Would you wait forever for your dream man or would you ‘settle’?

[Missgemini]

Random post that doesn’t actually affect my life, but I’ve been wondering about this.

I’m in my early 30s, married with kids (just for background). I have a couple of close friends that are single and looking. They’ve dated, but haven’t found anyone to be serious with.
It's not a case of a lack of men around. The ‘issue’ is the perceived calibre of the men. These are high flying women that have achieved a lot in their lives, so they only want men that have either achieved the same or higher. For example, one would not date anyone earning less than 100k a year.
I’ve tried to say on a couple of occasions that they’re probably missing out on lots of good men earning a bit less but with the potential to make more in future (not that I think that money is the be all and end all). Anyway, they disagree and say they don’t see why they should reduce their standards.

Disclosure: I got lucky and met a great guy who ticks a lot of my boxes and did not have to ‘settle’, so this really isn’t my business, but these close friends do discuss their dating lives regularly with me.

So, my question is: would you wait potentially forever for the man of your dreams if you’re single? AIBU for encouraging them to give some ‘Lower earners’ a chance?

I don't know why people come out with statements like "people are allowed whatever preferences (I think standards, or anything hierarchal is an insulting term to use) they like" 🤷‍♂️ A person's preferences are, by definition, judgemental. So it should be expected that other people have a view on them, and that it might be different. If someone feels it stops them having their preferences, that's a personal self confidence issue, not something anyone else's fault

I'd say the issue is that if women are limiting themselves to high earning men they have a smallish pool to work with, and the men in that pool are not equally limited, they have a larger group of women to draw from and hence many have partners.

I didn’t settle, but then being single with a cat wasn’t something I felt the need to avoid at all costs. I’d much rather be single with a cat than be with someone I had to ‘settle’ for.

Finances were important, no more or less so than shared values or any other ‘must have’ for a relationship. I don’t doubt there’s great men with very little, but there’s great wealthy men too. It was important to me to be with someone that was on an equal footing. I didn’t want to be in the position of having to pay for someone else in order to live my life as I wanted to live it. My husband ticks all my boxes, and I couldn’t be happier.

I feel a bit bad now for starting this thread as my friends have been slated a bit.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear earlier on. They want the usual things in a relationship (loving, kind, etc). They just also want people that are in the same tax bracket? This last criterium is the thing limiting their options ( and the thing I’ve tried and failed to convince them to forgo).
They have dated some ‘successful’ people. Just nothing that has led to a serious relationship.

Salary is one of the least important aspects of a man as far as I'm concerned (along with looks and height).

In my experience, the more a man earns, the bigger an arsehole he is. A theory often supported on here by the number of women whose husbands behave like dicks due to having a 'Big Job' 🤷🏻‍♀️

If they want someone who earns the same as them then it's a fair criteria. If they're a high earner themselves though and they want the various other things it gets to the point where they're searching for a small pool of men and its them and tons of other women. That's why they're single.

@Missgemini do you mind my asking why they say they want someone in the same tax bracket? I’ve almost had the opposite problem, I have exclusively dated people who earn less and they have tended to be very proud and not wanted to accept money/a loan when they’re struggling financially. I also wouldn’t want to go out with someone from my firm (at least the same, some of them earn many more times more, like 20+ times more) because a lot of the rich people I know are just not very nice and have no free time - the ones who have earned rather than inherited their money. This is a generalisation and obviously doesn’t apply to some but there also seems to be a tendency for overinflated self-worth among high earners.

Also (sorry) people with high-powered jobs as a rule have at least one divorce behind them by their mid-thirties to forties - some people at my old firm (where the senior partner’s salary was £6m before bonus or extra perks) had up to five and the oldest person there was in his fifties.

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau I think it’s to do with being with someone with the same ambitions and at the same financial place. They don’t want to be the higher earner who then feels like they have to pay for everything or feel bad about having nice things. I just remembered something from a few years ago. One friend had a comment from someone she was dating about why she felt the need to fly Business class. She was paying for it herself and didn’t like that she had to justify it.

Fair play to both of them! I definitely don’t have that mindset but can see how it might feel like being taken advantage of to think you’re expected to pay for stuff.

I wouldn't try to convince them to forgo that, but I wouldn't put up with whinging about why they're still single either. The more specific standards you have, the smaller the pool. And the greater the chance you never find anyone who both meets your standards and is compatible with you on a personal level.

I also had high standards (nothing to do with salaries or tax brackets) and refused to settle, and that served me well when I found DP. But a relationship was always an optional extra for me and I was very content single. If your friends have these exacting standards then they have to learn to be content on their own.

(I'd also ask them if they think any of their male colleagues have ever worried about being the higher earner paying for everything, or what they'd think if a man insisted on finding a woman earning 100k or whatever? Does that even happen?)

I wouldn’t encourage her to drop something that’s clearly important to her. Wealth discrepancy in a relationship can be extremely problematic tbh. As much as women get called gold diggers, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of men more than happy to take advantage. Then there are those that initially seem fine with it, but quickly develop insecurities and a chip on the shoulder. As much as people like to say that money doesn’t matter, it absolutely does. Financial issues are one of the leading causes of divorce.

She wants someone on an equal footing to her, someone she doesn’t need to pay for if she wants to do anything with him that costs more than he can afford. That’s totally fair enough imo, and in no way an unreasonable requirement.

For me it's not got to do with earning the same. It's got to do with respect, someone that you can trust with your money. They can earn loads and spend it on the horses at the end of the day. We never had equal money, i earned more while i was working, but H had my card. I could see where money was going. Everything was open. I didn't save (i'm useless that way) but i know for sure if i did, in my own account, he wouldn't have qustioned it at all. I never felt the need to look at the card with him. We're still like that. It was his inheritance that bought the house. But i'm fully aware that that financial entanglement can cause problems.

What a ridiculous comment. You must have very limited life experience. A man can have all the qualities needed to be a high earner ie drive, ambition, education, intelligence etc and still have all the softer qualities which make them a good husband or partner. Most of the men I know are high earners and the older ones in their fifties are happily married to the same woman they met 35/40 years ago at university, those women are themselves high earners. High earning men are also used to working with high earning women whom they see as equals. By your way of thinking all low paid men are wonderful examples of manhood which is clearly absolute rubbish.

I think it’s silly to set a minimum amount a guy must earn, in order to consider them. Just because someone has money, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to be generous with it.

I completely agree with the notion of wanting a husband to provide for you and your family together, however, this is more about mindset.

Some of the richest men may not want to provide fully, whereas, someone with little money, may have all the intentions to work as hard as they can to provide. Therefore, more than salary, I think work ethic, intentions, and goals matter the most. A low-earning man may have the goal to become financially stable.

I don’t think it’s about how rich someone is, but how generous someone is with their family, regardless of what they earn.

For all the people saying there are loads of rich, attractive, kind, decent men around- if this is the case, then why is she still single?! If this were really true she wouldn’t be worrying about it so much- she’d have loads of options. But it seems like that’s not the case as all the men she works with or encounters through work are already coupled up.

Because there being men available doesn’t mean they’re going to be the right men for her, presumably.

On these threads there always seems to be the suggestion that women should settle because the only lower earners can be good men (hilariously, considering the amount of broke cocklodgers that get posted about). It’s as if some posters believe that wealthy men belong to a different species a human woman could never be happy with. It’s always ‘you can’t have a good man thats also wealthy, you have to choose!’.

It’s really sad, but I feel like I have to have my dream man as a man who doesn’t have any red flags. There are that many men out there who are a man child/ drink too much/ abusive/ piss all over stuff/ lazy etc etc… that I feel like I’m forced to make my dream man as someone who just simply isn’t any of these things! How bad is that?
Might meet a man who has a good job and is good looking blah blah (dream man to some women), but what if he is emotionally abusive? No thanks.
Therefore no I wouldn’t settle. I’d happily stay single forever.

This isn’t intended judgementally or with hauteur, but I see a lot of people who make themselves unhappy by setting unrealistic standards which are unlikely to be met. Attraction and romance are chemical processes in our bodies. In my case I’ve had four relationships, two where I was very lonely and grateful to be shown any attention at all but they gradually broke down, one where I was wildly attracted to the person and he treated me very badly, and my current relationship where it’s much more slow-paced but I can feel that there’s actual love and being well-suited to each other on both sides. If I’d set even the realistic standards I have (not my fantasy standards, a recognition of my type) I wouldn’t have looked twice at my current DP. In the end it comes down to whether you want to experience love and commitment or whether you want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and to be honest there aren’t many perfects out there.

Do you think there are loads of rich, attractive, decent single men about?

I agree with you that being a high earner does not in any way prevent a man from being all the other things, the shame is just that if you insist on the high earning first (which countrywide really is not that many men) then you miss out on the all other things that could come with a man earning say £50-70K (or eeek, lower).
It's possible to "settle" for decent, kind, attractive man without ending up with a cocklodger.

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting a rich earner, especially if you’re a high earner yourself. I just think prioritising this as the top criteria can make you miss out, and sometimes make you ignore other red flags, simply because they have the money.

I’m one hundred percent behind their decisions. It is absolutely valid to want someone in the same financial bracket as you, not want to financially support someone to live a similar lifestyle or feel you have to justify your own lifestyle.

Good for them setting their boundaries . You sound like getting a bloke is something you see as top priority. It’s not.

And as I said previously, I think the value and importance lies in, not how much money the guy has, but how much he’s willing to invest in you as a wife, with whatever money he does have. Also, if he has enough drive to earn, in order for reach financial stability. Stability can mean different levels of income for different people though too.

Why are you so focused on a man providing, it’s not the 50s. These women earn this themselves. They don’t need a man to provide, they want an equal/

But in many cases, after having children, some women do want the option to work less, and for their spouse to support them, even if they are high earners to begin with. Many other posters have also commented how they’d want someone who can provide whilst they take on childcare etc.