Early Retirement Extreme Forums

I think of people like that similarly to how I think about certain countries: fun to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

Yeah, I think the main reasons I ended up living with him for so long were I liked hanging out on his acreage, Covid, and time just goes by real fast when you get older.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Sat Nov 11, 2023 7:18 pm

I guess I'm selfish and/or lazy and/or quite possibly sexist that way. Your parking your boots by my bed, but spending your roll on her, uh-uh, baby, no matter that I am frugal to the extreme, no way that is going to fly.

I think this is an interesting dynamic. Makes me think about all the entanglements associated with polyamory specifically when we factor in financial considerations. It seems to me like your visceral reaction to your partner financially supporting another woman was worse than if he had just been conventionally dating another woman?

@white belt:

I think it's partially because I'm kind of protective of myself in terms of not accidentally allowing myself to be treated like a "cheap date" just because I am frugal. I have on more than one occasion experienced a man literally saying "Wow, you are cheap date!" just because I am generally a happy camper with simple pleasures. According to quite a few of the men I have dated, many/most women are pretty expensive dates, and they use phrases in their dating profiles such as "love to travel" or "dressed up for a night on the town" or include similarly themed photos that will signal this. I was hanging from the branch of a tree in the main photo on my first dating profile and one time I just posted a photo of my bare feet in mud

I would also note that I have on occasion had pretty visceral reactions to being offered money by men. For instance, one time when a man declared "We need to get you a new car." on our third date. Maybe it's more about the proportionality one way or the other.

Also, due to men often being innately suspicious of Free Tomatos sign, you generally have to make some demands if you are female. My preferred love languages would actually be Acts of Service and Physical Affection, but I try to be understanding that if somebody is working full-time, paying for dinner might be their way of performing an act of service.

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:50 pm

@white belt:

I think it's partially because I'm kind of protective of myself in terms of not accidentally allowing myself to be treated like a "cheap date" just because I am frugal. I have on more than one occasion experienced a man literally saying "Wow, you are cheap date!" just because I am generally a happy camper with simple pleasures. According to quite a few of the men I have dated, many/most women are pretty expensive dates, and they use phrases in their dating profiles such as "love to travel" or "dressed up for a night on the town" or include similarly themed photos that will signal this.

Right, but that seems to not bode well for the date prospects of your hypothetical frugal dream partner. In other words, what is the minimum wealth required to date 7WB5? In theory, it shouldn't exist. In practice, are you really going to date a guy who you have to pick up every time because he doesn't have his own car?

@whitebelt:

My minumum standard is "makes an effort", so wealth could be non-existent. Pretty much zero-percent of my favorite, well-remembered romantic gestures have involved much cash expenditure, and when I have a partner with whom I'm not romantically engaged, what I mostly want is "make it fun or interesting", which also doesn't require a cash expenditure.

In practice, are you really going to date a guy who you have to pick up every time because he doesn't have his own car?

That's a tough one, because I didn't even get a driver's license until I was 32, and I don't like to drive, and I only own a car myself intermittently. During periods when I was dating and I did own a car, I didn't mind driving over to my date's house if he invited me over to do something there. And I've actually been on quite a few biking or walking dates with men who lived in the city. When I was dating and I didn't own a car, usually my date would pick me up in his car, but sometimes I would bike to his place, or he would meet me on foot or bike. I've also taken trains and planes (only a couple times) to meet dates, but mostly they paid for my fare. Probably if I was the only one who owned a car, and we were planning on doing something that required car usage, I would drive over to his place, but then suggest that he drive my car when we go out, because I prefer to be relaxed on a date.

OTOH, I might be semi-appalled if I needed gas and he didn't take care of it; like "No Scrubs" by TLC would auto-play in my brain. Another dimension to this would be that if a man has a dominant personality type, but no money and he expects you to bring the money, it's kind of like he is running you like a pimp.

That's a decent rule of thumb. A similar one I try to apply is "Who would I like to be stuck in an airport overnight with?" If I attempt to apply this rule of thumb to "Alec Baldwin", the answer is "I would never be stuck in airport overnight with Alec Baldwin, because Alec Baldwin is not the sort of human who tolerates being stuck in an airport. Alec Baldwin is the sort of human who gets on the phone and starts yelling at people until such a situation is resolved." Do I like being in a relationship with such a person? No, that's why I broke up with him and told him he needs to enroll in anger management therapy, etc.

There could be 4 parts of your stuck at the airport question.

If you were stuck in an airport, would you want him there?
If you were stuck in an airport, would he want to be there?
If he were stuck in an airport, would you want to be there?
If he were stuck in an airport, would he want you there?

So, I am pretty much stuck with either solo-polyamorous-ecosexual practice or a very, very, long search for an otherwise attractive primary male partner in my preferred age range who actually wants to live in a camper on a vacant lot with me.

One surefire way to get my partner to hate me is give me enough time and energy to pursue my projects. I will struggle, run into dead ends, and even fail, but eventually I may find great success on my own terms. The territory in which I find success on my own terms is much less likely to be well-charted, and therefore much more difficult for my man to piss a circle around. Back in caveman/cavewoman days, an independent minded female, likely to roam away from the central hearth would be much harder to protect. The more energy my man needs to expend in his attempt to piss a circle of protection around such an independent-minded, not entirely risk-averse female such as myself, the less energy he will have to expend on his core biological drive towards expanding his freedom secured by dominance. I will be like a tool that constantly frustrates him with my non-compliant behavior. He will not understand my reluctance when he says something like "You spend all your time and energy grubbing around on that vacant lot in dangerous neighborhood, teaching those ungrateful snot-nosed kids, and driving your piece of shit car to those archaic book sales. You should take a job as an administrative assistant at the corporation where I work instead."

or you could tailor your search around finding and attracting " an otherwise attractive primary male partner in my preferred age range who actually" finds the ways you are unique to be a source of fascination, rather than irritation.

This man is not flawless. (How miserable would a relationship with a flawless person be?) He is flawed in such a way that your "flaws" are attractive. You could be his unicorn.

If you find his flaws attractive, or endearing, or merely less irritating, maybe he is your unicorn.

Serendipity is no substitute for strategy. Leaving room in your strategy for serendipity is sound practice.

I don't have any practical advice for finding that man. You know your preferences and capabilities better than I do.

But settling for a lesser relationship today, isn't likely to put you in the right place/time/headspace to attract him tomorrow.

@Riggerjack:

Before I reply to your suggestions, I would like to note for the record that this thread has ventured pretty far away from my head-space when I started it which was basically this:

me above wrote:One thing I'm wondering, as I contemplate the "waste" associated with living in my own apartment by myself for the first time ever and how easy it is to become acclimated to solo living, is whether a solid history of being able to make such arrangements (LentilBaby exchange of domestic skills for shelter with partners, family, or friends) constitutes an ERE skillset towards consistent lowering of lifestyle expense?

IOW, it was much more about me contemplating the downsides I've discovered of living by myself in my own apartment, especially the additional expense, now that I have actually had the experience for the first time in my life in my late 50s, than it is about me having any degree of longing for a new romantic relationship at this juncture and/or a desire to live alone with a male partner. MMV, but from my current fairly long-in-the-tooth and experientially varied perspective, what I have enjoyed most have been the periods of my life during which I was living in a family or group situation while dating a man or men who lived elsewhere, and my second most enjoyable would be living in a family or group situation while in relationship with a man who also lived in that family group situation. Living alone with a man with whom I am in monogamous relationship has been, for me, kind of the worst of both worlds in terms of not enough liveliness in the home, yet also not enough freedom to roam at will. One of the factors that seduced me into my second "marriage" was that my "ex" introduced me to his 2 delightful teenage daughters on our third or 4th date, and they invited me to paint with them. I grew up with 3 younger sisters, and I like the company of other women and children in my home. I really love when my entire extended family gets together every summer and after the holidays and we all live together for a week or two. At this point in my life, any relationship with a man (or men) would have to be strictly secondary to my relationships with the family and friends that I already have. My attempts to blend my second "husband"s extended family with mine were fairly successful, but also fairly exhausting. I'm just not up to doing that again. OTOH, if I was young and still in family formation mode, I would be much more willing to follow my man to the Western Frontier to start a new life together, while still hoping to see my sisters and pianoforte again sometime in the future, and that is the perspective I hold when advising younger people; Go all in or forget about it.

There could be 4 parts of your stuck at the airport question.

If you were stuck in an airport, would you want him there?
If you were stuck in an airport, would he want to be there?
If he were stuck in an airport, would you want to be there?
If he were stuck in an airport, would he want you there?

I actually came up with this rule of thumb based on an experience I had a few years before the end of my long first marriage. I took an extremely rare solo trip to meet two of my sisters in Alaska. The weather was terrible, and I ended up making my way through 6 airports, 2 of which I spent the night in, before I finally landed at my destination. The entire time I was thinking about how much more relaxed and fun it was traveling by myself than with my husband. I realized how much I enjoyed my own company and how competent to deal with adversity I felt on my own. So:

If you were stuck in an airport, would you want him there?- Only if he knows how to relax and have fun in such a situation.

If you were stuck in an airport, would he want to be there? - Some of my partners who have vibed more towards protective would want to be there, but that might annoy me or feel loving, depends. Also likely if we were deep in sexual infatuation phase, and he was towards liking semi-public coupling.

If he were stuck in an airport, would you want to be there?- Only if he was super relaxed and highly capable of creating fun in such a situation. Absolutely would not want to be there to lend him emotional support. BTDT- the well is bone dry.

If he were stuck in an airport, would he want you there? - Yes, this has been my experience in virtually every relationship, because I am the sort of relaxed person humans (inclusive of me) want to be around in that sort of situation. I generally possess a great deal of cool feminine energy.

Riggerjack wrote:or you could tailor your search around finding and attracting " an otherwise attractive primary male partner in my preferred age range who actually" finds the ways you are unique to be a source of fascination, rather than irritation.

This man is not flawless. (How miserable would a relationship with a flawless person be?) He is flawed in such a way that your "flaws" are attractive. You could be his unicorn.

If you find his flaws attractive, or endearing, or merely less irritating, maybe he is your unicorn.

Serendipity is no substitute for strategy. Leaving room in your strategy for serendipity is sound practice.

I don't have any practical advice for finding that man. You know your preferences and capabilities better than I do.

But settling for a lesser relationship today, isn't likely to put you in the right place/time/headspace to attract him tomorrow.

I think this is all excellent advice for somebody who is actually searching for their ideal mate for a lifelong partnership family formation relationship. Not so much for somebody who is just looking to lower her housing expenses and have a bit of a cuddle and some fun in the meanwhile of her autumn twilight phase of life. Maybe I am my own unicorn?!

7Wannabe5 wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 14, 2023 6:54 pm

Maybe I am my own unicorn?!

In terms of meaning, possibly yes to yes. In terms of truth, absolutely no. You're now playing the back nine. Short game and long game conflating. Sand traps no laughing matters anymore. Still able to walk the course but not for long. Willing playing partners dwindling. Soon confined to the club house where you'll quickly descend from entertaining and comforting conversationalist to Norma Desmond parody to someone who can still manage to give sitting head to a few traveling drunks if that's how you want to go out.

But this holds true for everyone, so you can at least find solace in that.

@Henry:

LOL. Oddly, your amusing imagery doesn't frighten me much; the simple reason being that I rarely drink alcohol or wear fancy clothing and dark lipstick. I've never stepped into a bar by myself with the intent of seducing a man. I don't even go out for a drink with the girls more than maybe once or twice/year. The only time I'm likely to be seen in a bar is in the company of some "smart for a jock" guy I am dating who wants to catch the game. And I pretty much detest golf. I hang out in libraries, book stores, arboretums, coffee shops, Farmer's markets, and thrift stores. When I was young, I would go to parties with friends in order to meet guys, but only because that was what I had to do. Online dating has mercifully freed me from that paradigm. I have on a few occasions met a man who contacted me online at a bar, but vast majority of the time, I meet a man for the first time at a coffee shop on my turf in the afternoon. So, my real barrier to continuing to find willing dates among the still quite large demographic of Boomer men who are 1 to 20 years older than me would be my ability to continue to post a photograph that was appealing and realistic and compose an engaging paragraph or phrase. My general appearance (and that of my mother in her 80s) varies from that of Norma Desmond in a manner that would cause me to form the hypothesis that my likelihood to get a date will increasingly become and remain proportional to the popularity of Mrs. Santa Claus porn or the British Baking Ladies Nude-for-Charity Calendar.

The analogy obviously can be substituted in a variety of ways. I did not mean it literally. That's why they are analogies. The back 9 is a common idiom and I just followed it through. My basic point is meaning comes and goes. It changes over a lifetime. Truth wins in the end. But I understand, it aint over till it's over. Although, at some point, certain goal posts just can't be moved anymore.

@Henry:

If you meant to convey that I might eventually cycle back around to a desire to create or find meaning within long(ish)-term committed/monogamous romantic 24/7 companionate domestic relationship with a male sexual partner, I would agree that it's best to never-say-never. OTOH, my current perspective on it is roughly akin to wanting to find a best friend in the second grade. I empathize with the desire in others, but that's not where I'm at. And I think this is congruent with my observation that the desire for such a relationship gender-flips around mid-life when male sexual energies begin to flag and female fertility/maternal drive is no longer on the radar. After all their years of care-taking, the women just want to have fun, while the men are semi-desperately seeking their next driver for colonoscopy appointment, after focusing on their career and/or playing the field to the detriment of their social investment. In a weird way, polyamory can sometimes split this difference.

Another way to express where I'm at. I've never been one for the Brontes. When I was 14, even "Cherry Ames, Student Nurse" could do it for me. For decades of my adult life, the great rationalist romantic Jane Austen could do it for me. The very good line of advice that Riggerjack offered above would be very much in alignment with the sensibilities of a Jane Austen fan. Now, I am in a place where even Jane Austen no longer does it for me. It's more like I'm in a novel where I find myself having a philosophical discussion with a random attractive stranger on a plane, who might cry, slap my face, or propose marriage after he fucks me in the hotel room near the airport where we found ourselves stuck overnight.

One thing I'm wondering, as I contemplate the "waste" associated with living in my own apartment by myself for the first time ever and how easy it is to become acclimated to solo living, is whether a solid history of being able to make such arrangements (LentilBaby exchange of domestic skills for shelter with partners, family, or friends) constitutes an ERE skillset towards consistent lowering of lifestyle expense?

Why wouldn't it? My only concern would be the length of that Lentilbaby arrangement, and how it changes as your contributions drop off with age. But I expect younger lentilbabies would be part of a group arrangement...

Only if he knows how to relax and have fun in such a situation.

Some of my partners who have vibed more towards protective would want to be there, but that might annoy me or feel loving, depends. Also likely if we were deep in sexual infatuation phase, and he was towards liking semi-public coupling.

Only if he was super relaxed and highly capable of creating fun in such a situation. Absolutely would not want to be there to lend him emotional support. BTDT- the well is bone dry.

OK, so how likely are the men you have choosen to date to have these qualities? Yet these are qualities that are possessed by some people.

This looks like a Venn diagram with no overlap. Yet the boundaries of one of those circles is entirely under your control.

Myself, I'm married and monogamous, and happy with the arrangement. But the things that make me happy, rarely translate well to others.

You, OTOH, are happily Poly. You pick your relationships based on your own metrics. In a poly relationship, why would you need to get your snuggles and comfort from the same person you get your sexual attraction from?

Isn't this completely defeating the whole point of poly?

The way I see it, you are an outlier. Your thoughts, preferences and actions are not like those of women whose experience comes from the middle of the bell curves. You have outlier "superpowers".

Being an outlier means standard solutions fit... poorly. If one is an outlier, other outliers are where the fun and satisfaction is.

Each time you start a new thread, it's some variation on "This is the most recent way I have thought to meet my needs, modified to adapt to something more like the typical version of the men I date."

Whereas what I would like to see, would be more along the way of "This is the most recent way I have thought of to meet my needs, modified to attract the kinds of people who want to meet my needs."

I don't think you need a Marlborough Man to fulfill all your needs/fantasies. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find you with some asexual artist/novelist with great energy and snuggles. Who is also glad you have someone to have torrid sex with, and that he isn't invited to the party he doesn't want to join.

Hell, maybe he isn't a he, IDK.

But leaving room for the relationship where your outlier "superpowers" are appreciated and celebrated, rather than tolerated, seems like a good start.

@Riggerjack:

Yes!! Now we are on the same page.

Riggerjack wrote:Why wouldn't it? My only concern would be the length of that Lentilbaby arrangement, and how it changes as your contributions drop off with age. But I expect younger lentilbabies would be part of a group arrangement...

That makes sense. One possibility I've imagined is that I might live in a camper in my DD and SIL's backyard if they ever have a baby. On the other end of the spectrum, I currently have an open/often-repeated invitation to live with my semi-decrepit mother for free, but I know that would drive me insane, unless I also had co-working space, community garden membership, and a lover/other(s) with whom I could spend 3-day weekends.

My sisters and I are also working towards establishing some kind of family compound in the up north realm where we always vacation together. Consensus is difficult, so our current rough plan towards emergence is that each of us (and our adult kids) will work towards doing something different to establish a footprint up there. For example, my second sister is currently living in an off-season rental on the beach with her pack of aging dogs, and my 4th sister is shopping for an inexpensive cottage near, but not on the water, she can air-bnb when she has to be in NYC with her husband. And, my druthers would be for a piece of land a bit inland with better potential for agriculture. All 4 of us would like to own a very small, only intermittently open, pie and used book store with animatronic art features.

ou, OTOH, are happily Poly. You pick your relationships based on your own metrics. In a poly relationship, why would you need to get your snuggles and comfort from the same person you get your sexual attraction from?

Isn't this completely defeating the whole point of poly?

Great point. One of my most fun housing situations was in my mid-40s,when I lived in his big old University district house with an ex of one of my sisters who was kind of like a brother to me due to my strong incest barrier to dating anybody one of my sisters ever dated. Our other housemates were a girlfriend experience escort who was working on her graduate degree in poly-sci and another woman who had transitioned to being a man, but was in the process of transitioning back to being a woman. I was still practicing serial monogamy at the time, but I had fun with a Dom, a somewhat younger FWB, and a much older, but very fun, BF, and a bit of other casual dating, while sharing domesticity with my friend, who only charged me $200/month for a large room and office space in exchange for doing the cooking. Unfortunately, I eventually felt compelled to move out, because although I certainly didn't mind that my friend allowed his stripper friends to use the laundry facilities, I didn't like it when the stripper's boyfriends (scary drug addicts) were allowed in the house. IOW, although I am an outlier weirdo, I am also definitely on the Goody-Two-Shoes edge of counter-culture.

I would also note that my overtly poly-partner who is already married would best fit all the characteristics you describe for my ideal domestic partner. He loves all my freaky characteristics. He once said "If we were married, you could live in your camper in my backyard, and do what you like. (including dating other men)" He's very cuddly and relaxed. Strangers have literally felt compelled to comment on how cute we are together when we are out having fun. Here's the problem: ALREADY MARRIED.

However, I do believe that as you seem to suggest, it would be better for me to let my freak flag fly a little more clearly in the breeze, towards finding a collection of more compatible partners. Although, of course, it's also not exactly like it is possible or "polite' for me to think/behave as though I can just pick up partners like a variety assortment on my plate at a buffet. So, will have to ponder a bit how I might successfully vary my approach away from standard dating mechanism.