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

[js82]

The kind of person who wouldn't want to date you is the kind of person you wouldn't want to date. Just consider it more built in filters for the right fit. The right fit might be rare, but that's not a reflection of your datability.

But you can't deny that the more mainstream a person is, the more likely he will find someone.  When you are an outlier in several ways, the pool just is so much smaller than it is for the average person.

Both you and Malkynn are 100% correct.  If you try make yourself attractive to people who normally wouldn't be interested in your *real* self, you're just setting yourself up for disaster in the relationship department.  But it's also true that the the further you get from the mainstream(in your local area), the fewer people are likely to be interested in you, and the fewer people you are likely to find interesting.

On that note, "datability" is to a significant extent, relative to your environment.  I say this based on my own personal experience as someone who lies far, far outside of the mainstream in the area where I live.  Not so much because of my views on money, but because I'm a liberal, nonreligious, scientific type currently living in an area that's pretty darn conservative.

If you're in this sort of situation, you have 2 choices: 1) Be patient, or 2) move to a community where there are more people whose values are aligned with yours.  Dating the wrong person for the sake of not being single is the wrong answer, no matter the circumstances.

[SwordGuy]

It's been a long time since I was dating (and hopefully I won't need to ever again), but most my dates (and all of the successful ones) came from dating people I met through common interests.   My date and I would both be members of an organization that supported some of our interests, so we immediately had something in common to enjoy.   I tended to get to know someone a bit thru our shared clubs (and vice-versa) before asking them out.   Some of those clubs had weekend-long activities so the chance to get to know someone well and see how they handle themselves in adverse situations typically arose.

So, they already knew whether they liked me or not and I established enough credibility via my useful and pleasant activities in the club that they wouldn't consider me a lazy bum. 

For what it's worth, there's only one person I regret dating that I started off with this way.  And that's only because she fell for me hard and I didn't end up feeling that way towards her, so she got hurt.   No drama queens, no Gawd-awful ex stories, just good memories and, for those I was able to stay in touch with over the years, friendly and affectionate feelings going both ways.

I don't think the "what do you do" question would seem so important to the people I started dating because a lot of their concerns would have already been laid to rest.   For that matter, a lot of my potential concerns would also have been addressed.  Are they good natured and fair minded?   Are they sweet and kind?   Do they have a sense of humor?  Are they intelligent, competent and capable?    Are they knowledgeable?    Have they mastered something in their life? (If someone can master something they can usually master whatever they need to in the future.)   Do we have enough common interests?  Are they attractive to me? (Only important for dating, not friendship.)

If I had to date again I would follow the same method to start with.

The other thing I would recommend would be to really think and feel deeply about what kind of person you are attracted to and then look at yourself from their point of view.  Would someone like that want to spend their life with you?  If the answer is yes (and you're correct about that), then all is well.

If not, then you've got a problem.   Either settle for another kind of person that will want to stay with you, or consciously change yourself into (a) a person you would be happy being and (b) that your target type of person would want to be with.   You have to do both or at least one of you will end up unhappy in the relationship.

Hope that helps.

[Metalcat]

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.

...assuming that you would want to date the kind of women who do that kind of screening and get turned off by cheap cars.

[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.

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.

And I've dated a bunch of employed people with flexibility who aren't constantly stressed about their jobs. It's not a prerequisite that someone be jobless for them to be happy and flexible.

It is rare though, because truly happy people are rare period.

[Linea_Norway]

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.

...assuming that you would want to date the kind of women who do that kind of screening and get turned off by cheap cars.

Those girls could end up with a guy who lived paycheck to paycheck with a mortgage he can't afford and a high car loan.

[jim555]

The "normals" of the world wouldn't understand why I don't drive a brand new car with payments, or even worse only have a bike.  So FIRE can be repellent to those uninitiated into the cult.

[iris lily]

I have a friend who asked a guy to show documentation of his finacial status ON THEIR 3RD DATE!!!
WTH? How does that happen?
She said he talked about being retired from 'Real Estate' and about his lifestyle and she basically said, "Listen, we met online, you seem really nice but you could be full of shit, and I don't have the time or inclination to date a conartist/bullshitter/asshole, so if you are really FIREd,  I'm going to need some proof".  LOL!
He showed up with bank statements and spreadsheets  (as did she - a Mustachian "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" game).  Within a year they were engaged.  They spent this summer living on his sailboat while renting out both their houses.

This girl is my spiritual daughter.

[iris lily]

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!

Well unless you can afford a cabana boy who also cooks ;-).

Sven. His name is Sven. :)

[marty998]

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. :-/

There's a bit to unpack. My job/career (Financial Reporting) is not something most women (or men for that matter) find interesting and easy to talk about. "Oh you're an accountant?" it isn't the sexiest profession, especially in your 20's, but now in my 30's the feeling I get from prospective partners is "that's boring and I don't get it, but it seems like you have your head screwed on". Do I need my partner to be excited by it? Not overly, but if they had an interest that would be nice.

I don't have to do much screening out of those who see me as a meal ticket like some have mentioned here. I tend to date women who are professionals and who are economically independent. And therein lies some of the problem - I/we then have difficulty seeing how we could fit 2 lives together that are already fully filled with work, hobbies, interests that are important to the respective selves. Usually I make the effort to start the conversation about it, but ambitious career people don't easily give up things they are passionate about and determined to do (stands to reason right?)

There's more to this but I think that should give a little insight for now.

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.

LOL ok, thanks for the clarification. Sorry it ended then.

[Linea_Norway]

There's a bit to unpack. My job/career (Financial Reporting) is not something most women (or men for that matter) find interesting and easy to talk about. "Oh you're an accountant?" it isn't the sexiest profession, especially in your 20's, but now in my 30's the feeling I get from prospective partners is "that's boring and I don't get it, but it seems like you have your head screwed on". Do I need my partner to be excited by it? Not overly, but if they had an interest that would be nice.

I don't have to do much screening out of those who see me as a meal ticket like some have mentioned here. I tend to date women who are professionals and who are economically independent. And therein lies some of the problem - I/we then have difficulty seeing how we could fit 2 lives together that are already fully filled with work, hobbies, interests that are important to the respective selves. Usually I make the effort to start the conversation about it, but ambitious career people don't easily give up things they are passionate about and determined to do (stands to reason right?)

There's more to this but I think that should give a little insight for now.

It sounds like your prospective partners are people who could benefit from being introduced to Mustachianism in due time. They currently enjoy their good income and the lifestyle you could have with it. But they might never have considered working less. But if they are passionate about it, it might be very difficult.

Maybe you should look at what Spartana wrote. She meets people with the right mindset in settings where you typically find ski bums.

[marty998]

There's a bit to unpack. My job/career (Financial Reporting) is not something most women (or men for that matter) find interesting and easy to talk about. "Oh you're an accountant?" it isn't the sexiest profession, especially in your 20's, but now in my 30's the feeling I get from prospective partners is "that's boring and I don't get it, but it seems like you have your head screwed on". Do I need my partner to be excited by it? Not overly, but if they had an interest that would be nice.

I don't have to do much screening out of those who see me as a meal ticket like some have mentioned here. I tend to date women who are professionals and who are economically independent. And therein lies some of the problem - I/we then have difficulty seeing how we could fit 2 lives together that are already fully filled with work, hobbies, interests that are important to the respective selves. Usually I make the effort to start the conversation about it, but ambitious career people don't easily give up things they are passionate about and determined to do (stands to reason right?)

There's more to this but I think that should give a little insight for now.

It sounds like your prospective partners are people who could benefit from being introduced to Mustachianism in due time. They currently enjoy their good income and the lifestyle you could have with it. But they might never have considered working less. But if they are passionate about it, it might be very difficult.

Maybe you should look at what Spartana wrote. She meets people with the right mindset in settings where you typically find ski bums.

Global warming is fast putting paid to the ski season here haha.

You are right though - I do need to find a way to organically meet new people outside the tragedy that is internet swiping. It's just so difficult lol.

[Linea_Norway]

There's a bit to unpack. My job/career (Financial Reporting) is not something most women (or men for that matter) find interesting and easy to talk about. "Oh you're an accountant?" it isn't the sexiest profession, especially in your 20's, but now in my 30's the feeling I get from prospective partners is "that's boring and I don't get it, but it seems like you have your head screwed on". Do I need my partner to be excited by it? Not overly, but if they had an interest that would be nice.

I don't have to do much screening out of those who see me as a meal ticket like some have mentioned here. I tend to date women who are professionals and who are economically independent. And therein lies some of the problem - I/we then have difficulty seeing how we could fit 2 lives together that are already fully filled with work, hobbies, interests that are important to the respective selves. Usually I make the effort to start the conversation about it, but ambitious career people don't easily give up things they are passionate about and determined to do (stands to reason right?)

There's more to this but I think that should give a little insight for now.

It sounds like your prospective partners are people who could benefit from being introduced to Mustachianism in due time. They currently enjoy their good income and the lifestyle you could have with it. But they might never have considered working less. But if they are passionate about it, it might be very difficult.

Maybe you should look at what Spartana wrote. She meets people with the right mindset in settings where you typically find ski bums.

Global warming is fast putting paid to the ski season here haha.

You are right though - I do need to find a way to organically meet new people outside the tragedy that is internet swiping. It's just so difficult lol.

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to your location. ;-)
Maybe you have surfing bums over there.

[maizefolk]

Many thanks @marty998. Yes that's enough to give a lot of insight, and grist for further thought.

[marty998]

There's a bit to unpack. My job/career (Financial Reporting) is not something most women (or men for that matter) find interesting and easy to talk about. "Oh you're an accountant?" it isn't the sexiest profession, especially in your 20's, but now in my 30's the feeling I get from prospective partners is "that's boring and I don't get it, but it seems like you have your head screwed on". Do I need my partner to be excited by it? Not overly, but if they had an interest that would be nice.

I don't have to do much screening out of those who see me as a meal ticket like some have mentioned here. I tend to date women who are professionals and who are economically independent. And therein lies some of the problem - I/we then have difficulty seeing how we could fit 2 lives together that are already fully filled with work, hobbies, interests that are important to the respective selves. Usually I make the effort to start the conversation about it, but ambitious career people don't easily give up things they are passionate about and determined to do (stands to reason right?)

There's more to this but I think that should give a little insight for now.

It sounds like your prospective partners are people who could benefit from being introduced to Mustachianism in due time. They currently enjoy their good income and the lifestyle you could have with it. But they might never have considered working less. But if they are passionate about it, it might be very difficult.

Maybe you should look at what Spartana wrote. She meets people with the right mindset in settings where you typically find ski bums.

Global warming is fast putting paid to the ski season here haha.

You are right though - I do need to find a way to organically meet new people outside the tragedy that is internet swiping. It's just so difficult lol.

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to your location. ;-)
Maybe you have surfing bums over there.

Ohhh...Austrailian surf bums (and bumettes) so like a good thing ;-).

But seriously I understand what Marty is saying. You can have many great qualities that make you very attractive as a potential partner and very dateable - nice, kind, smart, humorous, genererous, good listener, interesting, fun, modest yet confident, attractive, good with money, etc... But often people can't get over your desire for the FIRE life. Especially if you are fairly young. They can't get past the societal pressure (and the very strong pressure from family and friends) to conform to the idea that you should want to work most of your life and you should want to spend and upgrade most of your life.  I think this is especially true for men as there is still a double standard out there which often gives women a pass at not working when their partner does.

I definitely couldn't pass myself off as an Aussie surfer bum. I'm about as far removed from the stereotype as you could get haha. The casual racism is still quite strong in my neck of the woods. People still want to know "where you're from" (I've lived here 30 years!)

I don't bring up FIRE too early when dating, but often enough when someone expresses frustration about their job work and imagining doing it for another 25-30 years I start asking questions about ways to "shorten" that timespan. That gets them thinking about the issue in a more subtle way.

Blurting out "I want to retire in 5 years" is not a strategy I'd ever recommend.

[Junglebot]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

[Bloop Bloop]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

I agree with this. Effort in a relationship should be mutual. I guess if you were planning to FIRE so you could be a full-time stay at home parent then the other partner would have nothing to complain about but otherwise there would need to be a discussion and alignment of values.

[secondcor521]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

I was married for 15 years and have three kids.  When I was deciding whether or not to FIRE, it did occur to me that I had enough for me and my three kids and to finish paying child support to my ex, but perhaps not enough if a new partner were to enter the picture.

I considered the situation.  I had been single at that point for nearly 10 years, and my interest in, and likelihood of finding, a partner seemed remote at best.  I decided I'd FIRE, and if the right person came along I'd certainly be willing to go back to work as needed until we reached the larger number required.  I really wouldn't care if the right person was a SAHP, a working person, or FIREd on their own, although the last of those three is obviously the least likely.

Now that things have turned out better than expected, I could probably support someone as long as they had similar spending levels to mine.  My interest and ability to find someone is still quite remote, so I expect it won't be an issue.

[Schaefer Light]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

Why should I share what I've already earned with someone I may meet in the future?  At this moment in time, they should be saving for their own retirement.  While it's perfectly reasonable for a married couple to have shared savings, it seems crazy that a single person would be expected to save enough money to support a future partner whose spending habits are an unknown, and who may never even materialize.

[secondcor521]

I also wouldn't go back to work to enable an SO to FIRE. I really wouldn't combine finances either. Or marry again. This is probably an age thing as well as an already been divorced thing as well as an already FIREd thing.  A younger, single, never married person just starting out on the FIRE path with few assets themselves probably aren't as protective of their finances and assets then those of us who spent 20 years working and saving to FIRE before 40 and saw much of the disappear with a divorce. So it has more to do with that then not wanting to help an SO to FIRE.

It could also be related to the timing of divorce in relation to FIRE.

My divorce was in 2006.  She took half of what we had at that time.  I was able to be philosophical about it because I knew I could control spending, increase income, and vastly increase savings.  Then the market did well from 2009 to 2016 when I FIREd.

It sounds like you were far closer to FI when your divorce happened, which would likely be rougher to take I think.

[TempusFugit]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

Why should I share what I've already earned with someone I may meet in the future?  At this moment in time, they should be saving for their own retirement.  While it's perfectly reasonable for a married couple to have shared savings, it seems crazy that a single person would be expected to save enough money to support a future partner whose spending habits are an unknown, and who may never even materialize.

And this is exactly the issue in my opinion.  How likely is one to find a partner who is either a) financially secure enough to share in a FIRE lifestyle - meaning not working or working minimally or b) fine with the idea of partnering with someone who supports themselves without working while they themselves must continue working.   Seems like an unlikely find.  I don't think it makes one undateable, but it might make a longer term relationship very very difficult to maintain. 

Since i myself will be more middle aged whenever i decide the FIRE, it is probably less of an issue for me but I can see how it could be a big issue for younger folks.  I think my suggestion would be to set your FIRE number high enough that you could support a second person by perhaps cutting back on some of the extras.  At least that gives you some options.  Anyone who is single and has some desire of finding a partner later in life should think hard about FIRE on a tight budget.  Of course, I’d say that to anyone considering FIRE at all, I guess. 

[MonkeyJenga]

It seems like some people are planning the "I have enough for myself" method rather than the "I have enough for my future family" method.  After an appropriate amount of dating, when it's time to "have the talk" with a great potential partner, the first option could sound very selfish, while the second is more of a well-planned lifestyle.  I think it would be rare for a person to want a partner who doesn't need to work, but won't share to make it so both partners don't need to work.

Why should I share what I've already earned with someone I may meet in the future?  At this moment in time, they should be saving for their own retirement.  While it's perfectly reasonable for a married couple to have shared savings, it seems crazy that a single person would be expected to save enough money to support a future partner whose spending habits are an unknown, and who may never even materialize.

And this is exactly the issue in my opinion.  How likely is one to find a partner who is either a) financially secure enough to share in a FIRE lifestyle - meaning not working or working minimally or b) fine with the idea of partnering with someone who supports themselves without working while they themselves must continue working.   Seems like an unlikely find.  I don't think it makes one undateable, but it might make a longer term relationship very very difficult to maintain. 

Since i myself will be more middle aged whenever i decide the FIRE, it is probably less of an issue for me but I can see how it could be a big issue for younger folks.  I think my suggestion would be to set your FIRE number high enough that you could support a second person by perhaps cutting back on some of the extras.  At least that gives you some options.  Anyone who is single and has some desire of finding a partner later in life should think hard about FIRE on a tight budget.  Of course, I’d say that to anyone considering FIRE at all, I guess. 

I ended a relationship partly because they felt obligated to my money. It caused a lot of resentment. I'm not going to delay retirement by another 5-10 years in order to support some hypothetical partner. If I meet someone who I feel that strongly about, and I want to help them get to FIRE, I can figure things out then.

[HBFIRE]

I think the bigger concern would be that the wrong type of person will be attracted to you.  It's quite easy to find a date when you're financially independent. 

[Ozlady]

Last month i attended a wedding...

Groom was definitely FIRE...

Bride was not...

Groom is 21 years older than bride (who was 24)....

We are friends on the brides' side; knew her since she was a baby...bride's parents hit the roof but had to give in ....but the bride didn't care what her parents thought!

Footnote: the groom was worth north of 10 million...

Therein lies the answer to the original poster's question:)

[Linea_Norway]

Last month i attended a wedding...

Groom was definitely FIRE...

Bride was not...

Groom is 21 years older than bride (who was 24)....

We are friends on the brides' side; knew her since she was a baby...bride's parents hit the roof but had to give in ....but the bride didn't care what her parents thought!

Footnote: the groom was worth north of 10 million...

Therein lies the answer to the original poster's question:)

But if you have 10 mil, people who marry you might have expectations of a fancy lifestyle, while the FIRE people are sometimes considered cheap weirdos.

[marty998]

Last month i attended a wedding...

Groom was definitely FIRE...

Bride was not...

Groom is 21 years older than bride (who was 24)....

We are friends on the brides' side; knew her since she was a baby...bride's parents hit the roof but had to give in ....but the bride didn't care what her parents thought!

Footnote: the groom was worth north of 10 million...

Therein lies the answer to the original poster's question:)

I'll bet 10 million that in 10 years time the groom will be marrying another 24 year old....

[nancyfrank232]

But if you have 10 mil, people who marry you might have expectations of a fancy lifestyle, while the FIRE people are sometimes considered cheap weirdos.

Or they may simply expect a life where they won’t need to work

I would never ever advertise that I’m FI let alone RE to a prospective date

[jim555]

I would never ever advertise that I’m FI let alone RE to a prospective date

But how do you explain how you are able to watch Jerry Springer while everyone else is working?

[EscapeVelocity2020]

...
Footnote: the groom was worth north of 10 million...

Therein lies the answer to the original poster's question:)

Not to be too picky, but the OP question was about getting said 24 year old girl to date him if he's retired.  I'm wondering, if there was no prospect of marriage, if the 24 year old would have been OK continuing a dating relationship?  Also, is this 45 y.o. multimillionaire bon vivant attractive - that could also be a factor :)

[nancyfrank232]

I'm wondering, if there was no prospect of marriage, if the 24 year old would have been OK continuing a dating relationship?  Also, is this 45 y.o. multimillionaire bon vivant attractive - that could also be a factor :)

Doesn’t need to be married. Common law also works!

And any man with millions of dollars is automatically handsome lol

[partgypsy]

I'm wondering, if there was no prospect of marriage, if the 24 year old would have been OK continuing a dating relationship?  Also, is this 45 y.o. multimillionaire bon vivant attractive - that could also be a factor :)

Doesn’t need to be married. Common law also works!

And any man with millions of dollars is automatically handsome lol

lol!

I saw a pic of Bruce willis with his ex wife (Demi) his daughters and his new wife. Before I looked at the caption I thought his new wife was one of his daughters. I guess some women are into it? (eta there are some age gap guys I would be with, Harrison Ford, Alex Trebek, Patrick Stewart)...

The guy I've been seeing on an off for past couple years is both physically very attractive, keeps himself in shape and is worth millions (and he's smart, handy, etc). But- he is emotionally not really in touch with other people, not willing to compromise, communicate and it drives me up the wall. So, great friendship with benefits but it's been a bit of a fail as a boyfriend.   

[Bernard]

Rule of thumb really is that a man will try to hook up with the hottest woman he can attract, while a woman will try to reel in the wealthiest man she can get. People can point fingers and be outraged all they want, but that's how the cookie crumbles. A man worth $10M looking for a partner will unlikely focus on average women his age.
The same works the other way around, i.e., Elizabeth Taylor, but it's rather unusual.

[partgypsy]

Rule of thumb really is that a man will try to hook up with the hottest woman he can attract, while a woman will try to reel in the wealthiest man she can get. People can point fingers and be outraged all they want, but that's how the cookie crumbles. A man worth $10M looking for a partner will unlikely focus on average women his age.
The same works the other way around, i.e., Elizabeth Taylor, but it's rather unusual.

I'm a weirdo I'd rather have a guy closer to me in age and finances but I'm physically attracted to, than just hook up with a guy because he has $$. I have experienced it and I've declined. Bad/entitled personality is the biggest turnoff. 

[maizefolk]

And any man with millions of dollars is automatically handsome lol

Rule of thumb really is that a man will try to hook up with the hottest woman he can attract, while a woman will try to reel in the wealthiest man she can get. People can point fingers and be outraged all they want, but that's how the cookie crumbles.

Even if one feels this is universally true (I don't but it doesn't bother me if other people do), for the people it does matter to I think that "wealthiest" is going to be a ranking that correlates a lot more with annual spending -- whether from investments or salary -- than it does with how many millions of dollars a person is worth.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Yes. There is a big difference marrying someone with $10mm who's not working and marrying someone like pre-blog-income MMM who FIREd with a paid off house and enough of a stash to throw of $24k annual income.

Not that this is 100% the right thread for it, but I'd also say that the chances of the marriage leading to subsequent divorce are higher for the $10mm non-worker forcibly living on $24k/yr than the $24k/yr income non-worker living on $24k/yr.  Spending $24k/yr on 10mm is a 0.2% WR!  Can you imagine having $10M (and growing) but spend $24k/yr?  That multimillionaire is going to die and leave behind a lot of zeros for someone!!

[EscapedApe]

My principal expectation is that FIRE will make most of the ladies un-dateable.

People in general have bad attitudes about money. Anyone who comes into my life will be fiercely vetted for long-term compatibility, and attitude about money will be at the top of that vetting list.

I would rather be free and single than chained at the neck alongside a girlfriend.

[nancyfrank232]

Not that this is 100% the right thread for it, but I'd also say that the chances of the marriage leading to subsequent divorce are higher for the $10mm non-worker forcibly living on $24k/yr than the $24k/yr income non-worker living on $24k/yr.  Spending $24k/yr on 10mm is a 0.2% WR!  Can you imagine having $10M (and growing) but spend $24k/yr?  That multimillionaire is going to die and leave behind a lot of zeros for someone!!

“Forcibly” making someone do anything doesn’t lead to good relationship outcomes

[partgypsy]

I am not a true mustachian. I have many comforts in my life and would rather retire at 62 than to go full frugal.

However of the people who are more true FIRE, how many among you would live on 24K a year, if you had 10 million? That is, solo with no one else to share the load financially, etc speaking?  My ex and I lived collectively on 24K a year while in grad school but that was 20+ years ago and I would find it difficult to do that now. 

[MonkeyJenga]

I am not a true mustachian. I have many comforts in my life and would rather retire at 62 than to go full frugal.

However of the people who are more true FIRE, how many among you would live on 24K a year, if you had 10 million? That is, solo with no one else to share the load financially, etc speaking?  My ex and I lived collectively on 24K a year while in grad school but that was 20+ years ago and I would find it difficult to do that now. 

Is impossible to know how my mindset would change with that much money. I know my charity spending alone would be more than 24k. If you're asking about personal lifestyle, then maybe? I'm a little under 15k now. I can think of some things I might spend more money on, but I doubt they would add another $800 a month.

This is assuming I'm about the same age and still have low cost healthcare. I probably would need to pay more for health insurance, actually, which would get me closer. And long term care is unknown. But personal decisions to spend more? Might only happen if I discover I hate winter in the pnw and go south to a warmer, more expensive city. I chose my current city partially due to budget restrictions, but so far I like it.

[Zikoris]

I am not a true mustachian. I have many comforts in my life and would rather retire at 62 than to go full frugal.

However of the people who are more true FIRE, how many among you would live on 24K a year, if you had 10 million? That is, solo with no one else to share the load financially, etc speaking?  My ex and I lived collectively on 24K a year while in grad school but that was 20+ years ago and I would find it difficult to do that now.

We currently spend about 27-28K for two people, which gets us everything we want, including a nice Vancouver downtown apartment and a whole lot of passport stamps. 24K would be laughably easy for one person - that would just be exactly the same lifestyle minus some of the other person's travel spending. I could see maybe doing some charitable donations if I had 10 million, but not making other substantial lifestyle changes, since most non-charity things a person would spend money on would go against some belief or value I hold.

[partgypsy]

Wow. I feel like an exploding volcano of spending. I'm projected to spend 56K alone this year. I do have 2 kids, and seem to be in high spend period (braces, tutoring, car payment, divorce expenses, house repairs). I'm hoping to reach a lower spend period in spring. But high spend will hit again in less than 2 years when oldest goes to college.

[EscapedApe]

My principal expectation is that FIRE will make most of the ladies un-dateable.

People in general have bad attitudes about money. Anyone who comes into my life will be fiercely vetted for long-term compatibility, and attitude about money will be at the top of that vetting list.

I would rather be free and single than chained at the neck alongside a girlfriend.

but what if the woman was FIRE and not working? What if she wasn't wealthy but was comfortly supporting her FIRE life in a low cost way? Would that be OK or would you need her to be as wealthy as you or at least still employed and.on that track?

If she was FIRE and not working, then that would mean she had similar values about prioritizing freedom over wealth. She would be a keeper. Any difference in our wealth wouldn't matter terribly.

[MNBEN87]

Please. Not a problem. If anything, depending on your level of disclosure and NW, you might have the opposite problem of getting too many dates. Women like men who are different in positive ways.

I was more mainstream when I had short hair.  Most women will tell you that they prefer short hair on a man.  However, I get more attention with long hair than I ever did with short. 

You stand out if you are different.  I think that is attractive.

[mathlete]

I'm not retired, nor am I single. But I've thought about this before. In the beginning, I'd probably tell white lies about being an entrepreneur or in real estate or something.

[nancyfrank232]

In any case my original point wasn't that whether someone with $10mm who only spent $24k/year was as dateable as someone with $10mm who spent lavishly. It was is someone who has a nice paid off house and a $600k stash and spent $24k (4%) as dateable?  For someone like me that would be yes. For someone who wants a higher spending life that would probably be a no.

Men are more intimidated by high earning, high achieving women that spend more than them, even if her spend is a smaller % of her NW than his

Men are more willing to accept a frugal low earning woman

[Ozlady]

Last month i attended a wedding...

Groom was definitely FIRE...

Bride was not...

Groom is 21 years older than bride (who was 24)....

We are friends on the brides' side; knew her since she was a baby...bride's parents hit the roof but had to give in ....but the bride didn't care what her parents thought!

Footnote: the groom was worth north of 10 million...

Therein lies the answer to the original poster's question:)

I'll bet 10 million that in 10 years time the groom will be marrying another 24 year old....

Hahaha  Marty

You presume too much?!

Wait till i tell you how much the bride's dad is worth!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But back to the original question, i have been thinking that if my own daughter meets a man who is :

1) Lean FIRED and extremely conscious of spending and stingy minded, i would advise her to DROP HIM.  Life ahead would be tough...she probably has to lift more weight (medical doctor to be)

2) Fat FIRED: do consider him ...WHY? as i think a man doesn't get to Fat FIRED without some serious skills/intelligence behind it.

[Ozlady]

Men are more intimidated by high earning, high achieving women that spend more than them, even if her spend is a smaller % of her NW than his

Men are more willing to accept a frugal low earning woman

Serious??   Please tell me this is NOT true!

[Bloop Bloop]

Men are more intimidated by high earning, high achieving women that spend more than them, even if her spend is a smaller % of her NW than his

Men are more willing to accept a frugal low earning woman

Serious??   Please tell me this is NOT true!

Why would I be intimidated by someone who's successful? It's not necessarily a good thing to earn lots, but it's never a bad thing.

[nancyfrank232]

Men are more intimidated by high earning, high achieving women that spend more than them, even if her spend is a smaller % of her NW than his

Men are more willing to accept a frugal low earning woman

Serious??   Please tell me this is NOT true!

Sad but true

[Bloop Bloop]

Not true in my case. I'm hugely attracted to successful women, as long as they have the other attributes I usually go for.

[SwordGuy]

Sad to say, but lots of men are scared of competent, smart, capable women.   

Their sense of self-worth and manhood has serious flaws and weaknesses so the women intimidate them.

I, on the other hand, have spent my life making friends with competent, smart, capable women.    I think they are absolutely awesome and a joy to be around.