before.


From someone who has watched people and guys, and has a nose for finance....let me just completely assure you... you made the right call.
From what I've seen either the guy has a prudent financial mind, or they do not. 

Even if he got a high roller job he would have just built the "bigger debt hole" to eat it all. and the more money would have just resulted in less reason for him to become prudent.

If he doesn't comprehend the budget/plan, and is at least building some sort of future portfolio, he would have to smash into "train wreck"/"train coming the other way"/"burnt ashes" befreo he had a reason to change...and your prudence would only have delayed that prudence. At best you would have spent a life micromanaging his financial behaviour, like a parent with an ADD child.

IMO, you made an excellent call. I wish you well with your investments. Don't spoil or go lenient on your kids, growing up with stuff is what creates that mindset of your ex's - having not gone without and seen others pain from the failure, they cannot comprehend it as there is nothing in their mind to relate to financial failure. (also why a lot of daughters alos have the same lack of money appreciation, as often someone will give them something if they look poor or cry)


----------



## EleGirl

EnigmaGirl said:


> I actually never commented on her situation...its not at all interesting to me.
> 
> *What I did say is that generally when a woman is seeking a man with a huge salary its too often because she's interested in his money.
> *
> 
> A woman who's only interested in protecting her own assets doesn't necessarily have to seek a partner who makes a huge sum of money...those two things are not equal at all. In fact, I know people that have had huge sums of money and still go after the other partner in divorce.


The same goes for a man who is only seeing a woman with huge salary and/or assets. Believe me there are plenty of them out there.
If two people have grossly unequal assets, income, etc. it can be very hard for one of them to protect their higher income/assets. I know this from experience.

A person with lower income can end up sapping income/assets because often times the higher earning person ends up footing the bill on just about everything. This can put their financial wellbeing at risk. 

Now if a person accepts that risk, then that’s their choice. But it’s also a choice to not accept this type of risk. Both are valid choices. People have the right to decide what criteria they use to choose a mate.

Both men and women with good income and assets need to be very careful of gold diggers. There are plenty out there looking to take from other.


----------



## gouge_away

After separating finances, I took all the debts, mortgage, car payments, insurances, taxes and utilities. I gave her 5 months to stay at the house with zero financial obligations, so she could find a job to supplement her income. She chose not to, within that 5 months all our debts were paid off... At the end of the 5 months she was on the street.

During our marriage I was working 50+ hours a week, we were living paycheck to paycheck. Once I separated my income from her even with all the obligations I took sole responsibility for, I didn't work a single hour over 40/wk. I was able to stick money in the bank, pay my outrageously expensive lawyer and develop a less than healthy online shopping addiction.

I have a great night life, eat real food I prepare myself, and took up a few hobbies during my free time.

We didn't have kids together, she had 2 boys that she brought into the marriage, one was a adult with a full time job, I'm sure he was/is then and now supporting her.


----------



## EleGirl

gouge_away,

Good to hear that you are doing well financially now.

What a shame for your son, the younger one, that he is stuck in that situation. I suppose she's out looking for the next guy to support her.

Did you sell the house?


----------



## arbitrator

EnigmaGirl said:


> I actually never commented on her situation...its not at all interesting to me.
> 
> What I did say is that generally when a woman is seeking a man with a huge salary its too often because she's interested in his money.
> 
> A woman who's only interested in protecting her own assets doesn't necessarily have to seek a partner who makes a huge sum of money...those two things are not equal at all. * In fact, I know people that have had huge sums of money and still go after the other partner in divorce.*


*And for resounding proof of that most learned statement, I'd like to introduce my RSXW(rich, skanky, ex-wife) as Exhibit "A"!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround

> I absolutely dislike the politically correct nonsense of the current day which favors statements such as: being a stay at home mom is the HARDEST job in the world.


I agree. My mother was a SAHM. She has admitted that it was an easy job even with 6 kids. If we were to compare it to a job outside the house, here are the differences:
1. No need to present a yearly budget.
2. No need to follow a yearly budget.
3. No need to present a list of goals.
4. No need to even work to attain those goals.
5. No periodic evaluations.
6. And to "fire"a SAHM, well we know what that takes and it's never complete like being fired from a company.

IF being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world, why do so many women choose to do it. That defies economic logic.


----------



## Ynot

Holland said:


> Being wealthy and focusing on things that make us happy are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> And yes salary and assets are important to me because I have a lot to protect for myself and my kids. Not sure why that is hard for some to understand.


I don't believe I ever said they were, but feel free to make assumptions. What I said was that someone who was more concerned with money and retirements plans was doing me a favor because I have other pursuits to my own happiness. I don't understand what is so difficult for YOU to understand.


----------



## arbitrator

NextTimeAround said:


> I agree. My mother was a SAHM. She has admitted that it was an easy job even with 6 kids. If we were to compare it to a job outside the house, here are the differences:
> 1. No need to present a yearly budget.
> 2. No need to follow a yearly budget.
> 3. No need to present a list of goals.
> 4. No need to even work to attain those goals.
> 5. No periodic evaluations.
> 6. And to "fire"a SAHM, well we know what that takes and it's never complete like being fired from a company.
> 
> *If being a SAHM is the hardest job in the world, why do so many women choose to do it. That defies economic logic.*


*Sorry, but the "economic logic" referred to is simply called "job security" on their part!

So let's just say that it does, in fact, work rather well for them, just as well as it does for their marital partners! 

But that's really only up until the time that the petition for divorce from them finally arrives!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround

EleGirl said:


> From my experience and that of a lot of my female friends, there are a lot of male gold diggers out there as well.
> 
> Any woman who has a good income and/or assets needs to be very careful because there are plenty of men out there who are looking to take advantage.


yes, and these gold diggers are not easily identified by their own lack of assets.

The guy I dated between marriages was making 6 figures and lived in a $750K valued house (about one third was the value of the mortgage.)

At the same time that he was professing truelove and marriage and he would come to London (from the USto be with me) and all my friends and family swooened at how into me he was and what a great catch.....

umm, yeah,
1. he wanted to move into my teeny little 2 bed apt that I "shared" with my business
2. and then pay me "something" towards the rent. He never said how much because I "turned" down the offer
3. he also tried to twist my arm to get me to "use his house" as an "office" in the US for my business. No discussion of course as to how much that would cost or who would pay for that.
4. he took the first job offer made to him which was a 50% cut in pay from his (then) current job. He was "leaving" a very large organisation, so it's very possible that they had a sabbatical program that he was trying to use. So that could have been one year in London / a tour of Europe all the while knowing that his job and home are still waiting for him back in the US. 

I had not gotten to that point of analysis above in real time, but I did know that I was not going to let some man that I had only known for a year (and LDR at that) take away half of my living space.

Some people accused me of using him and that I was not that into him. Some women can be our own worst enemies.


----------



## gouge_away

EleGirl said:


> gouge_away,
> ....
> Did you sell the house?


No not yet, my son, dog, and I are staying here. There will need to be some work done if I am to break even on the house.


----------



## Cooper

Financial equality or at least common financial philosophy is a huge part of my post divorce life. Maybe that's shame on me thinking but frankly I have no interest in a woman who's plus fifty and still hasn't figured out how to save a nickel. 

It has nothing to do with not wanting to be supportive of a new partner or fearing I will lose half of my portfolio (again). To me it is just another must have aspect of commonality in a relationship, I don't want to fight about money, I want someone who shares my financial philosophy and works toward the same goal. She doesn't necessarily have to be my financial equal, she doesn't need to be on the exact same page, but she sure needs to be reading from the same book.

Back to the OP's original question of how he will look on the dating market while carrying financial burdens or obligations. At this point it becomes a matter of recoverability for you. If I saw you as someone who would be financially distressed for the next twenty years I wouldn't be interested in you, sorry (plus I'm a dude). If you have the ability and tenacity to rise above your current financial situation then I would look at the long term picture a bit differently.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> The same goes for a man who is only seeing a woman with huge salary and/or assets. Believe me there are plenty of them out there.
> If two people have grossly unequal assets, income, etc. it can be very hard for one of them to protect their higher income/assets. I know this from experience.


No doubt, however, the original post I commented on was from a male OP.

It can be hard to protect your assets regardless of gaps in income because of divorce laws and life situations. The chance that incomes will always be equal throughout a long relationship is unlikely.

If you want to protect your assets, income is meaningless...you simply need to go to a lawyer and do it. And stay away from people who clearly are after your money.


----------



## EnigmaGirl

> umm, yeah,
> 1. he wanted to move into my teeny little 2 bed apt that I "shared" with my business
> 2. and then pay me "something" towards the rent. He never said how much because I "turned" down the offer
> 3. he also tried to twist my arm to get me to "use his house" as an "office" in the US for my business. No discussion of course as to how much that would cost or who would pay for that.
> 4. he took the first job offer made to him which was a 50% cut in pay from his (then) current job. He was "leaving" a very large organisation, so it's very possible that they had a sabbatical program that he was trying to use. So that could have been one year in London / a tour of Europe all the while knowing that his job and home are still waiting for him back in the US.
> 
> I had not gotten to that point of analysis above in real time, but I did know that I was not going to let some man that I had only known for a year (and LDR at that) take away half of my living space.
> 
> Some people accused me of using him and that I was not that into him. Some women can be our own worst enemies.


What you did was smart...there's no doubt that people should protect their assets and stay away from anyone who's coming after your money...period.

I had a very good friend who got married to someone who was her financial equal on paper. The issue was that his money was in an inheritance fund and what he lived off wasn't a product of his hard work...he was a lazy bum....it was a product of his parent's hard work. In reality, while they shared a similar monthly income and lifestyle...she was a worker/saver and he wasn't and she didn't get educated on divorce laws and didn't protect her assets.

So they get divorced and his inheritance money is excluded from equalization but hers isn't. She spent a fortune on legal fees and ended up paying him alimony and a huge portion of her money anyway.

She's remarried and her new husband is a nice guy who doesn't make as much money...he works a city job....but he's a saver and investor and makes the most of what he has and he has the same mindset about working hard that she does. In my opinion, she seems way happier and has way more in common with this guy than she had with the other guy.

Having your own money is important....staying away from people who are after your money is important....going after someone else for their money is often predatory, in my opinion.


----------



## gouge_away

The best protection may be to avoid marriage the second time around. Most states and some insurance companies honor domestic household partners, and even in some cases the premiums are less for domestic partners than for spouses.

You can draft anybody into a living will, giving them consent to make life decisions.

The only thing I'm not sure about is credit and life insurance benefits for domestic partners.


----------



## moco82

Getting back to the melee about what's a reasonable expectation on assets/earning power, it seems like everyone has a different idea of a safe cushion. My margin of error is several times wider than that of people I know who live in cheaper areas.

We also need to account for age, time to retirement, and expected earning power at that point for someone who is reasonably ambitions.

Holland, I assume your 250k figure would be lower if you were looking at men in the 25-30-year-old range, especially outside overpriced centres such as London, Manhattan, San Francisco, DC, Toronto, etc?


----------



## EleGirl

intheory said:


> Should the answer be an overhauling of divorce laws?


Nope



intheory said:


> No automatic halving of assets upon divorce.
> 
> What you brought with you to the marriage, what you contributed during the marriage - that is considered during a divorce.


In most states, only the assists accumulated during the divorce are considered marital assets. So only those get split. Assets that a person has prior to marriage and those that a person inherits are sole property and not split if there is a divorce.




intheory said:


> If one partner came with $20,000 and the other partner $200,000, and their earnings during the marriage stay at roughly those ratios; then if they part, the $20,000 person leaves with 10%; not 50%. [Simplistic example to make a point.]


The above assumes that the $20K and $200K is the only assets they ever have and that no additional assets are ever accumulated during the marriage. Plus…. That 20K and 200K is separate property. Neither has any claim whatsoever to the other’s money.

In this arrangement, what happens if the person coming into the marriage ends up disabled? If they then end up dependent on the person with lower income, then how do you divide thing if we assume that money is the only thing that counts in marriage? Is that fair to the lower income person who then ends up not only financially supporting both of them but also becomes the care taker of the other?

Marriage is supposed to give a buffer for situations like this, and child bearing and child care. Life can get messy. 

If we were to make the financial aspects of marriage like your suggestion, then any women who was a SHAM with the agreement of their husband would be an absolute fool to be a SAHM. It would mean that the only thing that is valued is money.
=========================================
Here’s the way it works right now.

Person A comes into the marriage with $20,000 and person B with $200,000. During the marriage, they accumulated $100,000 in marital assets. And per B inherited $30,000 during the divorce.

During a divorce:

Person A has sole property of $20,000 that they brought into the marriage and the $30,000 that they inherited. So person A keeps their sole property of $50,000

Person B has the sole property of $200,000. So person B keeps their own $200,000.

And person A & B split the $100,000 of marital assets 50/50.

That seems like a fair distribution.



intheory said:


> The higher earner can choose, _if they want_, to give more. But it is not required.


Marriage is a financial arrangement as much as anything else. It’s very hard to measure how much one person contributes to the marital union because not all contribution is financial. IMO, marriage laws in community property states are just fine. And if a couple wants to tweak them they can with a pre and/or post nup. Or they can just live together. 

Marriage laws should be left a they are for those who find value in the way marriage is legally structured. And there is a LOT of value in it. People who marry and stay marriage are better off financially, their children do much better in all aspects of life. So leave it alone. 

And those who want to can tweak it.



intheory said:


> Childcare would be figured in at a reasonable amount, determined by the courts.


By childcare, do you mean child support? Child support is not only for child care.



intheory said:


> I know it seems like a giant reform to make; but there is so much ill-feeling in our society about getting taken financially in the aftermath of a divorce; that it seems we need to do something.???


There are things that are changing. But I don’t think that your suggestion above is a good one at all.

One thing that I think really causes problems is that most people have no idea what the marriage laws actually are. They just marry and think its all unicorns and fairytales. Thing like what the law actually is, financial planning, etc. should be taught in high school.

And people need to be realistic. If a man wants a wife who is a SAHM, then he has to realize that he is making a financial commitment to support her and the children. If he does not want that obligation, then don’t ask a woman to be a SAHM. And women have to realize that at any time they can be put in a situation where they have to support themselves, their husband and their children (or some combination of that). (Of course the genders can be swapped.)


----------



## EleGirl

intheory said:


> I know it seems like a giant reform to make; but there is so much ill-feeling in our society about getting taken financially in the aftermath of a divorce; that it seems we need to do something.???


When I brought up a spouse who is gold digging and/or hurting their spouse financially I was talking about somethings outside the norm.

For example my first husband and I earned about equal income and had about equal assets when we married. He had a masters in electrical engineering. Then out of the blue he quit his job in about the 3rd years of marriage and because he decided that he was going to medical school. He did not even ask if I agreed with this. I ended up supporting him, our son and paying a lot of his school expenses.. to the tune of about $100,000. He got no loans or other financial aid for medical school. 

During those years he insisted on separate bank accounts which I went along with. He was paying the bills in that I would give him the money and he would pay the bills. Much later I found out that he was also using my money to pay his father’s mortgage and his mother’s mortgage. Both his parents had put his name on their property. So basically he was ripping me off to pay for property that he inherited when his parents passes away.

Any money that was left over after he paid our bills and his parents bills he moved into a savings account in his mother’s name.

So I put him through medical school ($100,000+), paid for property that I had no claim for, and he moved about another $100,000 of my money into his mother’s name so that I could not touch it. He thought that I would never figure out what he was doing. But at the time that I was divorcing him, I stumbled on some financial records that he had hidden away.

Now if we lived in CA when we were divorcing, I would have gotten back the money that I paid to put him through medical school since I did not benefit from his medical school in any way. 

The courts would not do anything about the money that he transferred to his mother. 

The only thing I got was that I told him that if he was going to fight for half of our home (that I had made most of the payments on) I would then show the courts that marital income was used to pay for her home, so I would ask for ½ of his portion of her home and then I would force the sale of her home (In reality I would not have force the sale, I was just wanting to scare him.)

That’s the kind of thing that I’m talking about. What he did was to rip me off. I trusted him and so did not keep a close eye on what he was doing with the money.

And, now with 100% hindsight, I would have insisted that he get students loans to pay for his medical school and to support himself and contribute to the support of our son while he was in school. That way he could take his loans with him. Shoot, he probably never would have gone to medical school if he actually had to pay for it himself.

There is another type of gold digging that I might address in another post. But this above is the first one I ran into.

For the most part, our divorce laws are fine. The changes that I would suggest are:

50/50 custody whenever possible.

Child support should take both parties income into consideration so that each parent has the same amount to spend on care of the children, as a ration equivalent to the amount of time the children spend with each parent. This is what is done here in New Mexico and its pretty equitable.

Plus there needs to be an expectation that the lower income spouse will become self-supporting within some reasonable amount of time. That’s usually about half the length of the marriage.. up to about 5 years so that the person can get job/career skills.


----------



## Holland

moco82 said:


> Getting back to the melee about what's a reasonable expectation on assets/earning power, it seems like everyone has a different idea of a safe cushion. My margin of error is several times wider than that of people I know who live in cheaper areas.
> 
> We also need to account for age, time to retirement, and expected earning power at that point for someone who is reasonably ambitions.
> 
> Holland, I assume your 250k figure would be lower if you were looking at men in the 25-30-year-old range, especially outside overpriced centres such as London, Manhattan, San Francisco, DC, Toronto, etc?


I already said yes to this previously in the thread. When my first husband and I married we were of equal wealth albeit much lower than now 25 yrs later. Financial compatibility (and financial responsibility) has always been important. We worked together very hard as a team and post divorce came out of the marriage with equal assets. 
Shame I did not understand back then that sexual compatibility was as important, oh well.


----------



## Thor

gouge_away said:


> The best protection may be to avoid marriage the second time around. Most states and some insurance companies honor domestic household partners, and even in some cases the premiums are less for domestic partners than for spouses.
> 
> You can draft anybody into a living will, giving them consent to make life decisions.
> 
> The only thing I'm not sure about is credit and life insurance benefits for domestic partners.


This is my thought, too. We can share a household, share expenses, yet not be financially and legally entwined. My employer fully recognizes domestic partners for all benefits, including retirement travel. At this point if I get divorced I don't think I'd ever want to be legally married again. I prefer to avoid the risks that have bit me on this first marriage.

Now, if a fabulously wealthy woman fell in love with me and insisted my name be put on half her assets and we be married, it might be tempting. The risks would be on her, not me.


----------



## Ynot

intheory said:


> Should the answer be an overhauling of divorce laws?
> 
> No automatic halving of assets upon divorce.
> 
> What you brought with you to the marriage, what you contributed during the marriage - that is considered during a divorce.
> 
> If one partner came with $20,000 and the other partner $200,000, and their earnings during the marriage stay at roughly those ratios; then if they part, the $20,000 person leaves with 10%; not 50%. [Simplistic example to make a point.]
> 
> The higher earner can choose, _if they want_, to give more. But it is not required.
> 
> Childcare would be figured in at a reasonable amount, determined by the courts.
> 
> I know it seems like a giant reform to make; but there is so much ill-feeling in our society about getting taken financially in the aftermath of a divorce; that it seems we need to do something.???


The reality of this made much more difficult by each persons perspective of what they contributed. For instance a spouse who comes into the relationship based on the promise to taken care of or provided for should not be punished


----------



## tech-novelist

intheory said:


> Should the answer be an overhauling of divorce laws?
> 
> No automatic halving of assets upon divorce.
> 
> What you brought with you to the marriage, what you contributed during the marriage - that is considered during a divorce.
> 
> If one partner came with $20,000 and the other partner $200,000, and their earnings during the marriage stay at roughly those ratios; then if they part, the $20,000 person leaves with 10%; not 50%. [Simplistic example to make a point.]
> 
> The higher earner can choose, _if they want_, to give more. But it is not required.
> 
> Childcare would be figured in at a reasonable amount, determined by the courts.
> 
> I know it seems like a giant reform to make; but there is so much ill-feeling in our society about getting taken financially in the aftermath of a divorce; that it seems we need to do something.???


I hope something like this comes about because otherwise I think marriage will cease to exist. The current system is so unfair to men that they will eventually just say "No".

To clarify: we don't need a specific rule of division like this.

What we need is for the courts to enforce whatever pre-nup the parties agree to, including any provision for child support.

If this were the case, then people could decide what they wanted in advance. If they chose one of a standard set of rules (to be defined), then the legal result would be known in advance, and if they wanted a variation from any of the standard sets, then they should be able to have it preapproved before getting married.


----------



## Anubis

I hopped on this thread to respond to the original question, but now I'm compelled to jump in on the tail end discussion.

US Divorce law has some serious problems, and Men, especially Men with children, are the largest group getting the short end of the stick. And yes, it's bad enough that it should discourage marriage among those aware of it (whose numbers are growing) and in the 'more vulnerable' position.

Rather than write a multi-volume series, I'll just say that a bad acting spouse can financially exploit and destroy the other person without regard to fairness, and in essence the current legal system creates incentives to do so.

(whew... that's enough there)

To the original question: Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?

The TL;DR answer from my personal experiences: My financial "situation" (for lack of a better word) mattered to the majority of women I met, but in differing degrees to each person. Three notable takeaways were: 1) The older the woman, the more often it mattered, and 2) it wasn't the absolute amount that usually mattered, but how it compared to their own financial standing, and 3) the fact that it matters is something most women don't like to make obviously apparent.

I probably had something of an advantage in that I was/am on the higher end of the earnings spectrum. I'm not good enough for someone like Holland, as I was only a 98th percentile wage earner (my 10-year AGI average at time of divorce complete was ~$186k/yr) and had been asset-wiped out by my ex (percentile unknown, not great) but for almost all the women I dated, I was seen as economically desirable.

Being a decent earner helped women's reactions towards me, but it was never the only thing. Appearance, physical chemistry, shared interests, etc.. they were all ingredients in the cake too. But there definitely were times when my apparent well-offness (if that can be a word) was a high quality frosting on that cake. 

Because of my financial experiences with my ex-wife (think horror story), and the circumstances of my divorce (expensive), I made finding a woman who could, and would, earn her own way an important factor in what I was looking for in a future partner. Some of the women I went out with had kids, and it was clear that providing for them was a priority, and that was a long-term deal breaker for me. As I have my own kids to pay for, I was naturally leery of becoming obligated for someone else's offspring. 

When I met the future Mrs. Aunbis, she was a freshly divorced SAHM who was going back to grad school for a STEM degree because her financially irresponsible ex decided to 'retire' on SSDI disability. I made my situation and expectations clear, and she was cool with it. It all worked out, and she was making >$100K at Microsoft when we finally married. I married her for a multitude of reasons, income not being nearly the most significant, but it did matter (to both of us).

I guess my takeaway is that income and finances *should* matter when looking at prospective long-term partners, but it's only part of a bigger picture. Sadly it often takes a failed marriage before we really understand.


----------



## Mr The Other

SadSamIAm said:


> So if you met the nicest guy, very good looking, great in bed, very honest, makes you laugh and makes you feel great about yourself you would not help support him? Why not?


I have been out with women who were wealthier than me. I would not recommend it to women as there is likely to be an element of resentment when you cannot indulge them. It might not be reasonable and logical, but that is the way with people.


----------



## Mr The Other

EleGirl said:


> From the perspective of one female (I can only speak for myself.)
> 
> After my divorce I dated 4 guys. The men were divorced just as I was. Some had younger children, some not.
> 
> What we did was that we took turns asking the other out. The one who asked paid. (I hate going Dutch.) I like this arrangement because the asker can plan the date to be something that they could afford. What mattered to me was not how much money a guy spent but how much thought he put into the date.
> 
> For example a date to do the river walk and have a picnic basket with wine, cheese and crackers can be as romantic as it gets. Or finding the best hole-in-the wall taco/burrito place in town is fun too.
> 
> Now if the dates are all going to his place to watch tv because it's essential free... too much of that is not cool... no thought, no effort. And it speaks of the goal to have sex, not to spend special time together.
> 
> IMO, it's not the money that is spent that is the issue.


Imagination can help. When I was poor, there were dates in obscure places with a fully laid table. However, money is more effective. The physical appearance of a woman is important to me and I see the preference for money as little different.


----------



## Mr The Other

Anubis said:


> I hopped on this thread to respond to the original question, but now I'm compelled to jump in on the tail end discussion.
> 
> US Divorce law has some serious problems, and Men, especially Men with children, are the largest group getting the short end of the stick. And yes, it's bad enough that it should discourage marriage among those aware of it (whose numbers are growing) and in the 'more vulnerable' position.
> 
> Rather than write a multi-volume series, I'll just say that a bad acting spouse can financially exploit and destroy the other person without regard to fairness, and in essence the current legal system creates incentives to do so.
> 
> (whew... that's enough there)
> 
> To the original question: Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?
> 
> The TL;DR answer from my personal experiences: My financial "situation" (for lack of a better word) mattered to the majority of women I met, but in differing degrees to each person. *Three notable takeaways were: 1) The older the woman, the more often it mattered, and 2) it wasn't the absolute amount that usually mattered, but how it compared to their own financial standing, and 3) the fact that it matters is something most women don't like to make obviously apparent.*
> 
> I probably had something of an advantage in that I was/am on the higher end of the earnings spectrum. I'm not good enough for someone like Holland, as I was only a 98th percentile wage earner (my 10-year AGI average at time of divorce complete was ~$186k/yr) and had been asset-wiped out by my ex (percentile unknown, not great) but for almost all the women I dated, I was seen as economically desirable.
> 
> Being a decent earner helped women's reactions towards me, but it was never the only thing. Appearance, physical chemistry, shared interests, etc.. they were all ingredients in the cake too. But there definitely were times when my apparent well-offness (if that can be a word) was a high quality frosting on that cake.
> 
> Because of my financial experiences with my ex-wife (think horror story), and the circumstances of my divorce (expensive), I made finding a woman who could, and would, earn her own way an important factor in what I was looking for in a future partner. Some of the women I went out with had kids, and it was clear that providing for them was a priority, and that was a long-term deal breaker for me. As I have my own kids to pay for, I was naturally leery of becoming obligated for someone else's offspring.
> 
> When I met the future Mrs. Aunbis, she was a freshly divorced SAHM who was going back to grad school for a STEM degree because her financially irresponsible ex decided to 'retire' on SSDI disability. I made my situation and expectations clear, and she was cool with it. It all worked out, and she was making >$100K at Microsoft when we finally married. I married her for a multitude of reasons, income not being nearly the most significant, but it did matter (to both of us).
> 
> I guess my takeaway is that income and finances *should* matter when looking at prospective long-term partners, but it's only part of a bigger picture. Sadly it often takes a failed marriage before we really understand.


This certainly matches my impression and experience, particularly the area highlighted.


----------



## wanttolove

I have nothing practical to add here, I just want to say that this was one of the best threads that I have read at TAM. There is a lot of information here, supplied by pretty much everyone that has posted.


----------



## DustyDog

moco82 said:


> Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?


I have never met a divorced middle-aged woman who doesn't have financial limitations, so if she found mine a problem, I'd say she's trying to date out of her league.

I was single from age 36 to 41. I drove nice older cars, took women out to modest restaurants, put effort into dates that were more about the outdoors and nature, instead of spending. That also kept me dating women whose preferences were like mine.


----------



## caruso

I make good money and although I was hit pretty bad in the divorce I've recouped it and then some and I can afford to live a nice life and drive nice cars and go on nice vacations without any debt.

I made it obvious on my dating profiles that I had money. 

But in a somewhat joking way that is totally uncharacteristic of me, I'd say that although I have money it doesn't mean I'd necessarily spend it on her so if she's going to date me thinking it's going to be a free ride she's going to be sorely disappointed.

I would always get tons of hits on the dating sites, never a weekend without a few dates and I cannot attribute all of that to my good looks and charming personality- they smelled the money and they wanted it. 

There was a point I was trying to make there but I got so caught up in talking about myself I forgot what it was.

I'll return to edit this post if it comes to me.


----------



## bkyln309

I know for me financial independence is a HUGE factor for me. The man needs to be working and saving and doing well. Not in serious debt. He doesnt have to be rich but successful in his field. 

I was married to a man who I had to force to work and who exhorted alot of money from our accounts. I will never do that again.


----------



## DustyDog

caruso said:


> ...I was hit pretty bad in the divorce I've recouped it....


I think that's normal, and it's why a recently-divorced guy with some money issues, IMO, is not spoiled merchandise. My experience is that I gave her everything except my 401k when we split, then the month after, my industry tanked and I was jobless...lived on that 401k for 24 months, then finally got a job, paying 50% less than before. But, with newfound financial wisdom, within five years, my net worth had exceeded where it was before the split. Based on my conversations with other guys who've been through a split, this is pretty normal.

And...women who've dated divorced men...or divorced women...understand all this.



caruso said:


> I made it obvious on my dating profiles that I had money.


That sounds a little creepy/scary, unless you did it in a subtle way. I might say "financially secure" but I doubt I'd go further. Heck, being 60, I think I would say nothing...at this age, if you're not financially secure, there's probably a lot of other stuff you didn't do right, so I think the audience expects "financially secure" as a norm at my age.



caruso said:


> But in a somewhat joking way that is totally uncharacteristic of me, I'd say that although I have money it doesn't mean I'd necessarily spend it on her so if she's going to date me thinking it's going to be a free ride she's going to be sorely disappointed.


That's the thing for me - three times, I would take a woman on a rather expensive date - $100/person dinners (in 1999!)...and I learned that my simple approach to things lead me to consider most of those dinners rather pretentious...and all three women were, for my tastes, too invested in the idea that life cannot be enjoyed without spending a lot. Sort of the opposite of the naturally abundant life I prefer.



caruso said:


> I would always get tons of hits on the dating sites, never a weekend without a few dates and I cannot attribute all of that to my good looks and charming personality- they smelled the money and they wanted it.


I gotta ask - how long ago, how old were you, and just what kind of initial emails would they send to you? And what kinds of first-date activities did they expect?


----------



## DustyDog

bkyln309 said:


> I know for me financial independence is a HUGE factor for me. The man needs to be working and saving and doing well. Not in serious debt. He doesnt have to be rich but successful in his field.
> 
> I was married to a man who I had to force to work and who exhorted alot of money from our accounts. I will never do that again.


I feel for you...if I ever felt I had to force someone to do anything, I'd probably leave before stooping that low.

Financial independence means different things to different people. IMO, it means matching lifestyle to income. This can be done with high income, or reducing one's material needs.

Question - if the man must be financially indepedent, just how independent must that be? To many, "independent" means "not requiring a job". And, are you as independent as you expect him to be? Do you expect him to manage the family finances or do you like to participate?

Just curious...if my wife and I split, I'd kind of like to know who I'm likely to meet out there.


----------



## caruso

DustyDog said:


> [in regard to posting on a dating profile that I make a lot of money]That sounds a little creepy/scary, unless you did it in a subtle way.


Why creepy/scary? I put it right out there, in a joking way, referring to my chosen profession and stating "yes I make a lot of money but that doesn't necessarily mean I'll share it with you". I've been told that by doing that I'm attracting the money grubbers but so what, I got a lot of first dates and like I said if that's their only motive they'll be sorely disappointed and that doesn't mean I won't have some fun with her along the way if you know what I mean. 



DustyDog said:


> That's the thing for me - three times, I would take a woman on a rather expensive date - $100/person dinners (in 1999!)...and I learned that my simple approach to things lead me to consider most of those dinners rather pretentious...and all three women were, for my tastes, too invested in the idea that life cannot be enjoyed without spending a lot. Sort of the opposite of the naturally abundant life I prefer.


When I was dating post divorce, in between relationships that varied from months or years, I'd do a LOT of dating. Dozens upon dozens of first dates, only a fraction of which ever turned into something. At first I'd pay for a rather expensive first date dinner, then I finally got smart and the first dates were more like meetups at a diner or coffee shop or a drink at a local pub. Rather than expecting it to be great and being disappointed when it wasn't, my attitude became "expect it to be bad and be surprisingly delighted when things were good and she actually looked and acted just like her profile indicated she would".



DustyDog said:


> I gotta ask - how long ago, how old were you, and just what kind of initial emails would they send to you? And what kinds of first-date activities did they expect?


I started dating post divorce at the end of 2006 in my early 40s, and have been with my girlfriend for 5 years and this one looks to go the distance. None expected anything on the first date other than good old "getting to know you" conversation but believe it or not, I never got one objection when I used to offer a fancy dinner for the first date and if we ordered a few drinks and maybe some apps and the check was a few bucks I found myself surprised when someone would offer to pay her half- it was extremely rare. 

There was a cute redhead I dated for 2 weeks, good chemistry, things were going well but during those 2 weeks we went out for dinner a half dozen times and not once did she offer to pay. Finally I said "how about you picking up the tab next time?". She said "I don't do that, I'm an old fashioned gal". Obviously she had responded to the financial part of my profile, although I won't deny that my good looks and charming wit and personality must have been in the mix to a lesser extent but I digress. When she said that, I knew it was one of the last things I'd ever listen to from her. Didn't even stick around long enough to get sex out of her.

I don't recall anything special about the messages they'd send me although I do recall thinking how strange it was that of the half dozen or so that led to a longer term thing, they had almost always been the ones to make first contact (including my girlfriend). I guess they were a better "profile picker" than I was. 

I went back into my folder and found the first message I got from my gf.

It starts out like this.."Your profile is amusing. FYI I passed all your checkpoints..". Then she gave me a brief one paragraph bio about herself and some of her interests that aligned with some of the ones I put on my profile. We sometimes talk about how odd it was that we didn't speak even once on the phone prior to meeting in person.


----------



## BetrayedDad

moco82 said:


> Divorced men of TAM, how did you find single women react to a middle-aged man with financial limitations despite everything else about him (physical shape, personality, social status, engaging career) being "dating material"?


It's VERY, VERY simple. You'll know for certain after three dates.

The "keepers" will offer to split date costs occasionally or offer to treat you without hesitation.

The women who "need to feel taken care of" (women speak for gold digger) you toss like junk mail.


----------



## Begin again

moco82 said:


> I think their face would betray it all when they see super-modest living quarters disproportionate to the salary range.


I think a lot depends on the man's situation. I dated a guy who made well into six figures, but basically supported his wife, paid her mortgage, and had one daughter in an expensive, private college who was likely going to grad school after as well as two more kids who would be in college shortly. In other words, he had about a decade of living in pretty steep debt ahead of him. Now, that isn't why it didn't work for us, but it did make me think we wouldn't be good long term.

And yes, I make my own money and support myself. Not looking for a sugar daddy!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bananapeel

caruso said:


> Why creepy/scary?
> 
> There was a cute redhead I dated for 2 weeks, good chemistry, things were going well but during those 2 weeks we went out for dinner a half dozen times and not once did she offer to pay. Finally I said "how about you picking up the tab next time?". She said "I don't do that, I'm an old fashioned gal". Obviously she had responded to the financial part of my profile, although I won't deny that my good looks and charming wit and personality must have been in the mix to a lesser extent but I digress. When she said that, I knew it was one of the last things I'd ever listen to from her. Didn't even stick around long enough to get sex out of her.


Am I reading this right? You took her out for dinner six times in two weeks??? :surprise:


----------



## caruso

Bananapeel said:


> Am I reading this right? You took her out for dinner six times in two weeks??? :surprise:


It was years ago, so I wrote that from vague memory but yeah I'd say we went out every couple of days over a period of about 2 weeks, could have been less, but we got off to a hot start so we saw each other several times in the beginning. 

I had a few short term things start like that. It's a bit off topic but it's been my experience that the ones that take off quickly run hot and burn out fast.


----------



## Livvie

I think the replies here are interesting. I started a thread awhile back (since deleted) about dating/having a relationship with a man in his mid fifties who had zero financial stability (could not keep up with his bills, deep in growing debt), didn't have enough money to pay his half of even a (local) weekend away together, and was constantly unavailable/working and stressed... because he chose to pay more than he could reasonably afford toward his child's college. Some replies, especially from the men, were nasty... along the lines of no woman should have a (negative) opinion on how they choose to support their child, etc.

Interesting that here the opinions from people are that yes, financial stability matters in a potential partner. And that is okay for it to matter if has the potential to negatively affect you/harm you.


----------



## NextTimeAround

@caruso

What age are you? My experience with men and money is that when a woman offers to pay she cheapens herself in the guy's eye. OMG, the only way she can go out is by paying her own way.

and what's worse, of course, is that all that money that the guy saves is then spent on another woman whether he is intentionally dating or she is "just a friend." 

The last scenario that I had with this is with my husband during the first year of our dating. Knowing what I know, I can see a couple of occasions, nearly perfectly matched where he hassled me to pay for the date and then within a couple of days “met up” (since they were just friends, it wasn’t a date…. You know) with his “just a friend ex” and well, paid for everything even her transportation to and from the date. (something he did not do for me until after 18 months of dating).

After we had a discussion about these things, he immediately changed……… but this has influenced my opinion of men and money and dating.

It’s very difficult these days for me to believe that a man who sees an LT with a woman will hassle her to (whatever you want to call it) “go dutch” or “share expenses.” 
IOW, as soon as a guy asks a woman to help pay, the assumption would be that either he is multi dating or he just doesn’t see a future with that woman.


----------



## Ynot

When a woman offers to pay she is cheapening herself in his eyes? I don't know what you are talking about. men like little surprises too. Despite what some say, we don't just spend all that money expecting sex in the end. In my mind when a woman offers to pay, it says, "I enjoyed my time with you as well, let me take care of this this time." Men enjoy being taken away for a weekend, just as much as women do. One of the things I hated in my marriage was her expectation that I would just pay for everything. I don't know how many times she took me to dinner, that I ended up paying the bill.
No, having had that experience, I have to say it is a real turn on, when a woman offers to pay once in a while. It shows she isn't going to be dependent on me and that she understands she has some responsibility in the relationship as well.
Plus two people can really enjoy so much more when both contribute. While I may not mind spending $100 taking some one out to dinner. A much nice meal can be had for $150 when both contribute.


----------



## Bananapeel

@NextTimeAround - I agree with Ynot. I usually pay for dates because I feel like if I'm asking a woman out it is my treat. However, it is nice to be treated occasionally too and makes me feel like she isn't taking me for granted. I don't ask a woman to pay on a date, but I sure notice if she occasionally offers and think very highly about that gesture. 

Also, the concept that a guy saving money will just be spent on another woman is actually rather offensive. It implies a level of control and entitlement on the woman's part that is hard for me to comprehend. If a woman that I was dating told me she wanted me to pay for her so I didn't have money to go out and spend with any of my other friends (either male or female) I'd just laugh at her and show her the door. Firstly, my dating budget is a small fraction of my income so it makes no difference financially. Secondly, if I wanted to hang out with a friend and couldn't afford to go anywhere I'd just choose a free activity. Thirdly, if I'm in a committed relationship and the woman doesn't trust me around other women then we have far more serious problems to deal with. Fourthly, if all my discretionary income is being spent on dating then I need to reprioritize my budgeting.


----------



## bandit.45

I live pretty simply. I make a good salary, but much of it goes towards retirement. I live in a small house in a nice neighborhood, I drive a decent pickup, and I try to dress nicely and take care of myself. I don't date very often, but when I do I always pay everything. I open doors for women, pull out their chairs...I'm just old fashioned that way. 

I have become very picky about the women I look at for dating. I have had chances to date women where I live now, and have gone on one date recently, but I have not settled into any long term relationship because I have this very specific list of requirements that few if any women can meet. I am waiting for the most compatible woman I can find, because up to now I have been disappointed in my relationships. The most important requirement is that she cannot drink alcohol around me, nor can we have it in our house. I am a recovering alcoholic, meaning that I will rarely step into a bar or go to parties where people are getting drunk. There is just way too much temptation for me. So the woman I am looking for is a gal who is not big into partying and socializing over drinks. She will have to put up with my being gone four nights a week to my AA meetings, nightly calls from AA members that I sponsor, and an overall a life of teetotalling. The majority of women I have met don't want to deal with these restrictions. 

So right there I have reduced my pool of potential mates by three fourths...


----------



## bkyln309

DustyDog said:


> I feel for you...if I ever felt I had to force someone to do anything, I'd probably leave before stooping that low.
> 
> Financial independence means different things to different people. IMO, it means matching lifestyle to income. This can be done with high income, or reducing one's material needs.
> 
> Question - if the man must be financially indepedent, just how independent must that be? To many, "independent" means "not requiring a job". And, are you as independent as you expect him to be? Do you expect him to manage the family finances or do you like to participate?
> 
> Just curious...if my wife and I split, I'd kind of like to know who I'm likely to meet out there.


Independent means working. And I have worked and saved since I was 15 years old. I made the mistake of letting the ex manage the finances. I will never do that again even if I marry again. I will take care of it or we would have separate finances. Of course Im starting over thanks to his spending but I have saved quite abit in the years since the divorce. 

I have a good job and only carry a mortgage. No other debt. I dont believe it in. I have a 401K which he didnt get in the divorce and I have the kids colleges paid for already. 

I dont expect a man to pay every time. But I do expect it on the first date. After that, we can trade off on when and who pays. Its not a big deal. 

Honestly, I think men want a more needy and nagging woman. I find I am too "hands off" and let them live they way they want when not with me. I find the men seems to chase the one that treats them badly or is overly demanding which I refuse to do. My dad was too good of a man to disrespect my prospects with being overly dramatic and needy. He taught me to respect the man I am with and give him space to be a man. Maybe modern men arent into that anymore because I find the opposite happening in dating midlife.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Bananapeel said:


> @NextTimeAround - I agree with Ynot. I usually pay for dates because I feel like if I'm asking a woman out it is my treat. However, it is nice to be treated occasionally too and makes me feel like she isn't taking me for granted. I don't ask a woman to pay on a date, but I sure notice if she occasionally offers and think very highly about that gesture.
> 
> Also, the concept that a guy saving money will just be spent on another woman is actually rather offensive. It implies a level of control and entitlement on the woman's part that is hard for me to comprehend. If a woman that I was dating told me she wanted me to pay for her so I didn't have money to go out and spend with any of my other friends (either male or female) I'd just laugh at her and show her the door. Firstly, my dating budget is a small fraction of my income so it makes no difference financially. Secondly, if I wanted to hang out with a friend and couldn't afford to go anywhere I'd just choose a free activity. Thirdly, if I'm in a committed relationship and the woman doesn't trust me around other women then we have far more serious problems to deal with. Fourthly, if all my discretionary income is being spent on dating then I need to reprioritize my budgeting.


Thanks for addressing my concerns. I don't know about other women, but IRL, I would not put it quite the way that you or I have on this message board. 

The times when I felt that I was being "macked" include when dating my first husband and my second husband.

It was the situation with my second husband while we were dating that brought me here. The elements of that specific situation include:
1. He claimed that he preferred me over his "friend."
2. We got into the habit of seeing each other half of the week. (time as a resource)
3. He knew that I wasn't working due to getting chemotherapy but still hassled me over paying for stuff.
4. She told him that she was making GBP40k but I found a lot evidence in which he paid for a quite a few things, some of which he never (during this period) offered to pay for me.... even at a time when he knew that she was actively looking to date other men.

and yet, he reassured me that I was the "girlfriend" and she was "just a friend."

When I grew a backbone before the one year anniversary of our dating, I told him that I wanted the same situation that she had with him. I wanted my bar tabs, taxi fares and everything else in between paid for. I wanted the freedom go to still look for other men while expecting to jump when I cam back around.

When I was able to show him all the receipts and mentions of spending money between the two of them. He changed. 

Certainly, if I am just going out with a guy I'm not going to expect him to underwrite my social life with him. 

But I do feel very strongly that when I am making an investment in a long term relationship, there will never be an acceptable reason that my boyfriend will feel comfortable nickle and diming me when he gives princess service to some other unrelated woman.


----------



## uhtred

I have been out of the dating scene since the late Cretaceous, so maybe I'm out of touch. 

I've always thought that the person doing the inviting should assume that they are paying, but graciously accept an offer by their date to split costs. 

I don't think a date should ever be expensive enough that the person doing the inviting cares who pays. The goal is to meet someone and have a good time, not demonstrate your wealth. If I were dating now, I'd take them to the nearby inexpensive, but really good and interesting ethnic restaurant, not to the ultra-expensive steak house. (after asking about any diet limits of course)






NextTimeAround said:


> @caruso
> 
> What age are you? My experience with men and money is that when a woman offers to pay she cheapens herself in the guy's eye. OMG, the only way she can go out is by paying her own way.
> 
> and what's worse, of course, is that all that money that the guy saves is then spent on another woman whether he is intentionally dating or she is "just a friend."
> 
> The last scenario that I had with this is with my husband during the first year of our dating. Knowing what I know, I can see a couple of occasions, nearly perfectly matched where he hassled me to pay for the date and then within a couple of days “met up” (since they were just friends, it wasn’t a date…. You know) with his “just a friend ex” and well, paid for everything even her transportation to and from the date. (something he did not do for me until after 18 months of dating).
> 
> After we had a discussion about these things, he immediately changed……… but this has influenced my opinion of men and money and dating.
> 
> It’s very difficult these days for me to believe that a man who sees an LT with a woman will hassle her to (whatever you want to call it) “go dutch” or “share expenses.”
> IOW, as soon as a guy asks a woman to help pay, the assumption would be that either he is multi dating or he just doesn’t see a future with that woman.


----------



## FeministInPink

My boyfriend has always insisted on paying for pretty much everything, ever since we first met, which took me completely by surprise. I had never been with a man who insisted on paying, and it was really nice to be spoiled. I was surprised by how much that meant to me, to be told, _I think you're someone worth spending my discretionary income._ It was weird for me, at first. I was so used to paying my own way, all the time. Early on, I made mention that I didn't want to take advantage of his generosity, and he said that he would make it clear if he thought I was taking advantage. 

And I make sure that I'm not taking advantage. I always say thank you and tell him how much I enjoyed dinner, or make sure that he knows how much I appreciate it. On occasion, he's asked me to pick up dinner on my way over to his place, and when he tries to give me cash to cover dinner, I won't take it. And while I can't afford to take him out like he takes me out (he has pretty high food standards), I can cook. I mean, like _really_ cook. He can cook well enough so that he doesn't starve, but he can't come even close to what I can do. So I cook for him, and we'll eat in instead. I spoil him in whatever way I best can.


----------



## DustyDog

bkyln309 said:


> Independent means working. And I have worked and saved since I was 15 years old. I made the mistake of letting the ex manage the finances. I will never do that again even if I marry again. I will take care of it or we would have separate finances. Of course Im starting over thanks to his spending but I have saved quite abit in the years since the divorce.
> 
> I have a good job and only carry a mortgage. No other debt. I dont believe it in. I have a 401K which he didnt get in the divorce and I have the kids colleges paid for already.
> 
> I dont expect a man to pay every time. But I do expect it on the first date. After that, we can trade off on when and who pays. Its not a big deal.
> 
> Honestly, I think men want a more needy and nagging woman. I find I am too "hands off" and let them live they way they want when not with me. I find the men seems to chase the one that treats them badly or is overly demanding which I refuse to do. My dad was too good of a man to disrespect my prospects with being overly dramatic and needy. He taught me to respect the man I am with and give him space to be a man. Maybe modern men arent into that anymore because I find the opposite happening in dating midlife.


Well, I'm independent, but I don't have a job LOL. I was good enough at savings that I had no need to wait for a traditional retirement age. I keep busy, though, lots of unfinished projects here, and I'm forming a company - said company is in the dollar-draining phase right now, but not so much drain that I'm pressured to speed it up. I like seeing progress on a dozen fronts at once and it's OK if I work on one for a few months and different ones at other times.

I have no idea what modern men are like, I just know me, and the last thing I want is a needy or nagging person of either gender in my life. I've had as many needy/nagging bosses at work as any woman I dated. I tend to live a simple life, and that seems to appeal to relatively independent and emotionally stable and complete women.

I "get" starting over - did it twice myself, once due to a split and once due to two years of no income other than odd jobs. With your aversion to debt, you'll be in good shape soon enough.

Some counselors advocate keeping his and hers money separate enough that you both feel safe from the other person's style being different from yours. Not sure that solves all problems, though....

Best of luck!


----------



## Wolf1974

Ynot said:


> When a woman offers to pay she is cheapening herself in his eyes? I don't know what you are talking about. men like little surprises too. Despite what some say, we don't just spend all that money expecting sex in the end. In my mind when a woman offers to pay, it says, "I enjoyed my time with you as well, let me take care of this this time." Men enjoy being taken away for a weekend, just as much as women do. One of the things I hated in my marriage was her expectation that I would just pay for everything. I don't know how many times she took me to dinner, that I ended up paying the bill.
> No, having had that experience, I have to say it is a real turn on, when a woman offers to pay once in a while. It shows she isn't going to be dependent on me and that she understands she has some responsibility in the relationship as well.
> Plus two people can really enjoy so much more when both contribute. While I may not mind spending $100 taking some one out to dinner. A much nice meal can be had for $150 when both contribute.


Yep

If a woman wouldn't contribute to dating then I won't be dating her long for sure. I only met One who wanted me to pay for everything. She is an x


----------



## frusdil

When my husband and I were dating he paid for everything - he wanted to. I took care of him in other ways - cooking his favourite meal, making candlelit dinners and things like that. When I sold my car I was really excited and wanted to take him out for dinner, so I did, but he kept offering his card to pay the bill (I paid). 

I was working when I met him but then I lost my job. I spent my last $5 on a red rose for him, and when I gave it to him you'd think I'd handed him a million dollars, lol. "No one's ever given me flowers before! Oh wow!" so cute 

I guess I'm just lucky, he never saw me as a burden


----------



## lifeistooshort

When we started dating my hb insisted on paying for pretty much everything even though I'd offer.

Now that we've been together 11 years and I make a good bit more I pay a big chunk of our bills and almost always pay when we go out.

I don't mind. I have a very egalitarian view of relationships.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## NextTimeAround

lifeistooshort said:


> *]When we started dating my hb insisted on paying for pretty much everything even though I'd offer.
> *
> Now that we've been together 11 years and I make a good bit more I pay a big chunk of our bills and almost always pay when we go out.
> 
> I don't mind. I have a very egalitarian view of relationships.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Where do you find men like that?

Why is it on a message board that for every man who says that they expect the woman to pay during dating, there are women who say that their partner except one single cent from them?


----------



## Wolf1974

NextTimeAround said:


> Where do you find men like that?
> 
> Why is it on a message board that for every man who says that they expect the woman to pay during dating, there are women who say that their partner except one single cent from them?


With online dating a lot of times you hash out those details before you ever meet, during the early email and texting phase. I have even seen it written in women's profiles that they expect dinner dates and to be treated like a "Lady" which translates into not paying. Some men don't mind paying for everything and others do. I have a few female friends who insist on paying 1/2 of any date they go one to avoid what they call "date night expectations". I think people land all over the spectrum when it comes to who pays. I don't mind paying for most as long as I don't feel taken advantage of.:laugh:


----------



## NextTimeAround

Wolf1974 said:


> With online dating a lot of times you hash out those details before you ever meet, during the early email and texting phase. I have even seen it written in women's profiles that they expect dinner dates and to be treated like a "Lady" which translates into not paying. Some men don't mind paying for everything and others do. I have a few female friends who insist on paying 1/2 of any date they go one to avoid what they call "date night expectations". I think people land all over the spectrum when it comes to who pays. I don't mind paying for most as long as I don't feel taken advantage of.:laugh:


I remember seeing an article in the Daily Mail about 12 years ago in which a reporter created an online dating profile stating that those who made less than half a million need not apply. This was well before the financial meltdown and with the preponderance of the financial services industry in the UK, the demographics did exist.

However, the reporter said that she either got flaming responses or sleazy responses. I think she chose not to meet any other responders. I wish I had saved that article. It would be interesting to see if any other publications tried it on as well.

I really don't believe that "asking for what you want" on this occasion works. Way too bold and self-centered, you show your hand, and well, you give other people something to talk about.

Imagine if a guy said, if you don't put out by the first date, then you need not apply. 

I really do believe now that men know what to do when you are truly number one in their lives. And well, I had to give him that ultimatum to push that decision along.


----------



## Ynot

NextTimeAround said:


> Where do you find men like that?
> 
> Why is it on a message board that for every man who says that they expect the woman to pay during dating, there are women who say that their partner except one single cent from them?


I can't say I read the entire thread and I certainly can't speak for all men, but I have yet to see anyone say they expect the woman to pay during dating. What I have seen is men who say they are not offended by a woman offering to pay their share or even for a date. Because after all, men like to be treated once in a while too. Perhaps somewhere some poor schmuck is sitting around lonely and distraught because he thinks a woman should pay his way too, but I have yet to meet one, at least here or in real life.


----------



## Lila

Wolf1974 said:


> With online dating a lot of times you hash out those details before you ever meet, during the early email and texting phase. * I have even seen it written in women's profiles that they expect dinner dates and to be treated like a "Lady" which translates into not paying. * Some men don't mind paying for everything and others do. I have a few female friends who insist on paying 1/2 of any date they go one to avoid what they call "date night expectations". I think people land all over the spectrum when it comes to who pays. I don't mind paying for most as long as I don't feel taken advantage of.


This would be me . When I was single, I expected the man to cover the food bill. It was up to him to decide where we'd go for the main meal but if the date was going well (didn't necessarily mean there had to be chemistry per se, just having a good time), I recommended, and paid for, after dinner coffee/dessert at my favorite cafe or I would recommend continuing the date at a local music venue where I covered the first couple of rounds. 

Today, were I to find myself single again.....I wouldn't change a thing. Splitting the bill 50/50 or going dutch on everything doesn't feel like a date to me. Splitting the evening's activities does. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Ynot

Holland said:


> Being wealthy and focusing on things that make us happy are not mutually exclusive.
> 
> And yes salary and assets are important to me because I have a lot to protect for myself and my kids. Not sure why that is hard for some to understand.


Wow, just saw this. First off who ever said that they are mutually exclusive. Secondly, who said they didn't understand? I couldn't care any less what your wants and needs are, they aren't mine. All I am saying is that as far as I am concerned, it is your loss, not mine. I am perfectly happy not worrying about what any one else's expectations are.


----------



## moco82

bandit.45 said:


> So right there I have reduced my pool of potential mates by three fourths...


I understand. It must be equivalent to reading a nice profile and almost falling in love with a woman, and then in the end it says: "I don't drink"... Such profiles need to be tagged and visible from afar!

Kudos on your recovery, all jokes aside.


----------



## moco82

Ynot said:


> I can't say I read the entire thread and I certainly can't speak for all men, but I have yet to see anyone say they expect the woman to pay during dating. What I have seen is men who say they are not offended by a woman offering to pay their share or even for a date. Because after all, men like to be treated once in a while too. Perhaps somewhere some poor schmuck is sitting around lonely and distraught because he thinks a woman should pay his way too, but I have yet to meet one, at least here or in real life.


My impression is that offering to pay on the first couple of dates means she decided she doesn't like me.


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

NextTimeAround said:


> Where do you find men like that?
> 
> Why is it on a message board that for every man who says that they expect the woman to pay during dating, there are women who say that their partner except one single cent from them?


I dated quite a bit before meeting my husband, and never met a guy who wanted to go Dutch (which is just tacky, in my opinion). One guy actually lectured me when I tried to pay half the dinner bill, saying that he will always pay when I'm with him and to please not ever bring it up again. Another guy when out for drinks found out I'd given the waitress my credit card and at the end of the night when she ran the tab she brought me back my card and I asked her for the receipt to sign. She told me my date had given her his card and instructed her NOT to use mine. Actually, I do remember one guy that we took turns paying for drink rounds out at a karaoke bar, but he's the only one I can think of. One actually pretended he didn't hear me when I mentioned - twice - that I'd like to pay my share.

And lastly, on my first meeting with my now-husband, he'd truly left his wallet at home (he works at home and had rushed out of his house when he realized he was going to be late for our first meet) and was embarrassed that I paid for our coffee. I've since come to learn he forgets his wallet A LOT when we go places. LOL. But that was the last time he ever allowed me to pay for anything once we started dating.

I'm a great cook and bake everything from scratch, so I enjoyed making dinner and baking treats for them, and they greatly appreciated the time and effort I put into making a fabulous meal for them.

That was always my experience, anyway.


----------

