Expectations of men as a modern woman dating...is this unreasonable?

[Turtleneckjumpers]

I'm single. I have a decent job which allowed me to buy a house in my late twenties (by no means a mansion, worth circa 220 in 2015).

I care about a nice home and want to see a bit of the world. I'm not materialistic in the sense of buying designer clothes etc (I'm a Primark person mostly!). But money bothers me. It is important to me because it is a safety net in many ways. So I work hard and hope to always be able to support myself.

Here's the question. I date. So many men have either not bought a house (I do understand this isn't easy, but by age 38 I question this!!) or in an average job earning less than I am - significantly.

I've met a lovely man, 38, good fun. But in a recent conversation he voluntarily disclosed what he earns (45k) and said he has a good bonus and car and he's happy with that. I didn't say this but i was thinking really?! Are you just going to think ok I'm happy with that?!

I've been thinking about how awful this probably makes me and how it is probably why i have been single for a few years now. Also people into their jobs are often (not always i know) not the best partners. But i can't help being bothered by this. I want someone who wants to provide and is ambitious. Am I attracted to the wrong things here or is this reasonable?

I’m surprised the thread hasn’t been deleted already tbh, it’s hardly constructive.

I genuinely don't see the problem the OP is saying a man should be looking for ways to invest. This is just sensible. I personally wouldn't want to be keeping someone in my old age, just because they're a man child who doesn't have get up and go to take risks? If you're earning £45k a year you can a least buy a private garage and rent it out or be building savings. As for the we enjoy life being poor, well judging by the relationships board lack of money is not good for your happiness. I would rather work when you're at your fittest and then take things easier later on. Several of my friends have retired or semi retired at 50 with a good lifestyle.

I don't think it is unreasonable to want a partner who earns a decent wage to have a house/flat. I don't think it is unreasonable to want a partner who is wealthy and ambitious.

I do think that looking for a partner who earns 3-4 times the national average, whilst having a good work/life balance, who is wanting to settle down, get married and have children, willing to be solely financially responsible for the whole of his family whilst his wife stays at home, who shares the same morals, values outlook on education and how the children should be raised, with whom you share the kind of spark that keeps a marriage alive is going to be a hard job.

I don't think anyone has said they enjoy life being poor. It's just some people prioritise other things over a huge salary.
45k is hardly on the breadline.

I personally wouldn't want to be keeping someone in my old age

The poster wants a man to keep her though. So much for 'ambition'.

Funny how people can read the same thing and take away totally different things. To me the reference to home ownership is a passing mention only - if the £45k man was in the exact same boat but had managed to invest his meagre earnings in the property market would that suddenly have turned him into an ambitious man with drive that would have snared the OP?

I suppose I am that person. I earn roughly the sum mentioned in the OP. I have a house in London with a mortgage on it that I am due to pay off in the next ten years or so. Neither DH nor I work full time or are chasing promotion. I have a balance in my life that I enjoy. The kids are at decent state schools and do a range of activities but we have to budget and private schools, skiing, horse riding etc are beyond our means. We will cross the uni fee bridge when it comes - by downsizing if necessary. I am pretty content tbh. The next rung up looks like it offers more stress, less flexibility and less hands on interesting work than my current role. I don't especially mind if this makes me unambitious. I am focusing on trying to slow down and appreciate the simple things in life - nature, reading, family, friends, swimming- rather than chasing consumerist stuff, whether this is in the form of material goods or experiences. It's not always easy and I am no expert at it but I am trying and this is my own ambition.

i earn more than that (not a lot more) but at age 38 i wouldnt just be thinking right that's it i will stop trying to earn more and achieve more.

Why on earth not? If he is happy doig what he does then why should he have to just because you think he should?

@sparklefarts

Because the OP is very money oriented, and thinks that people who aren't are lacking.

I’m surprised the thread hasn’t been deleted already tbh, it’s hardly constructive
Why are almost all your contributions to the thread you being the self-appointed thread police?

longestlurkerever
When you get further on (not sure if you've read the whole thread) it becomes more judgey about his lack of home ownership and salary. Apparently he shouldn't be wasting his time away because he can't be bothered with the pressure, it's lack of ambition, on pointing out that maybe he doesn't want to step up if he's at a place he'd be happy to set up family with and he doesn't want to cram family in we were told that he doesn't have a family yet so he should be maximising his potential and assets. It's quite a nasty and hypocritical attitude from someone who wants to be financially supported by their next partner.

I think you and DP sound very sensible. I think the next step being more hassle and less hands on for longer hours and an impact on work-life balance is something lots of people experience. It's not lack of ambition, more valuing many other things in life and wanting to take the time to enjoy as many aspects of life as possible. What good is the money if you're miserable and don't see friends and family?

I’ve never said I expect someone to earn four or five times the average.

What I said was, at age 38 to have put an end to any progression in your career seems strange. 45k can be built upon, if you’ve reached that level age 38.

If someone was on 20k at 38 I would feel the same, or if they were on 90k. It is the lack of desire to progress. Yes progression can sometimes mean no further pay...if you label it creatively. But often, usually in fact, progression means more pay.

At 38 to just shut down any step up is strange.

Strange in your opinion....but not strange to lots of people. It's relatively normal and I say that as someone who is hugely ambitious.

Why are almost all your contributions to the thread you being the self-appointed thread police?

They’re not actually. Most are on the matter at hand. But as the thread descended into farce, I’m perfectly entitled to comment.

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear, I was more responding to the poster who said it was fair enough wanting a partner to have invested sensibly for the future. Which is a totally different slant on what I took from the OP's posts which were more disparaging about not seeking salary increases and the lack of drive this demonstrated than they were majoring on sensible financial planning (the lack of home ownership was mentioned in passing but we have no idea really how this chap has spent or invested his money)

OP, you also said that 45k would not be enough to meet your lifestyle expectations. So based upon your previous posts, it would seem you wouldn't want to settle with someone who was earning 20k.

If someone was on 20k at 38 I would feel the same, or if they were on 90k. It is the lack of desire to progress.
Yeah because with your idea of private education and multiple holidays on one income as a basic criteria for being 'comfortable' and apparently thinking it was just hairdressers who didn't earn £45k, you'd totally feel the same about someone on £20k and £90k.
It's not about money at all, says the woman who has said she expects a certain lifestyle that is comfortably above average.
At 38 to just shut down any step up is strange.
She says 27 pages into a thread where countless posters have pointed out it isn't strange at all, unless you're the sort of person who is obsessed with money.

The average wage in the UK (including London weighting) is about 28,500. So for someone to fund the lifestyle you described (private education, sole provider 2 holidays a year) they would have to earn 3 or 4 times that. So you never said it directly, but it was heavily implied.

Not read the full thread but read the first 30 or so replies and I take the view that I've worked freakin hard for 40 years for my lovely house and expensive car. Why would I start a serious relationship with someone who hasn't got the same as me ? I'm not going to effectively "give" someone 50% of all I've worked for if we were to live together or get married. I'm astounded how many guys my era/age are back living with parents (I'm 58 ffs) and have not a pot to piss in because the ex got it all. So yes, a very small pond to fish in.

GinisLife
I see your point entirely. You've worked hard to get to that position and I agree that you may want someone who is in the same area so that you can both continue to work and earn and so on.

How would you feel about a man judging your suitability as a potential partner based on whether he thinks you earn enough and will continue to seek promotions (with associated pay increases) because he wants to come out of work and be financially supported by you for an unspecified number of years, and part of being financially supported by you means you covering all the bills and a comfortable standard of living? And actually, comfortable standard of living means that your single income needs to maintain the lifestyle level he had whilst he was a single man (because he worked hard before leaving work), plus private education fees for one or more children and multiple family holidays a year?

If any man sized me up for a relationship on those terms I'd be running a mile from the cocklodger in waiting.

Why would I start a serious relationship with someone who hasn't got the same as me ? I'm not going to effectively "give" someone 50% of all I've worked for if we were to live together or get married

You could also ask why a wealthy man who earns more than the OP should put his own assets at risk by marrying and then supporting the OP while she stays at home. She's not just looking for someone who can contribute 50% towards finances, she's looking for someone who can single handedly provide a very comfortable lifestyle for her and her future children for a number of years. And then when the divorce comes she'll be entitled to a larger share of their marital assets because she 'sacrificed' her career, pension and earning potential by staying at home to raise his children.

Because by staying at home in that situation you’re looking after that man’s children.

That’s why.

Careful Lola you're coming close to calling the OP a female cocklodger in waiting and that would surely be a personal attack?

Because by staying at home in that situation you’re looking after that man’s children

That man's children? Not both of your children?

How about you give birth, go back to work after a few weeks, and that man takes a few years off work to look after that woman's children? Seeing as she's earning so much money too?

I’m not offended by being called a cocklodger.

I’m secure in the knowledge that staying home to look after your husband’s children is not cocklodging :)

Because by staying at home in that situation you’re looking after that man’s children.

Maybe the man would like to stay at home and look after the children while his wife pursues her 'ambition' of chasing an ever higher salary?

Surely there aren't women out there so lacking in 'ambition' that they would make themselves economically inactive in their peak years in order to live off a man?

They'd be both of your children surely? What if your husband wanted to take time off work to look after the children?