Jul23

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

06:00 am on Jul 23rd 2009 Evan Marc Katz

Finding the One Online is a comprehensive, life-changing program that covers everything I teach my clients about online dating. If you want to get your love life on track and aren't sure where to start, Finding the One Online is the best investment you can make.

149 Comments »Filed Under Dating Tips & Advice, Sex & Relationship Advice

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

1. Mr_Right Jul 23rd 2009 at 06:10 am 1

   It kind of makes me wonder if there’s been a conversation between the two of them about this issue, or has she let this fester and ferment all these years.

   If nothing is said, how would he know anything is wrong?

2. Robyn Jul 23rd 2009 at 06:45 am 2

   Major red flags here, folks.

   Yes, he spends money on the house and cars and gambling – but those are his “pet things” and projects/activities.
   Note that when it comes to something that she wants which is just for herself, one of her “pet things” or activities, he won’t part with a dime. Hello, Houston, we have a problem here…. This is a huge signal/message that it is all about him and, when push comes to shove, her individual needs are very much secondary.

   By the way – has the pre-nup been discussed yet????
   If not, better have that discussion ASAP. Because then you will see the true and complete picture re: his attitude to money and what he will or won’t share.

3. Sam Jul 23rd 2009 at 07:01 am 3

   Interesting letter and great comments Evan.

   I’m a $50,000 a year guy and girlfriends have called me cheap too, yet I always feel that I am misunderstood. Yes, I have a reluctance to spend more than $35 on a dinner, I hate spending $10 on a cocktail, and flying to the other coast for a weekend seems extravagant to me, but it’s not like I’m spending the money on myself. My personal spending is limited and all my savings will one day benefit my wife and me in the form of a smaller mortgage, cash purchases for our cars, summer camp for the kids etc.

   Maybe some people will still consider me cheap, but I just consider what I’m doing to be deferred spending.

4. Jennifer Jul 23rd 2009 at 07:06 am 4

   We all know that money is fraught with all types of emotions and feelings, some practical and rational and most not. He is not going to change on this point any time soon. If you can’t see yourself being happy with this guy when he is *exactly* the same with money 10 years from now, don’t get married. If the prospect of losing you makes him want to consider trying to make changes, cool. If the prospect of losing him makes you want to consider trying to make changes, cool. But attitudes about money (or anything really) are very hard to change unless people truly feel driven to, and nothing will improve between the two of you unless someone changes.

   Life is too long to live with your teeth set on edge. Whatever you do, make sure you don’t put yourself in a situation where you have to learn that the hard way.

5. Simone Jul 23rd 2009 at 07:31 am 5

   I don’t know whether this guy is selfish or not with his money, but one thing stood out to me, and really pissed me off: “…I do expect my husband to help with car payments, medical insurance, basic stuff, I am not even talking about shopping and material things…” (as if those material things were normal expectations, too!

   Girl, we are living in the 21st century, and unless you are willing to do his laundry, make his bed, cook his meals, clean his house, bring him his slippers, and be his “woman”, what right do you have to expect anything but what you’ve already said he gives you? You’ve specifically stated that he treats you well, covers housing and car costs for both of you, is a good person and always is happy to see you and be with you…sheesh! What more do you really think you have a “right” to?!

   How are we women supposed to truly break through that last mile of inequality in the workplace, when people like you are holding on to decades of antiquated thinking and feminine entitlement?

   THINK EQUALITY.

6. Helen Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:24 am 6

   Like Simone, I think this woman is expecting far too much. She sounds like a gold-digger, frankly. So Evan, I’m not sure I’d be as certain as you are that the fiance has a character flaw of stinginess.

7. JimmyE Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:25 am 7

   Has the OP ever been in a relationship with a man who earned significantly less then she did? If so, how was expenditure split?

8. A-L Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:28 am 8

   I’m with Simone on this one. You both contribute toward housing, cars, etc, but if you want to do some personal spending then use your own $200 that you’ve worked for. Especially since the two of you aren’t married yet. But get the prenup done and discuss how you plan to handle finances when you’re married. If you can live with it happily, go on and get married. If not, don’t.

9. Ava Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:30 am 9

   What EMK says about rich people getting rich because they don’t want to spend money has some basis in reality. The most common car driven by those with very high incomes isn’t a luxury car, it’s a Toyota Corolla. Multi-millionaires aside, the reality is that women still make something like 72 cents to every dollar that men make.

   When the LW says she needs “$200 to go to the store” does she mean to go clothes shopping or grocery shopping? On the other hand, I don’t see anything wrong with expecting a wealthy spouse to help cover car payments for a jointly-owned car, or medical insurance, especially when the wife-to-be is struggling.

   Have they considered having a joint account for things like household expenses? Maybe he contributes 80% to this account and she contributes 20%, or whatever?

   Maybe a few sessions with a coupes therapist to sort out these issues prior to the wedding are in order?

10. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:45 am 10

    penurious

    I have not seen that word since college. My writing and vocabulary is getting worse as I get older, so I really appreciate someone who writes well.

11. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:00 am 11

    Lara wrote
    I am engaged to a guy who I have been dating for 4.5 years. I love 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
    

    That is the LTR jackpot we all hope for and you have it. The only catch is that you as an adult have to be responsible for your own finances — which you would have to be responsible for anyway, whether or not you *had* that LTR jackpot.

    Evan Wrote
    I also think you may be equating his lack of generosity with a lack of love.

    Bingo!

    Evan Wrote
    The real sticking point is that his take on “his money vs. your money” is not changing any time soon.
    

    Tape that to your wall everybody.

    Incompatible styles of handling money is one of the classic relationship busters and adults rarely change their money handling style. Expect religious conversions and late life circumcisions first.

    Either you can live with his someone’s style of handling money or you can’t.

12. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:02 am 12

    Ava;

    That bit about Corollas is fascinating. Do you remember where you read it?

13. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:07 am 13

    Useful thought experiment:

    Reread Lara’s email to Evan, but imagine she is a man ( “Larry”? ) who is complaining about his wealthy fiance not being willing to give up more of her money to subsidize his finances.

    Notice your reactions.

    If you are a woman, imagine you are engaged to a man who is the love of your life, but he expects you to pay for things he *wants* ( not needs ) when his own income falls a bit short.

    Notice your reactions.

    It is the year 2009.

    All adults, male or female, are expected to be responsible adults.

    Unless of course you a member of the US government spending other people’s money

14. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:10 am 14

    Simone;

    Next time you are in Washington D.C. I am buying you dinner!

15. vino Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:33 am 15

    Hmmm lessee here.

    Gems from the OP (in order they appeared).

    “He is extremely selfish.”

    “I am very generous with a big heart, but I find that I am always disappointed.”

    - Notice the accusation (selfish) coupled with the unsubstantiated martyrdom (I’m generous). All I ask when I read this letter is WTF does she do that is generous in the slightest? Never hear a word of that though.

    - Holy S*&t. She’s living in his house. Nice use of the ‘our’ in parens, though. We know where her mind is. I guess he’s selfish for allowing that too. Wonder what it’d cost for her to live comparably on her own dime… Oh that’s right, she can’t.

    - Thing to remember is this is his fecking money. Not hers. He can spend it as he sees fit. And why is it that so often that guys with lots of $ who don’t want to give it away to women are ’selfish’ yet women with money who won’t give it to guys are ‘prudent’ and ‘responsible’ with their finances? Hmmm

    - I had an old uncle who once told me “Vino, always remember than when it comes to women the whole system is rigged so that you pay for it.” Sage advice.

    - This dude should boot her out pronto.

16. vino Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:45 am 16

    Simone, I agree with most of what you say, bu I don’t see the workplace inequality point. Ava below mentioned the 72 cents vs. 1 buck for men.

    I’m not trying to argue with either of you, but if the inequality mentioned is the same as Ava’s 72 cents point, the facts indicate you are not accurate. There have been several studies that debunk this myth (see Warren Farrell, or google the topic). The reality is that women do get paid for the same work as men and in some places (NYC, for example) actually get a bit more.

    The differences occur in the choices that women make in the workplace that account for the difference. For example, well-paying dangerous occupations (think oil rig in the Gulf of Mex) are almost entirely men. Women often choose to leave the workforce to have children, often returning only part-time or in lower paying lower stress jobs.

    Sure there is a difference in pay, but not due to some discrimination. It’s actually due to the choices women themselves make in the marketplace. If the facts indicated otherwise, my analysis would be different, but I try to let the known facts lead my conclusions, not just what I’ve heard.

17. Karl R Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:54 am 17

    Lara said:
    “if I need $200 to go to the store, he makes me feel awkward”

    To echo the question that several people have asked: $200 to go to the store for what? Groceries? Clothes? Birthday presents for your best friend?

    I’m guessing that he isn’t deliberately making you feel awkward just out of spite. He probably feels equally awkward when you’re asking him for money.

    Let me reverse the situation and see if it makes sense. Let’s say you still have your $100k/yr job, and you’re engaged to a wonderful man who only earns $30k/yr. He’s reasonably responsible with his money, and he was able to support himself without assistance before you started dating.

    Since you’re planning on getting married, your separate finances are about to become your joint finances, and that includes the spending he does just on himself. Maybe he likes to spend $500/month on comic books. Maybe he spends $400/month on fencing lessons. Maybe he likes expensive cigars. Suddenly you’re in a situation where he might be wasting your (collective) money on purchases that you would never make.

    But I’m sure your situation is different, right? The hypothetical boyfriend doesn’t need comic books. You need shoes (or something similar). Shoes are a genuine necessity.

    Try explaining to a man why you need to spend $100-$200 per month on new shoes … when he can wear the same $50 pair for two years. To us, your shoes (after the first couple pairs) seem as frivolous as comic books or fencing lessons.

    For this reason, I think it’s sensible for couples to keep a certain amount of their money as separate personal funds. That way you only need to agree on how much you each get for personal use. After that you no longer need to worry about how your partner is spending his personal money, and he no longer needs to worry about how you’re spending spending your personal money. And your (collective) money can be spend on sensible items that you both benefit from.

18. Selena Jul 23rd 2009 at 09:55 am 18

    “Either you can live with someone’s style of handling money or you can’t.”

    Yep.

    And after 4.5 yrs. she knows what his style is.

    He’s not going to change it, so evaluate marriage to him accordingly.

19. JL Jul 23rd 2009 at 10:21 am 19

    “the reality is that women still make something like 72 cents to ever dollar that men make.”

    *the reality is that this is because women take time off to have babies that men dont. Adjusted for seniority and experience, women’s salaries actually outperform those of similarly situated men.

20. Donna Jul 23rd 2009 at 10:22 am 20

    I’m sticking up for the guy on this one. Sounds to me like he needs the assurance that you are with him for who is is alone, not for what he can provide. You already live together and have a nice home, etc. Anybody with that much will probably always be insecure about it. He needs to know that you WOULD be with him if he made only $45K, which is why he doesn’t shell over money anytime you need it. I once dated a very wealthy man who was also my best friend. We dined in the nicest restaurants and traveled some, all paid for by him. But he would not buy me gifts, or very nominal ones, because he did not want it to be about the money. I thought that was very wise, because you know what? I would have gotten spoiled and expected it….

21. Mikko Kemppe Jul 23rd 2009 at 10:37 am 21

    I agree with Mr. Right. I think there is not enough information given by her to make a proper judgment in this case. This issue could be a simply misunderstanding in her part in interpreting his actions or that he really just does care about himself, or a little bit of both.

    It would be helpful if she would give an example of their communication together.

    In either case what makes this worse is her feelings of resentment and anger because as long as those feelings are clouding her judgment no matter how she will approach the situation she is most likely going to end up feeling like he is just selfish further validating her beliefs, which may be erroneous from the begin with.
    .-= Mikko Kemppe´s last blog ..Feeling Guilty For Making a Mistake? Feeling Used or Unworthy of Love? =-.

22. Sally Jul 23rd 2009 at 10:52 am 22

    I have to go with the guy here as well. Her entire letter sounds like she feels she is entitled to his money. I’m surprised he has put up with this for 4.5 years. My boyfriend of 3.5 years and I do not live together, so our situation is not exactly the same. He does indeed make more money than me.. probably 4x as much. He does tend to pick up more tabs than I do, but I always offer. Always. And on our recent beach vacation, it was sweet to see the grateful look on his face when I handed over my credit card to gas up the car.

    I have been on the opposite side of this coin… living with a guy who was jobless. (He did indeed turn out to be a user/mooch but that is another topic.) And I did feel resentment when he just expected me to pay for whatever he wanted. It took away my spirit of giving out of caring when it became a demand.

23. Curly Girl Jul 23rd 2009 at 10:56 am 23

    Your uncle calls you Vino? I didn’t think that was your real name.

24. Monica Jul 23rd 2009 at 11:09 am 24

    I dont care if I sound old fashion, but I think she is not expecting too much..I believe that a man should take care of his wife and family, i think it is his job as a husband and father and yes i believe that a woman should do the cleaning and cooking and make her man happy.. I think that she needs to communicate with her fiancee and tell him how she feels and maybe he can change his ways… of course if the man wants to help the wife then that is good too but as far as equality is concerned.. i do not want to be the one who mows the grass or make sure the cars have their oil changed, Ill stick with the indoor work.. bottome line.. a man should provide his woman with the things she needs AND wants…

25. JuJu Jul 23rd 2009 at 11:18 am 25

    I remember reading this advice column a couple years back in which a woman was complaining that while her husband makes ten times as much money as she does, he insists on splitting all common expenses equally, and while she has nothing left for herself after that, he has expensive hobbies and goes on luxury vacations (without her).

    Perhaps my thinking on this is so categorical because I originally come from a country where separate finances in a marriage are unheard of, but still, how can two people IN A MARRIAGE have differing standards of living, and be both okay with it??

    The man in that marriage was obviously able to enjoy all the extravagances that leave his wife out and not be bothered by her misfortune (which already seems bizarre to me), but, more importantly, the wife – she wrote that letter after some years of being married to him! So, that tells me, for quite a long time she’d been trying very hard to justify his conduct as legitimate!

    For what it’s worth, yes, if the woman in the couple makes much more than the man, and yet chooses to be with him, I would expect her to contribute proportionally, too.

26. Selena Jul 23rd 2009 at 11:21 am 26

    Amen Karl.

    Agree. Everyone should have “personal money” they can spend without having to defend their choices.

27. Steve Jul 23rd 2009 at 11:21 am 27

    Why?

28. Paul Jul 23rd 2009 at 12:01 pm 28

    This is just my opinion, but from experience, when 2 people get married, it should all go into one pot regardless of circumstances…what’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours. As a man, wouldn’t I want my wife that I love to have all the best I could afford? Of course I would if I truly loved her. But I am wondering if her fiance even knows about her feelings on this topic? I really think this is most likely situational and there is another side to it. If not, if the guy really doesn’t have a good spirit, she should move on regardless of the life she is promised because it is all material anyway, so won’t be fulfilling most likely if the relationship and respect isn’t there.

29. Robyn Jul 23rd 2009 at 12:14 pm 29

    If your girlfriend is not your fiance (future wife) then your saying to her “I’m saving for my future wife and kids” is not exactly heart-warming. It almost verges on a slap in the face.

30. Honey Jul 23rd 2009 at 01:10 pm 30

    I also wondered what the $200 “shopping” was – if it’s groceries, pony up (though not for all of it), but if it’s your own spending, well, it’s yours.

    The BF and I divide rent proportionally to income and most other bills half (since even if I did live on my own I wouldn’t spend 1/3 less on trash collection or cable…oh, and to clarify I bring in 1/3 the money and he brings in 2/3 or so). It works for us now.

    If there’s going to be a prenup, then she has a say in what it contains. Why not have a prenup that says that they will each contribute proportionally to household expenses? Or that they will have the exact same amount of spending money? It’s not as if she doesn’t get a say on what goes in that document.
    .-= Honey´s last blog ..Is Your Love Style Blowing Your First Dates? =-.

31. Honey Jul 23rd 2009 at 01:12 pm 31

    Oh, and my understanding of the LW was that he pays for numerous cars that are his, and she pays for her own. Maybe that’s not the case, but I think it’s not especially clear from the letter.
    .-= Honey´s last blog ..Is Your Love Style Blowing Your First Dates? =-.

32. Jonsi Jul 23rd 2009 at 01:35 pm 32

    Paul,

    Really? I get your general point, but it does not resolve conflicts. I don’t see how, if a man makes a lot of money and is married, that his wife can just go out and spend whatever she wants for her own pleasure as long as they maintain positive cash flow. There would still need to be boundaries on her lifestyle and what she can and cannot spend.

    I don’t think we have enough information to pass judgment; if her fiance wrote in, I could just as easily conclude “she’s not independent,” not that he is cheap. There is a big difference between saying “it would be fun to learn how to sail together. Let’s look into taking lessons” and “Suzy is learning how to sail and I want to take classes with her. Can I have $200?” From the author’s tone, it sounds like she asks for the latter. We have no way of knowing without more information.

33. casualencounters.com/blog Jul 23rd 2009 at 02:30 pm 33

    Object to this sentence and its implicit equating of success with wealth:

    “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.”
    .-= casualencounters.com/blog´s last blog ..LiveJasmin.com review =-.

34. sjz Jul 23rd 2009 at 03:02 pm 34

    I have gone out with two men who were millionaires. I am currently unemployed and expected nothing of them. They were the cheapest men I have ever met on earth. One bitched because I wouldn’t buy an ice-cream for him because he didn’t want to pay for it! Any money that was spent on me, I heard about it. Its true what they say, if you marry for money you pay for every cent of it!

    On the other hand I dated a man for 4 years who made $35,000.00. He paid for what he could and truly understood what the reason for making money really was. He paid for the expenses he had, saved and had the kind of fun he could have by watching what he spent. Two totally different attitudes. It all comes down to seeing the world as one of scarcity or as one of abundance. No amount of money in the world will change somone’s mind when they think they will never have enough.

35. Selena Jul 23rd 2009 at 03:39 pm 35

    I’m all for deferred spending, but doubt I’d be interested in a guy too cheap to spring for a cocktail.

    I’m curious, what kind of dates do you create?

    Do you explain to the women your deferred spending plan and the reason for it?

36. starthrower68 Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:01 pm 36

    I had to read the letter again after reading Evan’s response, and I think Evan has a very valid point. I’m always troubled by the “I love him/her but….” sentence. If I’m reading this correctly, the gentlemen in question provides for pretty much all of her needs. I’m not sure it’s unreasonable for her to provide for some things. I’m only speculating based on what the OP wrote but he sounds like a man in love, even if he is cheap, as she says. If he truly is not generous, then that’s another story, as two people are supposed serve one another in love in a relationship. But I wonder if he is truly as stingy as he’s made out to be; after all, would he not have dumped the OP when she went from a $100K income to $45K? Only a guess, I dunno.

37. Sara Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:12 pm 37

    Steve — What Ava says about Corollas is technically inaccurate. The most common type of car driven by millionaires in the United States is the Ford F150. You would probably be interested to read The Millionaire Next Door, which examines, from a sheer statistical perspective, characteristics of millionaires in the US. Here is a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206

38. Curly Girl Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:15 pm 38

    I want you to read the letter again, and this time, imagine that the guy is writing the letter and instead of talking about money, they’re talking about sex……

    “She won’t give me what I want….”
    “I think that in a marriage the woman should take care of her man…”
    “My sexual needs are greater than hers…”
    “I ask for it and she won’t give it…”
    “Can I marry someone who is so selfish about sex?”

    Ha!!!

39. Sara Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:20 pm 39

    I’m most concerned that they are 6 months from marriage and don’t have a worked-out financial arrangement that they can both live with (i.e., putting 80% of both salaries in a joint checking account to pay bills with, save for a new house, vacations, etc and 20% to spend on themselves, or whatever they come up with). HOW they divvy it up is not my place to judge, and ultimately kind of irrelevant to this discussion.

    Clearly their expectations are not aligned, and that is a big problem. Have they not sat down and hashed all this out? They are planning a wedding and she’s expecting a pre-nup talk but they haven’t had it yet? She should ask for that conversation, immediately after she sits down and sorts out what she needs and expects from him financially. A pre-nup is not just about protecting a wealthier man from a woman. Hopefully they can figure this all out openly and honestly soon, or I fear for their marriage’s longevity.

40. girl-with-glasses Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:20 pm 40

    I don’t know what she needed the $200 to go shopping for, gifts, clothing, grocery, etc…Either way, it sounds terribly tacky.
    He’s not her atm, it doesn’t paint a pretty picture of her mental state and expectations.

    Yes, he does come across as responsible but a bit on the stingy side. But I expect she’s hardly the big-hearted, fun-loving gal she imagines herself to be. I don’t imagine she’d be deludged by better offers if she left this relationship.

    To the op, if after a 4.5 year relationship, he still wants to marry you, I’d count my blessings. With the current economy, having a thrifty mentality won’t kill you. If you’re still not satisfied, I’d wait to see the prenuptials, and hammer away from there.

41. LK Jul 23rd 2009 at 04:44 pm 41

    Wow. They’re not even married yet. Why isn’t she covering her own expenses?

    I understand having a single income family if one partner stays home to care for children. And if there is a large income discrepancy in a relationship, then I could understand splitting common expenses — and splurges — on a somewhat proportional basis. But engagement or not, I don’t understand feeling entitled to someone else’s money just “because”.

    This is FAR from a dealbreaker, but I would really prefer to find someone whose income and ideas about fiscal responsibility are in a similar ballpark to mine (e.g., within a factor of 2 in either direction). I think it would simplify a lot in terms of compatibility and expectations.

    I really feel uncomfortable making relationships about money. (I would also not want to date someone who had severe money issues and was unable to provide for himself.) I try to take turns with paying when I’m dating someone to avoid the appearance that I’m just there for the free meal. Feminism has its faults, but in my opinion the opportunity to take responsibility for myself is a positive outcome.

42. vino Jul 23rd 2009 at 05:11 pm 42

    “immediately after she sits down and sorts out what she needs and expects from him financially. A pre-nup is not just about protecting a wealthier man from a woman”

    - The cynical bastard in me says it’s about paying her for her time….

    As an adult she should not NEED his help financially. Nor should she EXPECT it. Even after marriage. Unless they work out some arrangement vis-a-vis kids (& only for that). Otherwise, she’s already benefiting simply by moving in & raising her standard of living well beyond what she can afford.

43. vino Jul 23rd 2009 at 05:19 pm 43

    “Feminism has its faults, but in my opinion the opportunity to take responsibility for myself is a positive outcome.”

    I agree, but in a dating & marriage arena, most ‘feminists’ still clamor like hell for the patriarchy’s (*gag*) shouldering the financial burdens of dating & marriage. Kinda hypocritical.

    And you are right about dating closer to one’s income bracket. I think guys shouldn’t date anyone who makes less than them (within reason). These issues then reduce considerably.

    Of course the outcry that would ensue….

44. Michael Jul 23rd 2009 at 05:26 pm 44

    If female labor costs 28% less than male labor, there would be almost no male labor.

45. Janet Jul 23rd 2009 at 06:29 pm 45

    Heavens. There seems to be a lot of unfounded assumptions going on here. We have no idea what the financial arrangement is regarding their household, and yet the assumption is that she is some kind of gold-digger getting a free ride and that the reason he is so “stingy” is because she is usurious. The woman was making $100K before she got downsized (or whatever caused the change in her income). Hardly sounds like a free-loader to me.

    Further, we don’t know anything about his wealth or how it operates in his life. Is it family money? Did he make it himself? Is she calling him a “multi-millionaire” because he owns and lives in a $2 million house in a Connecticut suburb (pretty ordinary there) or because he can invest $10 million in commodities? These are all very different situations that go with a different way of managing wealth and a different mentality on his part. We just don’t have enough information to jump to all the conclusions that people have been jumping to.

    She is wise to think about all of this before marrying him, especially if she is feeling so angry at him. She is not without risk in marrying someone with more assets. If he owns the place but she contributes to its upkeep and pays him “rent,” so to speak, she is not building equity in her own place and he is getting a subsidy — tax-free money going toward the maintenance of one of his assets. If he has more money he may want to buy pricier things and expect to split the cost 50-50 with her — proportionately to her income, she ends up paying more. Or she may have given up a good lease to move in with him. She may have to commute farther to her work to live with him. She may be doing more housework than she would were she single. His career may take precedence over hers when it comes to decisions regarding their personal life. If he needs her to go with him to social functions that benefit his career she may be spending a lot of time and money to be outfitted appropriately, money that she wouldn’t otherwise spend in that way. The list goes on….

    In short, there are many situations in which his wealth may be great for him, and her living there makes his life easier, but it doesn’t necessarily go in the other direction. Bottom line is that they need to have a deep discussion about money before they get married.

46. girl-with-glasses Jul 23rd 2009 at 07:09 pm 46

    Janet, that’s a great comment. Sometimes, a wiser and cooler head does prevail.

    If it were only a discussion about money, or divison of duties, your solution would work flawlessly. Underlying everything though, I get the impression that the op doesn’t feel she’s loved , or loved enough, by this man.

    I still think the examples cited were tacky, and don’t paint a good picture of her character or maybe just her maturity with respect to a relationship, BUT, as a woman, I do somewhat get where she’s coming from. As grownup as we want to talk about money, it *is* tied up with the psyche. Money is a form of love too…how else do you explain how much parents shell out for college educations, etc… A woman might not need a man to pay her way, but being occasionally spoiled doesn’t hurt. I don’t feel she should have asked for money for shopping, but maybe she did it only pressed as a last resort because she felt he was never going to make a generous gesture toward her. If she feel he’s stingy with his money in respect to her, it might just mean she feels he is stingy with his emotional affection as well.

    Yes I know she mentions that they have a good time together, but how much does it really take for two adults to be polite in each other’s company? Maybe facing the prospect of a life time committment, she’s wondering what she’s really signing up for.

47. downtowngal Jul 23rd 2009 at 07:19 pm 47

    Based on what she’s saying (and we’re only hearing her side) this is not about money – this guy sounds very selfish. And if she says she’s feeling angry and resentful now, imagine how it’ll be once they’re married.

    I dated a guy once who didn’t earn a ton of cash but treated me well, always insisted on paying.

    She should be his number one priority and if he’s nickeling and diming her while spending a lot of cash on things for himself, than it’s a sign of things to come.

48. vino Jul 23rd 2009 at 08:43 pm 48

    Exactly

49. Hot Alpha Female Jul 23rd 2009 at 11:53 pm 49

    Like many of the comments on here have suggested I think there needs to be a distinction between how he handles his money and him being generous.

    Is it that he is generous in every other aspect, just not in giving out cash.

    And if this is the case then, maybe its the actual handing out of money that he is uneasy with.

    I’m saying look at it from his perspective aswell. If he is wealthy, then is he concerned that women only really want to date him because of his money.

    Or does he not have that kind of generosity when it comes to you.

    I think if you answer that question, then you be able to make a more educated decision.

    Hot Alpha Female
    The Only Woman You should Take Dating Advice From
    .-= Hot Alpha Female´s last blog ..The "Hes Just Not That Into" Rules. Do They Really Apply? =-.

50. Michael Jul 24th 2009 at 12:36 am 50

    First: “$200 to go to the store”?

    What do you need $200 to go to the store for that you expect your fiance to simply open his pocketbook and hand it over without question?

    Second: Not much I can say that Evan and others haven’t said. No matter whether you’re wrong or he is, the fact is that money issues ruin relationships – unless you can speak honestly and hammer out an agreement you’re both happy with, you’re done.
    .-= Michael´s last blog ..101 Reasons That Salads Are Awesome =-.

51. downtowngal Jul 24th 2009 at 02:10 am 51

    Two more points:

    (1) In some states, enough time must be allowed if one party presents the other with a prenup. In other words, you can’t just spring one on the other person the night before the wedding, you need to provide it at least 6 months beforehand for the other party to review, etc.

    (2) Getting off topic here, but I’ve grown weary of guys who complain about women being gold-diggers. Often times their the ones who make money the issue and believe it’s necessary to attract women. As a result they end up dating women who are shallow or need green cards.

    After 4.5 years, if this woman is truly a gold-digger this guy – if he had even a grain of sense – should know it.

    You should marry someone who shares your values. It sounds as if these two don’t.

52. Meli Jul 24th 2009 at 02:44 am 52

    I absolutely agree. I once dated a very wealthy guy too and he was the same as yours. In fact, when I first met him he would come to pick me up in an ugly little car, it was only after our fourth date that he came up with his brand-new convertible. My reaction was “Whoa. Who’s car is this?”.
    He started to show his money litlle by little, as he got to know me. We ended up in a 9-month relationship in which he spoiled me taking me to the most amazing, expensive restaurants..and on trips all over the continent. But he never bought me anything in stores, it was all paid by me (jewelry, clothing, beauty products, etc), and despite I was just an intern at the time, I used to pay for some dates too (movies, dinners in cheap restaurants ). I never asked for money. He ended up falling in love with me because he felt I was with him for who he was, and wanted to marry me, to buy me the beach house of my dreams, he wanted me to quit my job and start my own NGO.. FUNNY THING IS, I left him because I wasn´t in love with him, and it doesn´t matter how good and luxurious the life he could provide me was..I could never marry someone I didn´t truly love.

53. Steve Jul 24th 2009 at 03:13 am 53

    Playing both sides of the fence is human nature and is not peculiar to feminists or women.

    I think part of the cause is that many intelligent, ethical and fair women are truly unaware of the “female privilege” they have. Men crave any amount of positive female attention they can get, even just a smile. Men will cater their words to women with the result of women having a false impression of how men/the world works. A few feminists and really sharp, contemplative women see through all of this, but most women do not.

    Being able to smile, weep, or emote your way out of getting a traffic ticket isn’t nearly enough compensation for the negative sexism out there, but that and other examples of female privilege do exist. Like Simone, I think ultimately it works against the creation of a more egalitarian society.

54. Selena Jul 24th 2009 at 03:33 am 54

    What if he also made 45k and the $200 she was asking for was for things for the home? He spends “his” money on expensive toys for himself and gambling but turns recalcitrant when it comes to purchasing a vacuum cleaner – would the observations on their characters be the same? Would she be advised to just “deal with it” ?

    Why is it that if a man has more money his partner is automatically slotted as a golddigger? What if he is a “paper millionaire”? One twist of the stock market, or one bad business decision turns him into a paper pauper. Is his attitude still reasonable?

    I don’t know if he is stingy or not, but it’s perplexing after 4.5 years together and 5 months away from a wedding they haven’t discussed this situation in depth.

55. Steve Jul 24th 2009 at 03:39 am 55

    Sara;

    Thanks for the link! That book looks fascinating. At this point in my life I think I am going to get more wealth though I never will be wealthy. I think I will still enjoy reading that book. I’m not cheap, but I strive to be frugal. The difference between the two is that a cheap person avoids spending money as an end in itself. A frugal person tries to minimize spending money on things s/he will not appreciate on a lasting basis.

    Getting back to dating and the topic, I like to be frugal with other expenses in my life so I can go on more enjoyable dates. I view positive experiences with people as being one of the things that will make me feel like I have lived my life. I don’t think people need to go on balloon rides for every date to generate a happy memory, but many modest shared pleasures can’t take place if one’s finances are too tight from sloppy spending habits.

    Based on what I read on the Amazon page I have similar attitudes about money to some of those rich people. I don’t consider my car to be who I am ( go Honda Civics! ) and I don’t like living at the edge ( or beyond ) my means. That makes me a bit of an odd ball among the people in my life so I think at the least I will enjoy that book for a feeling of validation

56. Seductress Jul 24th 2009 at 04:52 am 56

    The bottom line is, she need to discuss openly, and right quick, this issue with her fiance’.

    Do it today!

    If she wants a generous man and doesn’t consider this guy to be one, then marrying him will bring more anger and resentment. He’s not going to change but perhaps she would feel more comfortable once they both have a chance to explain their vision of the finances of marriage.
    .-= Seductress´s last blog ..Heat Up His Desire–Inflict Pain =-.

57. Sara Jul 24th 2009 at 05:57 am 57

    When I said “expects from him financially,” I actually meant what they both expect financially from their relationship. Does he expect to pay certain things for her but not others? Does he expect not to pay for any of her expenses at all? Does she expect him to pay all their joint expenses? What their expectations are don’t matter to me, but they should already have this figured out. Since they don’t, she is resentful, and he may be as well.

    Finally, you sound a bit cynical. They aren’t dating; they are getting married. While she comes across as whiny in this letter and I don’t agree with her immaturity in addressing the issue head on, you seem to be implying she should be grateful that her standard of living is increasing at all, and shut up. Is that really how marriage works these days?

58. Jennifer Jul 24th 2009 at 05:58 am 58

    So true Steve, so true.

59. Dating Down Under Jul 24th 2009 at 06:05 am 59

    Maybe, she thinks spending too much on “Gambling” is a bad idea and she may make better use of money herself if she gets that money from her man. It looks to me that she thinks she can spend her man’s money better!

60. honey Jul 24th 2009 at 06:18 am 60

    I usually do the grocery shopping for both the BF and me, and since we are veggie and go to 3 stores so we can get all the specialty items, a trip was often $300-$400. His share is FREQUENTLY $200 and if he did not pay me immediately I’d be furious, since most of the things on our shopping list are for him and I’d already paid. It’s tough to tell from this example.

    Perhaps her love style is gifts, and she doesn’t even care if they’re expensive or not, she just wants him to show her that he cares that way. It sounds like his love style might be quality time. If this is the case, then they just have to find strategies to deal with that.

    My love style is touch, and the BF is VERY accommodating…
    .-= honey´s last blog ..Is Your Love Style Blowing Your First Dates? =-.

61. Sara Jul 24th 2009 at 06:36 am 61

    I think you will still like the book. It’s a good personal finance book, and if anything, it’s anti-consumerism. Most of the characteristics of US millionaires are different that you might think. They tend to own their own businesses, have smaller houses, place emphasis on families, lead more frugal lives than you would expect – the type of people you don’t even realize have lots of money. They’re practical. Okay, this is way off topic so I’m going to stop now. I’m don’t want to come across as someone to whom lots of money is important (since I’m not at all that way), but I couldn’t be in a relationship with someone who wasn’t financially responsible or had lots of credit card debt or something like that, and as a single woman, my own personal finances are important to me since I don’t expect someone to take care of me

62. hunter Jul 24th 2009 at 08:48 am 62

    I am wondering what other women thought of your post.

63. LeahB61 Jul 24th 2009 at 09:17 am 63

    Dear Lara,
    My advice to you is call off the wedding. Don’t marry someone you resent in any way. Money is a huge issue in relationships. So is respect. If you feel disrespected, tell him.
    I wish you happiness,
    LeahB61
    Austin, Tx

64. vino Jul 24th 2009 at 11:22 am 64

    “you seem to be implying she should be grateful that her standard of living is increasing at all, and shut up. Is that really how marriage works these days?”

    First, they are NOT married. Not yet. She’s didn’t even give an approx. date. So the assumption of marriage “what’s mine is yours & vice versa” does not apply. His stuff is his and hers is hers.

    Secondly, She SHOULD be grateful AND stfu. He is doing her a favor by letting her live with him prior to marriage. He need not do that at all. She is getting a GIFT of living in a place she cannot otherwise afford. And, since she mention he spends a lot of $ on his (our) house and no contribution from her (remember, she’s ‘generous’), I’m surmising that she ain’t paying for the house either. He’s under no duty or obligation to do any of it.

    And, let’s face it, part of the reason she is with him IS the $$. ‘Cause if he’s so good to her & she STILL resents him due to money, you know where her head is at ($$$).

    Simply put, she wants the benefit of his already earned (or inherited) money, without having earned it herself. Worse, she seems to feel as though she’s entitled to it. That’s sick.

    So yes, it is about paying her for her time, since I don’t see what else she is bringing to the table.

65. vino Jul 24th 2009 at 11:33 am 65

    “(2) Getting off topic here, but I’ve grown weary of guys who complain about women being gold-diggers. Often times their the ones who make money the issue and believe it’s necessary to attract women. As a result they end up dating women who are shallow or need green cards.”

    - Guys complain about it ’cause it’s so prevalent. Calling the guys complainers only stiffens their resolve. What you ignore is that many women ARE goldiggers. As has been bandied about many times on various threads, one of the things women in general do seek in men is ’security’ in the form of financial security.

    - And yes, guys SHOULD make money the issue and act to protect their $. After all, women who have $$ don’t want to lose it to some goldigging gigolo. That’s responsible & prudent, no? Guys should d the same.

    - And an average looking guy with no $$ has little chance in getting a good looking woman. But, throw seven or eight zeroes of net worth, and his options increase exponentially. That’s the reality. So on some level, it is necessary to attract women, even average ones.

    “After 4.5 years, if this woman is truly a gold-digger this guy – if he had even a grain of sense – should know it.”

    - I don’t disagree. But people can hide their true nature and intent for an awfully long time.

66. Joe Jul 24th 2009 at 11:36 am 66

    Maybe it’s just me, but if I was making $45k and someone else was covering the mortgage/rent, I can’t imagine having to ask for $200 to go to the store…

67. vino Jul 24th 2009 at 11:46 am 67

    There’s 1 assumption underlying what I’m about to say – that she wanted (as did he) to have the home/cars/etc. that take her income. If she wanted to have extra $, then she could/should have argued for something more modest within her budget.

    With that assumption, if they live in a place and have overhead expenses that leave her little left over why should he pay more for her, subsidizing her life? Don’t just say “Because they’re married.” Marriage is a contract voidable at either party’s discretion. So, if he pays to subsidize her increased standard of living for some years, and she later decides to leave, he has nothing for that time. But she has more than she otherwise would have had due to her own efforts. In effect, he’s paid her for her time.

    Cold, I know, but that’s how it works.

68. Selena Jul 24th 2009 at 11:52 am 68

    I had a similiar deal with a partner re: groceries. I did all the grocery shopping and almost all the cooking for us. He would want to give me only about a fourth of what I already shelled out despite the fact he ate two thirds of the food. I understand the resentment.

69. Diana Jul 24th 2009 at 11:55 am 69

    I also could not marry someone I truly didn’t love. I know that a lot of people view marriage as a business decision. But for all the dining and traveling, I think a simple, personal gift would have spoken volumes more. He was entertaining himself as well when he paid for the red carpet treatment. It’s nice that you showed him through your actions and not just words that you weren’t interested in his money. I haven’t been in such a situation, but I don’t think I’d feel comfortable dating a man with wealth.

70. Steve Jul 24th 2009 at 07:52 pm 70

    I’m a vegan, I often go to 2-3 different stores. My grocery bill, is an expensive metropolitan area is about $60. I could get it doewn to $40 or less by cutting out luxuries and making more things myself.
    I don’t think two people need $200 per week just for a food budget.

71. Ava Jul 25th 2009 at 08:30 am 71

    Can’t remember for sure, Steve. But it have have been in the New York Times. The info was taken from a book called “The Millionaire Next Door”, Check out this link: http://www.cleanmpg.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-3139.html

72. honey Jul 25th 2009 at 09:06 am 72

    The budget we have is $300 every two weeks for two people.
    .-= honey´s last blog ..Pick Your Path And Take It To The Max =-.

73. Jennifer Jul 25th 2009 at 12:28 pm 73

    Steve, $60 a week?

74. Steve Jul 26th 2009 at 11:06 am 74

    Jennifer;

    Yes, I spend about $60 a week on groceries for myself unless I am watching how much I spend.

75. downtowngal Jul 26th 2009 at 04:09 pm 75

    vino, you’re right, many women ARE indeed golddiggers. My point is that guys who complain about these types of women often attract them because they’re just as shallow.

76. Mary Jul 27th 2009 at 07:52 am 76

    I was totally naive about money in my marriage and thought money problems would naturally work itself out. We were two hard-working people who made about the same amount of money.

    I was shocked to find out how difficult communicating about money issues became and much we thought differently about how to save and spend.

    It literaly spilled over to every aspect of our lives..

    If you can’t talk about money issues before you are married..get help and learn ..quick.

77. Seductress Jul 27th 2009 at 09:13 am 77

    Vino,

    “What you ignore is that many women ARE goldiggers….One of the things women in general do seek in men is ’security’ in the form of financial security.”

    Seeking in part financial security makes a woman a gold digger???

    If so, does a man who seeks in part, a younger, hot woman make him shallow?
    .-= Seductress´s last blog ..Heat Up His Desire–Inflict Pain =-.

78. Joe Jul 27th 2009 at 10:18 am 78

    $60/wk sounds reasonable to me.

    Obviously, grocery budgets are dependent on how many meals you eat at home. If you only eat breakfast at home, your grocery bill is likely to be small (although your total weekly food bill may be much higher).

79. Honey Jul 27th 2009 at 10:58 am 79

    Well, then I’m happy – my budget of $75/week/person isn’t too far off. I eat three meals a day “at home,” because I bring breakfast and lunch to work and eat dinner at home. The BF eats out quite a bit, sadly.
    .-= Honey´s last blog ..Random Thoughts On A Pickup Convention =-.

80. vino Jul 27th 2009 at 10:58 am 80

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

    - Yes. Getting paid for companionship makes her something else too….

    - Particularly in this day & age where women can do the same jobs as men & aren’t expected to be barefoot & pregnant by age 20. Hell, 60% or more of college graduates are women.

    “If so, does a man who seeks in part, a younger, hot woman make him shallow?”

    - Apples & oranges comparison. Compare looks to looks. So, does a woman who seeks in part, a younger, hot man make her shallow?

    – Nah… She’s ‘empowered.’

81. Seductress Jul 27th 2009 at 11:54 am 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.

    Say a woman wants to stay home and raise her children instead of using daycare. That woman will seek a man with the same value system who can and wants to provide financially for his family. Two people who want the same thing. No one is getting used.

    He’s not a caveman to want that and she isn’t a gold digger.
    .-= Seductress´s last blog ..Heat Up His Desire–Inflict Pain =-.

82. Steve Jul 27th 2009 at 12:00 pm 82

    + 1

83. JerseyGirl Jul 27th 2009 at 03:33 pm 83

    Janet, your post was the best yet.

    Frankly, there are an awful lot of judgements being made about the couple in question. She’s a “gold-digger”, He’s “stingy”…truth is we all have different ideas about what being in a relationship means. Some people are okay with seperate finances and think money isn’t part of the relationship. While others believe that finances can be a reflection of the relationship. Look at it this way, how do men end up feeling when they don’t get sex from their partner? Doesn’t really matter if a man’s SO does infact love him. What is important is that *he* feel that her lack of sex is reflection of her lack of love. For some women, this can be simliar. His lack of wanting to provide for her can make her feel he doesn’t want to be giving towards her. Living in a world where more men don’t want to be giving to you then not, can easily make a woman feel that if her own partner shows the same signs, he can’t possibly be as dedicated to the relationship as she is. If a man is stingy with his money, he might be stingy with other things. And he might not think that she is really his partner.

    I will say that I am rather sick of hearing women get judged for being gold diggers. Most women aren’t. But the truth is that YES, women want a man that will want to share a life with her and provide for her. That is naturally ingrained in most women. We don’t sit around and tell men they are look-diggers. A silly term but true. It’s okay for men to be shallow about the way women look. That’s okay. YOu won’t hear other men castrate other men for it. And women aren’t nearly as tough on men for looks as men are on women for their looks. But godforbid a woman want a man that wants to share a life with her, in ALL areas, and that includes money. Because deep inside our nature a man that wants to share his resources with us, wants to share a life with us. Sadly, there are alot of men today that are so afraid of themselves they rather sit around and call women names like “gold-diggers’, defend their own shallow wants and perscute women for theirs.

    Good luck with that.

84. Steve Jul 28th 2009 at 04:02 am 84

    Woo Hoo! The original comments plugin is back!

    Thanks Evan!

85. Leah Jul 28th 2009 at 05:52 am 85

    Hmmm… He pays a whole lot of the bills; but what does she contribute? Or is it okay to believe because you earn considerably less than your fiancée that you are exempt of paying household bills??? I don’t see the logic in that one ..

    If she is exempt of contributing towards the household bills then she should have lots of money left over, more than the 200dollars she’s asking for.. Me thinks at least..

    Is he really cheap? Does she expect an allowance or atleast expects him to give her the balance that she isn’t making anymore?

    Did they make any agreements on how much each party is going to contribute towards whatever.. or is it because he makes more that he should take all cares upon him..
    Which he is doing..i must add..

    Her resentment comes from assuming, having certain expectation which she never cleared up at the the time these issues arose..

    Get it cleared up first or else you may go from resentment to outrage when he kindly shows you where to sign (pre nup!)

86. Sarah from Dating Tips for Women Jul 28th 2009 at 05:52 am 86

    I may have a little bit of a unique perspective on this, because I grew up this way with my father. My mom and dad divorced after 22+ years of marriage when I was 17. They split up, and my Dad, who had always made great money, went on to make REALLY great money. He can pretty much afford to buy anything he wants, but has t-shirts that he wears that are older than I am, and he is ….very…..frugal. I love my Dad – very much. He and I have a great relationship. However, there is always that element of money and an internal war I struggle with because I KNOW my Dad has a lot of money, and could really help me financially (we have been struggling HARD lately, almost lost our house) but he won’t help. NOW – I KNOW that it is HIS MONEY and I have NO RIGHT to it. I didn’t earn it. My financial situation is not his fault. But in my heart sometimes I am still hurt that he won’t help. Its an internal war that I seem to struggle with all the time – and even have to defend, because a lot of my family thinks that he should be helping us too and it actually makes me mad that they think that! Like I said, its not his problem, its MY problem.

    So I think it is very possible to love him with all your heart – and for him to love YOU that way too, and for him to see money as a totally separate entity from the marriage and the love. My dad is living with a woman whom he has lived with for over 10 years and he does not give her a dime either. Yet he is the one who makes the house payments when she cannot pay her half, etc. And I understand how it makes her feel “less” than him. But I also know that my Dad genuinely loves me, and would die for me, but money, somehow, just isn’t part of that equation, and it doesn’t have to be.

87. Mo Jul 28th 2009 at 06:10 am 87

    Right or wrong. One or the other. Penurious or gold-digger. The issue will continue into the marriage. He will not change and she will always feel resentment toward him for it. It’s a match made to to break up-before or after the ceremony.

88. Carol Jul 28th 2009 at 07:10 am 88

    I think she needs to have a serious talk to him regarding money. This story reminds me of a family in my neighborhood where I grew up. The father drove a brand new car and bought an expensive, state of the art stereo system. Meanwhile his wife and kids were wearing old, ratty clothes.

89. KJL Jul 28th 2009 at 07:22 am 89

    I love this article and Evan’s perspective on the situation. If you can’t talk about money, you can’t get married. I suspect that Simone doesn’t have the vaguest understanding of her own personal values about money, but she is very quick to judge her man’s values on the issue. It would be so much fun to hear his side of the story.

90. JerseyGirl Jul 28th 2009 at 07:25 am 90

    That’s pretty awful Carol.

91. Chanel Jul 28th 2009 at 08:52 am 91

    HAPPY BIRTHDAY EVAN!

    Your work has helped me quite a bit–thank you!

92. Zann Jul 28th 2009 at 11:40 am 92

    In a nutshell: Stingy with money; stingy with affection. That’s been my experience in life, anyway. At the first sign that a guy & I might be starting a relationship, I let him know right up front what my financial situation is, that I am and always have been gainfully employed (with health insurance no less!) but still have a considerable amount of debt from medical bills/kids, and that I’m not ready or able to retire yet. Then I make it clear that I expect no financial support from him. But if he plans to keep up his current lifestyle, which includes frequent travel, spontaneous getaways, and long stretches of leisure time, I’m not a good match for
    him. Some men will willingly cover a woman’s expenses for the pleasure of having her companionship, and that is a choice he makes. Whether I accept could depend on many factors, but if I do accept that generous gesture, does this make me a gold-digger? Or a kept woman? Not in my book. If he’s making the offer begrudgingly, I would be foolish to accept because that’s a disaster waiting to happen. Granted, there are many unknowns in Lara’s letter, and we’re only hearing one side of the story. But we do know it’s bothering her, and that means it will continue to bother her and it WILL affect their relationship from here to eternity. And contrary to what someone said earlier, I consider this a huge deal-breaker — whether he’s stingy or she’s a gold-digger doesn’t really matter in the end. They’ll be unhappy. People don’t change. On the issue of feminism, I think a woman can feel hurt by her partner’s lack of sensitivity when it comes to money matters and still be an ardent feminist. I’ve personally found that it’s the man who came into money through means other than his own hard work who is the most likely to criticize his woman for not being more financially sound, even if she is a very fiscally responsible person. If he doesn’t realize his good fortune and do what he can to help her out BECAUSE IT MAKES HER HAPPY and maybe takes some stress off her shoulders and thus helps their relationship, then he’s placing his own comfort over hers and is someone I, for one, would not want to share a life with. On the other hand, if a woman sees a relationship as an opportunity to better her lifestyle and will foolishly opt to let a man “save her,” or pay her way, she’s still buying into the premise that men = caretaker. That’s not a feminist value, in my opinion. We’re not children, and we shouldn’t EXPECT men to act “fatherly” and either bail us out of financial situations we’ve created or keep us comfy and happy. But for the record, men can also be gigolos and never give it a second thought. They make decisions which financially impact both partners (“Hon, I quit my job today; I could not take one more day with my dick of a boss.”..or “Yea, I know I shouldn’t have, but babe, getting this sailboat has been my dream. Besides, you’re coming up for a promotion, right?”) and expect the woman to carry the day. I’d say Lara and her guy are sailing into some very choppy waters, and a storm’s a-brewin’ … In any event, she can’t say she didn’t know.

93. RockieRoad Jul 28th 2009 at 05:54 pm 93

    Evan, terrific perspective. Very well written. We’ve haven’t heard his side, which I’d guess would only make your opinion even more valid.

94. June Jul 28th 2009 at 06:17 pm 94

    Happy Birthday, Evan!

95. Ruby Jul 29th 2009 at 10:57 am 95

    #83 JerseyGirl

    I just read this comment from Steve Harvey, who wrote “Act Like A Lady, Think Like A Man”, “We (men) created the term ‘gold digger’ so you won’t ask us for nothing”. Not that I agree with everything he says, but I had to chuckle at this!

96. Michel Jul 29th 2009 at 01:13 pm 96

    What if these people have children? Will they be his or her responsibility?
    What a CRAP situation. Only in the USA could people have the gall to believe that such petty quibbling about counterfeit currency and who has more and who pay’s for what and such utter nonsense is actually more important than becoming a family which is suppose to be the point of being married.

97. JerseyGirl Jul 29th 2009 at 01:41 pm 97

    Oh that’s good Ruby..I will have to get that book.

98. Johanus Jul 29th 2009 at 02:41 pm 98

    It’s interesting to see the disparity in comments here. Yesm, she does appear to have an expectation that he pay for things for her. And yes, the ideal of equality between men and women has not 100% crystalised as some envisioned it. We still have a division of labour in the family and also in our career choices. Notice that many (not all) women who choose the high pressure careers that were traditionally held by men are also choosing to greatly delay or choosing simply not have kids? This couple definitely needs to sit down and talk about finances! What are the expectations of each of them? Why do they feel that way? What compromises can be made to make each of them more comfortable? Finances are one of the top reasons for divorce, and if they don’t deal with it ahead of time, it will lead to troubles for them in the future.
    .-= Johanus´s last blog ..Avoiding the Trap of Worthless Spending =-.

99. juliette Jul 29th 2009 at 05:14 pm 99

    it’s HiS friggin’ MONEY! he can do what he wants with it. if you want 200.00 to go to the store, use YOUR money.

100. Jennifer Jul 30th 2009 at 04:54 am 100

     @Michel #96- Only in the USA? I find that very hard to believe.

101. Michel Jul 30th 2009 at 08:26 am 101

     @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??

102. vino Jul 30th 2009 at 10:35 am 102

     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.

103. Seductress Jul 31st 2009 at 04:31 am 103

     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.
     .-= Seductress´s last blog ….Heat Up His Desire–Inflict Pain =-.

104. vino Jul 31st 2009 at 07:21 am 104

     “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…

105. Honey Jul 31st 2009 at 07:52 am 105

     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 =-.

106. Seductress Jul 31st 2009 at 08:07 am 106

     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.
     .-= Seductress´s last blog ….Heat Up His Desire–Inflict Pain =-.

107. vino Jul 31st 2009 at 10:19 am 107

     “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…

108. JerseyGirl Aug 1st 2009 at 12:33 pm 108

     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.

109. vino Aug 1st 2009 at 06:00 pm 109

     *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.

110. JerseyShortie Aug 2nd 2009 at 05:16 am 110

     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.

111. Helen Aug 2nd 2009 at 09:44 am 111

     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.

112. Michael Aug 2nd 2009 at 10:46 am 112

     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?

113. A-L Aug 2nd 2009 at 10:48 am 113

     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.”

114. downtowngal Aug 2nd 2009 at 12:46 pm 114

     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.

115. vino Aug 3rd 2009 at 08:40 am 115

     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.

116. A-L Aug 3rd 2009 at 11:44 am 116

     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.

117. Joe Aug 4th 2009 at 08:01 am 117

     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.

118. vino Aug 4th 2009 at 09:49 am 118

     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.

119. JerseyGirl Aug 4th 2009 at 12:21 pm 119

     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.

120. girl-with-glasses Aug 4th 2009 at 07:50 pm 120

     @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.

121. vino Aug 5th 2009 at 06:15 am 121

     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…

122. Michael Aug 5th 2009 at 08:56 am 122

     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.

123. Curly Girl Aug 5th 2009 at 12:53 pm 123

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

124. girl-with-glasses Aug 5th 2009 at 02:03 pm 124

     @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.

125. Helen Aug 5th 2009 at 02:54 pm 125

     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.

126. JerseyGirl Aug 5th 2009 at 04:05 pm 126

     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.

127. vino Aug 5th 2009 at 05:21 pm 127

     @ 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.

128. girl-with-glasses Aug 5th 2009 at 05:44 pm 128

     @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.

129. LK Aug 6th 2009 at 06:30 am 129

     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.

130. Kristyn Aug 6th 2009 at 07:45 am 130

     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.

131. Mary Aug 6th 2009 at 08:39 am 131

     Vino,

     If a man wants a woman to give her all to a relationship, child rearing, and a home, etc. then he has to make that possible. All this takes a lot of time and energy and it’s not like women have an unlimited supply.

132. A-L Aug 6th 2009 at 08:54 am 132

     Yes, men give half of their earnings to their spouse during marriage. But so do women. And as stated in my #125 from the “I’m in my 30s and I don’t want to waste my time” thread 25% of working women earn more than their husband, so it’s not always the women who comes out financially ahead within marriage.

     Vino wrote, “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.”

     Vino’s right. But, for most women at least, all of those good things are enhanced by marriage. You have made a commitment and publicly stated before your friends and family that you’re in it for the long haul. I’d say this is incredibly liberating emotionally, and allows for a significantly stronger bond than when the two of you were just dating exclusively.

     Vino wrote, “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).”

     I’ll use the classic example, because this is probably true of the majority of relationships out there. My boyfriend almost always pays when we go out to eat, at his insistence. But I’ll cook us dinner, often spending several hours for each one. So I probably spend less monetarily for each meal than he does, but then you should also consider the extra time I put forth in preparing it.

     Other examples: planning vacations and making all of the arrangements, saving significant amounts of money; providing chauffeuring service for several days while a car’s in the shop; taking the time to research answers for random questions in the middle of the day; giving massages after stressful days… None of these things are big financial burdens, but they do take time.

     As is probably obvious from my other posts, I do think women contribute financially as well, but they also are generous in non-financial respects as well. Though I agree with Vino that some women are self-centered and money-hungry and don’t do anything for the relationship besides look like a pretty trophy, I think it’s definitely a minority, and that the majority are both financially and emotionally generous.

133. vino Aug 6th 2009 at 12:31 pm 133

     @ LK’s 129 –

     - We may not agree on all points, but I like your posts. In any event, the common thread I see between what I am saying women generally do in dating/marriage and your experience is that you are looking to maximize your financial opportunities within the marriage realm. Of course, the difference is that you are the one willing to provide it. Kudos. Though, it isn’t without challenges (much smaller pool of guys).

     @ Kristen’s 130 –

     - I hear ya, and don’t disagree with what you are saying. However, I’m saying something different – that most women are seeking/demanding ‘financial security’ from guys as a prerequisite to any LTR with them. And I don’t disagree with the way you verbalize partnership in a relationship context, it’s just that under what we’re discussing, there is no ‘partnership’ w/o him 1st providing the dough. I just don’t think that is an acceptable paradigm. And if money’s on the table, the partnership should be analyzed like a business partnership – the way marriages have historically been viewed. Who brings what value.

     @Mary’s 131 –

     - Can you be more specific about “woman to give her all” to a relationship? What specifically is she giving? More to the point, what is she giving that he should pay for it? Companionship? He’s giving that too. Love? He’s giving that too. The generalization unfortunately doesn’t say much.

     @A-L’s 132 –

     - Not to be argumentative, ’cause your statement “25% of working women earn more than their husband, so it’s not always the women who comes out financially ahead within marriage.” is true on its face. But, women only pay 4% of the alimony, though earning more a quarter of the time. You’d think that in a marginally fair system those #s would be closer.

     “But, for most women at least… and allows for a significantly stronger bond than when the two of you were just dating exclusively.”

     - The publicly stated commitment isn’t really a commitment, if you can leave without any more reason than boredom. That just how it is, not that I like it or saying it. I know you think incredibly liberating emotionally, and I would think that too if I stood to gain more (what happens by seeking ‘financial security’). However, when you look at the flip side, it simply isn’t that liberating, taking on someone else’s adult burdens.

     - Also, I don’t want to tit-for-tat on the who does more scheduling or cooking. What about his washing the cars, mowing the lawns, taking out garbage, etc? Is that not generous also? I think all of that stuff tends to wash itself out as the daily stuff of living. This leads to 2 thoughts – One. If it does wash out, I don’t see a basis for the financial prerequisite demands. If it doesn’t wash itself out, then value it & pay for it.

     - BTW, I do think women contribute financially as well, but not nearly to the scale they demand and expect in return. I think reading the posts on the whole confirms this. I am not saying they lack generosity in non-financial respects totally, but I don’t think they value the other side’s similar contributions equally and, quite frankly, over-value what the non-financial aspects are.

     Let me reiterate, I think relationships are a good thing. I think they should be sought. I think that marriage is not the final destination for a relationship, though. As I’ve noted above and in other places, the risks, burdens and costs are simply not worth it. I wish it weren’t so. The thing is, I read the responses and see not one scrap of empathy or understanding for what I (and a few others) have said. I’m not expecting it. You don’t even hear denials that’s it isn’t a great deal for guys. Essentially what I’m hearing is, “So what vino. Shut up, suck it up, and keep paying. You shouldn’t mind this.”

     Guess I was always contrarian, but that sounds like a bad deal for me and not something that actually has my best interests at heart rather than their own. Lord knows I wish I were wrong.

134. girl-with-glasses Aug 6th 2009 at 12:42 pm 134

     @vino #127
     You are obviously very intelligent, I do concede with your reasoning. For instance, on the legal system issue , which at this point I do see as granting what amounts to total legal unaccountability to the woman in a marriage. I no longer find it possible to argue against the male view on this basis, the factual objective one.

     So with a little indulgence on your side, I’d like to make an argument on a purely emotional side. You seem to indicate that you perceive the male to be usually the more generous, responsible, and generally more loving party in the relationship. To a certain extent, I’ll admit that’s also true. I do feel that lads are sweet and generous creatures by nature. But there’s one point of contention that I want to make (probably the last one before the fort is given up)…and it’s that men don’t seem to feel compassion for women, or an understanding of their current plight. It’s a possibility, though too naive or ideal to ever come true, that if men had behaved with more kindness in the first place, women would not have resorted to such mercenary, and truly heart-wrentching tactics in the divorce courts. And believe me, when I say this will never come about, I really mean never , because haha, sex, exists. But back to my main point, your lack of understanding of women.

     Let me use as an example, your apparent anger towards the segment of female population know as ‘golddiggers’. Your condemnation of them seem to indicate your hatred and contempt of them as less than truly human, but they were also made and not born this way, and it happened quite logical and naturally.

     Women, like men, are social creatures, we want to live up to cultural standards. You indicated previously your lack of interest in feminism, which is fine and good, but feminism does affect women, all of whom have been told they should have both a career and family, and if not effortlessly, atleast while maintaining their youthful appearance. On top of this absurd superwomanish notion, nature and biology has seen to it that her childbearing years are in her 20s and 30s.

     A man starts truly becoming a man and an adult member of society at this age, but in many ways, women are told they have to have absolutely *everything* in place by this age. Can you imagine, being out of college, not really knowing a single thing about the world, but feeling like you have 5 years to become the perfect person, or otherwise you lose you chance forever? I’m not blaming anyone, just pointing out nature and society are hard on women.

     Yes, I do understand men are under pressure as well, but in general, you can afford to be single minded in pursuit of that one thing that will lead you to career glory, which will lead to money, which will lead to a good sex life and marriage prospects, and the possibily (though gradually becoming slimmer and possibily nonexistent) of a happy family life.

     And as we all know, which has been debated ad naseum on this forum, men don’t really care what a woman’s career achievements are.

     So what’s a girl to do? After all, in this society, cash value is still a measure of a person’s success. Why invest time and effort in a career achievement, which won’t pay off and will just detract from her primary biological needs, why not make a career of catching a rich man? Is this less than an noble endeavor? Of course, but are men so innocent? With the present highly sexual and pornofied culture, in the mating market, a woman might feel she has to pull out all the stops sexually and attractiveness-wise anyways. Men, with their hair-trigger sexual responses, not to mention, good lord, eventual and increasingly quicker habituation and ever present need for variety, what smart girl really thinks she has a chance at long lasting, faithful, happy relationship anyways? Does this make her sad and weak? Of course, but we’re talking about someone in her early to mid twenties.

     No matter what other women shout about career advancement, I don’t see how the majority will achieve it. The majority of advancing careers need high concentration of mathematical and engineering ability. If a woman is thinking of becoming an artist, it’s even harder, in my opinion.

     Do you see why women become golddiggers? Most of them never had a chance to begin with.

     But for women who aren’t, is it so wrong to expect that the one person who claims to love them, to want to provide shelter, legal and financial, as a bulwark against the world? Does she lose sight of the man in the relationship? Sadly yes. I understand your avoidance of golddiggers, they do bring nothing but ruin. But it’s tough being a woman, and so in trying to form a long lasting relationship with a man, a lot of tangent issues come up.

     So final question, with no financial or legal support, do you really think men support women emotionally?

135. A-L Aug 6th 2009 at 03:26 pm 135

     RE: Vino’s #133

     What percentage of husbands get custody of the children in a divorce? Because I suspect one reason why 25% of women earn more than men do but only 4% of women pay alimony/child support is that usually the women are the ones who have the primary responsibility of raising the children and the courts expect the father to continue to contribute toward their child’s upbringing, even if they earn less than the wife. I also recall in some thread that I’m too tired to search for that we both speculated that the primary risk for a man is not marriage, but rather, a marriage with children as most courts are no longer doing alimony (barring if you’ve been married to a guy for 40 years and been a housewife the whole time).

     As far as the breakdown of chores, a couple of things. If you’re in an exclusive but not live-in relationship each person takes care of their own garbage, car washing, vacuuming, etc. So if you’re cooking, yes it really is just for the other person. I eat a lot of cereal for dinner when my boyfriend’s not around so don’t say I’d be cooking anyway. If you’re married there are far more time-consuming chores relegated to the female than to the male. And I didn’t mention any financial things because you were asking about the nonfinancial (or at least that’s how I read it).

     But basically I think we have a different way of seeing life. I run across a lot of men in my life. Men who abuse their children or wives. Men who repeatedly have affairs. Men who don’t allow their significant other to have any contact with the opposite sex. Men who won’t let their significant other make any kind of joking comment about them. Men who still live with their parents and haven’t had a real job in years. Men who physically intimidate sed parents. I know lots of men like this, and at the moment I’m actually almost frightened when I start thinking about how many men of this type I actually interact with. Even though I know a scarily large number of guys like this, I believe that most men really are good guys.

     That’s where we’re different. You’ve run across a lot of women who have only married for the money, knowing they’re going to divorce the guy. You’ve seen women claim to be abused when nobody’s even lain a finger on them. You’ve seen women accept a date only because she wanted a free meal. You’ve seen women spend small (or large) fortunes with all their free time while their husbands slave away at work paying for all their expenses including maids and cooks. From your posts it appears that you, however, feel that it’s the majority of women who are like this and there’s only a small slice of womankind that has any virtue left.

     And I think that’s why you encounter such defensiveness among the female posters here. I expect that most women would agree with you that the judicial system needs to be reworked in terms of divorce, that there are women who are only in it for the money, and that men bear the brunt of the financial demands of a relationship, at least in the beginning. But saying that the vast majority of women are this way probably hurts your argument more than it helps it, because when most women read that they know that most of the women they know are not like that.

     RE: Girl-With-Glasses’ #134

     Sorry, but I’m not buying it. I’m a 28 (almost 29!) year old female and according to this theory I should be agonizing over how to maximize my career, romantic relationship, children, and appearance and perhaps beginning to think about golddigging my way out of this scary big hole I’m in. Perhaps your theory may have been true 30+ years ago but I don’t think that’s the case today.

136. girl-with-glasses Aug 6th 2009 at 09:37 pm 136

     @A-L #135
     Sorry, I wasn’t trying to speak for all women, maybe it did come out more theory-ish than what I would’ve wanted. I was trying to speak up for ‘golddiggers’, lord knows why now, but just to say even some women who fall into that category might be more complex and warrant more than cursory disregard. I probably took a hypothetical way too far…

137. Mary Aug 6th 2009 at 10:22 pm 137

     Doing things such as deep regular cleaning and Betty Crocker cooking really takes a lot of time. Also doing things such as laundry, dry cleaning, dinner parties, decorating, landscaping, taking care of pets, bills, appointments, shopping and a whole list of other things too numerous to list. Then have a husband and children (and maybe the relatives too) who need attention and to be listened to. Also if you have an emergency or even have a doctor’s appointment what happens if you both work and can’t get off work, or can’t get there for awhile? Anways, the man creates an opportunity to have a woman all to himself and not have to worry about someone else’s needs coming first. Some guys really like this.

138. Joe Aug 7th 2009 at 09:08 am 138

     A-L, what would your boyfriend be eating for dinner if you didn’t cook anything for him?

139. vino Aug 7th 2009 at 10:32 am 139

     Re: Mary#137-

     Some guys do like what you posit. There are lots of them. I’ve never said there weren’t. I’m simply noting that the numbers of them are dwindling (over 1/2 couples are cohabitating now, not marrying. And rising).

     And fyi, I haven’t met anyone under 40 doing regular deep cleaning or Betty Crocker cooking. Ever. The rest of the stuff I can do myself quite easily (and do often re: deep cleaning), and most importantly, ain’t worth 1/2 my income. Not. Even. Close.

     Re: A-L’s #135:

     Big picture – All I’m basically saying is that when you look at the starting point of dating to the end goal of marriage, ladies in general demand more from the guy in very material terms at all stages of the process than they are willing to give. IOW, their approach is “what’s the benefit to me” All the facts support this.

     You are actually mistaken re: assumptions in lumping alimony & child support together for custody. Alimony & CS are 2 different things and are treated as such. Alimony exists where there are no kids. It’s based, among other things, on the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. Blech. So if you decide to leave me, I have to keep you in the same (or close to it) standard you enjoyed during marriage? You gotta be kidding me. Again, all burden to me, all benefit to you (assuming you married up economically).

     The chore breakdown stuff is nonsensical. If you read above, they are given as justifications for demanding that guys provide ‘financial security.’ IOW, pay for household chores. I think men in marriages do tons of chores too, washing out the argument for paying wives for household chores. And if you do want to be paid for it, let’s value it, and his chores, and see the difference. I can guarantee you it ain’t much difference, and is even more nonsensical to demand financial security for household chores the more money he makes.

     Honestly, I don’t get where you are coming from with the paragraph re all the bad things you’ve seen guys do. BTW, I’ve seen much the same, particularly the abuse things you mention. So what? I’m not saying seeking money in dating/marriage is inherently bad. It’s been around for thousands of years. It just is.

     I’m saying a few different things. I’m saying that where you can earn the same money for the same work there is no longer a basis to seek money. I’m saying that those who do in the 21st century care more about their own benefits and less about their prospective partner’s. I’m saying that when you actually look at the facts, at all stages of dating & marriage where the guy is paying, there simply isn’t sufficient value for the high risk proposition that is marriage. I’m saying that, in the end, women ‘take’ and expect to give as little as possible at all stages of dating & marriage. They are doing what benefits them. This isn’t an indictment. It’s simple marketplace behavior supported by the facts.

     And make no mistake, sex and mating/dating is a market.

     Of course I’m vilified for daring to mention this, and actually analyzing what people do withing this market. All I’m saying is that once you analyze the benefits and burdens of dating & marriage as a guy, not marrying benefits me as a guy. The burdens & risks outweigh the potential relatively few benefits.

     And saying “Not all are that way” simply doesn’t work. There’s no reliable way to determine that. Divorce court is chock full of people who said “I’d never do that”

     And again, I’m not seeing (nor expect to) an acknowledgment of any validity to what I’m saying. All I see are tortured justifications of doing chores (that’s weak, btw), or trying to intimate I am somehow angry and only focusing on the negative. All the while ignoring the factual basis for everything I’m saying. BTW this tells me that those who do so only really do care about their benefits derived from someone’s expense, and not at all for the burdens of the provider of the benefits.

     I guess this will play out in higher numbers cohabitating, with increased out-of-wedlock births (already high), and reduced births among the more educated populace. You’re already seeing this. On a smaller level, you’ll see more apparent good dating/marriage guys & gals in their 30’s with good jobs who date around.

     I’m not saying any of this is great for society as a whole, but when the benefits and burdens of marriage are so out of whack, people will do what benefits them more. It ain’t more complicated than that really.

140. LK Aug 7th 2009 at 05:25 pm 140

     Vino said, “We may not agree on all points, but I like your posts. In any event, the common thread I see between what I am saying women generally do in dating/marriage and your experience is that you are looking to maximize your financial opportunities within the marriage realm. Of course, the difference is that you are the one willing to provide it. Kudos. Though, it isn’t without challenges (much smaller pool of guys).”

     Well, I’m looking to optimize my financial opportunities in the context of balancing them with the other facets of my life. But I am willing to roll up my sleeves and put in the effort required to do so. And I would expect the same thing of my partner. Do you really think it’s such a small pool of guys who feel that way too?!! Oye, no wonder I’m still single!

     “Guess I was always contrarian, but that sounds like a bad deal for me and not something that actually has my best interests at heart rather than their own. Lord knows I wish I were wrong.”

     Vino, forgive me if have said this before, but I’m guessing based on your comments that you don’t want to have kids. If you don’t want kids, then a lot of these sharing-of-financial-resources issues do become irrelevant. In that context, I can understand a lot of your points. Kids require so much time and attention that in my opinion a different level of partnership and division of labor is required, and this shifts around a lot of elements in the equation. If the woman in a partnership is the only one who wants kids and expects her husband to be the sugar daddy, then your points CERTAINLY make sense. But I don’t understand why a man would agree to have kids under those circumstances. I assume that both parties enter into the spawning process in good faith. Maybe that’s an unrealistic assumption.

141. Mary Aug 9th 2009 at 10:04 am 141

     Vino,

     If you really care about someone, then you’ll take a leap of faith. If you don’t, then you won’t. So a third option of living together is not really necessary and is off the table, at least for many. Now it’s not like you can’t do a prenuptual or discuss how you’ll be spending money first.

142. vino Aug 9th 2009 at 10:50 am 142

     Re: LK’s 140:

     “Well, I’m looking to optimize my financial opportunities in the context of balancing them with the other facets of my life. But I am willing to roll up my sleeves and put in the effort required to do so. And I would expect the same thing of my partner. Do you really think it’s such a small pool of guys who feel that way too?!! Oye, no wonder I’m still single! ”

     - Not too sure you got what was meant by the quote you referenced. Then again, there wasn’t much explanation behind the smaller pool comment. I gather from your situation you described earlier that you made notably more than your bf/ex-bf. I’m going to put forth 2 basic things I believe (inferred from the few known facts) are in play.

     - First, if I recall your post (not gonna scroll up & try to find & re-read), the essence of the situation was that if you were to marry & raise a family, he had to give up his career dreams, since you made more $$. Most guys worth their salt shouldn’t give up their dreams, and wouldn’t. Also, the approach seemed a bit, well, ‘my way or the highway.’ Sheer guess, but I bet he didn’t love that either, particularly as a preview to marriage where he’d have to depend on you… These are but a few pitfalls of successful women dating & marrying less financially successful guys.

     - And in every single instance I know of where she did make more (couple dozen), it was an unmitigated disaster. She began to resent financially carrying him because, you know, he’s the one that should be doing the carrying. Then it gets ugly. That’s just what I’ve seen.

     - Second, as this thread (and all known facts) indicates, most women are seeking some type of financial security from their partner. I think in general (not saying you do) most detest the prospect of possibly financially supporting a guy. Hence, seeking the provider. I don’t think this changes no matter how much she makes, so the $150k/yr lawyer will seek the $250k & up guy… Mathematically, if you are financially successful (top 20+%), it stands to reason there is a smaller number of available guys who make the same or more, particularly once you factor out the already married ones.

     - So it isn’t about a small pool of guys “willing to roll up (their) sleeves” and put in the effort required to have a marriage and family. It isn’t about rolling up sleeves. It’s about the likely small number of guys that are successful where both of your career and family dreams align to create the conditions where both of you will be happy because your joint dreams can be realized, not just one of your dreams.

     - I’ve been pretty open about not wanting kids. That said, the sharing-of-financial-resources issues even with kids to me is still unreasonable. Here’s why.

     – You can do everything men can do career-wise. LK, you yourself prove this.

     – I keep coming to the family laws, ’cause that’s where all of this plays out. If I agree to take care of you and progeny and you later leave because you are bored (so much for ‘commitment’ and ‘rolling up sleeves’), you most often (except in rare cases indeed) take the kids. You get 1/2, alimony and child support (tax-free to recipient, btw). So you get my kids and my money. Patently unjust. Guys who may want kids shouldn’t opt into a system where this can even happen once (and it happens A LOT every day). I understand that ain’t reality, so the only choice is not to play. Make me king for a day & I’d abolish gov’t intrusion into families, including child support.

     – Again, the financial resources argument derived from a time where ladies couldn’t even get an education, let alone be able to go out and earn a living. That’s gone by way of the dodo.

     “Kids require so much time and attention that in my opinion a different level of partnership and division of labor is required, and this shifts around a lot of elements in the equation.”

     – I don’t disagree with this in theory, but in reality, where you can later change your mind (and enforced by the state) about the ‘partnership’ and any element in the equation, I’m stuck with no choice.

     - “I assume that both parties enter into the spawning process in good faith. Maybe that’s an unrealistic assumption.”

     – In many cases it is good faith. I’d say the majority. But many aren’t. You know that doctors and some therapists estimate that anywhere from 10-25% (I’d say closer to 10%) of kids’ fathers aren’t really the biological fathers. Google paternity fraud & poke around. It’s fascinating (& disconcerting). Ever wonder why there isn’t already mandatory automatic genetic paternity testing at birth?

     - Not trying to be argumentative, but I still don’t see a great benefit to me as a guy. Ladies don’t need guys financially nowadays. They aren’t necessary to have kids (see high single mother birth rate). And the only rationalization I see is really to help make mom’s life easier (assuming kids are in the mix). Aside from having a child (assuming guy wants one), why does she need to be paid for it? It makes no sense logically. Plus, he has far greater number of burdens and risks, with relatively few benefits (most of which I’m still trying to see).

     - I guess what I’m conveying is that when it comes to financial ties and marriage, there is no reason to do it at all. It is too expensive and risky a proposition. It’s like asking me to buy a really expensive car that has a 50% or better chance of blowing up every time I start the ignition.

     Have a relationship where you love each other? Yep. Have a relationship where you confide in and encourage each other? Heck yea. Have a relationship where one pays the other to be there? Nope.

143. JerseyGirl Aug 10th 2009 at 06:41 am 143

     All in all, I don’t think most women are interested in investing time and energy into men that seem to think women have it so easy and men are the only ones that face hardships and trials in the dating world. I don’t think most women aren’t interested in investing time in men that appear to be selfish with any part of themselves. Whether that be their money, love, or faith in women in general.

     I would say that 95% of women aren’t even close to being “gold-diggers”. However, lets not confuse “gold-diggers” with the very real and legitimate fact that women DO want a man that can and will provide for her. I think the main clause here is not how much money a man has but his willingingness to share himself. Because at the end of the day, a man that wants to share his resources with you is saying that YOU are important enough to him to make that type of “sacrifice”, if you will. And a man that doesn’t want to share his resources with you is making a very clear statement and drawling a line in the sand about where you stand with him. Which isn’t very promising in my opinion because it’s apparent that the money is more important to him.

     Lastly, the last thing any woman wants is a man that makes no attempt to understand women, their needs, their trials and is more self involved in worrying about his own. I KNOW that is true for men as well when it comes to women, as it should be. But lets stop confusing a woman’s desire for a man that will want to provide for her with a woman that only cares about a man’s money. When men date, they are not completely seperate from their more shallow desires to pick women. Why as a man would you expect women to be?

     It’s not about his money. I think it’s more about a woman wanting a man that will want to share parts of his life beyond himself because he truly wants to make an effort to make her a part of his life. Not put into little compartments that only give *him/her* the greatest benefits. Men are not more aulteristic when it comes to picking women. And I think it’s foolish to expect women not to have any concern over the ability of a man to provide for her. Women might have joined the work force but we are far from equal and we are still women who want a man to be there to protect us. To expect women to be completely aulteristic when you as a man can’t, isn’t exactly fair is it.

144. girl-with-glasses Aug 10th 2009 at 12:43 pm 144

     @vino #142
     A woman is *not* a female version of you, you know. Your main objection seems to be against the legal constraints of marriage. Even if a woman would agree to sign a prenupt, or to demonstrate future earning potential, you seem to think her just wanting to be married to you indicates she has it out for you. If that’s your view, fine. Btw, if you’re a finance man, maybe a finance analogy would work better. If you’re doing a plain vanilla swap, you don’t look at what party A and party B’s rates are in themselves in the fixed and floating markets, but the relative advantages they have in each. You seem to think either, a woman should offer the exact same benefits to a man as he to her, and/or one woman isn’t that different from any other. My prior point on *love*, is that sometimes the man ends up thinking the woman is special and superior to him . A second economic argument would be just a simple case of prisoner’s dilemma, where individually, taking a optimizing position would get both parties worse off, but taking a sub-optimal strategy to both individually, would actually be the maximally optimal solution for both. To me marriage is the pledge of loyalty and faith that’s necessary, a pledge always requires some prior faith and commitment, and precludes other future interested parties, aka, the sacrifice , work, and prior emotional investment required. In these times, a woman saying she has initial standards maybe laughed at, but what does it matter, we do these things individually, and as long as my potential mate comes of his own free mind and accord, that’s more than fair in my book. To me, a relationship were people just go in for fun times as long as it lasts, isn’t much of anything. I’m a woman so I’m not as lax on time wasting in these matters as men tend to be. Well, I want kids, so that might be one reason why marriage is so much more important to me than you. Finally, do I look a man’s net worth? Even subconsciouly, sooner or later, yes. But that’s more of an individual characteristic. Just simple supply and demand. If I can get it, all the more power to me, if I can’t, I can’t. I don’t find it morally damning =p.

145. Caramel Aug 27th 2009 at 08:39 pm 145

     I CANT STAND A CHEAP AND STINGY MAN! I have definitely encountered several in my day! As far as the money goes, if she has been sleeping with this guy for the last 4.5 years, why shouldn’t he give her money? I don’t know whats wrong with women today, but sex is not for free! We all know that we don’t get something for nothing!!

146. Selena Aug 28th 2009 at 05:12 am 146

     #145
     Troll?

147. Johanus Aug 28th 2009 at 08:35 am 147

     #145 – Caramel – I think you missed the point. The woman isn’t trying to sell herself to the man. She wants a relationship. If a man wants to pay for sex there are other options. Same goes for a woman. Yes, sex is for sale in this world, but in a relationship the giving in the respect of sex is mutual and beneficial to both parties.
     .-= Johanus´s last blog ….How to Set & Keep Goals =-.

148. Caramel Aug 28th 2009 at 10:38 am 148

     For Johanus (147): I am not missing the point. I know what you are saying, but at the same time, why shouldn’t she get something out of the relationship? It’s not about a woman SELLING herself to a man, but in a relationship, you just dont get something for nothing.

     You men are always trying to justify something! I know if I were her, and he’s just sleeping with me for a long time and doesn’t want to give me money every o he is out of the door! Like I said in my post, sex is not for free! The more that women understand this, the better off they will be!

149. Caramel Aug 28th 2009 at 10:39 am 149

     For Johanus (147): I am not missing the point. I know what you are saying, but at the same time, why shouldn’t she get something out of the relationship? It’s not about a woman SELLING herself to a man, but in a relationship, you just dont get something for nothing.

     You men are always trying to justify something! I know if I were her, and he’s just sleeping with me for a long time and doesn’t want to give me money every once in a while, he is out of the door! Like I said in my previous post, sex is not for free! The more that women understand this, the better off they will be!

Comments RSS

Leave a Reply