NXS Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 The BF is a selfish jerk and probably the same guy that refuses to pay for dinner on a date and demands dutch. She should dump this jerk ASAP. Ah, here comes LS's resident knight in shining armour, ready to tell us men how to 'man up'. How quaint.
Ilovewater Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Why do women make excuses for these men? Are they that desperate to get a man? Any man? Why do women put up with men like this guy? Because if he's paying for the hotel and everything else on the trip, he might not have money to pay for her ticket too.... Even if he makes more than her, he might not be loaded with money to pay for the whole trip by himself. If she really cannot afford to pay for any part of the trip, maybe they shouldn't go to a vacation that's so out of her budget. There's nothing wrong with going on a more affordable trip and save this one for later when both of them have money. However, if he's not covering for the hotel or anything else and is unwilling to help her out for her ticket, that's just cheap! They've been together for two years. If he's serious about her, help her out! No one here knows the real story, so who knows.
Jynxx Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Even if they're one of these modern couples who, for some reason I don't understand, prefers to keep their individual finances separate, they are presumably planning to have a holiday 'together'. Explain this to me please. Once in a relationship, you feel a couple has the duty to mix finances even if one partner makes multiple times what the other partner makes and presumably works multiple times harder?
Sanman Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) This depends on the circumstances of the conversation. Are they planning it together or did BF get a ticket and invite her along. Certainly, she needs to worry about other expenditures beyond the ticket and consider something cheaper. On the issue of incomes, some people do not mix finances until marriage. He really is not obligated to pay for her. The thing I find interesting that people often feel like the richer person in a couple should pay more. However, careers are a choice. If you picked a job/field that pays less then you will struggle more financially in life. Short of marriage, nothing really entitles you to another person's money. Just because it is easier for him to pay for it does not mean that he should. He has the right to save money or spend it otherwise if he pleases. That is because he earned that money. I have a friend and his then gf (now wife) was in grad school when they met, worked one year, then switched careers and has not worked for most of the 6 years they were together. She keeps switching career fields (4 grad programs now) and is not happy with anything she picks. Were they not married, is her poor career planning and constantly changing fields something he should have to pay for? I don't think so. Personally, I would probably add the ticket cost to the total trip costs and split everything down the middle. Edited October 15, 2011 by Sanman
OnyxSnowfall Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Why do women make excuses for these men? Are they that desperate to get a man? Any man? Why do women put up with men like this guy? I don't know... those are good questions.
EasyHeart Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I would assume they have a different view on finances. Apparently her boyfriend makes more than she does. She sees him having more money than she has and expects him to share some of it, he sees her working less or making less sacrifices for her job than he does and trying to take advantage of his money. I've been in that spot, and I can tell you it's kind of insulting if your partner asks you or expects you to pay for something because "it wouldn't make much difference to you anyway". It's not up to her, let alone up to friends of hers (no offence) to judge on whether or not it would be a small enough sacrifice based on his financial situation. Sigh! Now, if only we could teach this simple principle to the Democrats. . . .
LittleTiger Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Explain this to me please. Once in a relationship, you feel a couple has the duty to mix finances even if one partner makes multiple times what the other partner makes and presumably works multiple times harder? I don't need to explain it to you any more than I already did. 'A couple' is a single unit! That says it all. However, I will attempt to make it clearer for you. If you are in a committed relationship with another person (committed meaning you intend it to be for life) then you are 'a couple' which means you share your life and everything you have - it doesn't matter who has the most money. When I was married I had more in terms of assets (property) and my exH earned more each month - I didn't say he couldn't live in our house because mostly it belonged to me and he didn't say I couldn't go on holiday with him because I didn't earn enough to pay for a flight. I suppose a lot of people write their own wedding vows these days or don't bother getting married at all but it used to be a committed relationship meant 'for better for worse, for richer for poorer'. Which doesn't mean, if I'm rich and you're poor 'tough sh*t'! It means we stand together regardless of our combined income. I support you, you support me - financially or otherwise depending on need. There is no 'duty' involved when you're in a committed relationship and just because one person makes a lot more money does not mean they work 'multiple times harder'. It just means society places more financial value on what they do. In the UK doctors in general practice make the equivalent of around $200,000. They sit in a nice warm consulting room chatting to patients, writing a few prescriptions and referring them to a specialist. Coal miners earn less than a third of that amount and spend their days down a dark and dangerous pit, risking their lives every day and pushing their bodies to the limit of endurance in terms of physical hard labour!!! Do you really believe a doctor works the hardest?!!!!! The way I see it, if you're too selfish to share what you have with someone you apparently love and you value your personal wealth above everything else, then you have no business being in a relationship.
LittleTiger Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Ah, here comes LS's resident knight in shining armour, ready to tell us men how to 'man up'. How quaint. I would hazard a guess that Pierre has considerably more success with women than most of the guys on LS! He certainly appears to have considerably more respect for them. If I wasn't engaged I might well be 'fluttering my eyelashes' in his direction - even if he doesn't look anything like Sean Connery! Men like him are, very sadly, a dying breed. If you refuse to 'take a leaf' then that's your loss.
anne1707 Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Explain this to me please. Once in a relationship, you feel a couple has the duty to mix finances even if one partner makes multiple times what the other partner makes and presumably works multiple times harder? Whoa. Hang on a minute. It is out of order and completely wrong to suggest that the person who earns less works nowhere near as hard as the high earner. How about low earning jobs such as teaching, nursing and social work which require a lot of hard work and determination for not a huge award (certainly here in the UK).
MilfinBerle Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I have a friend who is in a long-term relationship (2+ years), they live together. The other day she told me they started talking about flying out for a vacation. Her BF's dad works for an airline so he gets free airfare. She would have to pay for her ticket. The thing is, she would have to save every red cent she could for the next several months at least, to be able to afford her own fare, and even then it isn't guaranteed she'd have enough. She wouldn't be able to buy anyone presents for Christmas. She wouldn't be able to have a night out with friends. Her BF would be able to pay for her, but he doesn't seem willing. She's pretty distraught about it, given he knows what sacrifices she would have to make, and he wouldn't have to make any sacrifices near to that. Presumably she hasn't given him any reason to think she would take advantage. I've hung out with them a lot and they seem like a good couple, from what I've seen and what he's said, she treats him well. They are both a couple of freeloaders. Two peas in a pod. Of course a moocher like your gf complains when she can't share in her bf's scam (mooching off his dad's employment for the freebie). But why on earth would she expect the bf to pay for her? His whole deal with this is that he gets to fly for FREE. If he paid for her, or even half of hers, then it's not FREE. LOL she's "distraught" that she doesn't get to mooch. She should just tell bf "Listen I can't go with you because unlike you I don't get a FREE TICKET. Have fun by yourself bozo."
zengirl Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Once two people become a couple, they are 'a couple' - that's a singular 'we' and it takes two people making a commitment to one another to produce that 'we'. I get this notion, but I think, without marriage, it's not completely like that. It's a little like that, but it's kind of on a trial basis until marriage, so I'd never join finances completely, even in my mind, until marriage. That's just me, but everyone has their own different views. Personally, I think suggesting that you go totally into that "we" stage before marriage/engagement is strange. . . otherwise, what is marriage for? Now, personally, I wouldn't live with a fella before engagement because I don't want to live with someone without that "we" thing, but that's not true of every couple either. And I've done it before. I'm also rather generous with finances and tend to date guys who are similar in that way, but I also have low expectations of another sharing their finances and tend to date guys who are the same way (meaning we both are eager to share but have absolutely no expectation of receiving, which seems to work out best; I honestly, think either direction --- not wanting to share OR expecting someone to share --- are equally stingy). So, LT, if we were talking about a marriage, I'd agree with you entirely, but these people aren't married, and I'm assuming it's because they haven't reached that total "we" stage yet. Now, frankly, if I'd lived with someone that long and he hadn't proposed or co-mixed finances, I'd feel like we weren't going to get married, but that's looking back at it with a lot of experience behind me and having experienced men who wanted to marry me and get to that total "we" stage. And who's to say she's there either? We really don't know a lot about this couple.
Queen Zenobia Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I have a friend who is in a long-term relationship (2+ years), they live together. The other day she told me they started talking about flying out for a vacation. Her BF's dad works for an airline so he gets free airfare. She would have to pay for her ticket. The thing is, she would have to save every red cent she could for the next several months at least, to be able to afford her own fare, and even then it isn't guaranteed she'd have enough. She wouldn't be able to buy anyone presents for Christmas. She wouldn't be able to have a night out with friends. Her BF would be able to pay for her, but he doesn't seem willing. She's pretty distraught about it, given he knows what sacrifices she would have to make, and he wouldn't have to make any sacrifices near to that. Presumably she hasn't given him any reason to think she would take advantage. I've hung out with them a lot and they seem like a good couple, from what I've seen and what he's said, she treats him well. The bolded part seems perplexing. It's not that he should be expected to pay for her ticket, but if the point is to take a vacation together would he not split the cost of the second ticket? I'm assuming he knows her financial situation, so why even bring up the idea of flying out for a vacation if he knows it would be a financial hardship? It seems like he doesn't care if she goes on vacation with him or not.
sweetjasmine Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 When I have been in a similar position, I have always offered to split the cost of the 2nd ticket just by default--to my mind, it is just the decent, and obvious, thing to do. I would never think of blithely accepting free fare and then sitting back and watching my partner struggle and sacrifice, unless there were some deeper unresolved conflict in the relationship. I feel the same way. I make less than my partner, but I've still viewed things like discounts and perks as good for both of us, not just one of us. We maintain separate finances but are generous with each other. He's often said, "It's just money," and I tend to agree. Others may disagree on that approach, so it depends on what she and her boyfriend believe. But if he has not come off as cheap and cold before, and if she is getting a 'sucks to be you' vibe from him, my thought is that she needs to look a lot more closely at their relationship. Is he angry at her for some reason? Looking at their dynamics under a microscope, can she honestly say she has given him no just reason to feel used or taken for granted? These are great questions. Context and details are missing in this story. We can only really comment generally.
Author tigressA Posted October 15, 2011 Author Posted October 15, 2011 Some interesting answers here. I talked to my friend some more, asked her what she thought was behind his unwillingness to at the very least chip in for her fare, because he does know the sacrifices she would have to make. She told him while they were discussing the trip. She feels like perhaps this is a way of distancing himself from her. Apparently he was never this stingy with her; he didn't care before about whose money was whose--they were equally generous to each other in their own ways. This came rather out of the blue and that's why she's upset. I told her honestly it doesn't look too good for their relationship if there's been such an about-face from him and they need to talk.
LittleTiger Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I get this notion, but I think, without marriage, it's not completely like that. It's a little like that, but it's kind of on a trial basis until marriage, so I'd never join finances completely, even in my mind, until marriage. That's just me, but everyone has their own different views. Personally, I think suggesting that you go totally into that "we" stage before marriage/engagement is strange. . . otherwise, what is marriage for? My understanding of 'modern' relationships is that living together is very often as far as the 'commitment' goes. Many people these days say 'we don't need marriage to be committed to one another'. Which is, of course, true BUT if 'living together' is the ultimate commitment then living together is the start of the 'we'. I suppose there are couples who also live together to 'see how it goes' which is a different thing and not a commitment. In fact, it sounds more like a 'flatmates plus sex' arrangement to me. Personally, I wouldn't go down that road. A man is either in it for the long haul or he isn't. From the further info now provided by tigressA, it seems this man isn't - hence his 'not-committed' and incredibly selfish behaviour!
january2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 (edited) She wouldn't be able to buy anyone presents for Christmas. She wouldn't be able to have a night out with friends. To be honest, I don't see how this is her boyfriend's responsibility. If she's on a tight budget, she's got to make a choice, presents vs. night out vs. holiday. All these things are nice-to-do's, in my opinion and therefore can be reduced or increased as budget allows. As others have said, if they agreed to go on a trip together the initial discussion should be about whether they can both afford it. It doesn't make sense to decide on a trip that one part of the couple can't go on. She feels like perhaps this is a way of distancing himself from her. Apparently he was never this stingy with her; he didn't care before about whose money was whose--they were equally generous to each other in their own ways. This came rather out of the blue and that's why she's upset. I told her honestly it doesn't look too good for their relationship if there's been such an about-face from him and they need to talk. I suspect that he feels he's been too generous in the past and now feels used. It sucks that he's pulling away but if he feels that he's investing more than she is, I agree that she needs to talk to him. Edited October 15, 2011 by january2011
FitChick Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I suspect that he feels he's been too generous in the past and now feels used. It sucks that he's pulling away but if he feels that he's investing more than she is, I agree that she needs to talk to him. You don't end an otherwise long, happy relationship because one person feels he's spent too much money. You sit down and budget. I'm always amused by people who don't have money being so worried and concerned about other people's money. Especially when those other people who are well off don't give things like this a second thought. I've been the recipient of a few free plane tickets from men I'd never even met yet. I told them I couldn't afford an overseas trip to meet them so they'd either have to fly to meet me or send me a ticket. Men have done both. That way I knew they were serious about getting to know me better and moving our relationship forward, beyond emails and phone calls. I think the OP's friend's BF is just tired of her after two years. If he goes without her, she should find a place with roommates and be gone before he gets back.
january2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 You don't end an otherwise long, happy relationship because one person feels he's spent too much money. You sit down and budget. I'm always amused by people who don't have money being so worried and concerned about other people's money. Especially when those other people who are well off don't give things like this a second thought. Perhaps you don't. However, in this relationship, money appears to be an issue and thus it's not surprising that answers are framed with this in mind. I don't know what you mean in terms of the remaining two sentences. Are you referring to the OP? The girl in the relationship? Someone else?
zengirl Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 My understanding of 'modern' relationships is that living together is very often as far as the 'commitment' goes. Many people these days say 'we don't need marriage to be committed to one another'. Which is, of course, true BUT if 'living together' is the ultimate commitment then living together is the start of the 'we'. I suppose there are couples who also live together to 'see how it goes' which is a different thing and not a commitment. In fact, it sounds more like a 'flatmates plus sex' arrangement to me. Personally, I wouldn't go down that road. A man is either in it for the long haul or he isn't. From the further info now provided by tigressA, it seems this man isn't - hence his 'not-committed' and incredibly selfish behaviour! I'm not sure how it looks or not, not knowing them. However, I'm young and modern enough, and to me: living together isn't marriage. I don't buy into the "milk for free" arguments, but I do think that there's a HUGE difference in the commitment levels. To me, living together is not the same "we" as marriage, as I said. So, that "modern" must not translate to everyone, since that's not how my peers or I see living together (as a substitute for marriage) in all or even most cases. A few people do, but those are either non-marriage for political reasons or because they're commitmentphobes. You don't end an otherwise long, happy relationship because one person feels he's spent too much money. You sit down and budget. I wasn't aware anyone in the relationship we're discussing was ending it over finances. This is just a holiday. As far as we know, with the BF, it's no major point of contention. Whatever "vibes" the GF is picking up may or may not be about him getting tired. . . who knows? The best course of action is for them to be open and honest with each other.
carhill Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 Considering the vagaries of NRSA flying, I doubt the male non-rev is monied or he'd just buy a revenue ticket, especially if we're talking about him and GF 'flying out' to visit the OP, who lives on the East Coast, IIRC. In fact, if his GF were to buy a revenue ticket or book an award ticket (or he for her), it's very possible that she'd be traveling and he'd be stuck in non-rev load-controlled wasteland waiting for a flight. Of course, this depends on what kind of NRSA space dad/he are purchasing with the employee benefit. Capacity is tight these days and loads are high. Non-rev travel ain't what it used to be.
allina Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 I feel like the bf should want to purchase the ticket for her. To me it's the lack of that desire on his part that is concerning. I also do see how he would feel used if he's always having to help her financially. Why is this woman so broke that the price of a ticket would be such a financial burden? Does she work? Is she trying to get herself in to a more stable financial situation? Is she expecting to live at a standard she can't afford on her bf's dime? The background story here makes a huge difference.
Author tigressA Posted October 16, 2011 Author Posted October 16, 2011 I feel like the bf should want to purchase the ticket for her. To me it's the lack of that desire on his part that is concerning. I also do see how he would feel used if he's always having to help her financially. Why is this woman so broke that the price of a ticket would be such a financial burden? Does she work? Is she trying to get herself in to a more stable financial situation? Is she expecting to live at a standard she can't afford on her bf's dime? The background story here makes a huge difference. They both work full-time; it's just that there's always been a significant discrepancy in income.
Ilovewater Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 They both work full-time; it's just that there's always been a significant discrepancy in income. How much is this ticket??? Are we talking about a domestic flight or an international flight? It shouldn't be that difficult for a person who's working full-time to purchase a plane ticket assuming that she has no other responsibilities (old parents who need help, children, etc.) if the ticket costs less than $500. Even when I was working part-time in undergrad, I was still able to buy my own tickets ($1300 total) on a trip to Asia with my bf WITHOUT blowing out my bank account. I also paid for half of the hotel costs and such. However, it's still pretty concerning that her bf doesn't want to help her out at all.... Even helping with 1/3 of the cost would be great.
daphne Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 It seems odd that she would have agreed to go on vacation without figuring out if she could afford it first. To me, it sounds like she actually expected him to pick up the slack. This may be why he's resisting it. No one wants to give something out of the other person's expectation. It's one thing for someone you love to offer to help out financially. On the other hand, it's extremely tacky to feel entitled to it.
zengirl Posted October 16, 2011 Posted October 16, 2011 How much is this ticket??? Are we talking about a domestic flight or an international flight? It shouldn't be that difficult for a person who's working full-time to purchase a plane ticket assuming that she has no other responsibilities (old parents who need help, children, etc.) if the ticket costs less than $500. Agreed on this. I mean, even when I was at my poorest and NOT working full time (undergrad or grad school), I always had an extra thousand dollars on hand. It sounds like she's living way outside her means if a plane ticket means scrimping and saving that much. Does she expect him to pick up the slack often? Does he pay for extra common expenses already? It seems odd that she would have agreed to go on vacation without figuring out if she could afford it first. To me, it sounds like she actually expected him to pick up the slack. This may be why he's resisting it. No one wants to give something out of the other person's expectation. Right. If she couldn't afford it. . . why wasn't that just something she put out there in the beginning. No "Oh, I'd have to sacrifice so much!" hints. Just a plain old, "I can't afford this." It sounds like she's being a bit passive aggressive with him, to me. I'm generous but the second someone tried to HINT they wanted me to buy them something, I'd be out. I learned not to do that stuff when I was in elementary school. (I wouldn't even mind if someone ASKED. It's the hinting that's the grossest.)
Recommended Posts