Romantic Relationships Post FIRE

[FLSUnFIRE]

Heh, heh, miracles still happen.

Hallmark has filmed several movies here... Could be a true story filmed on location. I'm not holding my breath though.

 

[tulak]

The Washington Post must be following this thread. They have an article title, “For older women with money, it’s yes to love but ‘I don’t’ to marriage.”

I read it on Apple News. I tried to find a link on their website, but it’s behind a paywall.

 

[Scrapr]

The Washington Post must be following this thread. They have an article title, “For older women with money, it’s yes to love but ‘I don’t’ to marriage.”

I read it on Apple News. I tried to find a link on their website, but it’s behind a paywall.

my gift. I am in this situation. Everything separate & everything goes to each others kids

https://wapo.st/3O4qe3l

 

[Koolau]

my gift. I am in this situation. Everything separate & everything goes to each others kids

https://wapo.st/3O4qe3l

Heh, heh, and here I was thinking that marriage, with all it's potential pitfalls is a way to beat the taxman (at least somewhat.)

 

[Amethyst]

It is, if you marry equally or "below" financially.

The "below" person pays more (if the couple treat their assets as "mine and yours") and may hit a Medicare IRMAA cliff for the first time in his/her life.

Heh, heh, and here I was thinking that marriage, with all it's potential pitfalls is a way to beat the taxman (at least somewhat.)

 

[badatmath]

I don't understand FWB at all because the only people I know who have done it are pretty much not F at all, only B. It just sounds sort of depressing to me somehow but then I have not tried so cannot say. I suppose it depends on the couple.

 

[athena53]

I don't understand FWB at all because the only people I know who have done it are pretty much not F at all, only B. It just sounds sort of depressing to me somehow but then I have not tried so cannot say. I suppose it depends on the couple.

I agree. FWB, as strictly defined earlier, would be difficult at this age. We're not sleek and gorgeous anymore. For me, the mental attraction has to come first before I can get the least bit interested in a physical relationship.

 

[aja8888]

I don't understand FWB at all because the only people I know who have done it are pretty much not F at all, only B. It just sounds sort of depressing to me somehow but then I have not tried so cannot say. I suppose it depends on the couple.

I kind of see it as being in a porno movie without filming going on.

 

[Major Tom]

I don't understand FWB at all because the only people I know who have done it are pretty much not F at all, only B. It just sounds sort of depressing to me somehow but then I have not tried so cannot say. I suppose it depends on the couple.

To me, the F part is way, way more important than the B. In fact, I'm not really bothered about the B part at all at this point - and I'm only 60! Friendship and social connections are vitally important to me. Not so much the other.

 

[Amethyst]

For me, it always did. No matter how young I was or how beautiful the man, it was the old prefrontal cortex that had the deciding vote.

For me, the mental attraction has to come first before I can get the least bit interested in a physical relationship.

.

 

[GaryInCO]

For me, it always did. No matter how young I was or how beautiful the man, it was the old prefrontal cortex that had the deciding vote.

sapiophile (pl. sapiophiles) Noun. A person who is attracted, whether it be sexually, romantically, or otherwise, to intelligence or intelligent people rather than to the physical appearance.

I think there are a lot of us. It's just that finding each other can be a challenge.

I married the smartest woman I ever met. Sadly she took a hike after 20 years.

 

[Amethyst]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that physical appearance doesn't matter for romantic attraction. It does, indeed, especially in the sense of "making an effort." But it doesn't do the job, if the brains aren't there.

Trust must also be established, before the physical can take over. In fact I would say trust has always been the top factor in my successful relationships.
,

sapiophile (pl. sapiophiles) Noun. A person who is attracted, whether it be sexually, romantically, or otherwise, to intelligence or intelligent people rather than to the physical appearance.

.

 

[Badger]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that physical appearance doesn't matter for romantic attraction. It does, indeed, especially in the sense of "making an effort." But it doesn't do the job, if the brains aren't there.

Trust must also be established, before the physical can take over. In fact I would say trust has always been the top factor in my successful relationships.
,

Five years after the end of a 10 yr marriage I was hesitant but thought I would give it another try when I met my present wife. It has been 36 years now and the most important thing to lasting this long has been trust. I can't think of living without her now so I firmly believe that if I don't go first I will not be interested in another relationship.

 

[Chuckanut]

Trust must also be established, before the physical can take over. In fact I would say trust has always been the top factor in my successful relationships.
,

+1

Very true.

 

[Koolau]

I don't understand FWB at all because the only people I know who have done it are pretty much not F at all, only B. It just sounds sort of depressing to me somehow but then I have not tried so cannot say. I suppose it depends on the couple.

Heh, heh, I've mentioned that DW and I were "F" since 2nd grade. So, not a lot of benefit possibilities (unless you consider that I let her play marbles for "funzies" instead of for "keeps.") Heh, heh, now she has ALL the marbles.



The "B" came a bit later, and through it all, we're still best of "F" YMMV

 

[badatmath]

To me, the F part is way, way more important than the B. In fact, I'm not really bothered about the B part at all at this point - and I'm only 60! Friendship and social connections are vitally important to me. Not so much the other.

How refreshing to see this from a man! For me the B are much better if I am all in in the F but then after years with one person what do I know?! Not like I was out there trying out new things.

 

[Music Lover]

For me, it always did. No matter how young I was or how beautiful the man, it was the old prefrontal cortex that had the deciding vote.
.

When my wife and I saw each for the first time other there was an immediate spark. That led to the first date, and at that point we were able to determine intelligence, personality, compatibility, etc.

But without that initial attraction there never would have been a first date. IMO, any relationship without a physical attraction is bound to fail, regardless of how intelligent people are.

 

[CO-guy]

To me, the F part is way, way more important than the B. In fact, I'm not really bothered about the B part at all at this point - and I'm only 60! Friendship and social connections are vitally important to me. Not so much the other.

I completely agree. At the time I met my better-half, I had a few FWBs and even some occasional "F-buddies." Almost all had 1-degree of separation from our social group (i.e., friend of a friend). Mostly the relationships started because there was a mutual attraction. However, whether it's religiosity, shared values, etc, it becomes apparent quickly that you're not each other's "forever person," but the F part remains because you enjoy each other's company. And, if nobody's in a relationship, then the B-part just happens sometimes.

For me, I know the F-part was real because many of these people are still my friends; decades, husbands/wives and kids later.

 

[omni550]

I started a new thread here https://www.early-retirement.org/fo...eys-thoughts-on-love-and-marriage-120737.html which is an hour-long interview with a divorce attorney and his perspectives on love and marriage.

Well worth watching, imho.

omni

 

[brett]

I do not believe that there are any rules or conventions. I have seen lots of good marriages, some bad one, some unexpected ones, and a few very successful second, and one third, marriage.

50 years for us. It should not have lasted was probably the convention wisdom at the time. Completely different faiths, socioeconomic backgrounds, politics, cultural orientation... you name it.

Why I think it worked. We got married and immediately transferred 2000 miles away, Did not know a soul. And moved even further away two years later.

We were/are on the same page financially. Neither of us married with the intention of 'changing' the other person.

A big key in my mind was waiting 12 years to have children...unheard of in her family. During that period we traveled internationally every year. Travel changed us and our respective outlooks in so many ways.

We still have our differences...faith, politics to a certain degree, etc but we respect each others differences.

I really do not think that it is much different for those who marry post retirement. There is no secret sauce to this IMHO, so set formulae. Every situation is different.

 

[albireo13]

I was married for 16 yrs but, my wife passed away awhile back from cancer. I had 3 children to take care of. For better or worse I had a bunch of married women in the town going after me.
One of them offered me $1M.

I admit that I was no catch. In any case I avoided all that and went with Match.com to find someone. I have been doing quite well since then.

 

[1242Vintage]

Wife and I (married 37 yrs) act like newlyweds! Does this count as Romantic Relationship Post Fire? (Sometimes she says I act like a 7th grader but that’s probably a different subject).

We’ve been keeping it fresh with weekly date nites and quarterly honeymoon trips since 1987. Love you honey!!!!

 

[Ronstar]

I must be old. I had to google FWB.

 

[tmm99]

I was married for 16 yrs but, my wife passed away awhile back from cancer. I had 3 children to take care of. For better or worse I had a bunch of married women in the town going after me.
One of them offered me $1M.

I admit that I was no catch. In any case I avoided all that and went with Match.com to find someone. I have been doing quite well since then.

One of them offered you $1M? To date? Or to retain you as a companion or something? I imagine it was done in jest, but I could be wrong.

 

[FIREd]

I retired at age 36 (I'm nearly 50 now) and got divorced 8 years into early retirement. So I unexpectedly found myself in the dating pool again in my 40's.

I dated for a year before finding my new partner and we've been together 2 years now. The fact that I am retired has not been a major issue so far. We both agree that marriage is off the table. We live together yet we maintain separate homes. My partner lives in Switzerland and I live in France but our homes are only 3 miles apart, so it easy to switch homes whenever we feel like it. We actually enjoy this arrangement. And we keep our finances separate. My net worth is 2 orders of magnitude greater but our disposable incomes are about the same so on a day-to-day basis we are quite evenly matched financially.

Being in a relationship has not changed my overall spending, I just spent differently. I used to spend on personal pursuits, now I spend more on shared pursuits. We disclosed our income early on (in my case "income" is what I allow myself to spend) so we know and respect each other's spending limits.