Dating Range

[7Wannabe5]

I guess there are different conflicts frugal people in relationship could have regarding spending money.

1) You share finances and you SO spends money that is half yours on stuff you wouldn't buy yourself and you have a problem with that.

2) You don't share finances and your SO wants you to chip in on stuff that you wouldn't buy yourself and your SO doesn't like it if you won't.

3) You don't share finances and your SO wants to spend money on stuff that you wouldn't spend money on yourself and your SO doesn't care whether you chip in and is perfectly willing (or even insistent) to carry the entire expense and share use of the resource with you.

My "problem" (yeah, I know, poor me) in my last 3 relationships has been #3.

[7Wannabe5]

Yesterday, while donating plasma, I started reading "Walking" by Thoreau (I was thinking this is a very ERE combination of things to be doing.) Thoreau's daily walking radius was up to 10 miles through woods and countryside.

We should go forth on the shortest walk, perchance, in the spirit of undying adventure, never to return-prepared to send back our embalmed hearts only as relics to our desolate kingdoms. If you are ready to leave father and mother, and brother and sister, and wife and child, and friends, and never see them again-if you have paid your debts, and made your will, and settled all your affairs, and are a free man-then you are ready for a walk.

These men who live in the suburbs keep inquiring about whether I would be willing to meet them halfway for a date. My answer is "No. I will not." even though I currently live in the heart of the "mean" city, not westward through the great North American woods in which a man can sleep at night without fear of being eaten.

Anyways, I am going to bid on a vacant lot today. If I get it, I will start my new big garden planted with the resilient varieties recently bred by Carol Deppe in the spring and then maybe I will build a tiny house and set up a free book store for the neighborhood children. Then the male companion who will live with me will be a fat orange cat I will name "Hank" (short for Henry.) and I will be retired from the world of dating for good.

[7Wannabe5]

I am sooooo happy! I just bought 3 vacant lots at auction for a total of $800 and, unbelievable but true story, this really tall, sexy, silver-haired Bosnian immigrant who is the founder of a community action group was also bidding on properties and lives on the street where I won a property gave me his card. I am 89.5% certain he was trying to hit on me but he might have just been trying to build community. Either way...

[GandK]

Win-win, @7w5! Woohoo!

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Win-win, @7w5! Woohoo!

Thanks : ) Now that I own (NO MORTGAGE!!) property in the city I can go to meetings and complain about the backyard chicken ordinance and better participate in the spring anti-litter campaign etc. The emergency manager told us that our responsibilities as vacant lot owners are pay taxes, remove snow from sidewalks, remove leaves and keep weeds/grass under 5 inches. One of the lots I bought has some trash on it and a vacant broken-window house next door but on the other side somebody has already planted a very nice urban garden. The other two lots are adjoining and just a few houses down from one of the schools where I substitute teach. All three are quite sunny and covered with grass on decent soil.

I need to chill out on my instant crush on new neighbor (but I do think he was hitting on me because when the decrepit houses came up for auction, he leaned over to me and whispered "You bid on house, I will fix it for you." except it was "feex" due to his accent.) I have 2 or 3 dates with other guys lined up for this weekend. My post-divorce support group will absolutely disown me if I don't multi-date for a decent period before getting a new BF. However, you guys don't need to disown me because so far I have only spent $7.50 (one new cute little dress on clearance rack) on dating.

[Devil's Advocate]

So I’m saying, perhaps the distance thing, measured in driving time or flight duration, ought not to matter overly much, because (a) distance is just a number, just a detail, if you’re able to connect with the “right” person ; and (b) in many ways a long-distance relationship is ideal in the initial stages.

I just realized this huge glaring black mark against the whole long-distance dating/relationship deal that somehow I hadn’t noticed when I posted that comment above : it’s totally un-EREish! I mean that’s the first thing I should have realized, commenting on these ERE forums, yet somehow I never thought of this!

I haven’t worked out the exact math, but I expect my current expense level (for a family of 4 ; and ignoring the opportunity cost of the capital tied down in my house) would probably be a third of what I spent back then—despite the fact that I was younger, not really earning all that much, and living alone—during that long-distance dating period. Very degenerate of me, that crazy spending was, from an ERE perspective : but then I hadn’t even begun thinking along the lines of EREing, or even of really saving at all, back then.

That opens up a complex decision tree, then, at least as I see it : On the one hand, ERE is a wonderful tool, a great paradigm, but I see it as no more than a tool, and some things must necessarily take precedence over ERE goals : such as finding the right “DW” or “DH” or simply “DP” (for “partner”, *grin*). On the other hand, that is so only if she (or he) is indeed the right “partner”, and that is something you won’t know beforehand. So to keep on going scooting off across the country (or continent) in search of fool’s gold seems quixotic. So, to distance-date or not to distance-date, for the ERE-minded?

In sum, not, I guess (purely from a cost-benefit perspective). Decidedly not, if weekly or fortnightly flight tickets are involved. Although I suppose you can make an exception if you really fancy her (or in your case, him)! And in any case, it need not always (or even mostly) be you who does the traveling : your prospective date can travel to you as well.

I guess there are different conflicts frugal people in relationship could have regarding spending money.

1) You share finances and you SO spends money that is half yours on stuff you wouldn't buy yourself and you have a problem with that.

2) You don't share finances and your SO wants you to chip in on stuff that you wouldn't buy yourself and your SO doesn't like it if you won't.

3) You don't share finances and your SO wants to spend money on stuff that you wouldn't spend money on yourself and your SO doesn't care whether you chip in and is perfectly willing (or even insistent) to carry the entire expense and share use of the resource with you.

Best would be option 4 : You pool finances together (or don’t, it doesn’t really matter which), but what you do is spend only on stuff that the both of you are happy about. That is, when both of you think EREishly. (Or alternately, I suppose, when both are consumption-addicts, a common enough situation.)

If only one could choose a priori the person to fall in love with, rather than have the realization sneak up on you unawares that you love them, how much simpler life would be!

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said: That opens up a complex decision tree, then, at least as I see it : On the one hand, ERE is a wonderful tool, a great paradigm, but I see it as no more than a tool, and some things must necessarily take precedence over ERE goals : such as finding the right “DW” or “DH” or simply “DP” (for “partner”, *grin*). On the other hand, that is so only if she (or he) is indeed the right “partner”, and that is something you won’t know beforehand. So to keep on going scooting off across the country (or continent) in search of fool’s gold seems quixotic. So, to distance-date or not to distance-date, for the ERE-minded?

In sum, not, I guess (purely from a cost-benefit perspective). Decidedly not, if weekly or fortnightly flight tickets are involved. Although I suppose you can make an exception if you really fancy her (or in your case, him)! And in any case, it need not always (or even mostly) be you who does the traveling : your prospective date can travel to you as well.

Well, I think I would have to be suffering from a case of limerence at the level of crack cocaine addiction to throw down for multiple airline tickets to visit a man. Since I recognize the symptoms (most nefarious being chemically induced belief that love object is the most unique of all special human snowflakes) and understand the causes of infatuation, it is highly unlikely I will ever fall that hard and silly again unless/until I am consciously choosing to increase my likelihood of experiencing transcendent sex. OTOH, the slow rise/slow decline chemicals of proximity bonding are more difficult to shake. I mean, it is true that it is more likely that your love will be "true" if your love has been "true." However, the terrible thing about long-term proximity-based-love relationships is that they are the very worst trap for the human tendency towards sunk-cost fallacy. Very subtle but important difference between "happily married for 20 years" and "happy while married for 20 years" and all the multiple and varied possible versions of "making do" or "unhappy."

Anyways, identical-twins-separated-at-birth studies indicate that mate selection is pretty much completely random beyond the obvious fact that people usually marry people they encounter in their social circle. Obviously, this makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection, human beings are not at all strictly monogamous and they are out-breeders. IOW, there is a mixed motivation to "marry the girl/boy next door" vs. "have sex with the exotic stranger in the elevator" because we love/like and wish to protect/pass-on that which is familiar or like-us but there is also the underlying drive towards hybrid strength informing our desires, either at the level of simple incest barrier or further afield, likely depending upon temperament. This is one of the primary reasons why many long-term, heterosexual marital relationships eventually suffer from "lesbian bed death" syndrome ( the other issues clearly being lack of strong gender dichotomy and/or even strong power-exchange and/or lack of self-aware address of these issues) and also the reason why there is little reason for me to waste money on airline tickets when I live in a neighborhood full of immigrants.

Or another way to look at it is that the realm of human mating behavior is one in which there is no intersection in the Venn diagram exhibiting Sensible vs. Rational behavior. IOW, it is rational to believe that you will not be sensible in choosing a mate. Of course, your experience and/or reading list may vary ; )

[Devil's Advocate]

the terrible thing about long-term proximity-based-love relationships is that they are the very worst trap for the human tendency towards sunk-cost fallacy

True, that.

Equally true : It's easy to get to thinking "She's the best there can be" or "He's the One", especially when you've been happy with them over a longish period : but who is to say there may not be someone more right if only you did look? You can't possibly know that unless you've tried out every option. It takes a few hard shakes of the head to acknowledge what the cold fact, the rather unflattering truth, is : that good enough is often good enough.

[7Wannabe5]

Devil's Advocate said: It takes a few hard shakes of the head to acknowledge what the cold fact, the rather unflattering truth, is : that good enough is often good enough.

I absolutely agree. I'm by no means advocating casual risk-taking or behavior in accordance with "grass will be greener" fantasies or constant pursuit of state of infatuation in this realm. I'm just saying that exit strategy or strategies may be more relevant than entrance strategy since entrance strategy is rarely very successful. For instance, studies reveal that most people who answer "yes" to the question "Would you end this relationship if a higher power gave you permission (relieved you of guilt)?" are a good deal happier after ending their relationship.

Anyways, maybe more than in any other market, best case scenario is both parties believing that they aren't just getting good value but actually "got lucky."

[7Wannabe5]

Coffee date yesterday with a man who is living by himself post-divorce, empty-nest in a 3000 sq. ft. house with a heated inground pool and he hates to swim. Doesn't seem to enjoy his job/career too much either. I asked him if he was considering early retirement and he seemed rather ambivalent.

Hard to know whether this is a general trend or just limited to the men who tend to ask me out or belong to my social circle, but it seems to be the new status quo that in the case of mid-life divorce the husband buys the wife out of her half of the marital home and keeps it himself. In the 8 years since my divorce, I've probably met around 30 middle-aged divorced men for coffee and another 20 or so through my internet-based post-divorce-support group and I am actually hard-pressed to come up with even a few exceptions to this rule. I remember one guy told me that he was being "forced" to buy a new house on the same block as his Ex in order to have joint custody and one man I dated for about a year had to give the marital home to his Ex because she sued for divorce shortly after he inherited a lot of money so he was living in some rental housing he owned.

Anyways, since I am frugal, when I got to the point post-divorce where I was thinking that maybe I would be open to getting married again (took me about 4 years), it seemed rational to me that since virtually every man I dated owned a too-big house which he was loathe to give up, I would probably end up moving in with my SO. But now that I tried that for 2.5 years with my last relationship, I never want to do it again. Waaaay too much baggage and stuff-that-is-not-yours to deal with and dust when you move in with a man who is all encrusted in his domain. So, even though I do like to swim very much, I think I will take a pass.

[GandK]

But now that I tried that for 2.5 years with my last relationship, I never want to do it again. Waaaay too much baggage and stuff-that-is-not-yours to deal with and dust when you move in with a man who is all encrusted in his domain.

Amen! I've done this too and I'd never do it again either. Not only is it his domain, it was probably bought to suit his ex. When that's the case, as it was with me, you're not only living with his encrustation, you're living with/in her wishes and dreams. The emotional baggage was intense.

If, God forbid, I was ever in a situation where I was going to remarry, I'd insist on choosing a home together that was new to both of us. Not him moving into my existing space, or me into his.

[7Wannabe5]

GandK said: Amen! I've done this too and I'd never do it again either. Not only is it his domain, it was probably bought to suit his ex. When that's the case, as it was with me, you're not only living with his encrustation, you're living with/in her wishes and dreams. The emotional baggage was intense.

Right, and in my case, my adverse reaction got worse and worse like an allergy rather than improving. It definitely did not help that my recent-ex could not be cured of the practice of instructing me in the proper way to do things around the house in an overbearing manner similar to the way he addressed his teenage daughters. I am still debating whether this was worse than my more passive ex-husbands habit of doing stuff like leaving Post-It notes that said "Clean Me" on the coffee machine. I really do not know why I am even considering the possibility of living with a man again.

If, God forbid, I was ever in a situation where I was going to remarry, I'd insist on choosing a home together that was new to both of us. Not him moving into my existing space, or me into his.

Agreed. In fact, I'm thinking that since I am now the happy owner of 3 vacant lots, maybe hers, his and ours tiny homes would be best. Or, maybe I can just find a nice BF who lives over the bridge in Windsor like my own divorced Grandmother did.