HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

puzzled

This week’s dilemma is as follows:

There are two guys who are interested in you. Guy 1 (Let’s call him Peter is really hot. You and he have a lot in common, and he makes you laugh. He’s a really sweet guy, who describes himself as a lover, not a fighter. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have tuppence to rub together, and you know that if you go on a date with him, he’ll treat you like a queen, but you’ll probably be the one footing the bill. But he is supercute though, and you and him have great chemistry.

Guy 2 (Let’s call him Nathan) is also really hot, but he is slightly reserved, and he has a dry sense of humour that can be quite cutting at times. He’s generally a nice guy, but look out anybody who gets in his way. Nathan is a self-made millionaire, and wouldn’t think anything of flying the lady of his life to paris for the night. The chemistry between the both of you is superhot too, although it does take a lot to get him to forget about work. Sometimes you feel that business comes first with him, which frustrates you somewhat.

So, who do you choose? Poor Peter, or Rich Nathan?

34 Comments »

  • What’s funny is my husband’s legal name is Nathan, and he is definitely not what you would call rich. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Personally, I wouldn’t become involved with someone just for their money. It’s not worth it, because I still have to live with the person. I’d choose the “poor” guy that would love and take care of me, vs. the millionaire that would probably be too busy with his work.

    ReplyReply


  • Bhetti B
    February 27
    12:01 pm

    Nathan! Why? I’ve tried the first route and it didn’t work for me; I need him to be more successful than me and I need him to give me a lot of space. So two birds with one stone, yay.

    Discovering things we might not have wanted to know about ourselves: fun for the whole family?!

    ReplyReply


  • SarahT
    February 27
    12:08 pm

    Nathan, definitely. I dated a Peter-type for several years. Let’s just say footing the bill the whole time wears thin very fast.

    ReplyReply

  • It would be Poor Peter for me. If a guy can make me laugh, I’d choose that over money anytime. I’d be somewhat intimidated by the cutting sense of humor.

    ReplyReply

  • Why can’t I date them both?

    ReplyReply


  • Las
    February 27
    1:47 pm

    It would depend on why Peter was broke. If he had a career he loved but it didn’t pay well, like my friend the marine biologist, that’s cool. But going by the personalities you described, I’d pick Nathan regardless of income. I’ve had very frustrating experiences with the sweet, extroverted, treat-me-like-a-queen types.

    ReplyReply

  • I’d date them both to find out who is compatible with me and choose the one who is, regardless of money.

    But I do admit that it’s more fun when you don’t have to worry about where the next month’s rent is coming from, so that may predispose me to like Nathan better… but then I really don’t like the close-mouthed type, mystery is good in romance novels, in real life… not so much.

    ReplyReply

  • If all things were equal? Chemistry, compatibility, etc. Nathan hands down. I can take care of myself, have my own life as long as the commitment is there. I can get a bit focused on my work and it certainly doesn’t mean my GG isn’t the most important person in the world to me.

    Really good looking men, like really good looking women, know they are. Looks are an asset for working, why’s Pete having such a time of it? And I don’t mind footing the bill some of the time, but no man I’m interested in could allow that to happen all of the time.

    ReplyReply


  • Emmy
    February 27
    4:30 pm

    Nathan. He sounds alot like me, and though opposites attract, I think having a few things in common makes the relationship a little less bumpy in the long term.

    ReplyReply

  • Hmmm, I’m not sure if there’s enough info here for me to decision. Being poor is one thing but being cheap is quite another. Would Peter expect me to pay for everything all the time? Is he a student? Is he ambitious and will eventually make a comfortable living? And how does Nathan treat other people? Does he do the little things to shows he cares? This this is a tough one, but based on the info given, I’d take Nathan. If the chemistry is super hot with both guys, why struggle if you don’t have to?

    ReplyReply

  • Well since my writing career is important to me, I need someone who’ll understand when I have to shut myself away for four days (like now). Nathan would be fine with that, as he’d be working in his own office down the hall. Pete would be scratching at my door suggesting I take a walk in the park or go for coffee or anything else that distracts me from finishing this $#@! manuscript, and his feelings would get all hurt when I sprout horns and belch flames because he’s interrupted me yet again.

    I’ve been with someone who made less than me because he wasn’t the least bit ambitious but I wasn’t at an income level to afford a house husband. And as I still have my day job, I’d resent the hell out of someone who didn’t at least try to work as hard as I do.

    ReplyReply

  • Been there, done that with a Poor Peter. For fifteen years. Carrying a family mostly on your own is not much fun, thanks, no matter how good the chemistry is. And several years of footing the bill will kill off the chemistry, and then some.

    I don’t care about trips to Paris or being treated like a queen. But I do care if a guy has money, because it sure would be nice to not have a guy leech off of me.

    ReplyReply


  • M E 2
    February 27
    6:20 pm

    It is my life’s mission to never date/marry anyone who makes less money than I do. I have to support myself, I have no interest in (financially) supporting anyone else. Ever. Period.

    So definitely, Nathan. Could always get some of Peter on the side. LOL

    (that is a joke, I wouldn’t do THAT either)

    ReplyReply


  • Louise van Hine
    February 27
    6:44 pm

    i’d date the poor guy. I have my own money. And if you’ve spent very much time around men who have riches to throw around, there’s usually an outsized ego that goes with it – they like to buy people and treat them like furniture.

    ReplyReply

  • Hot chemistry, super hot or not, compatibility does not make.

    So I’d probably want to get to know both better, but not date either one based only on the lust nor the financial means.

    ReplyReply


  • MB (Leah)
    February 27
    8:45 pm

    Neither. My guy has to have enough money to support himself and then some. I don’t need to be taken care of but I won’t take care of someone either unless it’s a unique situation. No money can kill that lurving feeling real quick.

    And I want a guy who has a sense of humor and gives me space but is not cool and aloof or spends all his time at work.

    So they can have each other. I’ll find someone more evenly rounded or be alone. ๐Ÿ˜€

    ReplyReply

  • Well, Nathan sounds like the proverbial alpha, and I don’t do well with them (maybe because I’m a Leo with a big dose of asshole rising or something). I’m married to a Peter, and in the end, the time he spends on me, the caring, is much more valuable than any paycheck. Since I’ve lost a few loved ones in recent months, I’ve come to appreciate him more.

    ReplyReply

  • Nathan. Peter is a beta and I would walk all over a beta and then get frustrated by him and fire him. Nathan sounds much more like my type, money aside. I don’t like clingy men and I don’t like being made to feel guilty for immersing myself in my work for hours, sometimes days at a time to the exclusion of just about everything else. Pete strikes me as the type to sulk about that, whilst Nathan would be too busy on his conference calls to be bothered, nor would he be bothered anyway because he, you know, has a job and interests of his own to amuse him when I cannot.

    The money would definitely be a bonus, but more than that it’s the alpha male, hard working thing that makes Nathan a far better choice for me.

    ReplyReply


  • Karen Scott
    February 27
    11:09 pm

    I would pick Nathan too, I’m not really into sweet men, and Peter would probably piss me off. It’s as easy to love a rich man as a poor man, and I don’t particularly like footing the bill when I go out for dinner.

    ReplyReply


  • willaful
    February 27
    11:52 pm

    Whichever one I fell in love with. I seem to be odd that way. :-\

    ReplyReply

  • Nathan. I don’t care about money but I like a guy who can take care of himself. I need a lot of space, not a lot of attention.

    ReplyReply

  • Much to my continued surprise I have always had long fulfilling relationships with strong, highly masculine, independent men who having fucking never had a tuppence to rub together. In fact the type of guys I end up dating don’t know what a tuppence even is.

    Maybe someday I will find my sugar daddy but until then I can’t complain all that much.

    ReplyReply


  • Louise van Hine
    February 28
    2:45 am

    You tell em, Teddy! Men with money aren’t all that!

    ReplyReply


  • Sam
    February 28
    3:20 am

    I have to think, that between the choices, I’d probably go with Nathan. I remember telling my husband that I’d been raised poor and could live that way again (he had a chance at his DREAM job, but it was about $20,000 less than he had been making). He took the job, we greatly reduced a joint investment account, and he got to keep the job for about 18 months before it was phased out.

    I have to mention, my part-time income also went away and we added the twins to the family…so we actually went down by like 25,000 – 30,000 and had 4 people to support on that greatly reduced income. I would not like to live poor again.

    I’m wondering if age has an impact on the answers given. I feel very curmudgeonly (sp?) saying ‘the money’, but also know at 20 or 25 my answer may have been different.

    Sam

    ReplyReply

  • Nathan for me. I’m reserved myself. I don’t need to be treated like a queen, I just need to feel comfortable and secure. That seems much easier when you don’t have money problems.

    I agree with Sam that my answer might have been different several years ago. But knowing how it feels to scrape and scrounge and worry about bills and kids has impacted my ideas about what I need in a partner and what makes me happy.

    Money can’t buy happiness, but love can’t pay the bills. Find them both if at all possible.

    ReplyReply

  • Iโ€™m wondering if age has an impact on the answers given. I feel very curmudgeonly (sp?) saying โ€˜the moneyโ€™, but also know at 20 or 25 my answer may have been different.

    Curmudgeonly or not, yeah, I was willing to live poor at 23, and I’m not remotely prepared to settle for that anymore. But at 23, I had no idea that a man with a modest to low income in a non-career-oriented job was almost certainly going to see his income go down over the years, rather than up. So we started out poor, but with him carrying most of the load, and ended up poor with ME carrying almost all the load.

    Now, when I meet a man who has pots of money, I’m not thinking “Yay! Can’t wait to get my hands on it!” More like “Yay, I don’t have to support this guy!”

    The only people who say money isn’t important tend to be those who have enough of it.

    ReplyReply


  • West
    February 28
    7:11 am

    Peter, hands down. It’s always got to be the one who makes me laugh and who I can make laugh. If I want something, I can buy it my damn self.

    ReplyReply


  • Karen Scott
    February 28
    10:03 am

    Kirsten, I couldn’t agree with you more. Lack of money is one of the main causes of strain in relationships. I’m not advocating marrying purely for money, but I do think that as you get older, one becomes more practical about these matters.

    The laughter is more likely to turn to tears if you’re constantly worrying about how to pay your mortgage or feed your family.

    ReplyReply

  • Tough call. I get really irked with people who are financially irresponsible and, frankly, why is Peter figuring we can go on a date and expecting me to pay? OTOH I don’t mind a bit of cutting humor but if Nathan turns that on me or does it too often to others, it won’t be pretty. Since I’m not sure why I have to choose one — have either of them mentioned anything permanent or worthwhile as a couple? — I think I have to pass on them both.

    ReplyReply

  • I’d go with the rich guy, because I like his personality better.
    The lover not a fighter thing turns me off. That poor guys seems kinda passive, which is another big turn off.

    ReplyReply

  • Momma may have
    Poppa may have
    But God Bless The Child who’s got his own

    I guess I decided rather young to be the one making the bucks. But I’m also a gay guy so…

    ReplyReply

  • In my youth, I was in a similar situation. Then I chose Peter. Now, I’m older, much more mature and, from your descriptions, Nathan appeals to me, not because of the money, just his personality. Lover not a fighter doesn’t appeal to me at all anymore.

    ReplyReply

  • Mama always said it’s just as easy to love a rich man as a poor man. I married (and divorced) the poor man. She was right.

    Please, pass Nathan my way ๐Ÿ˜€

    ReplyReply


  • Kick a Bitch
    March 4
    8:52 pm

    lol, and you wonder why men pump-and-dump you…

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment