DISCOVER HOW SMART, STRONG & SUCCESSFUL WOMEN (THAT'S YOU!) CAN FINALLY Find Your Man
DISCOVER HOW
SMART WOMEN LIKE YOU CAN
FINALLY Find Your Man
Take this short quiz
to discover what you need to do now.
Take this short quiz now
My areas of concern are:
1) His financial situation: I’m a self-sufficient homeowner who doesn’t need financial support. He quit his career in business about 7 years ago to pursue being a full time artist. In that time he has depleted all of his savings, his 401k, and is maxing out his credit cards. He has hinted about needing to move into a studio apartment at my house. He may end up filing for bankruptcy – but views it as “suffering for his art”. He seems reluctant to take other jobs that take away from his art career… but I am worried we are headed for a crisis. I help him out with marketing, PR, etc. for his art but it’s a tough way to make a living! He still tries to split our entertainment/travel expenses 50/50 and has never asked for money.
Some people recognize that sex is the icing on the cake and not the cake itself, and this allows them to have happy relationships with average sex lives (as opposed to the more common awful relationship with great sex).
2) Decline in passion – not surprisingly with his financial issues looming, I’m sure he is stressed and our sex life has over time dwindled to a quickie here and there, mostly to cater to my higher level of “need”… we are compatible and enjoy each other, but my libido far surpasses his…. can I live with this? It may be situational, but he may just have lower libido than mine. He’s not really a passionate kisser – except during sex – and I miss this!
I broke things off about 18 months ago for the reasons of lack of passion, concerns that he would never want to get married, etc. but after dating others for a bit, decided that he was a much better fit and started dating him again. I’m much more settled as a single mom, don’t want to cohabitate/marry while my kids are still at home, and truly love this man. What should I do?
Julie
Julie,
Thank you for being the latest exhibit in Women Who Answer Their Own Questions While Asking Them.
So let’s get this straight:
You have a 14-year-old daughter.
You write, “I don’t want to cohabitate/marry while my kids are still at home.” Sounds to me like you’re not getting married to anyone, much less your starving artist boyfriend. I may or may not agree with your black and white thinking but it’s not my job to tell you that. You don’t want to get married while the kids are at home? Great. Don’t get married.
Thus, your question isn’t really about marriage. It’s about the fact that you’ve been dating the same man for three years and you’re ambivalent about your commitment to him, given his two main flaws.
But, once again, this isn’t a question that anyone else can answer. All I can do is ask you more questions.
Have you ever talked with your boyfriend about his libido? I mean, you’ve been together for 3 years — has this subject ever been breached before? Were you hot and heavy at the beginning and then things cooled off? Does he admit to being a low-libido guy in general or is this circumstantial? Do you find yourself resenting him? Do you have sex at least once every week/weekend you spend with each other? Finally, is this something that you can live with?
Some people recognize that sex is the icing on the cake and not the cake itself, and this allows them to have happy relationships with average sex lives (as opposed to the more common awful relationship with great sex). But if his libido really gets you down, then it’s on you to address this issue together as a team — or get out and start fresh. It won’t be hard to find a guy who wants to have sex more. It may be hard to find a guy who is, in your words, an “attractive, intelligent, funny, fit, sane, patient, caring, affectionate, well dressed, and generous person who puts a high priority on trust and honesty. “
Which brings us to the point about the portrait you’re painting of the artist as a middle-aged man.
I’ve been a starving artist. It was called my 20’s. It was a noble experiment, but I was fundamentally miserable, because any second that I wasn’t writing, I was unhappy. Money was scarce. Freedom was nonexistent. Travel was impossible. My default emotions were fear and failure.
There are many women whose husbands support them, but generally they’re raising kids, which is a colossally more important undertaking than oil painting.
Now if I had a sugar mama like you to support me, would I feel better about not making a living? Maybe a little. But probably not much. At the end of the day, it’s not just the act of creativity that matters but the ability to get others to pay money for your art. Without money, art is just a very time consuming hobby.
You didn’t say what kind of art your boyfriend makes or whether you believe in him. That may or may not matter. Let’s assume that he NEVER makes a dollar at his career. Are you okay supporting a fourth child when the nest is finally empty? Because that’s what it’s gonna look like when all is said and done.
Maybe I shouldn’t be that harsh. There are many women whose husbands support them, but generally they’re raising kids, which is a colossally more important undertaking than oil painting. As far as the men who support wives who make art, or do charity, or shop, or workout obsessively, I’m guessing that they’re valuing these qualities “attractive, intelligent, funny, fit, sane, patient, caring, affectionate, well dressed, and generous.” over their wives’ ability to make a buck.
You can do the same, Julie. Just don’t expect him to change.
Selena says
I’m much more settled as a single mom, don’t want to cohabitate/marry while my kids are still at home, and truly love this man.
He has hinted about needing to move into a studio apartment at my house.
I take it moving into a studio apartment on your property would feel too much like co-habitating to you?
You love him, you’ve been together for 3 years – minus a period of time where you explored “what else is out there”. And realized what a catch he was?
He’s also attentive to my kids & their lives, although by my choice, they have very little interaction.
After 3 years together why do want him to have so little interaction?
I can’t help but think you like your life just the way it is, and the way it is is compartmentalized. That’s okay, but have you explained it to your lover?
And here’s a big question: if he were a financially successful businessman do you think you would feel the same way? Is the possibilty of becomming his “patron” turning you off? Great guy, 3 years, you love him…that really is something to weigh.
Low libido. Between my spam filters and television commercials, I thought the cure for that was as common now as asprin. Has he looked into it? Perhaps you could suggest it in a “I might be fun if we…” way.
Ruby says
As someone around the same age as Julie, and who has had careers in the arts myself, I can relate to this. I’ve been surprised by the number of men I’ve met in this age range who want creative careers and are looking for a sugar mama to support them. Actually, I dated one of them in my thirties too, who ended up with a wealthy woman while he became a house-husband. They are now divorced. But that isn’t going to happen at this age when kids are all grown or almost-grown.
Seriously, few people earn a living solely from their art, unless their art has a practical component that makes it more marketable, like a craft. Most artists teach or find another way to support themselves. And let’s face it, not everyone is that talented. After 7 years, the boyfriend should have at least gotten a toe-hold in his new profession, and she should be seeing some forward momentum. He also should be able to come up with a way to supplement his income on his own initiative. The fact that he has depleted his savings and is looking for the OP to bail him out, is a red flag to me.
I wouldn’t expect the sex to get better, either. Julie contradicts herself when she says that she’s concerned that he will never marry her, yet that she doesn’t want to marry while she still has kids living at home. I suspect she wouldn’t marry him, even if he wanted to, because she knows what he’s really about. He doesn’t even want to live with her, he wants a “studio apartment” (rent free, no doubt) in her house.
Karl R says
Julie, (original letter)
You don’t want to cohabitate/get married for the next several years.
You’re concerned that your boyfriend may never want to marry.
Neither of you is in a rush to get married. That’s your solution for now.
Julie said: (original letter)
“He seems reluctant to take other jobs that take away from his art career… but I am worried we are headed for a crisis.”
If I was in your position, I wouldn’t get married. I wouldn’t cohabitate. I would keep my finances completely separate.
You’re self-sufficient, but you didn’t give me the impression that you’re able support him (and save for the future) on your income. If he decides to take financial risks, that’s his choice. But it sounds like you’re better off letting him bear the full burden of those risks.
It’s entirely possible that every dollar you spend on this man (dates, assistance, etc.) will be completely wasted. Therefore, I recommend that you treat it like it’s an entertainment cost (or some other nonrecoverable expense). It’s not an investment that you may recover later.
If you keep that in mind, it will help you decide how much money you’re willing to spend in this situation.
Sunflower says
Sounds like a path I wouldn’t want to travel down. I’m 51 years old and the one thing that’s most important to me at this age is security. I don’t care to wake up each day not knowing what direction I’m headed or where my next meal is coming from. Need money in the bank, stable home environment and lots of friends and family around……that’s just me 🙂
Jackie H. says
Yes, definitely, time to make the list…the list of pros and cons..and the weight of some cons may outweigh the number of pros…good luck!
Karl S says
If I was in your position, I wouldn’t get married. I wouldn’t cohabitate. I would keep my finances completely separate.
This.
If he is someone worth staying with, he will take ownership over his own life choices and deal with his financial issues independently. If he makes you feel guilty for not “helping him” then you have your answer – which is to let him go. I say this drama school graduate trying to make it in the performing arts.
Scott says
This question is not about their romantic relationship. Julie seems to like their current arrangement just fine. She has a FWB at her call to scrath her itch (just barely). He is good with her kid but also willing to accept limited access. Which combination enables Julie to avoid having to go find another guy – who might want more of her time (and more contact with her kid 2 or 3 years into the relationship) than Julie wants to devote while her kid is still home. To me, the problem here is that the guy wants to move in. Whihc is bad because it means Julie can’t sever ties with him as easily when her child leaves home and Julie wants to create a relationship with a man shoe DOES want to marry. If I were Julie, I would not let him move in. If that means he goes looking for another patron, so be it. Better to be a little lonely for a few years than to open a can of worms.
Karl S says
*I say this as a drama school graduate I mean.
Zann says
I could be totally, entirely wrong, but I get the feeling that what Julie is really asking for is permission to dump her artist. She heralds all of his great qualities and yet there remain two areas where things are not equitable: sex drive and financial stability. A little creativity and better communication could alleviate the imbalance in their sex lives. But financial self-sufficiency is another story. Julie’s boyfriend made a choice to pursue his artistic calling, and that choice has, unfortunately, depleted his nest egg. Of course, he has options besides moving into Julie’s studio apartment for some freeloading. She didn’t get him to where he is now, and he’d be broke whether or not she was his girlfriend. If Julie’s unwilling to house him for free, that’s her call to make, but it enmeshes them in a whole new way, and I predict resentment is inevitable.
AllenB says
Few people make a living at art. Evan appropriately labelled it a hobby. A hobby means you have some other means of supporting your hobby. I think there are plenty of folks who earn a living in something that is just a job while they pursue creativity in their free time. His unwillingness to do so indicates fear or at least major impracticality. If the OP is content with the relationship as is (which she isn’t, or why write?) then that does not matter, but it sounds like she would like more. I do believe she should have a talk with him about libido at least. Address that as best as they can, but I bet part of that involves him feeling more secure and happier with himself. Invite him to move into a nearby studio, but not to sublet. That is an invitation to add more stress to the relationship should he start being late with rent….
@Karl R .
You write as if she is supporting him, yet she explicitly said
He still tries to split our entertainment/travel expenses 50/50 and has never asked for money.
Perhaps they are headed towards her paying for everything, but they aren’t there yet. Interesting that you assumed that they already are there. . .
@Selena 1 Between my spam filters and television commercials, I thought the cure for [low libido] was as common now as asprin.
Although this is off topic, it points to what is a common misconception amongst the half of the species who don’t have the equipment. I assume you are referring to erectile dysfunction medications since that is the only non-snake oil medicine that addresses something related to libido in men.
You equate a low libido with no erection and therefore the converse, if a man has an erection he wants to have sex. WRONG!
Erectile dysfunction medications are for men who WANT to have sex (already have something going on in the libido department) but their John Thomas refuses to wake up from his nap. If a man has no libido, walking around with a woody does not mean he wants to sharpen his pencil. It means he has an erection, nothing more. That said, the physical sensation of engorgement is a little arousing, but on its own is not really sufficient to want sex. Most men when they wake up with rebar in their pjs, but their biggest urge is generally to find a toilet. Most teens, plagued with a 90 minute cycle of erections are more concerned with hiding it if they have to go to the board rather than finding someplace nice to put it.
No erection can mean not turned on, but it can mean a lot of other things too.
Viagra and Cialis = erection, not desire for sex.
AFAIK, except for therapy or otherwise feeling good about himself (which could include having that troubling ED problem addressed) and his life, there is no way to increase libido in a healthy man with normal testosterone levels
Kiki says
I think it is important that the man in the relationship provides at least some of the income, and initiates sex most of the time. It is nice if he is also very attentive, sweet, etc., but the first two things are the masculine element, and I would have difficulty to feel feminine if the man fails to be masculine.
On the other hand, a woman needs to be realistic about what her options are. When you are single mom with three kids, very few men will be ready to have a relationship. Many might be interested to have occasional sex, but a committed relationship is a tall order. But, if she is not feeling an urge to get married or move to stronger commitment, she might be better off to next this guy, and be open to meet someone with whom to at least have better sex.
Karl R says
AllenB said: (#10)
“Perhaps they are headed towards her paying for everything, but they aren’t there yet. Interesting that you assumed that they already are there. . .”
Maybe you need to reread what I said.
I’m aware that Julie isn’t supporting him. But her boyfriend has hinted that he needs to move into a studio apartment at her house. He has begun trying to move things in that direction.
If Julie lets him move in, do you think he can pay rent? Do you think he’ll be able to help out with utilities? What will happen if he runs out of food?
If Julie ends up paying for everything, it probably won’t happen all at once. It will probably happen one small step at a time. Julie can’t afford to start down that path.
This man is a financial time bomb. He’s 54. He stopped paying into social security at 47. He used to have savings and a 401k. Now he has massive debt and a bankruptcy coming.
If someone reading this is a financial planner, would you care to explain how lousy of a financial position this man is in?
Goldie says
@Karl R #12
Not a financial planner, but I did know someone who had to take a loan out of their 401K. The penalties are huge. The interest rates are huge. I was told that taking money out of your 401K is like the absolute last thing you do, when the choice is between that and living on the streets. And this, 54yo man, who had apparently accumulated a good-sized 401K, has already “depleted” it? I agree with Karl, this man is a financial time bomb.
Julie, two of your three children will be starting college soon, and one might in in college already. You cannot afford this guy. I’d follow Karl R’s advice.
Not to mention that him living in your house as your tenant, and as such having financial obligations towards you, will create a weird power dynamics and add to the complexity of the situation.
Not to mention that, from what I’ve read on this site, it is much easier to let a person move in than it is to get them to move out. (KE, was it you that had to hire an attorney to get an ex move out of your own house?)
I just had another idea, does he have an online portfolio? If what he does is good enough, maybe there will be people on here willing and able to promote him, buy his work, get him an exhibit even? This is, after all, a site where smart, strong, and successful women congregate.
Lola says
AllenB @ 10: agree on the libido vs erection. My ex-husband lost his job a few years ago, couldn’t find one for a long time, then things got even worse due to the step-parenting conflicts between us.. He became emotionally and physically distant. His libido went down the drain pretty fast. He still had his erections – but so much resentment toward me and such low self-esteem that he didnt want to have anything intimate with me.
Chance says
@Kiki:
“I think it is important that the man in the relationship provides at least some of the income, and initiates sex most of the time. It is nice if he is also very attentive, sweet, etc., but the first two things are the masculine element, and I would have difficulty to feel feminine if the man fails to be masculine.”
I know what you mean. I think it’s important that the woman in the relationship at least does some of the cooking/cleaning/laundry, and lets me have sex with her most of the time I initiate. It is nice if she’s also very attentive, sweet, etc., but the first two things are the feminine element, and I would have difficulty feeling masculine if the woman fails to be feminine.
@Karl R.
I agree with you that he is a financial time bomb, and I wouldn’t take him in if I was in her position. However, I believe her situation is two-pronged. First, she needs to assess whether his other qualities outweigh the negative ones. It does sound like he is a great partner, apart from the issues she noted. For generations, men have been willing to support women that otherwise were great partners. However, a lot of women have trouble letting go of this part of inequality between the sexes by refusing to support men who are great partners. While many women who don’t work are caring for young children, in my part of town, many wives still don’t work even if there are no children or if they are of school-age or grown. From my observations, these women instead spend their time shopping, playing tennis, scrap-booking, going to yoga class (for the “stress”), or doing the occasional breast cancer walk.
Julia says
@Chance
I know what you mean. I think it’s important that the woman in the relationship at least does some of the cooking/cleaning/laundry, and lets me have sex with her most of the time I initiate. It is nice if she’s also very attentive, sweet, etc., but the first two things are the feminine element, and I would have difficulty feeling masculine if the woman fails to be feminine.
Perfectly acceptable expectations.
Goldie says
@ Chance
“For generations, men have been willing to support women that otherwise were great partners. However, a lot of women have trouble letting go of this part of inequality between the sexes by refusing to support men who are great partners. While many women who don’t work are caring for young children, in my part of town, many wives still don’t work even if there are no children or if they are of school-age or grown.”
Having a stay-at-home wife that was agreed upon from the start, is not exactly the same as mom’s boyfriend moving in with mom because he’s broke, and blowing through a daughter’s college fund. I am not saying that this will happen, but it has a potential of happening. After all he has already blown through his 401K and shows no sign of stopping. I cannot even imagine the resentment and tension this would create in the household. And, since we’re talking inequality of genders, I’m pretty sure that, if the roles were reversed and it was dad’s new model girlfriend blowing through the kids’ college funds, there’d be just as much resentment and tension as a result.
This is not a new family that has the luxury of establishing roles from scratch. She is already supporting three people and cannot support the fourth. And, sorry, but in terms of support, her kids come first. Unlike him, the kids don’t have an option of earning their own living. They depend on their mother for that, for now.
Ruby says
Chance #15
<<However, a lot of women have trouble letting go of this part of inequality between the sexes by refusing to support men who are great partners.>>
More and more men are becoming house-husbands. But there is a difference between a committed partner who stays home to take care of the house and kids while his spouse works and a guy who’s looking for a free ride. There’s even a difference with an older wife who has done the child-rearing, etc. for many years and isn’t currently working, if it’s okay with the husband. But a 54 year old man who depletes his savings, his 401k, maxes out his credit cards, refuses to work at any other job, is on the verge of losing his home and filing for bankruptcy, and calls it “suffering for his art” is either a bit deluded or lazy, and not the best prospect.
marymary says
Are you sure you don’t want to get married or have you lowered your expectations so that you can be with someone you don’t see as marriageable? People with children get married. Seen it myself a few times and, yes, they were mothers with children at home. I confess I was surprised but it changed my thinking.
Karmic Equation says
Well said, Ruby. I agree with you 100%.
Chance,
That inequality about supporting a man 100%, in the same way a man might a woman and why most women resist that, I think I know why. I had this discussion with my bff, who’s a hetero male…and I’ve also asked myself this question.
Men are used to paying for sex, so to speak — buy drinks, dinners, baubles, support stay-at-home wives, etc., to have access to sex.
Women don’t want to feel like they’re paying for sex. We don’t have to. So whenever we support a man fully in that fashion, who is indigent by his own choices — of course, we’ll support our husbands/lovers if they’re laid off, hospitalized, etc., that’s part of loving someone — but when the guy is jobless by his own choice, then it just doesn’t feel right. It feels like we’re paying for something, if not sex per se, then for companionship.
No woman want to feel like they have a gigolo in their lives.
Chance says
Goldie:
“Having a stay-at-home wife that was agreed upon from the start, is not exactly the same as mom’s boyfriend moving in with mom because he’s broke, and blowing through a daughter’s college fund. I am not saying that this will happen, but it has a potential of happening.”
Many couples do not agree at the start that the wife will stay home. It’s often the case where the wife will elect to stop working without any consideration of how the husband may feel about it. I’ve seen it on a number of occasions. As far as the college fund goes, that would surely be a sad state of affairs if the mother blew through her daughter’s college fund to support him. It would say a lot more about her ability to be a good mother.
“I cannot even imagine the resentment and tension this would create in the household.”
Neither can I because it ain’t gonna happen.
“She is already supporting three people and cannot support the fourth.”
How do you know what her financial situation is like? There’s no mention of it in the OP. You don’t know what she can and cannot afford.
Ruby:
“More and more men are becoming house-husbands. But there is a difference between a committed partner who stays home to take care of the house and kids while his spouse works and a guy who’s looking for a free ride.”
While there are some women who are accepting to the idea of a man staying home, most women will not tolerate such an arrangement. Also, I was clearly and specifically addressing women that stay at home who are not raising young children.
“There’s even a difference with an older wife who has done the child-rearing, etc. for many years and isn’t currently working, if it’s okay with the husband.”
That’s a big “if”… you’d be surprised with how many husbands actually do have a problem with that. Also, the situation you describe here is actually worse than the situation this woman faces because this woman knows the risks beforehand. Women often elect to not return to work, especially if the man can afford it, when children become school-age or move out of the house even if there was an understanding that she would return to work.
Karmic:
There is likely some truth to what you’re saying, but I think there is a more significant reason for this. Simply put: a lot of women in our society are only interested in equality in situations where they are at a disadvantage. It’s the same thing with paying for dates. It’s nice to have someone else pay for everything, and many women don’t want to give that up.
Kiki says
@ Chance 15.
OK, we agreed on what is the minimum for the relationship to survive :-).
Now lets see if we can improve the deal. How about, I want him to make more than 50% of our income (i.e. to make at least a little bit more than me), and to always be te one to initiate sex, at least 3 times a week. What would you want in return?
marymary says
It’s been a while for me but are women not supposed to initiate sex?
Clare says
Chance 21,
Speaking as a modern woman, who has always earned my own income and always been able to provide for myself, yet never been wealthy, I can honestly say I have *no problem* with contributing an equal amount financially once we are in a committed relationship. Being that money is a particularly strong significant point for guys usually, his willingness to pay on dates is a sign of his effort and his interest. It has nothing to do (on my part) with wanting to be treated and spoilt, although this is nice. It is simply that I know no guy will pay for me on a few dates unless he is interested. It is a very reliable indicator. It is also a sign of his manners and chivalry, which I find to be extremely attractive.
Beyond that, once the relationship is secure, I have no problem paying equally.
I only mention this because you, and other guys, might want to think of this when you say that women “don’t want to give up” being paid for. In an uncertain dating world, where we do not always know what guys are thinking or feeling, his willingness to pay provides solid proof of his efforts and interest.
Goldie says
@ Chance 21
“How do you know what her financial situation is like? There’s no mention of it in the OP. You don’t know what she can and cannot afford.”
This is how I know:
1) She is asking for advice on the whole affair;
2) She says she is worried that they are headed for a crisis.
If she could easily support him, she’d be easily supporting him instead of asking Evan what to do.
Karl R says
marymary asked: (#23)
“It’s been a while for me but are women not supposed to initiate sex?”
I love it when women initiate sex.
Goldie said: (#25)
“She says she is worried that they are headed for a crisis.”
I agree with Goldie’s assessment. The way Julie describes the situation strongly implies that that she can’t afford to support him.
Cat5 says
If he’s doing his thing, supporting himself, interested in/loves her, and contributing to dates/time together…who cares about houses and 401(k)s? Anybody who believes in financial security and retirement at 65 for most of this country is living in a dreamworld. That American Dream is pretty much dead though far too many people of my generation are still hanging onto it, and doesn’t exist at all for the younger generations.
Full disclosure – I’m 50 and have used up all my savings to do my thing, but I pay my bills and take the occasional vacation. I’ve had to scale back on things (no real extravagance, and no extra money for it), but I’m happier with what I’m doing. Sometimes I get frustrated with not owning a home or extra money, but I frankly I never expected to be able to retire either. If not being “financially secure,” makes me a bad patner than so be it. But honestly, I don’t know anyone that I believe is truly “financially secure.” I know many, many people who have jobs they hate or in relationships they are not happy with, who stay in these jobs/relationships for the “financial security,” but are a hair’s breath away from losing it all and just don’t realize it. Given a choice between financial security, I’d rather be in a job/relationship I am passionate about…and I’d like that for my partner also.
Talk to him about the things that are bothering you and work on them together, or move on and try to find someone else. It’s as simple as that.
Goldie says
@ Cat5
“If he’s doing his thing, supporting himself, interested in/loves her, and contributing to dates/time together…who cares about houses and 401(k)s?”
In seven years, he has spent everything he’d accumulated in his whole life prior to that (must’ve been a lot if he was never married and never had kids), borrowed from everywhere he could so he cannot borrow any more. This doesn’t sound like supporting oneself to me at all! This sounds like a man who has burned through everything he had and is looking for more money to burn through.
I have no savings ATM either (aside from 401K and IRA), the little that I had all went towards divorce, a place to live after the divorce, maintenance and upkeep of that place, and my oldest son’s college education. I have a decent income though, and hardly any debt. While I admit that I cannot retire anytime soon, there is a world of difference between someone like me, and someone like that guy. Mainly that I can support myself (unless something bad happens), and he cannot.
I have a job that I enjoy. I don’t love it, in the sense that I wouldn’t be doing it for free or for minimal wage, but I do not hate it either. It is kind of fun. It also pays enough for me to support my family. If it was not for that job, I would still be married to my ex-husband. That alone makes me appreciate my job A LOT. There is always a middle ground. It doesn’t have to be, either living under the bridge and doing what you like, or being able to support yourself and doing what you hate.
“I pay my bills”
And he doesn’t. He may end up filing for bankruptcy, for crying out loud. Does this sound anything like your own situation to you?
Karl R says
Cat5 asked: (#27)
“who cares about houses and 401(k)s?”
Those of us who would prefer not to be homeless and starving when we’re too old to hold down a job.
Cat5 said: (#27)
“Anybody who believes in financial security and retirement at 65 for most of this country is living in a dreamworld.”
Most of this country has their heads firmly planted up their own asses when it comes to financial planning. Julie’s boyfriend is a rather extreme example of this.
I have no intention of retiring at 65, but I may not be healthy enough to continue working until I’m 75+. My mother-in-law developed Alzheimer’s at 72. She’s incapable of earning a living. At this point, she needs round-the-clock assistance.
You expect that you’ll never be able to retire. You’re ignoring a larger reality. At some point, you may no longer be able to work. What is your plan then?
Social security is growing increasingly insolvent. I can’t count on it to be there when I retire.
What is going to support my wife and I when we’re no longer able to work? Our 401(k)s, our IRAs, our mutual funds … and that one, big, fully paid off, appreciating asset … the house.
Having a job you love can help financially. The more you love your job, the longer you can work. The longer you can work, the less you need for retirement.
If you wish to ignore your future financial security, that’s your choice. But financial planning tends to be one of those “pay now or pay later” kind of situations.
Kiki says
@ marymary
the perfect man, in my limited brain 🙂 is someone with a huge sexual appetite (but desiring only me :-). No Karmic, I cant share him 🙂
Scott says
I agree the OP should not allow her bf to move into her house, because he seems like a poor candidate for additional financial investment. It is one thing for the woman to earn more than the man. That is workable. Running through all your savings, retirement funds, and credit card limits is a horse of a very different color.
Still, the discussion between Chance, Kiki and Clare shows once again the elephants in the dating discussion. Men have to “pay” for sex. Women don’t. Women display interest in a long term relationship simply by showing up to the first date. Men can’t be trusted to have the right kind of interest just by showing up (they might – gasp – be interested only in sex), so they have to pay as a sign they are sufficiently interested to be worth the woman’s time. Not saying there isn’t a kernel of truth to these. Just saying that this is an enormous social construct which prevents true equality for both men and women.
Cat5 says
@ Goldie
I was pretty close to bankruptcy at one point, and after exploring all manner of options (including moving in with my then boyfriend), I took on some contract work and a roommate, and it got me through that hump which took about a year. I may have to do so again in the future.
I also noted that she said he seems reluctant to take another job outside of his art career. I get that. I was reluctant to take an additional/another job on also. I cut it pretty close…a lot closer than I like to admit. But, I sucked it when the going got tough. So what if he explored the option of moving into her studio apartment? I explored moving in with my then boyfriend, and getting a roommate. I had friends offer to let me rent their basement. I explored all options before making my choice. — that doesn’t make him a bad person…or bad partner. In the end, I took on some contract work and a roommate. What I really wanted to do was to move in with my boyfriend, which would have been easiest…but since we had only been dating 5-6 months, I didn’t think it was the right choice. If we’d been together for a year or more, I probably would have moved in with him..
She doesn’t need to let him move into the studio to support him. She can be supportive in many other ways. If she tells him he can’t, how he reponds is what matters. Does he get mad? Or do something else like get another job, a roommate, or even file bankruptcy…all perfectly valid options. There’s nothing wrong with or to be ashamed about by having financial issues while pursing your dream. It’s what he does when he hits rock bottom that will show his character. I’ll value good character over a 401(k) or a big bank account any time. I can always make more money…but good character is very hard to find.
Karmic Equation says
@Kiki 30
I don’t expect any woman actually in a monogamous relationship to share their men. I don’t condone cheating. In that other thread the OP hadn’t broken up with him in four years, so it has to be assumed she was ok with it.
I broke up with my guy on the *suspicion* he cheated (plus a few other factors). But before we became gf/bf, I knew he was dating other women. I was meeting other men. We became gf/bf at his behest, not mine. So we were having NSA sex up until that point. I only let myself become possessive after that 🙂
If you’re married, you’re allowed to be possessive!
Cat5 says
@ KARL R.
I’m not ignoring my financial future — I’m making choices, and trying to do what I love now rather than be laser focused on doing something that may or may not pay more and hating it but i’ll have a pension plane. When I’m old and alone in the rest home…I don’t want to be regretting not taking the chance to do something I love and believe in because it didn’t offer me or afford me the opportunity at a pension plan. For the record, there are millions and millions and millions of people with jobs that do not offer 401(k) plans, or pension plans. Nor do they afford people the ability to invest. Does that make all of them, including me and the OP’s boyfriend financially irresponsible? Maybe it makes you lucky that yours does.
You and I will have to disagree – you think he and I are willfully ignoring the financial future. I think it’s about choices. I believe you are willfully living in a fantasy world about yours as does most of this country. Unless you are in the top 1% of wage earners, i.e., rich, or really poor, you are screwed financially and often so is your spouse, if you end up with serious illness. The middle class and being comfortable in your old age is dead for most people. Go spend a little time in a Bankruptcy Court, your local Department of Social and Health Services, your local VFW or VA home, local retirement communities/nursing homes or any place older people are, for a little while…and you will see what I mean. A significant number them believed also and planned also…just like you and your spouse…and as they or their spouse got older and older, sicker and sicker they got poorer and poorer…often losing everything to pay for their care. And that was before the all the financial debacles we’ve had that destroyed their pension funds and other investments.
It’s nice to think that all of us will be fine financially in our old age, but the truth is that in all likelihood unless something changes significantly, most of us will not.
Karmic Equation says
Cat5,
Basically what you’re saying is you expect other taxpayers, like me and Karl R and others who try to pay for our own future, to pay for your old age, because you want to live with no regrets now, on your dime, or so you think.
Thanks bunches. It’s folks like you who help continue the debacle that is the welfare system.
Goldie says
I think we digress. The point is not that OP’s bf has no 401K. To have one or not is a discussion, probably, for another blog. The point is that he had no problem pulling money out of it, even though he knew he would have to pay huge penalties for doing so. This doesn’t strike me as a financially sound decision. Neither does maxing out his credit cards. I have never paid interest on a CC in my life; to be honest the rates just terrify me. 20%? 25%? I’d do everything in my power to avoid handing that kind of my money over to a credit card company. But he’s okay with that.
Cat5, you say you took on some contract work to avoid bankruptcy. This is the one thing this man refuses to do. He’s flat broke and he is still “reluctant to take other jobs” where you were not.
Honestly, I love art as much as the next person, and I am completely okay with the idea of living cheaply off your savings and pursuing an art career. I am cool with the idea of living in a cheap apartment and eating Ramen, as long as your passion pays enough for you to keep up with the payments for that apartment and that Ramen. But when you’re already up to your eyeballs in debt, it’s been seven years, and your work still does not pay off even in the most minimal way, no matter how both you and your gf try… time to get that day job again. Harsh as it sounds, you are probably not Van Gogh, and if your art made that much of a difference to humanity, it would by now have allowed you to at least put some beans and rice on your table. I know, I feel like a horrible person typing this. But that’s the way things seem to work, whether we like it or not.
Chance says
Kiki:
Hmmm. I think I would need your consent to take on as many mistresses as I would like to agree to that one 🙂
Clare:
“In an uncertain dating world, where we do not always know what guys are thinking or feeling, his willingness to pay provides solid proof of his efforts and interest.”
1.) The fact that he’s asking you out on a 2nd, 3rd, and 4th date should serve as solid proof. Men generally don’t continue to ask out women they aren’t interested in. 2.) When I was on 1st or 2nd dates with women, and I decided that I wasn’t interested, I still paid. 3.) No one ever truly knows what the other party is thinking during the early stages of dating. That’s life. 4.) Your desire for “proof” of that the guy is interested in you should not override what is fair and equitable.
“It is also a sign of his manners and chivalry, which I find to be extremely attractive.”
So do you believe in traditional gender roles across-the-board, or only when it works to your benefit?
Goldie & Karl R:
I guess that we’ll just have to agree that we have different takes on what the OP is saying. It’s likely that you’re right simply based on the fact that most people can’t afford to take care of someone else who doesn’t work. However, I try to think of what I would do if I were in her shoes. I mean, if I couldn’t afford it, I wouldn’t ask for advice on what I should do because there really aren’t any options. He would have to get a job. If I could afford it, I would ask others for their opinion because I would be wondering if i should be supporting him and wondering if it is right or wrong that I don’t really want to support him. Full disclosure: I don’t blame her for being ambivalent (at best) about taking him in. However, I do believe the dialogue would be quite different in the comments section if the roles were reversed.
If a man supports a woman that doesn’t want to work, well, that’s what a man should do…. and if he doesn’t, then he’s a cheapskate, or not a “real man”. However, if a woman supports a man who doesn’t work, even if he really is trying to find a job (not the case here obviously), then she’s sacrificing her well-being to support a loser.
Kiki says
@Karl R 29.
This is the first time I agree with EVERY WORD in your post.
But here is the place to say, that this blog is extremely informative as to the variety of opinions in life. Before I came here, I somehow assumed that all people want love, a true partner, marriage, kids, financial security, and what I call recreational sex (i.e. sex for sex’s sake :-))… I thought (still think to some extent) that these are “natural” desires, and the that many people who proclaim they do not desire one or more of those, have a bad case of sour grapes.
Now I see that there are people who do not want kids (Karl R), people who think they are better off single (many posters here), people who would only have sex in a very committed, very solid relationship (Rose and others). And now, I see people who would voluntarily choose to be broke… It gets more and more amazing.
Clare says
Chance 37,
Yes, a guy asking you out is proof of his interest. So is his willingness to pay. It’s a sign of effort and willingness to be invested, and it gets taken into account along with all the other cues.
Hm, traditional gender roles when they work to my benefit? I don’t think in those terms at all. There are certain of the traditional gender activities which I find to be quaint and endearing… and pleasurable. Regardless of whose benefit they work towards (all this talk of benefit is reminiscent of the cost/benefit discussion that was had on another thread a few weeks ago which I don’t buy into AT ALL). But since you mentioned benefit…
Does it work to my benefit when I cook him his favourite meal, even though it’s something I’m not particularly partial to? …
Goldie says
Chance #37
“However, I try to think of what I would do if I were in her shoes. I mean, if I couldn’t afford it, I wouldn’t ask for advice on what I should do because there really aren’t any options.”
What I am reading in her letter is that, she is not supporting him yet; but from the way his financial situation unfolds, she has reasons to believe that things are headed that way; that, if she stays with him and lets him move in, then she will soon end up supporting him, which I’m guessing is not something she wants to do.
“If a man supports a woman that doesn’t want to work, well, that’s what a man should do…. and if he doesn’t, then he’s a cheapskate, or not a “real man”.
Wow, really?
Marie says
I find the debate between Clare and Chance on who is paying for dates really interesting. This goes along with one of the biggest hurdles in American dating in my opinion which is the tremendous gender confusion. For some reason, this issue of equality for women seems to be tacked on everywhere to attack or justify what men and women should and should not do in dating. It really is a pain in the ass. I didn’t even realize how much it affected things until I started dating (and married) a Frenchman. The status quo is that he was gallant. We did not have to sit there awkwardly and worry about who will pick up the check. He automatically opened doors, pulled out chairs, carried my purse, insisted on giving me his coat, knew how to order the right kind of food and wine, walked on the outside of the street, gave me the best spot to sit, always respected my time, always followed up, was always on time AND he was not a player, this was just born and bred into him through his culture. Because he acted like a man like it was the most natural thing in the world, I could act like a woman and just concentrate on the relationship itself rather than worry about gender roles and what this or that means. He never sat there and questioned the role of women in society, equality, yada yada, he just always tried to give me the best and I him. It was such a freeing dating experience. Thank god I met him. (And girls, he has a younger brother). 🙂
Julia says
@Chance 37
If a man supports a woman that doesn’t want to work, well, that’s what a man should do…. and if he doesn’t, then he’s a cheapskate, or not a “real man”. However, if a woman supports a man who doesn’t work, even if he really is trying to find a job (not the case here obviously), then she’s sacrificing her well-being to support a loser.
Here’s the thing, in another post not so long ago, a woman was paying 4/5 of everything and men were freaking out that a man shouldn’t have to pay for her children, I actually agree that if she is getting child support from their father he shouldn’t, I wouldn’t scapel the budget like some suggested but I digress. Here is a case where a woman needs to worry about her children FIRST, she shouldn’t forsake their future for the sake of her boyfriend. When you throw children that don’t belong to a partner into an equation things changes rapidly. You are talking about a man taking care of his wife who is in turn taking care of THEIR children. This man is NOT the father of her children, he has no responsibility to raise them. Its a completely different story. If I were the OP I would continue to see him but not let him move in. I would do the same now, as a 32 year old woman without children. I cannot afford to support and able bodied adult male. This has ZERO to do with traditional gender roles and everything to do with economic reality.
Chance says
Julia, I’ve made it abundantly clear that I was talking about women who aren’t taking care of children. I don’t know now much more clearly I can make it.
Goldie says
I never let it show of course, but acts of chivalry do make me suspicious on a certain level. I grew up in a country where all guys, by default, opened doors, pulled out chairs, helped you into your coat etc. Then one day I found myself out of work, and those same guys were telling me things like “oh we have a policy at our company not to hire women”. My husband had to work two fulltime jobs to provide for the family. Luckily, no one had a problem with hiring HIM. Before you ask, I had more experience in the field than he did, was better qualified (I actually helped him with his very first project), my former supervisor wanted me to work with him at his new job, but he was told no. No women allowed. To me, this is in the same category. Pulling out chairs and opening doors implies that I’m not capable of doing these things for myself, and need help with them. From there it’s just a hop, skip and a jump to the idea that I am also not capable of doing a job that a man can do just fine.
I know most people don’t give it much thought when they open doors etc, so I don’t give anyone a hard time about it, either.
As far as paying on dates, well, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we don’t pay our way, we’re users. If we do, we’re ballbusting bitches. Am I right? I used to try and have the first dates at the most inexpensive places possible – trendy, fun, but inexpensive. I’d do the reach, the guy would say “I got it”, pay a few bucks for my coffee and whatever, everyone’s happy. Proper decorum has been observed without emptying the guy’s bank account.
@ Julia 42 – Agree 100%!
KE 35
“It’s folks like you who help continue the debacle that is the welfare system.”
Personally I have absolutely nothing against the welfare system. My family was on medicaid and food stamps for a few months, so I am thankful that we had this option of helping us get on our feet. Our income was zero for the first few months, then for the rest of the year it was $20K for a family of four. We weren’t getting the foodstamps then, but were still on medicaid and I am glad that we were. I would’ve certainly not been able to afford a pediatrician for my children otherwise. I have no problem with a country having a social network for its residents’ emergency situations. I would rather see my taxes go towards that than towards some of the other things they’re being spent on.
Now do I support intentionally not having any income and counting on SSI/Medicaid as one’s retirement plan? No. But depending on how long we live, and what happens to our investments, we may all end up there eventually.
Karmic Equation says
@Goldie
I think welfare was a great idea to help people in need. However, today, for way too many people it’s their “job”. Need more money? You and I would work harder for a merit increase. To others, “have another kid” is their motto. I know of several people personally who’ve done this. They aren’t my friends and they’re also not good parents either, raising another generation of children who think welfare is a viable occupation.
With Cat5, the mentality of “I shouldn’t do without what gives me pleasure” is another entitlement complex. Instead of sacrificing and SAVING for that vacation, eat out less, buy less expensive clothes, buy generic brands of whatever, they often need to keep up with the Joneses to be “happy”. Their happiness comes out of MY pocket and I hugely resent that.
I don’t mind helping people in need, but the reality is that way too many people “in need” are in need due to their own lack of self-discipline.
I need to stop writing about. The thought just ramps up my blood pressure!
———
As to the whole who pays for dates thing, I just behave as my “authentic” self 🙂 When I go out by myself, I eat expensively: lobster, porterhouse or ribeye steak (not all the time but often enough). When I go on a date, if I feel like lobster, I’ll order it and make sure my date knows I intend to pay for my part of the date. Usually they’re relieved and say thanks. And I don’t feel like I’m depriving myself to make a good impression. I don’t eat like a bird!
On other dates, where it was just drinks and appetizers, I always reach for my purse and say “Let me help with that” — Ineveitably the man says, “No, thank you. I want to see you again, you pay for the next one, ok?” with a smile and long look in my eyes. That Works for us both 🙂
Cat5 says
No Karmic Equation that is not what i’m saying and thank you for putting word in my mouth…what I said is we are all screwed unless things change significantly, but many, many people just haven’t realized it yet. Unless you are in the top 1% wealthwise you are screwed. And for the record, I pay my taxes so just like you my taxes dollars are going to fund a lot of different things — some I agree with and some I don’t.
No one in this country really owns any property, we are all really just renting it from the government in the form of taxes. Do you know how many retired people have paid off their mortgages after 30 years only to go under financially because the taxes on their home were more than their original mortgage payment? All that planning for “financial security” in the form of savings, pension plans, stocks, bonds, other investments, and social security are not enough to cover the taxes on the house they paid for let alone their medical bills, groceries, utilities, clothing, etc. They still ended up in the same place as those who didn’t or quite often couldn’t because their jobs did not offer pension plans or pay enough to buy a house, raise a family, and survive.
Clare says
Marie 41
Amen!
South African men are overwhelmingly the same.
I find haggling over who should pick up the check and who is *doing more* – the sort of theme which runs freely through Chance’s posts – to be SUCH a turn-off.
I’ve never been accused of taking advantage by any man because… I never did. Also, they had manners. They had the gallantry and breeding to take care of things such as the check, and worrying about whether I was cold, and navigating etc. And allowed me to reciprocate in my own feminine and charming way. It all flowed and worked and nobody felt put upon.
Skaramouche says
I tried so hard to stay out of this and just learn by reading the different opinions but I find I can’t! Karmic, I can’t say how much I agree with you on this point. Helping people in need is great and everyone should do it. It’s just that the definition of “in need” has changed so much. I live in Canada and I am sometimes resentful of the amount we pay in taxes. I don’t use healthcare (*knocks on wood*) and I hate paying for it. I’m not resentful because I grudge someone of low income using my tax dollars to keep himself/herself healthy. If this person is genuinely in need, I’m happy to help. I’m resentful because we live in a society where pleasure comes first and if it’s at the expense of health or financial well being, so be it…someone else will pick up the tab.
Tying this back to the OP’s man, I wonder how he plans to provide for himself in old age. Cat5, I’m not arguing the fact that things need to change…there is much that’s unfair. However, I have to politely disagree with your comment that I’m “screwed” unless I’m in the top 1% of the wealthy. I’m still fairly young at 31, have already begun to think about retirement and will buy a house that I can hope to maintain on my retirement income. Of course, a 100 things could go wrong between now and the time that I feel able to retire but that’s life. Are you suggesting that I should just not save and live life to the fullest now because chances are I’m screwed anyway? If that is not what you are saying then I’m confused.
@Chance
Please, please, please, please don’t trot out the “men have paid for women for generations” thing. Yes they did and there were perfectly good reasons for it. I agree that it’s unfair in today’s society and no one should expect a free ride. However, if one is lovingly offered, I don’t see how you can you can blame a woman (or man) for accepting it. Are you saying that there’s a double standard? That it is more socially acceptable for a woman to be “kept” by a man than for a man to be “kept” by a woman? I agree with that. Things are changing but it’s a slow process. However, only this generation and maybe one before it can be used to support your argument. You are unfortunately getting the benefit of ire directed at many, not just you but I’m so sick of of hearing “we have supported you without complaint for years and years”. Yes, you have. And? We have borne your babies and raised them, sometimes sacrificing our own careers (for those of us who wanted careers).
I admit to having a very strong opinion in this regard. I do not want to support a man on a full-time basis. I don’t want a house husband. On an on-going basis, I would like 50% of the income to be contributed by my husband. I will gladly support him if he gets ill or is unable to work for another reason. I will happily support him even if he just wants to take a break for a year or two and relax/pursue interests. However, I take offense at the suggestion that I am biased or shallow for not wanting to support a man just because men have supported women for “generations”.
The truth is, some men are okay with housewives. Women, for the most part, are not okay with househusbands. It sucks for men who want to be house husbands but it’s the way it is. Until you guys figure out a way to have babies and we figure out a way to rival you in strength and other manly things so that gender roles can truly be reversed if so desired, I guess things won’t change much 😀
Julia says
@Clare and Marie
I’ve dating mostly American men (also a Pakistani and some Bulgarians) and they are all equally as gallant as the men you describe. Some of them just want sex, sure but they are all gentleman. Once I really tuned into the feminine energy it became easier for me to appreciate all the little things men will do to make you happy. There is nothing like the feeling of a man wanting to care for you, protect you, etc. Sometimes I still turn them down on some of their offers because it seems like second nature to care for myself but then I will go back and notice and make sure to say “yes” the next time.
Karmic Equation says
@Cat5
Maybe this is news for you…People who can’t afford children don’t. Many of the “haves” have 2 children only because they realize that with the cost of living and future college, that two is all they can afford.
If a person can’t afford a house, don’t buy one. If a person can’t afford to pay for their own child don’t have one.
I’m sorry. If someone cannot take care of their own selves they have no business bringing new people into the world that can also not afford.
Nowadays who are the folks that have more than 2-3 children? Either the very rich or the very poor. The poor rely on welfare and the rich rely on themselves.
The unfortunate state of healthcare in this country does contribute and yes, if one has a catastrophic illness and chose to roll the dice by not having health insurance, then they contributed to their own descent into poverty.
I absolutely believe that we’re a product of our choices. If one dies poor but lived a well to do life then they did the live for today and forget about tomorrow thing and they pay the price literally.
“If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.”
Your living for today “in a job you love” without planning for tomorrow means you’re part of tomorrow’s problems. Which makes you MY future problem. I didn’t sign up for that.
If you try your best to live adequately today and not be a drain on the system now or in your old age … and need help then, I wouldn’t begrudge you. And for those folks who tried to save and ended up in a bad way I don’t have a problem with my taxes helping them.
But folks like you who WILFULLY won’t help defray future burdens on others are maddening. Every penny you spend today that you could have saved for tomrrow, is a penny you take out of my pocket tomorrow.
I’m NOT in the top 1% and I don’t “love” my job. But I save, I own my own house, and put the max into my 401k. I may become destitute through sickness someday, but I tried my best not to be a burden on others, so while I may someday also burden the system, I would have defrayed that cost with my own money. Who’s money is going to put you in a nursing home someday if you don’t save now? Your children? Your family? My taxes? Grow up.
Kiki says
@ Chance
Are you still in college or something? You think you have the energy to have a high paying job, have sex with the wife at least 3 times per week AND also have several mistresses? Or is your real name Tiger?
Marie says
@Julia – I agree I’ve never had a problem with men being gallant to me either (regardless of culture). It’s only when I read this blog with all the angry men saying why do they have to pay that I realized the extent of resentment men seem to have about the so-called double standard. It makes me wonder, did all those men who offered to treat me, were they all secretly resenting me? Ugh! And I went out with them??? Is that what they were thinking but not saying out loud? Ugh again!
Well I can’t say because the only guy whom I did know his true intentions through and through is my husband. I’ll tell you though that far into our dating we had a discussion about this because he asked me something along the lines of what do American men do on dates. Because apparently he did what he thought was just being gentlemanly and the few American women he dated all reacted witih some kind of grateful shock. He was truly confused. Maybe we bring out the masculine side of men by our feminity, who knows, but this is a complaint I hear from a lot of women on this blog. I feel for the men too because what if they do something nice and the women get offended that they are implying the woman can’t do something for herself. See? A lot of gender role confusion. Best to just bypass that and focus on the relationship itself.
Sparkling Emerald says
[email protected] “As far as paying on dates, well, we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. If we don’t pay our way, we’re users. If we do, we’re ballbusting bitches. Am I right?”
Yes, you are RIGHT ! (with some men) Thank you, thank you, thank you. I tried to bring up the SAME point several months ago, about the whole awkward damned if you do or don’t, and boy did the men (and some of the women) pile on ! Everything from implying that I am a spoiled little princess, to my awkward feeling over the whole thing was a sign of some “wart” that I need to iradicate, and that deep down inside, I like gender “equality” ONLY when it benefits me.
NOTHING I said was listened to. I suggested cheap or no cost first dates, said I really don’t care if the first date is low or no cost. That wasn’t a good enough solution for the men looking to belly ache about women being gold diggers. When I explained that once we know each other better I contribute in my own way, maybe by cooking, or bringing food to a picnic, I was informed that I was inviting unwanted sexual something or other and that it’s not good for a woman to cook early in the relationship. NOTHING would convince the piler oners that my motives were anything but pure evil. (OK, I’m being a tad hyperbolic)
Thanks to the blowback I am not pleased to admit that I did the “fake reach” and it wasn’t very well rec’d. I HATE when I let what some stupid blogger says influence my behavior.
Most men WANT to pay for me, and not in a creepy “maybe I’ll at least get a BJ if I buy her drinks and appetizers” kind of way.
My last “almost relationship”, I TRIED to pitch in after several dates and the ONLY way he EVER let me chip in was when I had a Barnes & Nobles gift card in my purse and they let me use it in the book store coffee shop. Another time I offered to eat at my house before catching a movie after work, and before I could ask him what he would like to eat, he said “GREAT, I’ll pick up some sushi rolls and bring them over”. All I provided was beverage. I offered him movie passes from work, and he said OK, but the movie we wanted to see was at the dollar theater, so it was silly to use my passes when they could be used for more expensive movies, so he didn’t let me use the passes. When we were going on an outing closer to his house, I said it was silly for him to drive allllllllllll the way to my house, and then drive me alllllllllll the way home when I could drive right after work and meet him, and he said it wasn’t silly at all, that I was worth it, and he INSISTED on picking me up. I think my total contribution in the relationship was twice I cooked for him, but he provided wine and/or dessert. And the few bucks for coffee on my gift card after a dinner date that he already paid for.
Oh, and the opening doors thing ? If he’d see me reach for the door handle out of habit, he’d say “AH, AH, that’s not how a princess behaves, let ME get that for you !” I joked to my friends that it was more like physical therapy than chivalry, because both his vehicles were either rather high or rather low and a tad difficult for me to get in and out of. (He had a truck and a Corvette) He and I were making our way across the parking lot (or should I say making out as we crossed the parking lot 🙂 ) and when he opened the door to help me get in, a single guy saw that and shouted at us, ” I WANT to be in love like THAT, I want a girl who LETS me open the door for her” and gave my prince a big thumbs up. (we hadn’t said the “L” word to each other yet, so that was a bit wierd) but when the other guy said “Where did you find her !?” my prince just smiled, then the single guy asked ME, “How did he find a girl like you ?” and I told him match.com. (perhaps they owe me a commission ? 🙂
So even though we didn’t work out (he lied about his pot smoking so I would agree to go out with him, and he was pushing me to move on getting a legal separation, etc 🙁 ) I did LEARN from that “almost a relationship” that there ARE men in the world who will think of me as a princess, and think that is a GOOD thing. There ARE men who want enjoy treating women with chivalry, And if and when a man who WANTS to treat me like a princess (or a queen) finds me, I will treat HIM like a PRINCE or a KING !
The way most of my dating life has gone, men either treat me like a peasant or a princess. I know which I prefer !
Also Goldie – I am sorry that one of the posters badgered you so badly about a simple post about sharing labor in a relationship. I hope you will continue to post, I enjoy reading what you have to say 🙂
Chance says
Goldie #44:
The vast majority of men are not going to think that you’re a “ballbusting bitch” for paying for a date. Men will usually insist on paying for a date because they (rightly) believe that if they don’t, they won’t get another date. When a woman reaches for the check, most men are afraid she doesn’t really mean it, and that she really expects him to pay. Therefore, that is why they insist on paying.
Clare #47:
“I find haggling over who should pick up the check and who is *doing more* — the sort of theme which runs freely through Chance’s posts — to be SUCH a turn-off.”
Clare, I don’t know what the culture of dating is like in South Africa. We may be talking from two totally different points of view. Dating in the U.S. may be similar, or it may be like comparing apples to oranges. In the U.S., women expect to be treated equally, and they do not expect to be constrained by traditional gender roles in any way. I don’t know one woman who thinks otherwise, and guess what, I agree with them. They should be able to do whatever they want with their lives. However, many of them still expect men to adhere to traditional gender roles, which includes paying for everything. No matter how you slice it, that is patently inequitable. Perhaps women don’t play both sides of the fence in South Africa, and that’s fair enough. Many of them do here.
One final question (and the question only applies if gender relations are, in fact, similar in South Africa): would you still find haggling over who should pick up the check to be a SUCH a turn-off if you were the one expected to pay for everything?
Skaramouche #48:
“However, if one is lovingly offered, I don’t see how you can you can blame a woman (or man) for accepting it. “
“Are you saying that there’s a double standard? That it is more socially acceptable for a woman to be “kept” by a man than for a man to be “kept” by a woman? I agree with that.”
With all due respect, these are straw-man arguments because you know the man is expected to always “lovingly offer”, and that very few men have any interest in “keeping” women. Also, if you expect men to adhere to traditional male gender roles, that is fair as long as you adhere to traditional female gender roles. I, for one, have not met any woman who’s willing to do that.
Marie #52:
“It’s only when I read this blog with all the angry men saying why do they have to pay that I realized the extent of resentment men seem to have about the so-called double standard. It makes me wonder, did all those men who offered to treat me, were they all secretly resenting me? Ugh! And I went out with them??? Is that what they were thinking but not saying out loud? Ugh again!”
Yes, that’s what they’re thinking. I have known a couple of guys who preferred to always pay, and it was because they thought it would make women feel like they owed them sex. The rest of the men just believe in simple fairness. Take your pick.
Look, when men pay for dates at the beginning, it’s not about generosity, it’s not about being a gentleman – they do it because they know if they don’t, they won’t be getting any more dates. I’ve been with my girlfriend for a few years now, and we used to always split dates. She’d get one , I’d get the next. She just did it without me asking. She is rare. I decided, on my own volition, after about two years that I wanted to pay for everything whenever we go out, when we go on vacation either in or out of the country, because I wanted her have more money and to be able to pay down her student loans and contribute to her 401k. I’m already putting in the IRS max, have a good cash stockpile, and I don’t really care about spending my money on her.
That’s generosity.
Cat5 says
Karmic Equation said:
“Maybe this is news for you….People who can’t afford children don’t. Many of the “haves” have only two children… .”
With respect to your first sentence, perhaps you need to research that comment a little…no make that a lot…more before you try and tell me what is and is not news to me. Your research should include all socioeconomic sectors, not just the one to which you feel you belong. I think you are in for a big shock as to what the news actually is.
Please explain what you mean when you refer to the “haves” in the second sentence.
Kiki says
@ Marie 52
I also learnt through this blog that [some] men absolutely hate the fact that they are the ones paying for dates because it is not clear whether there will be any pay-off to this investment, but that they keep doing it because it is effective, i.e. their success rate will be even worse if they fail to treat the lady.
I had lunch on two occasions in a cafe near work and bumped into my boss once and on another occasion to the managing partner of the company I work for. On both occasions we sat together and on both, at the end of the lunch the men insisted and paid for my lunch as well (even though we were eating together accidentally and not by invitation), saying that a lady has to be treated like a lady. Mind you, there is zero romantic interest between me and either of them (both are happily married, with numerous kids each).
So I am thinking, paying for another person’s food is a sign of superiority and is inherited from the times when women simply could not pay because simply they could not work outside the home. I also think that when a man has the means to do it, he does it with the same pleasure men take in showing off their expensive cars or other possessions.
Clare says
Marie 52,
That’s why I find it better to focus on generosity of spirit.
I would never, never go out with someone who resented me, resented doing things for me, or kept score. Because I know that I am a very generous, giving person in a relationship, with my money, my time, my effort and my affection. I would never be able to tolerate for one second someone who was holding back for fear that he’d done or given a little too much, and was tapping his foot waiting for reciprocation. Ugh.
A man who gives out of a masculine desire to protect and care and provide is SUCH a turn on. It makes me want to give so much in return.
Marie says
@Chance – thanks for your response. So if what you say is true for most men, then what do you suggest women practically do on early dates (most everyone I know splits after a month or so)? I have always tried to offer but it gets turned down. I’ve literally had a guy wrestle the check away from me saying, my guy friend told me if a girl pays for the date, she doesn’t want to see you again. I’ve also had guys insist on paying even when it was clear to the both of us that there was no chemistry probably because he was the one who insisted on the date. You must have done this yourself at some point.
I guess the biggest problem I have when men bring up this gripe is why they don’t do something about it. Because the woman’s action is a reaction: the man offers to pay, she reaches for her purse (or does nothing), and he continues to insist on paying. If one insists on paying then one should not blame the other party for taking up the offer. It’s like me offering my husband the last bite of chocolate cake thinking he will turn it down but instead he took me at face value and says thank you sweetie and eats it! Do I get mad at my husband for not offering it back to me? No, because I’ve got no one to blame except myself (plus he’s pretty cute when he eats cake :-). )
You say men have to continually offer because they are afraid of not getting second dates. In that case, they are getting something out of it, as you say, and there are strings attached. It’s like an initial bid at an auction and the woman is accepting the bid for now until another better bid comes along. In that case, why get mad at the woman for accepting your bid when you clearly wanted her to owe you? What I’m trying to say is men utilize the social construct for their own gain just as much as anyone else. So don’t blame women when it doesn’t go their way. that’s not fair. If one truly feels so strongly then one should be the one to stand up and tell the next date, “I liked you but because I feel having the man pay is a representation of gender inequality and is blatantly unfair to men everywhere because we have been paying for your entire gender for generations while you stayed at home not making any money. I hope you understand and respect my position.” So be the one to stand up for what you believe in then. Men are responsible for at least 50% of this problem (if it is a problem); they should not take out their resentment entirely on women but also on others of their own gender and themselves. It’s a matter of put your money where your mouth is, or as my teacher used to say, put up or shut up!
Karmic Equation says
Hmmm…I had to think back on my 20 dates since mid-June.
It is true that if I *insist* on paying, I don’t intend to go on a second date. I feel relieved of that obligation by paying.
On dates where I wanted to get to a second date, I’ll *genuinely* reach for my purse with every intention of paying and say “let me help with that” and the guy, if HE wants a second date, will say “don’t worry about that.” And I’ll say “Oh, thank you.” As if I never expected that. And it’s authentic because I EXPECT to split check and am genuinely surprised when they don’t want to.
As well on dates where the men seem too happy (or relieved?) to let me pay my part, I do read something into that, which is that either 1) they’re not interested – this has been true, no asks for 2nd dates when they’re happy/relieved to let me pay — or no asks because I give them warm hugs instead of a warm kiss after, coincidence? 🙂 or 2) money is their god. And I don’t mean this as they’re cheap or ungentlemanly. But rather they value money more than I do, and therefore, we’re not a match. (Lesson learned from my ex-husband). I don’t characterize a man for being gallant or not or gentlemanly or not on the basis of his paying or not. You pay attention to how and what he talks about and how he talks to the waitresses/bartenders to get some of that info. I think those adjectives are just women’s ways of justifying to themselves why she herself might have money as HER god.
There have been a few times when the convo never came up. Basically if it’s just drinks no eats, I don’t usually offer. Not sure why I think this way. I get 2nd dates.
In my opinion, even though we women don’t give men enough credit about reading our emotions (they are often bad), men do an excellent job of reading our expectations and authenticity. They usually know when we’re being real and when we’re being fake. Especially men with options, who have a lot of experience dating.
If you come from a position where you EXPECT men to pay and you date a man who RESENTS women for this expectation, he’ll do it under duress. But if you date a man who is resentful of such expectations but YOU are genuine in your desire to pay, he lightens up. Of course the hotter you are the less resentful he is of paying if you’re a nice person. (I’m thinking of Goldie’s link to that hilarious date).
If you expect men to pay, date a man who expects to pay, otherwise confusion and resentment are likely to arise. However, if you teach yourself to genuinely expect to pay your share, you get to date BOTH kinds of men. That genuiness will buy you a lot of good will and take down the guard of man who’s resentful and make a good impression on the guy who isn’t resentful.
Sparkling Emerald says
Chance – “However, many of them still expect men to adhere to traditional gender roles, which includes paying for everything. “
Paying for the first few dates early in the courtship phase is not paying for “everything”. As a relationship progresses women pay their share. I have NEVER heard of a woman cooking a meal for her man and then demanding to be re-imbursed for the groceries. I have NEVER seen a couple that were married or living together who didn’t split the expenses in some way or another. My first hubby paid for all of our early dates, but once we moved in and got married, controlled ALL of the money, his and mine. I rarely had a penny to spend and he begrudged me almost every penny. So yeah, those early dates that he paid for were paid back a thousand fold. My second hubby was more sharing about money, but he didn’t pay for “everything”. (nor did I expect him to) He made more than me, but I would say my contribution was nearly equal. He paid most of the day to day bills, I paid for household repairs, auto insurance, phone, internet, socked money away in savings, paid for our sons college (with very, very, little financial aid) shopped and paid for the groceries. When our son was younger I paid all of his school related expenses, took him shopping for clothes, bought his school supplies, paid for field trips, band rental instruments, piano lessons, etc. Even when I was a stay at home mom briefly, I took in other children and provided day care, for a small amount. Staying home with our son during the tender years was something WE BOTH agreed to. In fact, prior to our marriage my hubby ASKED me to. Also, during our marriage, I ALWAYS did more housework, even when I worked full time. (yes, hubby did repairs and traditional “mans” work, and his own laundry) but cooking, cleaning, shopping, cleaning the bathrooms, vacuuming, mopping etc. I ended up doing.
So yeah, if a guy never gets past 2 or 3 dates, he may end up paying for “everything”, but if he gets into an actual relationship, most women will pay in their own ways. Of course, there are men, who will have confirmation bias, they will see a stay at home mom, and ONLY notice women when they aren’t working. They see a bunch of ladies out having tea, and ASSUME they are spoiled women being supported by men. They really have no idea if they are retired with a pension, work, stay at home, are single etc.
All these free loading women you seem to observe who scrap book and take yoga. Do you really have a magnifying glass into their lives ? Do they contribute LABOR to their household ? Do they work part time or full time ? Do they contribute monetarily ? How do you have such inside info ?
Have you NEVER seen a relationship where the woman works, contributes her income to her relationship, cooks, shop, cleans, is the primary care taker for her child ? Because that’s mostly what I see in COUPLES, both contributing money and labor to the relationship. I have seen the OCCASIONAL free loader in relationships, and I have seen that in BOTH genders.
Your constant harping about having to pay for EVERYTHING leads me to believe that you never get past 2 or 3 dates and into a relationship. If it bothers you so much, take a girl out on a low cost or no cost date. That’s a good way to screen out the gold diggers, and your attitude might be a little more relaxed and not so paranoid that you are going to be taken advantage of.
I for one, am MORE comfortable when the early dates are low cost or no cost. I’m not interested in what’s in his wallet. (just don’t want someone who is flat broke or homeless) I am interested in what’s in his heart. When a man pays for the glass of wine on our first meeting, or buys me a gelato on the free art walk, I’m not jumping up and down thinking “Yippee, I just scored a five dollar treat from this sucker”. I am thinking “how sweet of him”.
You can bitch about these women who are CEO’s apparently, and never contribute a dime to their primary relationship (I have NEVER seen this) but there are men who will GLADLY accept a woman supporting them, and also doing ALL the cooking, cleaning and shopping, and think that mowing the lawn once a month, and greasing a squeaky door hinge is their fair share to the relationship.
Frimmel says
Totally agree with Chance in #54. My experience is that most women don’t put their feminism where their wallet is.
My solution to the confusion would be to set the record straight on who pays up front. A man’s preference for splitting would undoubtedly impact his dating prospects far more than a woman’s expression of the same preference.
Chance says
Marie:
No problem, and thank you for your response. I plan to provide a more detailed response to your points when I have some time. I appreciate the constructive conversation/debate 🙂
Sparkling Emerald:
For someone who feels so sorry that one poster is being “badly badgered” by another poster (which, by the way, I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about), you sure seem to have no problem badgering people yourself. You have willfully misinterpreted my posts. Please go back and read what I am saying carefully, and then actually respond to, you know, what I said. I’ll be happy to refute your points then.
Shaukat says
@ Karmic Equation, #45, 50,
With all due respect, you’re living in a fantasy land if you believe it’s the poor who are the real financial drain on the majority of the American citizenry, and such a myth was likely cultivated by the Reagan administration, and accepted by most of the US population, through the ridiculous notion of the “Welfare Queen,” which entered popular consciousness just at a time when most social welfare programs were being gutted and retrenched.
You write, “The poor rely on welfare and the rich rely on themselves.” Oh, really? Even if you leave aside the more blatant and perverse examples of wealth redistribution, such as the bailouts and liquidity injections into the economy which cost trillions, corporations and the wealthy rely on regular government interventions, in the form of subsidies and massive R&D grants and government contracts and purchases, as an incentive for innovation and to simply continue making profits. All of that comes “out of your pocket,” yet the American citizenry don’t share in the profits made possible largely through the help of such publicly financed subsidies to business.
Finally, even if you were to take the most blatant and atrocious example of lower class welfare fraud that still wouldn’t compare to the tax havens and loopholes, such as the carried interest tax, that allow people like Mitt Romney to pay 15-20% in taxes while the working and middle class pay 30-35%. One of the greatest accomplishments of the American right wing in the 1980s was to convince the middle and upper-middles classes that all their problems and woes were the fault of the most vulnerable members of the underclass.
Sparkling Emerald says
Chance at 62 – I have not “willfully” misinterpreted anything. Perhaps I have misunderstood. Perhaps you could CLEARLY tell me EXACTLY what I said that you believe is being “misinterpreted” and tell me what you REALLY mean with all your complaints about women who want equality and also want the man to pay for “everything”. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by “everything”.
And if you have no idea “what in the hell you are talking about” (you, meaning me) your exact words that I copied and pasted from your post, why are so defensive ? I didn’t mention your name, so it must be your guilty conscience at work, when I comment to Goldie about being badgered. And why is it OK for you use “hell” in your response to me, but so wrong when Goldie responds with the word “hell” in her post, after you have accused her of having an affair with a married man. (Don’t tell me you didn’t accuse her. You framed your accusation as a question )
Even one of the men on this blog thought you were being ridiculous.
marymary says
have we addresses the low libido issue?
Karmic Equation says
@Shaukat
I don’t have a problem with the rich getting richer. At least they’re doing work to get richer. I feel that if I work harder, I too will get richer. Never as rich as Mitt Romney, but I don’t resent him for having had the wherewithal, gumption, ambition, etc., to get rich. He has a work ethic.
I have a problem with people using my tax dollars to buy cigarettes and junk food. I have a problem with people NOT WORKING for the money they take out of my pocket. I have problem with people getting pay raises by having more children. I have problems with people who can ill afford children having them (can we say Octo-mom?). These people have NO work ethic. They have an entitlement complex.
If a person works and can’t make ends meet then they need to shorten their ends until they do. No more eating out. Only eat ramen if they have to. No more Nike shoes, wear Walmart brand. No more smartphones, get dumb ones. Get roommates. Move back in with mom & dad (but help them with the rent for god’s sake.)
The problem with the “poor” that I have problems with is that they’re often UNWILLING to do anything to better themselves. They want everything the “rich” have without WORKING for it. So would I, but I don’t resent the rich. I studied hard in high school to go to college, I went to college (studiedless hard, I don’t have a degree) — but I found a job I was good at and WORKED HARD at the job to advance my career. I worked to get where I am and I expect others to work just as hard.
How many “welfare queens” are too good to scrub toilets at McDonald’s? All of them. Why do that when doing NOTHING will get you the same, if not more, money by simply having children? OUr welfare system is wacked.
No doubt there’s corporate corruption, but those people WORK HARD to get that corrupt money. It’s not easy to cook books. It’s not easy to run a ponzi scheme. Sure it’s wrong, but they had to work hard to do that wrong. The welfare folks I have problems with just get handed their money without ANY work, right or wrong.
Karmic Equation says
marymary, You kill me with your one liners. lmao
It’s a medical fact that most men’s testosterone levels drop when they reach their 40’s. Perhaps this man needs to see an endocrinologist to see if his lack of libido is due to testosterone-loss.
But wait, he probably doesn’t have healthcare. Oh, wait, maybe he tried to sign up for Obamacare on the webiste but couldn’t. If the government can’t even get a WEBSITE to work properly, how the f* are they going to get HEALTHCARE to run properly???? Who voted him in? Not me. Not the first time and certainly not the 2nd time. Not because of race. He got great rhetoric but no idea how to run a country. Let me stop there before I get audited.
Sparkling Emerald says
Scott @7 This question is not about their romantic relationship. Julie seems to like their current arrangement just fine. She has a FWB at her call to scrath her itch (just barely).
Are you reading the same post ??? She said she truly loves this man. Doesn’t sound like FWB. He is not doing much scratching lately. She has tried to help him with his art by providing PR and marketing help. Who does that for a FWB ? She said lots of good things about him, and her main concerns are the lack of passion and the financial path he has gone down. Sounds like they split things fairly even right now. Instead of moving in with her, why doesn’t he get a room mate ? Unless he is expecting free rent ?
One poster alluded to this being all about him not having a “Big” 401K. Heck he has NO 401K, he blew through it and refuses to even work part time on the side while he tries to make a living at his hobby. This isn’t about a woman rejecting a man because he’s not RICH enough, this about a woman, rightfully concerned that this man could eventually be a serious drain on her and her children’s resources.
He might want to be a starving artist, but it is clear that the OP, doesn’t want her and her kids to starve along side of him. That’s not unreasonable. I would feel the same if a guy was in the same situation with a GF who has been blowing through her savings to try and make a living, singing, acting, writing or some other “difficult to make a living at” career. I would be thinking, he should NOT let her move in !!!!!
I LOVE to act, and I actually have a part time “paying” gig and have made the occasional paid education film here and there. But I would never DREAM of quitting my day job unless I won the lottery BIG TIME, inherited a huge some of money or had some other means of supporting myself while I tried to hit the big time. I would never ask to move in with a BF so I could continue to spend money I don’t have, (maxing out my credit cards) or dipping into retirement funds.
My “paying” gig is probably about a dollar an hour once you subtract unpaid rehearsal time, and my make up & costume costs (which I buy at Goodwill). I do this as a hobby because I LOVE it. I am glad to be breaking even. I don’t resent that I have to work a day job and another PT evening job to pay my bills and continue paying into my 401K. I don’t expect to mooch off a man or the tax payers so I can “suffer” for my art.
Chance says
Sparkling Emerald:
“And why is it OK for you use “hell” in your response to me, but so wrong when Goldie responds with the word “hell” in her post, after you have accused her of having an affair with a married man. (Don’t tell me you didn’t accuse her. You framed your accusation as a question )
Even one of the men on this blog thought you were being ridiculous.”
What in the holy hell are you talking about? I think you may have your people mixed up. Please copy/paste what your talking about. I accept your apologies in advance.
Julia says
I just want to point a couple things out, A) one cannot buy cigarettes with food stamps. b) the vast majority of people on welfare are children or working adults in the country. Why not use facts for our arguments rather than tired stereotypes from the early 80s?
Skaramouche says
@Chance #54
>> With all due respect, these are straw-man arguments because you know the man is expected to always “lovingly offer”, and that very few men have any interest in “keeping” women.
Once again, I beg to differ. If men have no interest in “keeping” women, why do they do it? We’re talking in the context of LTRs and marriages, not first dates. I hope you’re not suggesting that the price of having a relationship is paying for your woman. In my experience, men pay for women because they want to. I’m lucky enough to be married to such a man. I would never take advantage of his generosity for more than a year or two, especially as we don’t intend to have children. I have offered him the same option if he ever gets tired of the corporate world and wants a break but that is really beside the point. He *wants* to support me…where’s the problem? As I understand it, you’re saying that I should want to support him too and if I don’t, it’s unfair.
>> Also, if you expect men to adhere to traditional male gender roles, that is fair as long as you adhere to traditional female gender roles. I, for one, have not met any woman who’s willing to do that.
Personally, I don’t expect men to adhere to traditional gender roles at all. However, if I did, I would agree that the same could be expected of me. What are the women who stay home and raise children (or not in some cases) doing if not exactly that?
Karmic Equation says
@Julia
They can be bought with EBT – or EBTs can get real cash from ATMs and then the real cash used to purchase cigarettes.
Do you REALLY think the children are given the money? The money dispensed is INTENDED for the children and CALCULATED for the child/# children, but do you REALLY think their parents give the money to them.
That’s the POLITICAL line that folks in politics tow. It ain’t reality.
And don’t get me started on the Federal Employees being EXEMPT from income taxes. Why do you think politicians would rather raise income taxes than sales taxes? They actually would HAVE to pay sales taxes, but obviously NOT income taxes.
Julia says
@karmic equation
Sorry but yours is flawed, SNAP EBT can only be used at point of sale for food sales. Now there is a separate ATM that folks receiving unemployment, veteran’s benefits and the very few receiving cash benefits can use to access if they don’t have a checking account, but I digress. I am sort of an expert on this policy, maybe not an expert but certainly more educated on the nuances of these policies than I am sure you are because of what I do for a living.
Secondly, Federal Employees are exempt from SOCIAL SECURITY not Federal Income taxes, they are not allowed to collect SSI btw which is why they are exempt. Further, the federal government DOES NOT have a sales tax. Some states and municipalities do. So you know, get your facts straight.
Shaukat says
@ Karmic Equation
Julia, #70 above, is correct. Your generalizations about most people on welfare seem to derive from anecdotal pieces of evidence or daytime tabloid talk shows as opposed to actual empirical trends. If you have real statistical evidence that most, or even a third, of the people receiving welfare in the United States are on it illegitimately or view it as a lifestyle choice then please alert me to your source. Welfare has been drastically scaled back and retrenched in the United States, a process that began mainly under Reagan but continued right into the Clinton Presidency, who replaced it with “workfare” and raised the eligibility requirements in terms of who could qualify while also reducing the time period that people would be eligible to remain on the program.
The United States ranks last among other industrialized democracies when it comes to providing social welfare services to citizens, and this difference has real negative consequences. There’s a reason why the US has one of the highest incarcerated populations in the industrialized world while the Netherlands actually closed prisons because of a lack of crime-and it’s not because Americans have different genes.
Your statement that “I feel that if I work harder, I too will get richer,” is a point right out of the neocon playbook. Certainly people who work hard have gotten wealthy, but others have simply gotten lucky, or inherited wealth, or amassed fortunes through stock asset speculation. And it’s equally true that people who work very hard for the majority of their lives not only don’t get rich but actually see the little net worth they do have decline due to factors beyond their control, such as capital flight, financial crises, Central Bank policies that control inflation by fostering unemployment, etc. Scholars like Barbara Ehrenreich have shown that the common belief that there are jobs available in the service economy that would allow all adults to survive off a wage to be another myth-often people have to work more than one service job and often that isn’t even enough, to say nothing about the precariousness of such positions.
Ruby says
KE #66
<<No doubt there’s corporate corruption, but those people WORK HARD to get that corrupt money. It’s not easy to cook books. It’s not easy to run a ponzi scheme. Sure it’s wrong, but they had to work hard to do that wrong.>>
You almost sound as if you admire those scammers. It makes it a lot easier when you can hire a team of other corrupt individuals to help you out. It’s also ILLEGAL. Those “ponzi schemes” you refer to end up costing hard-working people their life savings, not to mention billions in cost to the federal government. Welfare programs like Aid to Families and Dependent Children and Food Stamps make up something like 1% of the Federal Budget. Welfare fraud is a drop in the bucket compared to corporate fraud. Not to mention the fact that lots of people on welfare actually do work.
But what paying on dates and welfare have to do with the OP’s question is beyond me. Way, way off topic here.
Clare says
Chance 54,
I’ll reiterate, since you seem to have trouble reading my posts.
I NEVER SAID MEN WERE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
I have clearly said, more than once, that once we are in a relationship, I contribute generously. The guy paying on the first few dates has nothing to do with “expecting them to pay for everything”, and everything to do with manners and effort. I truly don’t need a man to pick up the check for my $5 cup of coffee, but find it lovely if he does in an effort to be chivalrous. I feel truly sad that you don’t seem to know this pleasure, and how good it can feel to experience the thankful delight of a feminine woman. But I fear I’m wasting my time with this one.
Obviously I can’t speak to dating in the US. But in South Africa, the majority of men are raised to value women and be chivalrous, it is a point of honour. The majority of women are raised to take a certain pleasure in this and honour men in return. I , and the men I date, take pleasure in the guy paying for the first few dates. And I take pleasure in providing feminine support and affirmation, and later on, contributing cooking and gifts. You may call it unequal (it isn’t), I call it manners.
You said “women expect to be treated equally, and they do not expect to be constrained by traditional gender roles in any way. I don’t know one woman who thinks otherwise”
I really have to wonder what makes you such an expert on what women think.
I don’t want to engage with you any more on this. If all you can take away from my posts is that “men are expected to pay for everything”, you’re not reading my posts anyway.
Sparkling Emerald says
OK Chance, I can’t find the badgering posts to Goldie, so I don’t know if that was YOU badgering her or not. If you hadn’t have been a butinski and got your knickers all up in a twist at my comment TO Goldie, I wouldn’t have thought your were being so defensive. So if wasn’t you, that badgered Goldie and accused her of having an affair with a married man, then I apologise. But if you didn’t write or read the badgering posts to Goldie, why do you fell the need to comment on them. She WAS being badgered over a benign comment about couples working together as a team.
If you are going to belly ache about women taking advantage of men financially on a public blog and don’t want to hear another POV, go start your own “Chance support board” and make it a rule that everyone has to agree with every word you say.
Sparkling Emerald says
KE – And don’t get me started on the Federal Employees being EXEMPT from income taxes.
Both my parents are fed workers, they pay fed, state & local taxes. Who told you fed employees don’t pay fed taxes ?
Marie says
Welfare?? Now we’re arguing about welfare? Seriously what happened here.
Karmic, I did start to agree with you about how the OP’s bf should be more financially responsible and no one should be suprised if the OP feels leery of involving hereself more in his living situation and then you started commenting how poor people are freeloaders and the welfare state (“I don’t have a problem with the rich getting richer. At least they’re doing work to get richer…) I am not someone in government who can comment with as much experience or statistics as Julia or Shaukat but I can say that based on my experience providing medical care for the poor, that many of them work harder than ever with 2-3 jobs a day. Forget the American dream, they are just trying to survive. A lot of them lost their jobs in the economic downturn and are availing themselves of the foodstamps and foodbanks which they thought they would never use because they have to keep their kids fed and clothed somehow. These are average Americans. Yes, there are a few bad apples but by and large I have not seen it to the extreme that you say and I have worked with a lot of poor people. I don’t know where you are getting your facts from or if you have ever worked with poverty but I’d like to set the records straight and say the reality on the ground is not as black-and-white as you are portraying.
Sparkling Emerald says
I think this whole debate about women how women should pay 50/50 for all dates from the get go because we have achieved equality in the work force and are allowed to vote is silly. (OK, I am being a tad hyperbolic on the voting thing)
I think that as far as civil rights go, that is a completely different sphere than dating etiquette. And as far as what a couple does when they go from dating to relating, that is really up to EACH INDIVIDUAL couple to decide.
Women are told that we have to take off our “career hat” and be in our feminine energy on a date or relationship. Some bitter male posters here seem to think that because gender based discrimination is prohibited by law, that we women should start coughing up 50/50 from day 1. Never mind that once a relationship starts, finances, division of labor are usually worked out by the couple, and I have NEVER seen a relationship where the woman never contributed a dime over the long haul.
Men seem to want to pay for first dates anyway. I have tried offering to leave the tip (not well rec’d). I also reciprocate by cooking, bringing dishes to pot luck events, I get comp tickets to theater and I get movie passes and gift cards at work etc. Once in a relationship, I contribute a reasonable amount of my income, and usually more in housework and cooking.
I enjoy cooking, and I try very hard to eat healthy, so it only makes sense that I take on the primary duties of shopping and meal preparation. I don’t mind in the least. In fact, I get VERY annoyed with females that I know who act like if a woman cooks for her man she is setting back women’s rights to the stone age. I find that attitude very silly. About as silly as men bellyaching about paying for the first few dates early on in courtship. Really silly, because he can control the cost by picking an inexpensive date. And just as silly for women to complain about cooking because they determine how fancy or not of a meal to make. Most men that I know are THRILLED, if you make them a cold sandwich and a bowl of soup from a can. (But I’ll make soup from scratch and men think that makes me a Goddess 🙂 go figure)
I never really sat down and decided that I was going to do this that and the other by weather or not it fit some ancient gender role from the past. Men offer to pay for my first date, bring me flowers, open doors for me. Not really expected but always appreciated. They seem to enjoy my cooking, so why not ? My 2nd hubby ASKED me to stay at home with our baby, I was reluctant at first, but I mostly stayed at home and worked part time on the side. I am paying a slight financial penalty now, but I wouldn’t trade those years for anything.
So some trad roles “work” for me. (a few free glasses of wine, appetizers, gelatos) Some trad roles cost me a bit, but had their rewards (staying home with my son)
Working outside of the home, is no longer considered revolutionary for women. For most of my married life, I worked outside of the home, paid most of my income towards our future (my retirement, our son’s college) or household bills. I also did a greater share of the household labor. That worked for BOTH of us. TOGETHER, we were able to build a lifestyle that neither one of us could afford alone.
Now that hubby decided he doesn’t want this life anymore, I had to be my own second income. So I took other jobs, & got a room mate. Not the best situation if I go back to dating again, but I do what I have to do.
It’s not really about deciding to go along with EVERY gender role, or deciding to go AGAINST every gender role. (who the heck even knows what the current gender roles are ? ) It’s about deciding on the best course of action for whatever point I am at in my life, and considering the wants, needs and abilities of all involved.
For every hypothetical woman who wants the trad roles when they suit her, there are men who expect a woman to pay 50/50 and cook and clean up behind him. (I was engaged to a guy like that, dodged a bullet by breaking up with him)
Chance says
Marie:
“So if what you say is true for most men, then what do you suggest women practically do on early dates (most everyone I know splits after a month or so)?”
I would make it clear that you would like to pay, that you’re not just offering to be polite, and that it doesn’t mean that you are not interested. He’ll be hard to convince that you’re not just offering while really expecting him to pay. You’re right that a lot of couples begin to split after a while, but many don’t.
“You say men have to continually offer because they are afraid of not getting second dates. In that case, they are getting something out of it, as you say, and there are strings attached. It’s like an initial bid at an auction and the woman is accepting the bid for now until another better bid comes along. In that case, why get mad at the woman for accepting your bid when you clearly wanted her to owe you? What I’m trying to say is men utilize the social construct for their own gain just as much as anyone else. “
Respectfully, but strongly, disagree there. As I said previously, only a small minority of men pay for dates because it makes them feel like they are owed something. I think there are two reasons they continue to pay. First, I think their desire for sex blinds their judgment. It isn’t that they think they are owed sex, but rather they’ll do just about anything for it. Obviously, that’s their own fault. I think the second reason is that there is the fear of being perceived as a jerk, even though in the back of their mind, they know something just isn’t right with the way the rules are set up.
“Men are responsible for at least 50% of this problem (if it is a problem); they should not take out their resentment entirely on women but also on others of their own gender and themselves. “
While I’m not sure that men are at least 50% of the problem, you are absolutely correct in that men have only themselves to blame! They need to stand up for themselves when they see something that isn’t fair. That is what I do, and have done in the past. However, it doesn’t excuse the behavior of women that insist on keeping things the way they are.
Frimmel:
“My solution to the confusion would be to set the record straight on who pays up front. A man’s preference for splitting would undoubtedly impact his dating prospects far more than a woman’s expression of the same preference.”
Spot on there.
Chance says
Skaramouche
” I hope you’re not suggesting that the price of having a relationship is paying for your woman. In my experience, men pay for women because they want to. “
See Frimmel’s comment.
“As I understand it, you’re saying that I should want to support him too and if I don’t, it’s unfair.”
No, that isn’t what I’m saying. Back to my original post, I was pointing out that, while many are quick to point out that a man is a freeloader if he doesn’t contribute financially (I happen to agree in a lot of cases), I know of many women that don’t contribute financially, or around the house, and it’s accepted. You and your husband have an arrangement worked out, and that’s great.
Clare
“I’ll reiterate, since you seem to have trouble reading my posts.
I NEVER SAID MEN WERE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.”
I’ll reiterate, since you seem to have trouble reading my posts.
I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SAID MEN WERE EXPECTED TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
I was simply trying to provide some background on where I was coming from.
“I don’t want to engage with you any more on this.”
I second that. I don’t want to engage with anyone else about this for that matter.
It’s pointless.
Evan Marc Katz says
I know you’re my readers and all, but this should probably come to a stop. For everyone’s sake, just let this entire thread drop, okay?
Lucy says
Evan, that’s an excellent response. I’m not a stranger to black and white thinking, or asking and answering my own questions, so your reaction was super clear. We women are odd sometimes, the way we know we care deeply for someone, but then are able to stand back and critically assess their future potential regardless, deciding that what isn’t then perfect enough. Where that comes from is a mystery – perhaps it’s our childhood fairytales or other nonsense fantasy notion we creatures set up for ourselves. In the end, work out what we want, work out what we feel for the other and decide on the reality.
JoJOe says
Think of these questions:
If you were sick, incapable, broke, facing job loss. Would he be there for you, if so how?
If his art becomes famous, what does his ego become, is he leaving you for fame or staying for love?
If he gets his mojo back, is he having sex with you more often, or is he cruising?
You see these are things you’ve already proven you will do for him.
He knows you’re there for him, he knows you sacrifice, acquiescence, provide.
He’s sitting in security and freedom.
He’s living the security you seek. He’s looking out for number one and you’re looking out for him.
This is the present reality.
So ask the harder questions, ask him, ask him often. Then allow your intuition to judge.
Remembering that the best prediction of future action is past action.
Ask the harder questions. Ask and you shall receive or maybe not.
Mrs Happy says
Your financial habits are not aligned.
You are providing for a family of 4, and need to do so for the next 10 years, given your youngest is 14. You then need to provide for yourself through retirement. You seem the type who considers future financial requirements.
He doesn’t.
He lives for the moment. Doesn’t plan for his financial future. Doesn’t have any dependants he needs to consider. Doesn’t think of you as a future dependant or someone he might need to provide for (in fact, the opposite). He spends now to enjoy now, come what may. At 54 he has limited time to make up for the debt he is getting into, and for his lack of retirement savings, and in any case he would likely be limited in gaining many types of well-renumerated employment, given his age and 7 years out of the paid workforce.
Therefore he is likely to spend the next 30-odd years in financial distress, unless he is given money by someone (e.g. you, the government, family inheritance, gambling win, etc). Even if these occurred, his financial habits won’t change – he’ll spend it all, without thought of the future. It’s what he does.
Personally this would infuriate me. There is no way I’d enter a marriage or combine living arrangements with this man. If I only wanted a boyfriend, I’d keep him as a boyfriend, each of us living separately, and not pay any of his living expenses. But even that boyfriend arrangement might pall when he (soon) becomes financially destitute, as there will then be a neediness in him, and resentment (on both sides), and the constricted life restrictions that occur with poverty.
Similar financial habits are really important in marriage; running a household is a small business and I wouldn’t like my business partner to be so different to me in this domain as it would lead to too many arguments.
The sex difference – big but common problem. There is a sexual desire mismatch in 10 out of every 11 marriages, though usually in the other direction (in heterosexual couples, male usually wants sex more often). But that added to the financial woes are two huge problems. This man will only be able to offer you some out of your list of wants/must-haves, and only you can decide how far up the list financial and sexual similarities should be.
Julie says
OP Postscript – I have been very appreciative for the insightful and varied feedback on my original post! 3 -1/2 years later, I am most pleased to report that I ended my relationship with the “starving artist” – he has since moved out of state. About 6 months later, I met a wonderful man through a dating app. I must first say that in my early days of dating, I might have rejected the opportunity to date this man – he lives a little further than my “ideal” dating distance away and he has a few differing views than I do. Yet I was thrilled to discover he is everything that i also enjoyed about the SA – good looking, fit, honest, devoted, caring, smart, fun to be around. In stark contrast to SA, he is financially self-sufficient, LOVES my kids, all of my friends adore him, he enjoys taking care of me, being chivalrous at all times, and even throws a playful snarky edge into our interactions – which is all great – he’s the proverbial nice guy with an edge (a good edge!). And our libidos are extraordinarily well matched (most happy to report)!. In 3 years of dating him, I have never felt “deprived”, less than adored, or insecure. Being with him is like being HOME, and I am extraordinarily content knowing that our future together will play out in time and for now, commuter dating him is a dream come true – miss him immensely during the week – we’re always chatting, texting, and learning and growing together. Sounds sappy, but true. I’m very happy and very grateful that I didn’t “settle” for SA who was seemingly so much nicer than my ex-husband. Instead, I have found a fantastic, loving, amazing life partner – well worth the wait and life couldn’t be better. Thanks everyone! 🙂 <3