Any bachelors here that are concerned that being FIRE will make them undatable?

[Pigeon]

I think what most people would imagine when reading that question would be "Are you willing to date a person who is happy living in their parents' basement while playing video games forever?" or "How about a person who has no job skills and no ambition?"

I do think though, that there is a significant proportion of the population that aren't going to be thrilled about living with someone who is extremely frugal.  There are also people who wouldn't be thrilled living with a partner who doesn't work.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.  You should be comfortable with the lifestyle of someone you're dating seriously, so get those issues out in the open soon.

[jim555]

Being the idle rich is not the same as unemployed, so not concerned.

[Linea_Norway]

<...>I guess I also wouldn't want to live with a guy who didn't work, while I had to work FT. And living of a guy who has enough stash for 2 people, is also problematic for a modern, independent woman.

I see this first thing with a friend of mine who is 47. Her husband is 15 years older and he is a pensioner. He is either at home, helping with the household, or he spends months in their cabin far away, enjoying his spare time. That leaves her alone at home with her teenage son taking care of all the emergencies that appear on her own.

Huh...I would totally rather live with an FI non-working spouse than someone who also has to work full time.

My marriage improved dramatically when one of us cut back substantially. Two high stress professionals with no energy at the end of the day was not our best life.
[/quote]

I have experienced that I felt a little envious during the couple of times that DH was home for several weeks/months in a row. He had several medical issues which made him unfit to work, and was once unjustified fired with 3 months at home (he got a good compensation for that). But how I hated each time that I was the one who had to get up at some ungodly hour, while he could turn around and stay in bed as long as he wanted. I had to stress at work, while he could watch TV on the couch. I didn't envy his medical issues, though. He deserved not to be working.

[Metalcat]

And what about saying that you are taking a sabbatical? And explain that you are responsibly living off your savings/investments. That the sabbatical takes longer than usual, is maybe not something you have to explain immediately. But at least, you won't be lying overall.

I agree, this definitely addresses the concern about either having to lie or talk money right at the beginning. Which is good.

The downside is that being on a sabbatical remains something that is is easy for a person who is not responsible to claim as well. So my guess -- having never yet been in a position to use this description, nor been on a date with someone who described themselves this way -- is that there would still be a fair bit of concern that "taking a sabbatical" was code for laid off/fired and can't-find-work/too-lazy-to-look-for-work.

This skepticism is going to be highest in environments where two people have no preexisting connection and the social cost of lying is low. (Online dating, bars, etc). For things like meeting friends-of-friends or at churches (if a person attends, I unfortunately do not), the social cost of a person lying or misrepresenting their situation is higher, so summarizing FIRE as taking a sabbatical to start with might work better in those situations.

Wow...that's giving a lot of thought to something that might be a total non issue.

Having read your journal, I would be shocked if you didn't have some level of interesting project on the go to be able to speak to when meeting someone new.

"What do I do? Well, I've spent the bulk of my career as a fancy pants professor doing super cool research projects A, B, and C, and now my focus is mostly on project D, which I just started on last year and I'm really excited about"

Truthfully, project D might just be in the "sitting on the sofa reading articles about subject matter D and musing absent mindedly about how you would work on it if you were involved" or it could be something you are actually paid to work on, who knows, who cares?

There's also no point in trying to preemptively control how others perceive you. Besides, most people on dates are far more preoccupied with their own insecurities and their own efforts to try and control how they're perceived, that it almost doesn't matter what you say.

Also, trying to actively avoid any subject will just come off as cagey. If finance comes up naturally, then go ahead and talk about it to the degree with which you are comfortable.

Put your energy towards putting others at ease so that you can get to know *them*, not micro managing what you intend to say or not say so that you can try and control how they see you, which doesn't even work anyway.

I've been on, like, a lot of dates and I barely remember anything about the life details of most of the men, but I very clearly and distinctly remember if I felt at ease with them or if the encounter was strained and uncomfortable.

The ones I felt at ease with were the ones who were comfortable in their own skin and happy with their lives. When you date a lot, you quickly realise how common it is for people to be miserable, so relaxed happy people are SO refreshing.

Don't treat a date like an audition for a part you want, treat it like what it is, two people getting to know each other just a little bit more and ideally have some fun while doing it.

[Metalcat]

I have experienced that I felt a little envious during the couple of times that DH was home for several weeks/months in a row. He had several medical issues which made him unfit to work, and was once unjustified fired with 3 months at home (he got a good compensation for that). But how I hated each time that I was the one who had to get up at some ungodly hour, while he could turn around and stay in bed as long as he wanted. I had to stress at work, while he could watch TV on the couch. I didn't envy his medical issues, though. He deserved not to be working.

From your post history, this sounds far more like an issue of you being miserable with your job, and your spouse being home just being a reminder that you still have to go to work despite really not wanting to.

You're absolutely right though, how comfortable someone is living with someone who is not working probably depends almost entirely on how happy they are with their own work situation.

[Seadog]

I think if you were FIRE'd on a relatively decent stash then you would have to bat away suitors with a stick. In a time where more and more American males are directionless, under-educated/under-employed and failing to connect with society, someone who is financially responsible and has had a successful career would be like gold.

+1 for the people who said the lifestyle is the bigger turnoff.

When people say they want to be a millionaire, or women say they want to marry a millionaire, what the vast majority really mean is they want to spend a million dollars, or marry someone who will spend a million dollars on them.

I can testify first hand that dating someone with a demonstrated earning power of 6 figures, but then living a purely middle class (or a hair lower) life so that you can fiddle with bikes, go on long hikes and travel to go diving is apparently off putting. To many prospective mates, a million in the bank and subsisting on 40k passive is no different than dating some semi skilled blue collar worker making 40k, perhaps with the additional sting that they could easily make 6 figures+ and but are selfishly leaving it on the table. They only care about what is real, and what's real is that 40k, below average income and the lifestyle that comes with it.

The vast majority or people (men and women) are extremely materialistic, spend more than they have, and are a paycheque from insolvency. That you go to a full time job is as much as a given as it is your home will have running water. 

[Hula Hoop]

<...>I guess I also wouldn't want to live with a guy who didn't work, while I had to work FT. And living of a guy who has enough stash for 2 people, is also problematic for a modern, independent woman.

I see this first thing with a friend of mine who is 47. Her husband is 15 years older and he is a pensioner. He is either at home, helping with the household, or he spends months in their cabin far away, enjoying his spare time. That leaves her alone at home with her teenage son taking care of all the emergencies that appear on her own.

Huh...I would totally rather live with an FI non-working spouse than someone who also has to work full time.

My marriage improved dramatically when one of us cut back substantially. Two high stress professionals with no energy at the end of the day was not our best life.

I have experienced that I felt a little envious during the couple of times that DH was home for several weeks/months in a row. He had several medical issues which made him unfit to work, and was once unjustified fired with 3 months at home (he got a good compensation for that). But how I hated each time that I was the one who had to get up at some ungodly hour, while he could turn around and stay in bed as long as he wanted. I had to stress at work, while he could watch TV on the couch. I didn't envy his medical issues, though. He deserved not to be working.
[/quote]

I suspect that this would change if you had children or if you planned to have them.  A few years ago we seriously thought about my husband becoming a SAHD to our two kids.  I was all for it as part of what makes our jobs hard is having to also do all the other stuff that goes along with being a parent. Just having a FT job to do and nothing else would be a walk in the park, honestly and if one of us did not work outside the home, the one who is still working would have  a much easier life.  OTOH the stay at home spouse wouldn't be sleeping in - he'd be up early giving the kids breakfast and taking them to school.

So for a potential date who either has kids already or is thinking about having kids in future with the OP the fact that he doesn't' need to work outside the home would be a major plus.

[terran]

I think if you were FIRE'd on a relatively decent stash then you would have to bat away suitors with a stick. In a time where more and more American males are directionless, under-educated/under-employed and failing to connect with society, someone who is financially responsible and has had a successful career would be like gold.

+1 for the people who said the lifestyle is the bigger turnoff.

When people say they want to be a millionaire, or women say they want to marry a millionaire, what the vast majority really mean is they want to spend a million dollars, or marry someone who will spend a million dollars on them.

I can testify first hand that dating someone with a demonstrated earning power of 6 figures, but then living a purely middle class (or a hair lower) life so that you can fiddle with bikes, go on long hikes and travel to go diving is apparently off putting. To many prospective mates, a million in the bank and subsisting on 40k passive is no different than dating some semi skilled blue collar worker making 40k, perhaps with the additional sting that they could easily make 6 figures+ and but are selfishly leaving it on the table. They only care about what is real, and what's real is that 40k, below average income and the lifestyle that comes with it.

The vast majority or people (men and women) are extremely materialistic, spend more than they have, and are a paycheque from insolvency. That you go to a full time job is as much as a given as it is your home will have running water.

I'm not sure I see a problem here. Either you have a lifestyle mismatch with these people and shouldn't be dating them anyway, or you have a lifestyle mismatch with yourself and want to be dating people who your level of spending is not compatible with.

[partgypsy]

I think if you were FIRE'd on a relatively decent stash then you would have to bat away suitors with a stick. In a time where more and more American males are directionless, under-educated/under-employed and failing to connect with society, someone who is financially responsible and has had a successful career would be like gold.

+1 for the people who said the lifestyle is the bigger turnoff.

When people say they want to be a millionaire, or women say they want to marry a millionaire, what the vast majority really mean is they want to spend a million dollars, or marry someone who will spend a million dollars on them.

I can testify first hand that dating someone with a demonstrated earning power of 6 figures, but then living a purely middle class (or a hair lower) life so that you can fiddle with bikes, go on long hikes and travel to go diving is apparently off putting. To many prospective mates, a million in the bank and subsisting on 40k passive is no different than dating some semi skilled blue collar worker making 40k, perhaps with the additional sting that they could easily make 6 figures+ and but are selfishly leaving it on the table. They only care about what is real, and what's real is that 40k, below average income and the lifestyle that comes with it.

The vast majority or people (men and women) are extremely materialistic, spend more than they have, and are a paycheque from insolvency. That you go to a full time job is as much as a given as it is your home will have running water.

I don't know about that. I would love being with someone with that level of financial security, even if all they did was "fiddle" with bikes. My two experiences are my Dad, who often made much more than that in his business but never saved any of it, always plowed that and more money back in the business, ended on a low note and living off 1350/month social security. Or my ex husband, who for other than a couple years in the 20K a year range, made 10K or less a year the entire time we were together. I really did appreciate having someone at home who could do things like make meals, straighten up. But I always felt like the financial pressures was on me. Living with someone who brought in 40K a year, esp if the income was steady, they were a frugal, reasonable person, would be a boon.

I do agree and have already stated that someone when asks what they do and gives a shaded answer or a euphemism that means they don't work or barely work, it would be a turn off. Again I know women who have gotten involved with men they ended up supporting. It's fine if it works for them, but not interested. I don't really know what the answer is, other than saying the truth, even if you don't go into details or dollar amounts. 

[maizefolk]

Wow...that's giving a lot of thought to something that might be a total non issue.

...

There's also no point in trying to preemptively control how others perceive you. Besides, most people on dates are far more preoccupied with their own insecurities and their own efforts to try and control how they're perceived, that it almost doesn't matter what you say.

Also, trying to actively avoid any subject will just come off as cagey. If finance comes up naturally, then go ahead and talk about it to the degree with which you are comfortable.

Put your energy towards putting others at ease so that you can get to know *them*, not micro managing what you intend to say or not say so that you can try and control how they see you, which doesn't even work anyway.

I've been on, like, a lot of dates and I barely remember anything about the life details of most of the men, but I very clearly and distinctly remember if I felt at ease with them or if the encounter was strained and uncomfortable.

The ones I felt at ease with were the ones who were comfortable in their own skin and happy with their lives. When you date a lot, you quickly realise how common it is for people to be miserable, so relaxed happy people are SO refreshing.

Don't treat a date like an audition for a part you want, treat it like what it is, two people getting to know each other just a little bit more and ideally have some fun while doing it.

I suspect we're speaking from different contexts and my own may well be outdated or irrelevant. The last time I was going on enough first dates to start generalizing (whether those generalizations were justified or otherwise) was the better part of a decade ago in the SF Bay area. At the time the way most people my age in my social circle were finding people to date was through online dating sites (this was in the pre-Tinder era).

One becomes (or at least I became) very conscious of the strong filtering in triaging that went on based on extremely limited data at the "do I even want to bother talking to this person" "do I want to see this person in person" and "well is it worth seeing this person again then there are plenty of other options" stages.

At the time I'd just been involved in starting my first company, so I tried either presenting myself through that lens, or as a grad student (both true statements). Being a grad student definitely was definitely the better of the two from an avoiding early triage standpoint, and the model I've come up with to explain that -- could be true or false -- was that it was because this was both a little harder to fake convincingly and sounded less like something one could say to try to sound successful while still living in their parents basement than the other option I could honestly present.

So that's the context I'm coming from when I think a lot (or overthink) about early stage signaling and how people go about triaging from a sea of alternatives using limited and unreliable data as the stage one gets through before getting to the two people spending some time together, hopefully having fun, and learning a bit more about each other as people.

Now it's quite possible that culture has shifted a lot in the past decade. It's also quite possible that the SF bay area, which has one of the most male skewed gender ratios of major cities, has skewed first date (and pre first date) dynamics as a result. Gender ratios do seem to skew how people present themselves on online dating websites in different metro areas. And it is almost certainly immaterial in situations where people are meeting in person (meetup groups, churches, mutual friends).

[Metalcat]

^ you're missing a HUGE confounding factor that is far more significant than the cultural era of dating: your age.

Dating at different ages is a completely different experience.

I still maintain that over thinking it is the wrong way to go. If a date rules you out early, then that's actually a good thing. You don't need to waste any time on them. People in your age range who have intelligence and substance will be able to tell pretty quickly that you aren't a broke PhD burnout with no prospects.

[maizefolk]

Also very true. I can count the number of first dates I've gone on in my 30s on the fingers of one hand, but it makes sense it would be completely different from dating on ones 20s.

It still seems to me like there are two kind of early rulings out: A) the other person correctly perceives something about you or your lifestyle, and that thing is unappealing to them and B) based on limited and noisy data the other person draws an incorrect conclusion about you or your lifestyle and that thing they think you do or are (when you really don't or aren't) is unappealing to them.

A clearly just saves everyone a lot of time and hassle and is clearly a good thing for all concerned. B if it happens a lot seems worthwhile to spend time time thinking about strategies to mitigate.

[Zikoris]

I think the really big problem with being evasive or weird about FIRE on a date (especially a first date!) is that it presents exactly the same as someone who's involved in pyramid schemes/mlms, or is an unemployed moocher, or does something shady or illegal. Now, since I know about FIRE I would probably try to ask some more probing questions, but if I didn't get a solid answer pretty quickly I would assume one of the above, and flee. And I could hardly blame other people for doing the same.

I suppose that's the problem with being cagey - people are going to to fill in the blanks with something, and if it's not the truth, who knows what it's going to be.

[Telecaster]

Adding to to the problem there is a lot of incentive for people to try to fake signals (e.g. trying to come across as more responsible/successful/affable/funny/respected-by-my-peers than I really am). That means signals that are harder to fake will have more value than signals that are easier to fake. My current job is one it would be really hard to fake holding for any significant length of time.

Saying I was a private financial manager is a signal that is a LOT easier to fake, and so I expect it would be treated a lot more skeptically as a marker for "is responsible, able to function in group settings, and someone who could carry their own weight in a relationship" which people tend to use "has a job" as a proxy for on initial dates (or when deciding to job on a date in the first place).

I think you might be making it a little too hard.  "Signal faking" is high order stuff.  I'd focus on simply having a good time on the first date.  If you're worried about it, I'd say something like "I'm research scientist in private practice"  (assuming that's true, of course.   I'm guessing you could/would still do some consulting after you FIRE). 

And if I may wax philosophical for a moment...there is an old saying "Men chase, women choose."  Which is completely true!....up until mid-30s-ish and then it flips.    Women who were interested in dating bad boys when they were younger, become much more attracted to guys who have their shit together when they are older.   In fact, I don't really know any single males my age (Gen X) who have their shit together.   They seem to get scooped up pretty fast. 

I noticed as I got older on dates I transitioned from "Oh gosh, I hope she likes me!" to "I hope I like her."   It wasn't a conscious decision, but in hindsight after I transitioned to the latter mindset I had far more success.  Success, I'm defining as fun dates. 

[jim555]

If you are ultra lean FIRE and you live in a van down by the river, it might cause a problem.

[ThriftyStashMan]

I haven't found it to be a problem. However, I'm FI AND keeping pretty busy with side-gigs and volunteer roles. The no-longer-employed-full-time issues seems to not be relevant when I explain I worked to achieve FI so I could be engaged in things I'm truly passionate about. I do think most women are more attracted to a guy if he is interesting rather than by what he does to generate income. I certainly seem to be attracted to women in the same way.

[nancyfrank232]

In fact, I don't really know any single males my age (Gen X) who have their shit together.   They seem to get scooped up pretty fast. 

You might be hanging around the wrong crowd

My friends and I are all GenX and we’re all doing very well

The single males are doing especially well because they don’t have dependents (ie they have more $) and they have more free time (ie no kids)

[MonkeyJenga]

And what about saying that you are taking a sabbatical? And explain that you are responsibly living off your savings/investments. That the sabbatical takes longer than usual, is maybe not something you have to explain immediately. But at least, you won't be lying overall.

I agree, this definitely addresses the concern about either having to lie or talk money right at the beginning. Which is good.

The downside is that being on a sabbatical remains something that is is easy for a person who is not responsible to claim as well. So my guess -- having never yet been in a position to use this description, nor been on a date with someone who described themselves this way -- is that there would still be a fair bit of concern that "taking a sabbatical" was code for laid off/fired and can't-find-work/too-lazy-to-look-for-work.

This skepticism is going to be highest in environments where two people have no preexisting connection and the social cost of lying is low. (Online dating, bars, etc). For things like meeting friends-of-friends or at churches (if a person attends, I unfortunately do not), the social cost of a person lying or misrepresenting their situation is higher, so summarizing FIRE as taking a sabbatical to start with might work better in those situations.

I used to say right in my profile that I was taking time off work to do XYZ. I had pictures to prove the XYZ though!

[kei te pai]

How about saying "I trained as an XYZ, and worked hard  in the field for ABC years. I became more interested in learning financial management and have moved into that area now"

[Linea_Norway]

If you are ultra lean FIRE and you live in a van down by the river, it might cause a problem.

A while ago I saw a documentary about a free climbing guy who didn't have a normal job. He lived from climbing and being fimped. He lived in a van. He did get a GF, though. But together they ended up buying a house in Vegas, because she preferred living in a house.

[BTDretire]

Right. We need a comparable study with the question, " Would you date a man/woman with a million dollars that's enjoying life without a job?"

Might get a lot of "Not sure" responses to that one though.

 I'm sure many women would think that's better than a working man and say yes.
 They are soon to be disappointed. They will find that their millionaire boyfriend isn't about to spend money like he is a millionaire. Because he wants to stay a millionaire.

[Rufus.T.Firefly]

If you are ultra lean FIRE and you live in a van down by the river, it might cause a problem.

A while ago I saw a documentary about a free climbing guy who didn't have a normal job. He lived from climbing and being fimped. He lived in a van. He did get a GF, though. But together they ended up buying a house in Vegas, because she preferred living in a house.

That was Alex Honnold, probably the greatest climber and possibly the greatest athlete of all time. Maybe not the best comparable for everyone else ;)

[partgypsy]

In fact, I don't really know any single males my age (Gen X) who have their shit together.   They seem to get scooped up pretty fast. 

You might be hanging around the wrong crowd

My friends and I are all GenX and we’re all doing very well

The single males are doing especially well because they don’t have dependents (ie they have more $) and they have more free time (ie no kids)

Well set me up! I am gen ex. I should not be cynical at this point but my casual appraisal from the few years I've been "single" it's not looking great. Part of the problem is guys my age fall into categories: ones who take care of themselves, somewhat responsible) are a) already paired up, or b) are not paired up but no intentions to do so (I might term the guy I'm currently seeing here: looks amazingly eligible, can say the right things at time, but don't think actually looking for a relationship). And maybe because of my hobby, nice interesting guys, who are involved in various forms of subsistence level basketweaving. I can't find someone like "me" out there (white collar professional with some creative hobbies/interests). Oh yeah and there are a few decent guys who went through bad divorces and are recovering, but often don't hear about them until after they are paired up again.     

[maizefolk]

@Telecaster & @Malkynn you've convinced me. I was making guesses based on in a dating-in-twenties mindset that is likely to be inapplicable to all by the most precocious people to hit FIRE. Thank you!

[Telecaster]

Well set me up! I am gen ex. I should not be cynical at this point but my casual appraisal from the few years I've been "single" it's not looking great. Part of the problem is guys my age fall into categories: ones who take care of themselves, somewhat responsible) are a) already paired up, or b) are not paired up but no intentions to do so (I might term the guy I'm currently seeing here: looks amazingly eligible, can say the right things at time, but don't think actually looking for a relationship). And maybe because of my hobby, nice interesting guys, who are involved in various forms of subsistence level basketweaving. I can't find someone like "me" out there (white collar professional with some creative hobbies/interests). Oh yeah and there are a few decent guys who went through bad divorces and are recovering, but often don't hear about them until after they are paired up again.   

Your experience matches my observation, unfortunately.  I know a few single GenX women who are attractive, fun, funny, have good careers, and have meager dating prospects.  Kids are involved, which complicates things.  But I would have died if a girl like that had even talked to me at age 19. 

[RedmondStash]

"I'm a financial manager for a very exclusive clientele."

Being FIREd doesn't mean you don't work; it means you don't work for other people. But you still manage your own business, both literally and figuratively.

And yeah, there's a world of difference between "he's got enough money to do whatever he wants during the day" and "I'm going to have to support his lazy ass." Not all women will be interested in the former, but more than in the latter.

Just like men, women are not all the same. Some women love the idea of frugality; some prefer to live lavishly. The key is compatibility, not employment or even financial status.

[Bloop Bloop]

The difference between Bob who lives on a passive income of $40k a year and Joe who earns $40k a year is that Bob had the intelligence and financial acumen to earn enough money to guarantee $40k a year for life, whereas Joe has to go to his meat and potatoes job to earn it.

Surely, for all genders, the resourcefulness and planning ability of Bob would be seen as a "plus", when comparing Bob with Joe.

I understand that some suitors might rather be partnered up with Joe if he was earning $80k a year versus Bob with a passive income of $40k a year.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

And what about saying that you are taking a sabbatical? And explain that you are responsibly living off your savings/investments. That the sabbatical takes longer than usual, is maybe not something you have to explain immediately. But at least, you won't be lying overall.

This is what I said. I also was upfront about being completely self supporting but living frugally. Also that I would continue to do that in hopes to be on sabbattical as long as I could - maybe forever - and would not go back to work solely to fund a nicer/fancier lifestyle. That kept most of those gold digger guys away ;-). Although a 30-something/early 40s woman who wasn't working seemed to be a huge "she's a gold digger" flag for a lot of guys.

 I personally found meeting people and dating (and I dated a lot following a seperation and eventual divorce) to be very easy because of all the free time RE allowed me.  However I found it difficult to find a long term relationship as most men I met were either very entrenched in their careers and wanting the finer things in life (and wanting their SO to work full time) and not interest in FIRE, or had deep debt and financial obligations (ex spouse kids etc) and would never be able to FIRE even if they wanted to.

 I found relationships mostly in the dirt bagger ski biking climbing etc bum community. They weren't FIRE but they were frugal and much more likely to chose freedom over material things. Plus they where more likely to accept me and my frugal lifestyle without thinking I'm a weirdo for not wanting a bunch of fancy expensive things.

As for the article - being FI and RE is completely different then being unemployed. While I would have dated someone who was unemployed, I wouldn't support someone if we were in a relationship.

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

[calimom]

A friend from my book group, who raised and launched a daughter single handedly met a guy at the dental office where she works the front desk. She's in her late forties, he's fifty-ish. Most of us here would consider him FIRE: he built a career in commercial real estate and now is involved in several properties which throw off what I assume is a great income. From what I gather he works a couple hours a day if that, and spends much of the rest of the day playing tennis, kayaking and doing what he pleases. They married last year- I went to their simple wedding -and she continues to work in the dental office. She likes her work, likes having and saving her own money, and likes living in a nice house with a pool after so many years struggling as a single mom renting apartments.

This works well for both of them! She goes home and cooks great meals, he has his days as he did before. They're in love and happy, and I could not be happier for them. Her job allows some flexibility and they take amazing trips to Australia (this year) and looks like Iceland (next year). That she works a traditional job while he does not poses no problem for either one of them.

 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

One final thought that I haven't stated explicitly, if the FIRE bachelor has number that works for their solo lifestyle, that is a pretty hard ask to jeopardize this situation to take on board another.  It is enough work to feel confident about your numbers (annual expenses, ability to tighten belt and work a bit, etc.), but bringing another in to this lifestyle takes a leap of faith even bigger than the decision to FIRE.  I can see the FIRE's that have transitioned to significant side-hustles making it work (maybe Pete or Jason Fieber will post about a Mrs. someday, I think JDRoth remarried), but this is not a typical or easy choice for the more normal 'no / low' income' ER's.

[Schaefer Light]

One final thought that I haven't stated explicitly, if the FIRE bachelor has number that works for their solo lifestyle, that is a pretty hard ask to jeopardize this situation to take on board another.  It is enough work to feel confident about your numbers (annual expenses, ability to tighten belt and work a bit, etc.), but bringing another in to this lifestyle takes a leap of faith even bigger than the decision to FIRE.

That would take a huge leap of faith.  Once I FIRE, I don't plan to go back to work to make enough $$$ to support another person.  They either need to bring their own $$$ to the marriage or be willing to work long enough that our combined savings is enough for two retirees.

[partgypsy]

And what about saying that you are taking a sabbatical? And explain that you are responsibly living off your savings/investments. That the sabbatical takes longer than usual, is maybe not something you have to explain immediately. But at least, you won't be lying overall.

This is what I said. I also was upfront about being completely self supporting but living frugally. Also that I would continue to do that in hopes to be on sabbattical as long as I could - maybe forever - and would not go back to work solely to fund a nicer/fancier lifestyle. That kept most of those gold digger guys away ;-). Although a 30-something/early 40s woman who wasn't working seemed to be a huge "she's a gold digger" flag for a lot of guys.

 I personally found meeting people and dating (and I dated a lot following a seperation and eventual divorce) to be very easy because of all the free time RE allowed me.  However I found it difficult to find a long term relationship as most men I met were either very entrenched in their careers and wanting the finer things in life (and wanting their SO to work full time) and not interest in FIRE, or had deep debt and financial obligations (ex spouse kids etc) and would never be able to FIRE even if they wanted to.

 I found relationships mostly in the dirt bagger ski biking climbing etc bum community. They weren't FIRE but they were frugal and much more likely to chose freedom over material things. Plus they where more likely to accept me and my frugal lifestyle without thinking I'm a weirdo for not wanting a bunch of fancy expensive things.

As for the article - being FI and RE is completely different then being unemployed. While I would have dated someone who was unemployed, I wouldn't support someone if we were in a relationship.

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

I could probably have a line of guys who want to marry me. Because of my job I have great health insurance; can share only with my kids and a spouse. The divorce was put off for 2 years in part due to that. Marriage is def not something to take lightly, but there ARE benefits.  For me I just want to find someone who could be both a friend and a romantic partner, and get along well enough we could share our lives, which would mean many cost savings. I still keep cooking for 4 despite that it is either a 3 person or 1 person household. 

[EscapedApe]

The difference between Bob who lives on a passive income of $40k a year and Joe who earns $40k a year is that Bob had the intelligence and financial acumen to earn enough money to guarantee $40k a year for life, whereas Joe has to go to his meat and potatoes job to earn it.

Surely, for all genders, the resourcefulness and planning ability of Bob would be seen as a "plus", when comparing Bob with Joe.

It would come down to whether you could infer the financial difference between Bob and Joe based on their behaviour.

Joe would likely be more impulsive, less mindful about making plans. Bob would likely approach matters with a deep-rooted confidence because he knows his needs are already taken care of.

A person with a well-trained social sense would pick up on this.

[secondcor521]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

I think you're connecting two different sets of beliefs that may not necessarily go together.  My beliefs about and practices related to FIRE have little to do with my views about and practices related to marriage.  Although going through a divorce has certainly raised my awareness of the interaction between the two.

[partgypsy]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

I think you're connecting two different sets of beliefs that may not necessarily go together.  My beliefs about and practices related to FIRE have little to do with my views about and practices related to marriage.  Although going through a divorce has certainly raised my awareness of the interaction between the two.

yes I think the decision to FIRE (which I am not, just more of a regular savings person) and decision to get married are two pretty different decisions and I don't see them being necessarily related to each other. People who are not FIRE may have strong reasons not to get married, and vice versa. Not really related. Personally the couples I know who stayed together both in my family, and friends, have been financially a lot more successful than the single and divorcees I know.

[Channel-Z]

I'm a bachelor. There are a lot of reasons women don't look in my direction, but being a money-saver pursuing early retirement isn't one of them.

[MonkeyJenga]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

Wow. I'm a FIRE'd lady, and I would be interested in someone more open minded and less suspicious. I don't have any interest in elaborate weddings, but legal marriage has benefits.

I haven't had any issues with people assuming I'm a gold digger. I usually frame my time off as a sabbatical, and I mention upfront that I like low cost dates. Long term, though, I don't know how I would handle being with someone who still worked full time.

[skp]

Based on a couple I know it didn't make him undatable or even un-marriageable but it did make him divorceable.  Based on things she said, she was very impressed with the million dollar portfolio.  He must have treated her well (or she ignored his "different from her money habits") while they were dating.  But she was constantly complaining about how cheap he was.  Just some comments I remember.  He's retired, didn't/ wouldn't clean (at least to her standards), wouldn't pay for a cleaning person.  They went out to eat for lunch.  Her food choices were "too" expensive for him.  They are now divorced.

[partgypsy]

One thing is true, is if you are dating or even living together but not married, there is probably more of a "hands off" attitude towards the other persons' spending habits since they are not merged, while if you are married there is going to be more friction if there are differences in spending/saving behaviors. That might be even more true for fire folks because they are even more extreme in their money views. So depending on how "frugal" you are, that may be a difficult thing to live with. 

I can see people either sex as being less dateable if you have a) pretty extreme views on how to save money, and b) have judgement/negativity towards someone because they do not share your views, values.
This can be generalized beyond money issues, but anyone on the extreme, such as views how to spend one's leisure time (workaholic versus work to live), cleanliness, being physically fit, how environmentally conscious you are, politics, religion, diet, etc. People who are both on the extreme ends AND judgmental towards others who are not as extreme are going to have a smaller pool.

[TomTX]

partgypsy - there's a difference between "frugal" "cheap" and "dishonest" - your partner has slid to the "dishonest" category.

[partgypsy]

partgypsy - there's a difference between "frugal" "cheap" and "dishonest" - your partner has slid to the "dishonest" category.

I decided to take that out bc besides the point. For me, I am not comfortable doing that.

[Metalcat]

One thing is true, is if you are dating or even living together but not married, there is probably more of a "hands off" attitude towards the other persons' spending habits since they are not merged, while if you are married there is going to be more friction if there are differences in spending/saving behaviors. That might be even more true for fire folks because they are even more extreme in their money views. So depending on how "frugal" you are, that may be a difficult thing to live with. 

I can see people either sex as being less dateable if you have a) pretty extreme views on how to save money, and b) have judgement/negativity towards someone because they do not share your views, values.
This can be generalized beyond money issues, but anyone on the extreme, such as views how to spend one's leisure time (workaholic versus work to live), being physically fit, how environmentally conscious you are, in politics, diet, etc. People who are both on the extreme ends AND judgmental towards others are going to have a smaller pool of like minded people.

Yep, none of this is specific to FIRE, and FIRE folks aren't even necessarily extremely frugal either. We have tons of high earning, high spending types around here.

At the end of the day, FIRE or not, people need to be compatible and have excellent communication in order for relationships to work.

I don't think FIRE makes it any more or less complicated, relationships are just complicated.

Being unusual in any way will limit someone's range of potential partners, but beyond that, it's not really all that big a deal. There are weirder things to be than financially independent.

[Metalcat]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

Wow. I'm a FIRE'd lady, and I would be interested in someone more open minded and less suspicious. I don't have any interest in elaborate weddings, but legal marriage has benefits.

I haven't had any issues with people assuming I'm a gold digger. I usually frame my time off as a sabbatical, and I mention upfront that I like low cost dates. Long term, though, I don't know how I would handle being with someone who still worked full time.

It's great if you like alone time.

[MonkeyJenga]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

Wow. I'm a FIRE'd lady, and I would be interested in someone more open minded and less suspicious. I don't have any interest in elaborate weddings, but legal marriage has benefits.

I haven't had any issues with people assuming I'm a gold digger. I usually frame my time off as a sabbatical, and I mention upfront that I like low cost dates. Long term, though, I don't know how I would handle being with someone who still worked full time.

It's great if you like alone time.

I do not.

[Arbitrage]

Watching the dating travails of a divorced friend, I could definitely see it being a problem (I'm married, so no personal concern).  She - and our various mutual friends - are definitely scouting the job, car, house/condo, etc. that all prospects have, and I could definitely see her just deciding a hard no on people without defined, lucrative careers before even meeting them.  Having a cheap car and/or being frugal in general would also seem to be a turnoff. 

If I were ever forced to deal with that situation (heaven forbid), I would definitely need to come up with strategies just to get past the initial filter.

[MonkeyJenga]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

Wow. I'm a FIRE'd lady, and I would be interested in someone more open minded and less suspicious. I don't have any interest in elaborate weddings, but legal marriage has benefits.

I haven't had any issues with people assuming I'm a gold digger. I usually frame my time off as a sabbatical, and I mention upfront that I like low cost dates. Long term, though, I don't know how I would handle being with someone who still worked full time.

It's great if you like alone time.

I do not.

I like alone time and still do month long (or longer) solo trips. But its nice to be able to have an SO that CAN just up and go on a whim. Or stay home on a whim. Lazy Weds morning in bed and there's a fresh powder in the mountains? Just go and stay gone as long as you want. Lazy Weds morning and the weather makes you want to stay in and snuggle and eat pancakes? Just stay in - also as long as you want. Lots of benefits to having a FIREd SO - especially one who is totally OK with you each having your alone time.

I like some alone time, and time with different groups of people. But my best first date was with an unemployed guy, because we could spend 4 straight days together. I really like spending time with people. Only getting a few hours each day, and possibly having the other person be stressed about work in that time, isn't my ideal. The flexibility you mentioned is also nice.

[Wrenchturner]

Watching the dating travails of a divorced friend, I could definitely see it being a problem (I'm married, so no personal concern).  She - and our various mutual friends - are definitely scouting the job, car, house/condo, etc. that all prospects have, and I could definitely see her just deciding a hard no on people without defined, lucrative careers before even meeting them.  Having a cheap car and/or being frugal in general would also seem to be a turnoff. 

If I were ever forced to deal with that situation (heaven forbid), I would definitely need to come up with strategies just to get past the initial filter.

The funny thing is that there are probably a lot (ok.a few) "Millionaire Next Door" types out there that live modest lives and have much more to offer than someone with a big flashy life - and the job and debt to fuel that life. People can't seem to look past the "averageness" or lower cost lifestyle many mustashian singles present. We have our modest houses (paid off), our modest old cars (paid off), our down to earth no debt lifestyle, our big stashes that we don't spend,  and, of course, are all young and wildly attractive ;-). What's not to like? Apparently a lot. The house isn't big and fancy. The car is boring and used (or worse..a bicycle) and not a shiny new sports car, the weekend jaunts to Vegas consist of tent camping and kayaking instead of luxury spa digs and gambling sprees, and of course were unemployed. Who'd wanna date us? Well besides us here ;-).

Hopefully a prospective would be more interested in dating a person rather than their wealth.  Flashy stuff won't cook you soup when you're sick!

[marty998]

I've approached this thread as a FIRE guy (as the title and OP indicated), but a FIRE gal probably has it even tougher.  Even as a FIRE'd guy, I'd be hesitant to marry a FIRE gal.  I'd imagine that she thinks exactly like me - that tying our financial lives together just to call ourselves 'married' is antiquated and part of the unnecessary social mores that forward thinking folks that have already escaped society's biggest trap of working until you fall apart have escaped.  So yeah, sadly, I'd probably suspect her motives and keep hoping to turn her to my 'anti-legally marry or recognize common law marriage' beliefs.

Wow. I'm a FIRE'd lady, and I would be interested in someone more open minded and less suspicious. I don't have any interest in elaborate weddings, but legal marriage has benefits.

I haven't had any issues with people assuming I'm a gold digger. I usually frame my time off as a sabbatical, and I mention upfront that I like low cost dates. Long term, though, I don't know how I would handle being with someone who still worked full time.

It's great if you like alone time.

I do not.

I like alone time and still do month long (or longer) solo trips. But its nice to be able to have an SO that CAN just up and go on a whim. Or stay home on a whim. Lazy Weds morning in bed and there's a fresh powder in the mountains? Just go and stay gone as long as you want. Lazy Weds morning and the weather makes you want to stay in and snuggle and eat pancakes? Just stay in - also as long as you want. Lots of benefits to having a FIREd SO - especially one who is totally OK with you each having your alone time.

I like some alone time, and time with different groups of people. But my best first date was with an unemployed guy, because we could spend 4 straight days together. I really like spending time with people. Only getting a few hours each day, and possibly having the other person be stressed about work in that time, isn't my ideal. The flexibility you mentioned is also nice.

Yes but you're not still with him... a great first date doesn't necessarily lead to a great ever after (as I've come to discover all too well), especially if they are unemployed with not a lot else going for them.

To the subject topic, I've been silently following this thread, and I don't feel un-datable, but I'm increasingly feeling un-partnerable.

That's a bigger problem IMO.

[maizefolk]

To the subject topic, I've been silently following this thread, and I don't feel un-datable, but I'm increasingly feeling un-partnerable.

Would be interested to hear more about you mean by that/what you're experiencing if you're willing, marty998.

I am sorry, sure doesn't sound like a lot of fun. :-/

[MonkeyJenga]

Yeahhh THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT MARTY. It didn't end because he was unemployed and had nothing going for him. I met him during a voluntary period of living off of savings while planning for a less toxic career, not the sterotypical unemployment. My point was that he had a lot of free time, we could spend it together, and I liked that. If my partner had a FT job while I was FIRE, I would not be happy about all the solo time it gave me.