Honest question for women. Would you get ever get into a relationship or get married to a trust fund baby who doesn’t need to work ?

[joseline]

Growing up we’ve always been told that a hard working man is what we should seek when getting into relationships. We should seek provider men. A man who doesn’t work is a man who doesn’t eat.

but what if you come across a guy and he happens to have it all. The looks and the wealth but doesn’t need to work hard for a living. What if a man doesn’t work hard but can provide for you and also buy you flashy gifts, take you on lavish trips, buy you whatever cars you want ? Would you take him or would the fact that he doesn’t work still bother you ?

From a VERY young age my mum took me on her knee and told me NEVER to be beholden to a man, and that was over 45 years ago! And I am entirely self sufficient today!

So both of these options seem ridiculous to me!

I was told I don’t need a man for anything. I was taught that women are capable to do whatever they need to do to survive. Therefore a man is someone that you want, not need. Everything else is just preference.

I would assume they have a decent hobby? I sometimes think about that, if we won the lottery, long term I would need something substantial to do with my time.

If he did valuable things with his time and was successful in those fields, I wouldn't care.

Doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t really care whether someone works or not but the words ‘lavish’ and ‘flashy’ make me cringe and represent the kind of lifestyle I would not want. Anyone who spends lots of money on ‘luxury’ goods and experiences just wouldn’t be the right sort of bloke for me.

I certainly was never told to look for a ‘provider’. I was told to work hard at school, go to the best university I could, enter a well-paid profession, earn my own money, buy my own house & be financially independent of men. All of which I did.

So would I marry someone with a trust find? I would look at tye person, not the money, because I neither need nor want a man to financially support me.

No. The idea of a person with no social purpose or social conscience is an anathema to me. Not only could I not be attracted to them, I wouldn't want them as an acquaintance, never mind as a friend or a partner.

DD2 did. He wasn’t really sure what he wanted out of life though and in the end his lack of direction and decision making was a deal breaker. He was kind and well mannered but a bit unsure of how to do well in the world. He definitely had a strong desire to please his family but it lacked clarity. DD is now with a very hardworking man who is doing very well.

One of DS friends is a trust fund baby. He is a musician and songwriter. Has produced two albums, plays regular gigs and festivals, definitely his passion.

His girlfriend is extremely wealthy and is also financially supported by her parents who pay her rent etc. So they just drift through life not working as such, having a great time. Known each other since they were kids.

Good luck to them!

I wouldn't want to be with someone who had no purpose and was just a consumer. Someone with a passion who was lucky enough to be financially supported in order to follow that passion is a bit different.

Having it all and no need to do anything is an unhealthy mental situation for a human. We need purpose.

Can you send me his number?!

I'm not sure this is actually an "honest question" .

Your parents taught you to live off soemone else?? Really????

In that case you seem well-suited.

My DC have trust funds. They do not need to work for money. They work very hard in professional, vocational careers. They had the choice to do what they love.

DD's BF has a bigger trust fund arising from generational wealth. He has a highly paid professional job.

They all have properties owned outright. None of them are flash and nobody expects excessively expensive cars, gifts, etc. DD and her BF treated themselves to a very decent piano (both musical), their cars/clothes etc are pretty pedestrian.

The only thing my father told me about future marriage was that it would be nice if he is a bit older, only few years, so he has some life experience, and that he loves me more than I love him, so he does not cheat 😄

What silly advice. Why would it be necessary for the husband to have more life experience than the wife? I mean, if she's got enough 'life experience' to get married at, say, 30, why does he need to be 32 or 33? And not loving your spouse as much as they love you is surely just as likely to lead you to cheat? Or did your dad think that was fine?

Yes please, then he could pay for my very expensive hobby !

DH has significant inherited wealth - I wasn’t aware in the early days of our relationship. He is a doctor, his DSis, a dentist. Their parents also had professional careers. All have worked incredibly hard.

DT’s have trust funds but both have their own well paid careers and did well at Uni.

I thought we've all been told to look for a prince