In the last few years the phrases “high maintenance” and “low maintenance” have been greatly overused to describe women. Leaving aside the fact that these terms are sexist (yes they are! :dubious:), what the heck do men mean when they use them? The first few times I heard “high maintenance,” I figured it meant a woman who spends a lot of time and money on herself getting her hair and nails done, gone to tanning parlors, and so on–someone who only dates wealthy men who takes her to expensive restaurants in expensive cars. But I don’t know–I see these phrases used more and more often, usually in some vague “she’s not for me” kind of way, as if that label explains everything. It doesn’t.
So men, what do you mean when you say someone is “high maintenance” or “low maintenance”?
I’m a female, but I’ll respond. “High maintenance” to me means someone (man or woman) needs a lot of attention, reassurance, etc. This attention can be material (gifts and such) or sometimes just time and effort (constantly needs to be reassured that you care, wants frequent compliments). Some might call this “needy” or “insecure”; I call it “exhausting”. It’s like trying to fill a bucket when there’s a hole in the bottom.
Maintenance could be about spending money on her, spending a lot of time with her, dealing with her emotional needs, or anything else the guy would rather do less of. High maintenance, a lot of that stuff, low maintenance not much.
Exactly. It’s: how much effort does the man have to put in to assure that she will continue having sex with him. I thought those terms were self-explanatory.
I don’t think they are sexist; I’ve heard the terms used about men too, and used by women. As said; they refer to how some people demand a lot more investment in time/money/emotion than others. Sort of the mirror image of calling someone “clingy”; among other things, demanding that you be clingy is an example of being high maintenance.
I think Divine nailed it. Exhausting. If you’re dating someone and every time they call, text, email, facebook or yell your name the first thing you thing is “uhhh, now what”, you’re probably with someone high maintenance. Obviously, that’s grossly over simplifying, but I think it’s about right.
And it’s not even specifically relationship based…you have high-maintenance and low-maintenance friends. Some require constant contact, others not so much.
I don’t consider it sexist. I think it just gives a good description of lots of little things that happen in human contact.
It’s just that I keep hearing people use them in so many different ways that I wasn’t sure what they meant. I feel like these are throwaway terms used as an excuse for treating someone poorly or putting them down.
And I’ve never heard a woman say a man was high-maintenance. I’ve heard plenty of men say that about women, though.
Also, I’m an English teacher, editor, and writer, and I sort of insist on precision with regard to language, so when something seems vague to me, I question it.
This has been used for a lot more than the last few years - I’ve heard it all my life, at the very least (so I presume it was common before that, too). So it was common at least as far back as the 70s.
I’ve heard it used about men, too, but only in the last few years.
Have you heard of the term “drama queen”? IMHO this is a variety of a High Maintenance individual. They are perpetually late, never have money, car is always in need of service, job situation is shaky, relationships are a mess, maybe even ongoing health issues - and they must tell you all about each and every one of these every time you speak or meet.
I don’ t think it’s sexist either, for the very reason quoted. Guys can be just as high maintenance and friends can be high maintenance, not just girlfriends.
For me “high maintenance” is some one who a) requires constant validation and reassurance because their self-esteem is sucky, b) tend to come with a lot of baggage/drama, c) both a+b.
If the relationship or friendship requires an abnormal amount of energy to maintain, then it’s “high maintenance”.
On the contrary if someone is calling their girlfriend high maintenance (not something you typically say to her face) they normally treat her very well. A high maintenance woman doesn’t thrive in a relationship where she is being treated poorly or put down on any kind of a regular basis. Also, often times ‘high maintenance woman’ has the assets necessary to find a new guy that won’t treat that way and will quickly leave the first guy and attach herself to the second, sometimes not in that order.
That’s one variant, but there’s also the person who is highly insecure high maintenance–they will stick with an abusive girlfriend/boyfriend forever, locked in a co-dependent dance and draining all of their friends emotionally dry as they careen from crisis to crisis.
These two seem to be slightly incongruous. If she’s quite capable of providing her own mink and Rolls, why would she need someone else to provide them? I think we’re talking about two different people here: the self-sufficient person who enjoys all the luxe trappings, and can provide them, but who can also function perfectly well without them; and the person who wants someone else to provide them, and won’t look at anyone who can’t.
To me, “high maintenance” implies someone who demands all that you can supply and more, with no guarantee of a corresponding return. That supply could be money, travel, emotional support, any of dozens of things. And you’re never certain where you stand. Being with a person like that is a kind of unending grovel.
“Low maintenance” means the person is self-sufficent, whether that be in a penthouse or a tent, and can give and take in an adult relationship. No big sucky needy sound.
The first quote is from the OP, they are asking if they are correct in their assumption. And while someone who can and does buy their own mink and Rolls could be considered High Maintenance, it typically happens more on the emotional rather then financial level. Of course high maintenance seems to be kind of a catch all term to mean some one that Always.Needs.Something. (Be it a new Rolls, to be told they don’t look fat, to be comforted because they think the new upstairs neighbor that they haven’t met yet doesn’t like them since he didn’t say hi when he passed her on the stairs and oh my god she’s calling again what the hell does she want now, etc… )
What’s actually worse is self-maintaining women. I was dating a trust-fund baby in a previous life and she had the nerve to say “You know, I’m only keeping you around for the companionship”. The unsaid implication being: “I don’t need you, I can jettison you at any time I want.”
Which, come to think of it, she did! (And it was the best thing that coulda happened to me).