Why do middle aged men with assets marry women with none?
Discussion
It's a genuine question spurred by the 'I've kicked her out' thread, I think it deserves a thread of its own as I'd really love to hear from men (or women for that matter) who've done it.
I ask it from the position of a middle aged man who is single, dating, and maybe would like to be married one day.
In the 'I've kicked her out' thread, someone mentions being married for five years and paying £150,000 to her in the divorce. There are plenty of other examples on this forum.
Why would you put yourself in that position? It's literally no win, at best you get to share what you have (which I've no issue with) and at worst it can cost hundreds of thousands.
I tend to date women who are similar to me in outlook, so generally they have reasonable jobs and are similarly solvent, My current girlfriend earns less than me but has her own business and in total is worth more than me. My previous girlfriend had a similar value house to me and earned quite a bit more. Now if things had (do) go really well and we end(ed) up married, we're coming at it from a position of some equality. If it all went wrong, one of us would no doubt lose out, but not by much. Fair enough.
I feel it's unlikely I'd date someone with nothing, not because of the money but because a woman who's a similar age to me without accruing anything is probably not of a similar mindset.
But if I did, and things worked out really well I'd just live with her because however good things are, you can only control half of the relationship.
So why do men (or women) marry people when they have substantial assets and the other party has none? Is it fear they'll leave them otherwise? Are they coerced into it? Do they just think 'it'll never happen to me'?
Genuinely curious of people's mindset when they do this.
I'm absolutely not against marriage, and this isn't aimed against women - I've known reasonably well off women marry guys with nothing and end up losing massively when it goes wrong.
I guess I just don't understand the motivation for such a massive gamble and would love to know.
I ask it from the position of a middle aged man who is single, dating, and maybe would like to be married one day.
In the 'I've kicked her out' thread, someone mentions being married for five years and paying £150,000 to her in the divorce. There are plenty of other examples on this forum.
Why would you put yourself in that position? It's literally no win, at best you get to share what you have (which I've no issue with) and at worst it can cost hundreds of thousands.
I tend to date women who are similar to me in outlook, so generally they have reasonable jobs and are similarly solvent, My current girlfriend earns less than me but has her own business and in total is worth more than me. My previous girlfriend had a similar value house to me and earned quite a bit more. Now if things had (do) go really well and we end(ed) up married, we're coming at it from a position of some equality. If it all went wrong, one of us would no doubt lose out, but not by much. Fair enough.
I feel it's unlikely I'd date someone with nothing, not because of the money but because a woman who's a similar age to me without accruing anything is probably not of a similar mindset.
But if I did, and things worked out really well I'd just live with her because however good things are, you can only control half of the relationship.
So why do men (or women) marry people when they have substantial assets and the other party has none? Is it fear they'll leave them otherwise? Are they coerced into it? Do they just think 'it'll never happen to me'?
Genuinely curious of people's mindset when they do this.
I'm absolutely not against marriage, and this isn't aimed against women - I've known reasonably well off women marry guys with nothing and end up losing massively when it goes wrong.
I guess I just don't understand the motivation for such a massive gamble and would love to know.
hyphen said:
Some men use a criteria based selection process for marrying, others go on looks,charm and kindness. Nothing wrong with marrying a girl with less wealth, you just have to know her true character.
Fair enough, but you can only know somebody today. You can't know them in 10, 15, 20 years time. Hell, you can't know yourself in 20 years time, I'm a very different person than I was 20 years ago.
I agree that there's nothing wrong with marrying a girl with less wealth. But there seems to be a lot wrong with being divorced by a girl with less wealth...
that first reply really made me laugh.
Well they don't - if they are sensible. Not sure what middle aged is (i'm >40) and I wouldn't marry. There is zero upside over and above living together (in a joint owned, and paid for home).
I think I've literally managed to dodge the bullet long enough to have learned from friends and colleagues (NOT PH) that the reward isn't worth the risk.
Hopefully the naivety is gone from my 20s............and 30s to some extent.
Well they don't - if they are sensible. Not sure what middle aged is (i'm >40) and I wouldn't marry. There is zero upside over and above living together (in a joint owned, and paid for home).
I think I've literally managed to dodge the bullet long enough to have learned from friends and colleagues (NOT PH) that the reward isn't worth the risk.
Hopefully the naivety is gone from my 20s............and 30s to some extent.
Ari said:
mon the fish said:
Also, is it not now the case that living together conveys the same rights as marriage thanks to equality/discrimination rules?
No, absolutely not. There's a huge amount of urban myth about 'Common Law Wife/husband'. But in reality there is no such thing. Whether or not such a matter would come along in cases of a parting of a non-married couple, I don't know. I suspect some will try and might well succeed in the future. Attitudes change - more and more people are co-habiting couples rather than married couples than 20, 30 years ago.
But what do I know, I'm only 32 and I got married last year to a woman who is in a similar situation to myself financially.. but also has big tits... best of both worlds?
People have different priorities in life.
You can assume that those with assets that marry those without are people who don't think assets are the most important thing.
People who think it weird are people who think assets are priority one in any life.
The answers to these questions are simple.
If the people who do it are the ones who treasure their assets above all else....then it is more perplexing question.
You can assume that those with assets that marry those without are people who don't think assets are the most important thing.
People who think it weird are people who think assets are priority one in any life.
The answers to these questions are simple.
If the people who do it are the ones who treasure their assets above all else....then it is more perplexing question.
so is there a clear set of rules? Or is it literally up to some crusty out of touch judge and depending if he has had his drugs that morning on which way the decisions go?
So if a person owns a house, his GF moves in................at any point can she claim any part of the house? Surely not?
I think if I ever do find myself in that situation again - I'd go down the route of having a full on tenant agreement in place. Renting a room etc.
The fact I then have sex with that person should surely be irrelevant to any financial situation?
Assuming not kids, no marriage etc - that has to be the safest way?
So if a person owns a house, his GF moves in................at any point can she claim any part of the house? Surely not?
I think if I ever do find myself in that situation again - I'd go down the route of having a full on tenant agreement in place. Renting a room etc.
The fact I then have sex with that person should surely be irrelevant to any financial situation?
Assuming not kids, no marriage etc - that has to be the safest way?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff