My Fiancé Has Money and Treats Me Well, But He’s Soooo Cheap! What Should I Do?

My Fiance Has Money and Treats Me Well, But He's Sooo Cheap, What Should I Do?
Evan, what should I do?

I am engaged to a guy who I have been dating for 4.5 years. I love him but I have so much anger and resentment towards him. He is a good person and we have a great time together and I enjoy his company/companionship. He always is happy to see me and be with me. We have a lot in common, but I feel we have some major core differences. He is extremely selfish. He is wealthy and I think this has affected his outlook on money. I am very generous with a big heart, but I find that I am always disappointed. I don’t expect to be spoiled by someone, but he spends a lot of money on his (our) house, cars, gambling when he can, but if I need $200 to go to the store, he makes me feel awkward and here we are supposed to be getting married in December. All our finances are separate, I would be fine even with a pre-nup which I know is coming, but I am not fine with having a husband who puts himself that far above me because of his money. I do expect my husband to help with car payments, medical insurance, basic stuff, I am not even talking about shopping and material things, and this is a guy who is a multi-millionaire, and I made $100k up until last year because of the economy and now until I do something else, am only making about 45k. I am worried about marrying someone who would watch me struggle and not offer to help or was that spoiled that he doesn’t have the “right” consideration for me. HELP!

Lara

You know what they say about rich guys, right? The reason they’re rich is because they don’t spend any of their money

Dear Lara,

You know what they say about rich guys, right? The reason they’re rich is because they don’t spend any of their money! Ha! I kill me.

So first of all, let’s get one thing out of the way first: he’s definitely selfish. There are plenty of people who have issues around money – including yours truly – but your multi-millionaire takes the very expensive wedding cake.

As I’ve said before, many women don’t appreciate the difference between being cheap and being poor. If he makes less than $50,000, pretty much ANYTHING he does for you is generous. However, your guy isn’t poor. He’s rich, and yet you don’t feel he is generous of spirit. That really sucks when you’re facing a lifetime together.

But if you’ve been seeing him for 4 ½ years, I suspect you knew about this trait all along, but dealt with it as just one compromise you had to make in the relationship. It didn’t suddenly surface out of the blue. “He USED to throw me $10,000 birthday parties, but now he only has the Pizza Hut staff put a candle in my calzone!”

I’m not going to defend his penurious ways, and I’m not going to suggest that you don’t have the right to be frustrated. I am, however, going to try to look at the other side – something that you may not have done yet.

So let’s recap: you love him, he’s a good person, he’s super-wealthy, you have a lot in common, you have a great time together, he’s happy to be with you, and you’re engaged to be married in December. Sounds like a promising start, no?

But there’s this one thing – this big thing – you don’t get out of him. It’s a definite character flaw: no generosity. Yet he probably pays for the bulk of the house, car payments, medical payments, vacations, etc. He’ll buy you things and provide a nice life. The only thing he doesn’t want to pay for is you, spending the money that he earned. And since you’re now making less, you expect him to make up the difference.

At least that’s HIS perspective.

I think two things: he’s genuinely cheap, and he genuinely loves you.

Your perspective is that it’s not his money, it’s your money – together. And even though you have everything you want in your life, you can’t get over the fact that he’s so stingy that he won’t let you spend what he considers “his” money. In your mind, it’s not about the money, it’s about the principle! I hear you, and I’m sure a number of readers do, too.

The real sticking point is that his take on “his money vs. your money” is not changing any time soon. It’s deeply ingrained in him. Which gives you two choices: leave him because you feel like you can’t spend your life with a rich man who is cheap, or stick around and appreciate that you have a super life, filled with love, companionship, fun, and tons of material possessions – but your husband is simply a skinflint.

Life is about tradeoffs, y’know?

I also think you may be equating his lack of generosity with a lack of love. He can provide for you in 100 different ways, but because he’s hesitant to give you $200 to go to the store, he doesn’t truly love you. Do you believe that? I don’t. I think two things: he’s genuinely cheap, and he genuinely loves you. If he didn’t love you, he wouldn’t be marrying you. In his mind, he just doesn’t want his wealth to be taken for granted.

Just the other day I was talking with a semi-successful guy – not a millionaire – who took care of his girlfriend when she was unemployed and couldn’t afford to pay rent. The problem arose when, one year later, she STILL didn’t want to pay rent because “he could afford it”.  Ironically, the same way that she feels that “it’s not about money, it’s about principle”, so does he. You think he should pay for you because he can. He doesn’t want to pay for you because you assume he’s supposed to.

Another thing: your boyfriend may be cheap, but I’d have to guess he’s better than the rich guys who equate money with love. Their theory is: “If I buy you a Jaguar, maybe you won’t notice how emotionally distant and abusive I am!”  These type of wealthy men  make the worst husbands because they think that they can buy your affection and don’t have to actually, y’know, listen to you.

All of this begs the unfortunate and delicate question: is it possible that you take your boyfriend’s money for granted? Maybe just a little? After all, you may have taken a pay cut, but you probably still live in a big house with a nice car and have everything you need. So while I’m not going to defend your fiancées behavior – cheap is not cool – I’d have to ask you one really tough question:

Would you be marrying him if HE made $45,000?

And, if not, are you also equating love with money?

It’s not that I’m not sympathetic to your plight, Lara, but it’s my responsibility to point out the side of things that you may not have already considered. Please let me know what you choose to do.

Click here to learn how I can show you the path to dating success!

5
7

Join 7 Million Readers

And the thousands of women I've helped find true love. Sign up for weekly updates for help understanding men.

I hate spam as much as you do, therefore I will never sell, rent, or give away your email address.

Join our conversation (212 Comments).
Click Here To Leave Your Comment Below.

Comments:

  1. 61
    Michel

    @100 Jennifer…I should have been more specific with my comment so I do apologize for that. However it is true that here in our western “civilization” are the values of greedy selfish people. It’s all about “ME”, what do “I” get out of this, what have YOU done FOR “me” lately and so on. Such can be found in anyone anywhere but it is most prevalent in our society and yes especially in the USA (I’m a well traveled born and raised US citizen and not a foreigner knocking our fine country). She could/should spend her own $200 even if it is groceries. After all, can’t feed her man once in a while since she is earning her own currency? What of this man? Where went his pride when he decided not to provide?My point was this: what about the children if they have any? Will they be “his” or “her’s”? What happens when she is pregnant or cannot work for whatever reason? What if he cannot work for whatever reason? Are they to become a FAMILY with SHARED RESOURCES or simply two people with a contractual obligation to be…what?? This is a discussion about a speculation regarding one side of a situation so we none of us know the whole story but it also begs the questions: What happened to love, to family and what happened to fundamental concern for one another?
    What the hell have we become??

  2. 62
    vino

    Seductress’ #77

    Vino,
    “Seeking in part financial security makes a woman a gold digger???”
    ____

    Vino’s #80
    “- Yes. Getting paid for companionship makes her something else too. ”

    ____
    Seductress’ #81

    “To make a blanket statement that any woman who considers finances at all, in any way, in choosing a mate is a gold digger is ridiculous.

    Reducing the issue to paying for companionship doesn’t strengthen your stance either.”
    ____

    Seductress, if you look at the quotes, you’ll note your last reply completely misstates what YOU previously asked and answered. You morphed from “seeking in part financial security” to “any woman who considers finances” which, as you can see went from a specific question (seek financial security) to a rephrased generalization (considers finances).

    You may not like my direct answer to your question (I don’t either, btw), but don’t deliberately mischaracterize what I said my misstating/restating it otherwise.

  3. 63
    Seductress

    Vino, I didn’t mischaracterize anything.

    How’s this…..to make a blanket statement that any woman who seeks, in part, financial securtiy is a gold digger is imo, ridiculous.
    Ridiculous because it does not reduce her to being ‘paid for companionship’. Though I realize that is all you see.

    I gave one example as to why-(the woman AND man wants a stay at home mother).

    Here is another.

    Financial ‘security’ doesn’t always/only mean ‘marry rich so I can won’t have to work and be spoiled’. (of course if the man and woman both want this type of relationship, I have no problem with it).

    SECURITY can also mean: (and can pertain to any income level)

    1.) Is this man smart with money i.e. won’t spend us into bankruptcy.

    2.)Are we like minded about how we spend, how much we spend?

    3.)Are we like minded about how we save/invest? How much we save/invest?

    4.)Do we share the same value system about money? How much is yours, how much is mine, how much is ours?

    5.)Do we have a rainy day fund, emergency fund? Retirement and college fund?

    I could go on. All of these considerations should be PART of any smart woman’s (or man’s) choice in choosing a mate to ensure ‘FINANCIAL SECURITY’.
    When you blend your lives and credit scores legally, considering money is a must along with all the other important factors.

  4. 64
    Seductress

    Yes Honey, absolutely. It’s smart and essential to consider money when considering marriage and doing what you can to ensure your financial security.

    Vino–“she is seeking from a man freedom from financial risk….or cares or from want…”

    If that is the def. we’re agreeing on, I still have no problem with it as long as both the man and woman desire said situation.

    I don’t put judgmental labels on such a woman or a man to want this setup. Who cares as long as they are happy with it??

    It sounds like a mismatch is the problem for the writer of the question.

  5. 65
    vino

    “All of these considerations should be PART of any smart woman’s (or man’s) choice in choosing a mate to ensure FINANCIAL SECURITY.
    When you blend your lives and credit scores legally, considering money is a must along with all the other important factors.”

    – I actually agree with that. However, I think you framed the question as “Seeking in part financial security…” This says she is seeking from a man freedom from financial risk or freedom from financial cares or from want (those ‘security’ defs are from dictionary.com). In other words, you phrased it as a woman seeking a man to take care of her financial risks and cares.

    And the phrase ‘financial security’ doesn’t have the myriad of meanings you gave it. I’m not trying to be picky, but in the definitions you gave simply don’t exist as a frame of reference for the phrase “financial security” in the slightest. In short, SECURITY means absolutely none of the six or so new definitions you assigned it. I’m not trying to be picayune, but you are making up new definitions for the word you chose rather than giving it its plain meaning, which perhaps contributes to the chasm of understanding.

    Sorry, but you are again morphing your own words to try and mean something other (and far in addition to) than how you yourself used them.

    And seeking from another person (male or female) freedom from financial risk or cares is seeking to be absolved from adult responsibilities. I don’t think a rational person of any gender or race would want a relationship with someone who wanted to be absolved from adult responsibilities…

  6. 66
    Honey

    Seductress, that’s exactly what I think of when I think of financial security, too. The BF and I had a talk about a bunch of those things just the other day. Just because someone makes a lot of money doesn’t make them financially secure, either – plenty of those people are in debt up to their eyeballs.
    .-= Honey’s last blog ….Accomplish Something to Become More Attractive =-.

  7. 67
    vino

    “If that is the def. we’re agreeing on, I still have no problem with it as long as both the man and woman desire said situation.”

    – I don’t either in theory, as long as she is COMPLETELY CANDID she’s seeking from a man freedom from financial risk.or cares or from want. Then he can make the informed decision about whether he wants someone financially dependent upon him. After all, that is what happens when you agree to free someone else from financial risk – you bear it. Unfortunately, such candor is lacking all too often, which isn’t to say it doesn’t exist.

    “I don’t put judgmental labels on such a woman or a man to want this setup. Who cares as long as they are happy with it??”

    I think people are free to do as they see fit. That said, you do have to make a judgment about the propriety of such behavior for your own life and in a larger context also. I think expecting someone else to pay your way (which is what we are talking about) in today’s day & age where women can and do the same work as men for the same pay is less than laudable, to be kind.

    And I hate to keep bringing up the divorce stats & laws, but as we all know it is 50/50 odds so it merits mention…so supporting someone financially, you as the payor only stand to lose, particularly, if the non-earner decides she wants out. You end up paying long after she’s gone….

    What I’m saying is you have to evaluate that demand/desire for someone to be supported financially and to support them so within the larger context of what happens in daily life, the genders’ equality in the workplace, and the laws that will most certainly apply should one party decide to end the marital contract unilaterally.

    You have to look at the end effect…

  8. 68
    JerseyGirl

    No offense Vino but you aren’t going to change the fact that women, on some level, regardless of their own income, want a man that can and wants to provide for them. That is biology right there. Women want responsible men, that want to share their lives (money included). They don’t want a petty, small minded man that is going to measure everything tit for tat, not share his life with her, and be more interested in protecting his money interests then his own partner. And no, that doesn’t make women gold-diggers. This is really a term that was created to redirect men’s own insecurities. And until the day men start choosing women completely independent of their looks, you have no place to complain about women’s invested interest in what a man makes. Neither one is more honorable then the next and no less driven by biology. So yes, in a perfect world men would pick women with beautiful hearts instead of just beautiful faces. And women would think poor men were just as great as well-off ones. But that’s not how it works. A woman wanting financial security has nothing to do with her not wanting to be a responsible adult. Perhaps a man that fights too hard against such a woman is the one that really doesn’t want to be the one with the responsiblity.

  9. 69
    vino

    *Sigh*

    “They don’t want a petty, small minded man that is going to measure everything tit for tat, not share his life with her, and be more interested in protecting his money interests then his own partner.”

    – Lord knows under this scenario she ain’t interested in protecting his financial interests. It’s quite the opposite (she gets more at his expense). If he doesn’t, no one else will.

    “And until the day men start choosing women completely independent of their looks, you have no place to complain about women’s invested interest in what a man makes.”

    – You are phrasing it in those terms. I’m not. In fact, the way you frame it, women are selling only their looks. Not good. Surely there is more on offer than that.

    – If men actually did choose women independent of their looks and what they brought to the table in terms of finances, personality, etc., you’d probably see less relationships. Not saying that to be confrontational, but if men applied the same standards to women (via, looks, personality, and $ in particular), you’d see fewer and fewer relationships and marriages. Actually, you are seeing fewer marriages anyway.

    – And ladies consider looks in addition to $, but are more willing to compromise on looks for more $…. Guys just aren’t supposed to consider her $, which I think they absolutely should.

    “A woman wanting financial security has nothing to do with her not wanting to be a responsible adult. Perhaps a man that fights too hard against such a woman is the one that really doesn’t want to be the one with the responsiblity.”

    – Sorry but this statement seems absurd on its face. Wanting someone else to absolve you from providing for your own financial wants and needs IS absolutely shirking adult responsibilities. A man that fights too hard against such a person is someone who rightfully doesn’t want the added BURDEN of carrying someone who SHOULD carry themselves. Nice insinuation that guys who don’t want to ‘carry someone else’s water’ are irresponsible, though.

  10. 70
    JerseyShortie

    In all honesty Vino, you can’t possibly have any idea what she is interested in protecting or not. But I hardly doubt she wants to put him in the hole with her spending. She gets more at his expense? What exactly is he majorly sacrificing to begin with? A couple dollars? Geez. Well if you really consider that major sacrifice I hate to see what happens when bigger issues come along.

    And sorry, this isn’t about women just selling their looks. This is about the very real fact that men are more interested in looks and it’s okay for men to choose women based on this, on some level. But men like you getting in a tizzy if a woman dares to be logical enough to consider a man’s income level. You aren’t going to wipe out biology. And the fact remains from cave years to present day that women want a provider. Someone who wants to share their lives with her. Not be the type of man that is going to drawl a line in the sand out of a petty desire to keep what his is his and what is hers is hers. That’s not partnership. That’s not really a relationship.

    Lastly, yes I do think men that go over board in complaining about the responsiblity of women wanting a provider to themselves be someone who is looking for less resposibilty. When you have a relationship it is about taking on more responsiblity. It’s about considering someone else. It’s about sharing your life. And in my own experiences, men that complained very much about women being “gold-diggers”, where usually the men that didn’t want a woman to look to him for any additional responsiblity or to be acting like a grown adult. It’s easy to live in a world where it’s all about you. Not so easy when it’s about considering another person and sharing with them. You think it’s selfish that a woman who loves and has been seeing a man for a certain length of time has issues pertaining to money? I think it’s selfish that a man that says he loves and woman and wants to share his life with her, expect for his money, is being selfish. because it’s clear what his most prized possession is.

    The fact is, you aren’t going to wipe out millions and millions of years of biology just because you don’t like it and because women work (but do make less in the work place). In case you haven’t figured it out by now, women are just plain more vunerable by nature. And we look for extra security. If that makes you feel like less of a man and makes you feel the need to rally against it, I am truly sorry that you have that level of insecurity. Women want protectors at the end of the day. Not men who are going to draw lines in the sand about where she is allowed to stand and where he will stand.

  11. 71
    Helen

    Instinctively, I completely agree with JerseyShortie’s statement: “Women want protectors at the end of the day. Not men who are going to draw lines in the sand about where she is allowed to stand and where he will stand.” Scientifically, though, it led me to wonder why we women have evolved to seek out men to be protectors. Look at females of other species: they are not seeking out male protectors. Female lions do the majority of the hunting and gathering, as do female birds. Female clownfish are bigger than male clownfish. I can’t speak for arthropods…

    Is women’s seeking of protection purely a societal construct? If we got rid of social inequalities and expectations of stronger vs. weaker sexes, would that remove our need to be protected? I can’t deny that the longing that JerseyShortie stated exists in me, but I could imagine a world in which I didn’t feel that way, and it might be a better world for women.

  12. 72
    Michael

    The fact is, you aren’t going to wipe out millions and millions of years of biology just because you don’t like it and because women work (but do make less in the work place). In case you haven’t figured it out by now, women are just plain more vunerable by nature.
    I guess that is why feminism is such a failure, since it tries to wipe out millions of years of biology.
    You aren’t going to wipe out biology.
    So then gender equality is a hoax?

  13. 73
    A-L

    I just want to preface this by saying that Seductress’ multi-part definition of financial security is how I tend to view it for my own personal life.

    In terms of the other aspect of financial security that is being discussed, I think there are a couple of different ideas going on. Basically, I think part of it is the idea that if something occurred (health problem, job loss, whatever) that someone would help carry the financial burden. This is for either partner. You want someone to have your back, hence, helping in part to provide financial security.

    Also, I think the idea of keeping close accounting of what each of you provides is sort of what is irritating to many of the women. Maybe the guy has paid more in terms of eating out, but the girl has paid more in terms of vacationing. You spend money for each other because you love them, not as some sort of balance sheet where each person must put in a perfectly equal amounts or someone’s being “used.”

  14. 74
    downtowngal

    Helen #111, while the lionesses are out hunting & gathering (for the entire pride), the lions are there to protect the cubs and the other lionesses.

  15. 75
    vino

    I’ll try to be brief, apologies in advance

    Re: JerseyShorty’s #110

    – BTW, I am not saying it is about it’s only about women just selling their looks. However, when I ask the question “why should guys pay?” the answer from women (and you also, btw) is that men value looks. So, women themselves say they are selling their looks.

    – You rationalize under biology that it’s okay to seek a provider. Let’s go with that. Under biology, man value beauty, youth, and fertility. So guys are perfectly justified in choosing women who are under 30 and pretty, without apology. Of course, men who do that are derided as cradle robbing swine…

    – keeping with the ‘it’s okay under biology’ theme, older women are less valuable then as mates because they are older, less attractive (to men), and less fertile. Therefore their potential providers should pay far, far less for them, and some really snarky people could say at some point, they should pay the men to take them (I’m not saying that at all!).

    – Not a pretty picture, is it? The ‘biology makes it okay’ argument cuts both ways.

    – Also, you and others speak of ‘sharing lives’ and a ‘partnership.’ I’m not trying to be obstinate, but I still haven’t heard why guys should pay someone who is bringing far less to the supposed partnership. What specifically is offered to make it a ‘partnership?’ That’s a business term, so let’s analyze it as such.

    “Not be the type of man that is going to drawl a line in the sand out of a petty desire to keep what his is his and what is hers is hers. That’s not partnership. That’s not really a relationship.”

    – Sure it is. You can share your lives and yourselves on a personal level without giving someone your assets at your expense and their benefit. You see it in soldiers who survived combat together, who often have a closer bond with each other than anyone else on earth, and it’s not required that one who has more $$ gives it to the other as a condition of that relationship.

    “…I do think men that go over board in complaining about the responsiblity of women wanting a provider to themselves be someone who is looking for less resposibilty.”

    – Calling buys irresponsible babies isn’t effective.

    “When you have a relationship it is about taking on more responsiblity.”

    – My analytical issue is that under the scenario, the payor (provider) is the only one with additional responsibility. She has none, and in fact is more liberated. He less so. Please address that. No one does, unsurprisingly.
    ——–

    Actually, Helen’s #111 starts to imagine where I am coming from. In a world where we can actually use our brains to think, analyze and choose a semi-rational course of action, simply saying ‘I’m following my biological hindbrain desire’ is insufficient. Is it okay for a man to whack a woman on the head with a club and drag her away? Of course not.

    Is it okay to follow a guys’s hindbrain desire to ‘spread his seed?’ Of course not. We’ve devised and evolved societal customs and laws (benefits & burdens) to temper those baser impulses.

    History’s moved at such a pace where only in the last 150 years could women begin to get educated, vote, work, work the same jobs for the same money. This is all pretty recent by historical standards. Today, those customs and laws say (and facts support) that women can go out, work (hunt & gather) the same as men, earning the same (and more in some places).

    So the basic premise of wanting/needing a provider no longer exists in reality. I think that expecting someone to provide for you financially where you can and should do so today (and don’t expect to correspondingly provide financially), is, at its heart, selfish. It isn’t selfish if there is a corresponding expectation to financially provide on the other side, but that’s not what I’m hearing. So in the end, those who demand money for a relationship are poor relationship candidates, and should be avoided.
    _____

    Actually, re: dtg’s #114, men hunted, gathered AND protected. Lions are an inaccurate analogy or comparison.
    _____

    Re: A-L’s 113:

    I don’t disagree that men and women should seek traits in the other that indicate the other is ‘financially responsible.’ However, seeking financial security’ doesn’t mean the multitude of different meanings several posters would like to say it does, distorting it’s plain meaning. By someone providing ‘financial security’ to someone else means the recipient has no more financial responsibilities, for the provider will pay for them. My issue is that in seeking a guy to provide freedom from financial wants, he has no one to help carry the financial burden if something occurred (health problem, job loss, whatever). All burden, little benefit.

    “You spend money for each other because you love them, not as some sort of balance sheet where each person must put in a perfectly equal amounts or someone’s being used.”

    – My issue is the spending is a precondition to love from one side… And as long as money’s on the table, a balance sheet approach should be used so the payor isn’t…. business is business.

  16. 76
    A-L

    RE: Vino’s #115

    Our disagreement here on financial security reminds me of our debate about the strong women who still seek protection. Be that as it may, let me define financial security as insulation from financial catastrophe (homelessness, bankruptcy, whatever). It helps to cushion any blows, and though it doesn’t mean the two of you will be impervious to financial damage, you will both be able to withstand more damage without breaking. BOTH people get this from a relationship (note I did say this in my #113 as well). If my significant other loses his job, then I’ll be supporting us until he finds another one. If I start having health problems and can’t work for awhile, he’ll be the one to help keep us going. I fail to see how this is not mutually beneficial.

    As far as spending as a precondition to love goes, the OPs letter is unclear about the exact financial breakdown in their relationship. But if I’m in a long-term relationship with a guy I expect there to be giving on both sides. I would feel hurt if he never paid for something just because he wanted to, just as I expect to pay for things simply because I want to. I would say it’s more an effect of love rather than a precondition to it.

  17. 77
    Joe

    A-L, I don’t think you are really talking about gaining financial security as much as you are talking about spreading out financial risk.

  18. 78
    vino

    Right, Joe.

    The very definition of the term ‘financial security’ is to have freedom from financial risk or financial want. IOW, no risk to the recipient, since it’s assumed by the security provider. These ever-changing definitions simply distort the plain meaning of what it means when someone says “I seek financial security from my man/woman.” Simply put, it means you want someone to pay for you, so you don’t have to.

    As I said before, I don’t disagree with A-L’s approach that each party should be financially responsible as being mutually beneficial. I do disagree with the notion (not that A-L specifically advocates this) that one party is more responsible for finances, as it results more benefit to one at the other’s expense.

    I’m simply saying and acknowledging that money & spending (on her) ARE preconditions to relationships/marriage. There’s a thread – who pays for 1st date. Guys do & are expected to. As is noted by other posters above, they want a guy to provide them financial security (not the tortured now-debunked ever-changing definitions) before marriage, certainly (and likely relationships). I know A-L wants to say paying it’s an effect of love, but that simply isn’t how it operates in reality. In reality, it IS a precondition to love. It ain’t a complaint. It’s an observation.

    With that observation, what do you do? As is perfectly clear to most readers, I think in this day & age of equality that people who expect their suitors to provide them monetary benefits simply want benefits that they themselves do not want to offer (and are able to, more importantly). In wanting (nay, demanding in many cases) something they aren’t willing to give, I think they show very selfish tendencies and are, as a result, poor relationship and marriage candidates. Unfortunately, these seem to be the majority.

    There’s some gold out there, but you gotta sift a lotta dirty water to get the nuggets.. and be patient.

  19. 79
    JerseyGirl

    Vino #115:
    – You rationalize under biology that it’s okay to seek a provider. Let’s go with that. Under biology, man value beauty, youth, and fertility. So guys are perfectly justified in choosing women who are under 30 and pretty, without apology. Of course, men who do that are derided as cradle robbing swine
    – keeping with the it’s okay under biology theme, older women are less valuable then as mates because they are older, less attractive (to men), and less fertile. Therefore their potential providers should pay far, far less for them, and some really snarky people could say at some point, they should pay the men to take them (I’m not saying that at all!).
    ———————————————————————————–
    Well, I hate to tell you Vino but women already get judged as being less valuable for aging. We get the message from men and we get the message from the media. There are a lot of men out there that do infact go for younger women. Aging isn’t anything we can help but we still get judged for it. Men aren’t looking magazines of well preserved 40 year olds. They are looking at magazines of over-done 20 year olds. So if you think your pointing out some big great argument, you are only kidding yourself. Men aren’t exactly kind in this regard, as you displayed yourself with even having the idea of saying that women should be paying women to take them out. At the end of the day, despite all your complaining, in this world and day and age, men still have it 10 times easier. Because men can infact get older and still be considered worthy of sex and love and companionship and for women that isn’t the reality. Because men do consider us worthless based on our age. Don’t worry though, I don’t expect you to care much about that.

    ———————————————————————————–
    Vino #115:

    – Also, you and others speak of sharing lives and a partnership. I’m not trying to be obstinate, but I still haven’t heard why guys should pay someone who is bringing far less to the supposed partnership. What specifically is offered to make it a partnership? That’s a business term, so let’s analyze it as such.
    ———————————————————————————-

    Wrong. “Partnership” isn’t just a business term. Especially when discussing relationships. “Partnership” is about the relationship between two people. And who are you to say that someone who doesn’t bring as much money to the table is bringing less? How do you know what they do that the other partner might not. I don’t know about you but I don’t want a relationship where we devide all the tasks up equally and only worry about “our” side. I want one where I can display my strengths and he can display his and my weakness can be made up for in his strength and vice versa.
    ———————————————————————————-
    Vino 115#:
    My analytical issue is that under the scenario, the payor (provider) is the only one with additional responsibility. She has none, and in fact is more liberated. He less so. Please address that. No one does, unsurprisingly.
    ——————————————————————————–

    Who sais she is more liberated and he is less so? Who does what another person contributes to a partnership that makes up for the other person. She could be doing most of the house work for all you know or providing something else that he greatly needs that you can’t buy with money. Maybe it’s you that is the gold-digger since you are clearly very concerned about where every last little dime goes compared to what you get in return money wise.

  20. 80
    girl-with-glasses

    @Vino #118
    If I understand your point, I think the reason the two sexes are having so much trouble is due to the pervasive influence of feminism. Every one is so individualistic these days. Marriage requires a different mindset. Words like ‘forever’ and ‘sacrifice’ come to mind. Your anger, being representative of the male’s view, is that women can’t have it both ways. It’s not like you can go your own way as a women, never caring about men, only seeing them as competitors or as sexual flings, and then want to get married, and have the attendant legal alimony and divorce costs. It ensures that women with individualistic view points before marriage, probably are seen to possess mercenary traits that scare men. I think we’re at an historical impasse, but people still need to have children, and people do long for marriage. I think in your view, if a woman had equitable intentions in terms of the financial responsibilities of the marriage, then some of marriage’s prior spiritual and companionate basis would be restored, against the damages done by society and the current legal system.

  21. 81
    vino

    Re JG’s #119:

    After reading your post, I wonder if we read the same language. I’m not going to argue with you, particularly since you like to personally insult me by calling me a complaining goldigger (which is actually funny) in response to my points. But if that’s how you handle differing points of view in your life, more power to ya.

    On the subject of liberation, if you and I are hiking with 10-pound packs. If I agree to carry your 10-pound pack, you are liberated from having to carry it, and I have the burden of doing so. You are more free to move, unburdened by such weight.
    _____

    Re: GWG’s #120

    “Your anger, being representative of the male’s view, is that women can’t have it both ways. ”

    – I’m not angry. I’m actually quite puzzled why people react so vituperatively to what is as plain as day (and actually quite unjust). Let’s not make the mistake of trying to incorrectly characterize me as angry just b/c the content of what said is uncomfortable to many.

    – I don’t care what influence feminism may or may not have, so let’s not assume I am indicting feminism. I’m looking at what people actually do, and the playing field where those actions unfold.

    “I think in your view, if a woman had equitable intentions in terms of the financial responsibilities of the marriage, then some of marriage’s prior spiritual and companionate basis would be restored, against the damages done by society and the current legal system.”

    – That puts the cart before the horse. The current legal system provides the conditions and hammer that actually encourages and rewards less-than-altruistic intent. IOW, I don’t care how nice someone’s initial companionate basis is, the fact is that once you opt into the system, she can simply change her mind. A bait and switch, if you will. This is something I tell a friend, who wants a foreign wife to avoid (he thinks) the issues we’re discussing here.

    – I’m not trying to sound cynical and defeatist. Quite the contrary. I do believe there are many good men & women out there and that good, successful long term relationships are a good, laudable thing to achieve. You just need not marry for it. As much as many readers may not want to hear this, more guys are reaching this conclusion.

    “Marriage requires a different mindset. Words like forever and sacrifice come to mind.”

    – It’s a contract, voidable at either party’s discretion, so ‘forever’ is off the table. That wasn’t always the case. And since guys are paying 96% of the alimony after giving 1/2, the ‘sacrifice’ definitely exists.

    “It’s not like you can go your own way as a women, never caring about men, only seeing them as competitors or as sexual flings…”

    – I’m not trying to be argumentative, but you can. That’s one of my points. You have the freedom to do that, and you see very successful women in their 30’s and up doing just that, often because they don’t want the financial risks of marriage.

    “I think we’re at an historical impasse, but people still need to have children, and people do long for marriage.”

    – This is going to appear rough to many PC-addled eyes, but we’re actually not at such an impasse. We are in the midst of a seismic demographic shift where the well-educated, higher earning folks are reproducing at something like 1.3-1.5 kids per couple, where the high school diploma and under crowd (think immigrant, though not in all cases) are reproducing something like 5.1 per couple. IOW, the ‘lower classes’ are expanding rapidly while the ‘upper’ isn’t. I don’t recall the stat source…

  22. 82
    Michael

    One reason men might prefer going after women in their twenties is because women that age are less likely to have been divorced or have kids.

  23. 83
    Curly Girl

    Blah blah, blah blah, blah blah, blah blah.

  24. 84
    girl-with-glasses

    @Vino #121
    As usual, your reasoning sounds impeccable. But you also sound like a man who’s never really been in love, nor have expectations of having it happen in the future. I guess I was wrong to attribute anger to your response, but how about ‘resigned’? I’m not trying to be argumentative or to instigate, but yes, current day marriage is a legal construct more than anything else, and to anyone with an ounce of romanticism, that idea is more of an abomination than anythings. Yes, these are only my feelings, and not an argument based on facts, statistics, or reality based evidence. I don’t see how something like marriage can be based on current day principles though, but it’s still a necessity (maybe it’s the traditional female view), that’s why I’m curious about how the other half across the aisle sees things. I think I’m not conveying my sentiment very well, but I do understand that men do want to marry their best friends, not someone who can potentially (and this is statistically likely) become the most damaging influence on their lives. To your point that you know many people who do have good working long term relationships, just see no need for marriage, I need to ponder that. But off-the-cuff, it strikes me wrong somehow, I’m not going to put forth the exorbitant emotional, physical, & mental effort to take care of and be loyal to someone without a prior committment from them, and to me, it still means marriage. I do agree with you the current legal system in regards to marriage is a monstrosity though, but I think that’s something that can be mitigated between the two parties through a prenupt.

  25. 85
    Helen

    Girl-with-glasses: you seem very sympathetic and smart. Thanks for sharing.

    My own experience agrees with your conclusion. I have been with (am with) men who really love me, and I could not get them to STOP giving to me constantly. Whether it was paying for a meal or coffee, helping me with tasks around the home, offering help in any way – they just wanted to keep on providing. They weren’t sitting there thinking how much I owed them, what they expected in return, anticipating rejection on my part… they just loved me and gave to me out of the generosity of that love.

    I have also been with calculating men, men who insist on their rights and their “fair share” regarding meals, tiny purchases, etc. Inevitably, they did not really love me (they loved themselves far better), and I found it pretty much impossible to admire them as men and to open up my heart to them.

    Love makes us generous and irrational. At least in the US, we tend to marry for love, and that implies that we enter marriage with generosity and some degree of irrationality.

  26. 86
    JerseyGirl

    Vino #121:
    On the subject of liberation, if you and I are hiking with 10-pound packs. If I agree to carry your 10-pound pack, you are liberated from having to carry it, and I have the burden of doing so. You are more free to move, unburdened by such weight.
    ———————————————————–
    Considering the fact that I weight all of 90 pounds and have the muscle mass of a hampster compared to what most men have, I would have respect for a man that picked up my all of 10-pound pack to help me out. That’s a man that understands that his partner doesn’t have to match him tit for tat. That he can be a partner to someone that doesn’t have the same strengths he might. And vice versa. But they can still be equals. He can give his stength and she can give something else. She might not be able to provide strength in the same terms he does but it doesn’t mean the pay off doesn’t equal out.

    Men judge women pretty harshly on their age and looks. And ususally most men are more then happy to reap the benefits of a beautiful woman. The same can easily be said for women when it comes to men and finances. One isn’t more noble then the other. And women are more times less concerned with looks then men are just as men are less concerned with what a woman makes then women are with what a man makes.

  27. 87
    vino

    @ GWG –

    I don’t think it wise to reveal much about oneself here, for there are many posters who will use that to attack you personally (see #119, #123), rather than what is said. That said, I have been in love, more than once.

    “To your point . . . just see no need for marriage, I need to ponder that. But off-the-cuff, it strikes me wrong somehow, I’m not going to put forth the exorbitant emotional, physical, & mental effort to take care of and be loyal to someone without a prior committment from them, and to me, it still means marriage.”

    – My point is that you can have all of the great stuff of a good relationship, emotional support, love, intimacy, etc… Money doesn’t enter into those things. Remember 1st love? Where was money for that? (loaded question, btw). In today’s society where women have zero barriers to educational and work opportunities, there is zero reason to insist on financial support as a precondition to a relationship (either one demanding support). That’s step one. All of the talk about this simply boils down to someone expecting to and demanding something from someone they aren’t willing to give or provide in return, though perfectly capable and able to do so. I don’t find that reasonable.

    – Step 2 is that if you do lose your mind and agree to marriage, it’s nonsensical to opt into a legal system guaranteed to redistribute your earnings. It’s about love, right? I’ve even had women tell me that on some level, they didn’t respect their husbands as much because the knowingly put themselves in a weaker position legally. Nice, huh? Prenups are nonsensical also. There are many steps involved, judges hate them & look to throw them out in general (on one of the many steps), and most importantly, it’s still a bloody contract where you are paying one side…. Like I said above, as a guy, you’re always supposed to pay for it… Cynical sounding, yet true.

    – Reading through the comments on this thread, you see a pattern emerge. If it’s supposed to be about love (massive emotional, mental, and physical support), it SHOULD be about love. But it so often isn’t.

    – Here’s the disconnect I have, and I’m not picking on Helen’s #125 – What I almost never see is a corresponding generosity from most women like Helen alludes she’s received from men. I even mentioned it earlier re: the OP. What I see most posters demanding from guys in general that ‘in a relationship it’s about giving, sacrifice and generosity.’ (or something close to that.) This is usually in the context of money.

    – Let’s apply the same standard the other direction. I rarely, if ever, see the giving, sacrifice and generosity in the other direction (you rarely hear specifically what ‘giving’ and ‘generous’ things they do for the monetary demands). For, if you are demanding someone give you more money (or money’s worth), you sure aren’t by definition ‘giving’ of that aspect in a relationship. So what else is offered? Sacrifice? What is the sacrifice? You sacrificed other guys for this one? Didn’t the same also occur?

    See where I’m going with this?

    I say if you want to love, then do it. It ceases to be love once a bill is presented for it.

  28. 88
    girl-with-glasses

    @Helen #125
    Thank you for the unexpected compliment. I’ve never been described as ‘sympathetic and smart’. Half the time I’m posting in a semi pms-ing, irritated, semi-coherent mood. Also, I don’t express myself verbally very well, and tend to not care for all-around, well-thought out arguments, preferring my own arbitrary opinions instead.

    I liked how you describe your relations with men. Sadly, even if I were sympathetic and nice, I suspect a successful relationship with the opposite sex might require something more. Nevertheless, men can be wonderful, and human relationships can be surprisingly worthwhile and endearing. But generally, my attitude is mellower than say when I was in my college years. I think the passage of time has been the most important in gaining a healthier perspective. Thank you, I definitely find hearing a positive view from a fellow female in regards to relations with men cheering.

  29. 89
    LK

    Here’s a counterexample: My last relationship ended because we were unable to resolve some large differences that were preventing us from being able to get engaged.

    One of the issues was that he clearly viewed my career as a secondary consideration to his career. The problem is that his career demanded chronic prolonged absences from home, and when we were together I was making approximately twice his income.

    So, when I considered all these factors, I couldn’t understand how we could justify prioritizing his career over mine. His career would require much more support from our family due to the extended absences, and it provides fewer financial resources. So why should I scale back my career to something more boring, less lucrative and less demanding to support a situation that, in my view, is a net drawback to us as a family. (Note: I considered the extended absences a big inconvenience while it’s just me, but a serious hardship once children are involved.)

    So, just as Vino is trying to screen out women who will scam him for his money, I trying to screen out men with my ex’s retro attitude about women’s careers.

    I’d like to add that I would consider holding the “secondary career” if I thought that the net effect was a benefit for my family. But in this case we could not agree on what would be the best decision. Prioritizing his career would have required being open to relocation as well as having the flexibility to effectively be a single parent for long stretches.

  30. 90
    Kristyn

    When I’m in love, I do things for the other person. It could be anything; picking up their favorite ice cream on a whim or making their favorite dinner, or helping with something around their house, getting tickets to an event they are interested in. The point is it is going to be based on THEM. Its hard to sit here and say “well, i do this and this and this” because it is all based on the individuals in the relationship. Now, I could say “I buy them tickets to a play I’ve been wanting to see” but thats about me. And for me, being in love makes me think about THEM.

    If I were in a committed relationship and IF my SO had a financial bind and I were in the position to help out, I most certainly would, without strings, expectation of payback, or “what am I getting out of it” questions. I would hope this would go both ways.

    I suppose the idea of marriage or a LTR is about a partnership; one where we would share the good times and the bad times together and be there to help support the other in the ways that we are able. We would each bring our strengths (and weaknesses) to the relationship.

    This is what people mean when they say there are other things they bring to a relationship.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>