Money is getting in the way.

October 29, 2011

It came when he admitted to me he wanted me to make more money--he admitted to things I had suspected for months and confronted him with multiple times, but that he had denied all that time because he was 'afraid of hurting me'.

I guess I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, if what he says is true, then the situation does look rather bad IMO. Why are you two still together if you making more money is so much more important to him?

On the other hand, you mention that you confronted him with it 'multiple times', so he finally caved in and 'admitted it'. IMO confronting someone with suspicions over and over is not the best way to get the truth. Of course he is at fault for it too, but IMO human nature is that when someone keeps getting asked the same thing over and over again in arguments, he may just say what the other person believes to be true, just to get the argument over with.

October 29, 2011

T,

I read the whole thread, and here's my basic take: (it's a mixed bag)

1.) It was totally unfair and kind of inappropriate for you to bring up the idea of pooling all finances, especially since it's only been a little while since you've made any money at all. He has shown a willingness to help and support you in the past, which you've sort of admitted you took for granted at times in other threads (I don't think on purpose or that you wanted to be without income, but you lived without rent and didn't really consider that you should be extra accommodating in that case), and he is probably still a bit weary from that, as some of your fights have shown.

2.) Also, if I was living with someone who made significantly less than me and they brought up the idea of pooling all our money, I'd be a little WTF?!? about it myself, and I'm a totally generous person. It's just. . . . it'd feel manipulative and unfair to me for the person to ask for that. That's something that naturally occurs when the commitment is there and usually comes from the side of the person who has the most money or the two mutually, not something that the person with less money "requests."

3.) I DO 100% agree that no one should be forced to live above their means/desire because of their partners' wealth. I would never do so. When my Mom (and I) moved in with my Stepdad, she didn't pay a flat 50% because he made quite a bit more than her and we couldn't afford it. Instead, she paid the same as she was paying at her other place first, they made a spreadsheet, and worked it out. They are very committed and one of the best couples I know, but they did not combine finances until their 3rd year of marriage. (They lived together for a year before that.) And even now, they still maintain separate checking accounts with 10% of their salaries for some "fun money" (or gifts for each other).

HOWEVER: That said, in your case, there are a few things---like taking the grocery receipts and literally slashing them in half, Joy Luck Club style, that would annoy the crap out of me. But that's just because being ticky tack with finances like that isn't my style. I would never agree, under any circumstances, to a rigid receipt split like that; then I'd get annoyed when he buys the name brand that's $2 more per pack when I think the store brand costs the same, and it'd be a nightmare. Even though I don't mind buying him that name brand pack sometimes, of my own volition, you know?

4.) If you can afford everything NOW and you are not living above your means, then why worry about the future so much? It does smack me as manipulative the way you brought it up --- whether you meant it to be or not --- and needless anxiety as well.

5.) Re: your boyfriend's materialism. Okay, that one sucks, but you were the one who brought this up, who is worrying about money, and that's ALSO materialism. Combining finances would be in YOUR interest; that's also materialism. I'm not sure what your BF has done that is materialistic and is a red flag. . . we are all a little materialistic (as zen as I try to be, I'm materialistic for worrying about that extra $2 for the name brand!) and it sounds like you guys are just clashing in your individual materialism. Rather than see it as a HIM problem, it might help to re-examine your individual styles and see the places where they clash. Just looking at HIM and not looking at yourself is going to get you nowhere.

October 29, 2011

but IMO human nature is that when someone keeps getting asked the same thing over and over again in arguments, he may just say what the other person believes to be true, just to get the argument over with.

This way of thinking takes rationalization and denial to a new level.

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

October 29, 2011

This way of thinking takes rationalization and denial to a new level.
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Um, if you notice, I most certainly didn't say that's what happened. Way to quote one of my paragraphs and leave out the context it was placed in. If providing several options so that TA can choose the one she believes is pertinent to her makes me a rationalizer, so be it. I suppose the rational thing to do, instead of providing options, would be to tell an online poster whose relationship they have NEVER witnessed in RL or know anything about it other than what they have read from that person's POV, that the person's SO was 100% bad and wrong, hm?

October 29, 2011

I don't want a man who can support me financially. My ultimate desire is achieving a dynamic where we support each other, where there is no concern over who makes what or who owes the other what. I want this regardless of how much or how little money my partner makes.

I also made the point of saying this is not about him paying my own expenses or buying me things--this is about being able to keep up with an equal contribution of basic household expenses.

I will probably have to repeat the above several more times throughout the course of this thread.

You can repeat yourself till the cows come home but it won't make your POV on this issue correct.

How you manage to come up with your 50% of your basic living expenses isn't his problem, how you manage to also pay for things like your student loans or extras like vacations or dining out is also not his problem.

Instead of finding ways to try to guilt trip this guy why not put that energy into looking for ways to increase your earnings? A small part time 2nd job will give you more $, it will also give your boyfriend some of the space he's complained about not having in the past. A 2nd job will also put you in contact with more people, a chance to widen your social network.

This guy supported you for several months, seriously helped you out, your relationship has been quite rocky during that time and now you're pushing him to do the shared finances thing? I think you're making a serious mistake here.

October 29, 2011

then I'd get annoyed when he buys the name brand that's $2 more per pack when I think the store brand costs the same, and it'd be a nightmare. Even though I don't mind buying him that name brand pack sometimes, of my own volition, you know?

... good point.. I never thought about it like that..

I guess both would have to agree on the brand of toilet paper as well..

"Alright..You bought the Charmin so it cancels out me buying Boars Head Roast Beef"

October 29, 2011

I think it was unfair of you to suggest pooling your finances. That's an incredible step forward. Not only that, but imagine how he might feel by rejecting your offer.

In his mind, he might have thought "wow, she's asking for a way bigger commitment than I'm ready for, and now I will have to refuse that. She will take this as 'I'm not ready to take it to the next step."

I do believe it is fair for him to ask you to contribute 50% to all your expenses, cut it down the middle. I don't think one person should ever carry the load more than the other unless they're married-- in which case, it is often preferred to just dump everything together into one place.

For example, I am currently saving for a large chunk of a down payment so I can buy a co-op in NYC. I will do so very soon and if someone decides to move in with me, regardless of gender or date status, I WILL make them pay at least 50% of mortgage + maintenance + bills. Despite being able to pay for all this myself, I simply will refuse to have someone live with me and not contribute. And if they can't pay their share, I will make them leave. It's simply. Keep finances separate from relationships, IMO.

October 29, 2011

T,

I read the whole thread, and here's my basic take: (it's a mixed bag)

1.) It was totally unfair and kind of inappropriate for you to bring up the idea of pooling all finances, especially since it's only been a little while since you've made any money at all. He has shown a willingness to help and support you in the past, which you've sort of admitted you took for granted at times in other threads (I don't think on purpose or that you wanted to be without income, but you lived without rent and didn't really consider that you should be extra accommodating in that case), and he is probably still a bit weary from that, as some of your fights have shown.

2.) Also, if I was living with someone who made significantly less than me and they brought up the idea of pooling all our money, I'd be a little WTF?!? about it myself, and I'm a totally generous person. It's just. . . . it'd feel manipulative and unfair to me for the person to ask for that. That's something that naturally occurs when the commitment is there and usually comes from the side of the person who has the most money or the two mutually, not something that the person with less money "requests."

3.) I DO 100% agree that no one should be forced to live above their means/desire because of their partners' wealth. I would never do so. When my Mom (and I) moved in with my Stepdad, she didn't pay a flat 50% because he made quite a bit more than her and we couldn't afford it. Instead, she paid the same as she was paying at her other place first, they made a spreadsheet, and worked it out. They are very committed and one of the best couples I know, but they did not combine finances until their 3rd year of marriage. (They lived together for a year before that.) And even now, they still maintain separate checking accounts with 10% of their salaries for some "fun money" (or gifts for each other).

HOWEVER: That said, in your case, there are a few things---like taking the grocery receipts and literally slashing them in half, Joy Luck Club style, that would annoy the crap out of me. But that's just because being ticky tack with finances like that isn't my style. I would never agree, under any circumstances, to a rigid receipt split like that; then I'd get annoyed when he buys the name brand that's $2 more per pack when I think the store brand costs the same, and it'd be a nightmare. Even though I don't mind buying him that name brand pack sometimes, of my own volition, you know?

4.) If you can afford everything NOW and you are not living above your means, then why worry about the future so much? It does smack me as manipulative the way you brought it up --- whether you meant it to be or not --- and needless anxiety as well.

5.) Re: your boyfriend's materialism. Okay, that one sucks, but you were the one who brought this up, who is worrying about money, and that's ALSO materialism. Combining finances would be in YOUR interest; that's also materialism. I'm not sure what your BF has done that is materialistic and is a red flag. . . we are all a little materialistic (as zen as I try to be, I'm materialistic for worrying about that extra $2 for the name brand!) and it sounds like you guys are just clashing in your individual materialism. Rather than see it as a HIM problem, it might help to re-examine your individual styles and see the places where they clash. Just looking at HIM and not looking at yourself is going to get you nowhere.

OP

I agree with this 100%

Some of the guys like Art Critic and Pierre come across very generous and must have been taken advantage of in the past in my opinion.

If my SO wanted to move in with me and earned much less than me, I would split everything 50-50 (though not down to receipt level but after rough calculation of monthly outgoings) except for the mortgage because it's my flat and if he contributed to the monthly payments it would leave him out of pocket if we split up as he wouldn't get anything for it. It would be big enough financial assistance if he helped out with the monthly bills. If he just simply wanted to pool our money I would be very annoyed and would feel he was trying to take advantage of me.

My sister rents with her boyfriend and they split everything 50-50 but then again they earn around the same amount.

In terms of difference in aspirations: that will always come between you, no matter what. If he wants a more lavish lifestyle and isn't prepared to compromise on that, you will be always the deadweight that he has to carry because you are not ambitious. I think it's an aspiration issue. A lot of Indian guys have high expectations because of pressure from their families.

October 29, 2011

I guess I'm of two minds on this. On one hand, if what he says is true, then the situation does look rather bad IMO. Why are you two still together if you making more money is so much more important to him?

I have no idea...supposedly he loves me, so perhaps that's why. But he's so flighty I can have no reasonable idea what goes on in his head. Sometimes he says one thing and seems so sincere and then the next day it's different. For example, when we were feeling particularly close one night he said, "I want to take you to India with me, I want my family to meet you (he's going in January)." I gently said, "I would love to go but I wouldn't be able to reasonably afford the airfare." He said, "I'll take care of it." It seemed so sincere and so loving, I was really appreciative.

Then yesterday when he said he wants to keep the 50/50 split, I mentioned, "So...India?" He said, "Yeah, you'll be paying for that unless I decide I want to help you out. I could change my mind." I just said, "Okay, that's fine." I was SO hurt, especially because he seemed so sincere when he said just the other day that he wanted so much to take me with him that he would pay for my ticket. It was an incredible reversal.

I am making an effort to understand him and examine my part in it all, and Zengirl, I really appreciate your post because it is another tool in helping me do that. I do agree that me bringing all that up was a bad idea, in retrospect. I should have waited for him to do that. I can see how the way I went about it all seems manipulative. FTR, I am not concerned with the combining thing at all anymore--it is the rigidity of the 50/50 split and whether he is willing to be more flexible on that in the future.

October 29, 2011

Snug, he admitted to me he isn't all in. It's not a 'feeling' I have. It came right from his mouth. And it came right when I brought up the idea of combining everything, so it wasn't like I asked him after I had the thought, or after he said, he wasn't all in. He told me right when I brought up the idea.

So if I am reading this correctly, you brought up combining finances, and his response to that was "I'm not all in"?

Either way, combining finances should not even be an option at this point, not for him nor yourself. That is the last thing you'd want to consider doing with someone who isn't "all in".

October 29, 2011

So if I am reading this correctly, you brought up combining finances, and his response to that was "I'm not all in"?

Correct. I didn't bring up the idea again after that first discussion. And again, FTR, I am not concerned with combining at all anymore.

October 29, 2011

For example, when we were feeling particularly close one night he said, "I want to take you to India with me, I want my family to meet you (he's going in January)." I gently said, "I would love to go but I wouldn't be able to reasonably afford the airfare." He said, "I'll take care of it." It seemed so sincere and so loving, I was really appreciative.

Then yesterday when he said he wants to keep the 50/50 split, I mentioned, "So...India?" He said, "Yeah, you'll be paying for that unless I decide I want to help you out. I could change my mind." I just said, "Okay, that's fine." I was SO hurt, especially because he seemed so sincere when he said just the other day that he wanted so much to take me with him that he would pay for my ticket. It was an incredible reversal.

Ouch...

That man is playing head games with you because he knows how finances has you tied up.

October 29, 2011

I have no idea...supposedly he loves me, so perhaps that's why. But he's so flighty I can have no reasonable idea what goes on in his head. Sometimes he says one thing and seems so sincere and then the next day it's different. For example, when we were feeling particularly close one night he said, "I want to take you to India with me, I want my family to meet you (he's going in January)." I gently said, "I would love to go but I wouldn't be able to reasonably afford the airfare." He said, "I'll take care of it." It seemed so sincere and so loving, I was really appreciative.

Then yesterday when he said he wants to keep the 50/50 split, I mentioned, "So...India?" He said, "Yeah, you'll be paying for that unless I decide I want to help you out. I could change my mind." I just said, "Okay, that's fine." I was SO hurt, especially because he seemed so sincere when he said just the other day that he wanted so much to take me with him that he would pay for my ticket. It was an incredible reversal.

It was probably the timing of you bringing it up, and how he felt about the 50/50 request. I'm willing to bet he still plans on paying for India; he was just probably hurt and mad and annoyed about the whole finances thing coming up.

It really is a lose/lose for him the way you presented it, T. Even if he wanted to combine finances someday, he'd probably want to be the one who suggests it (thus feeling generous and like he's taking care of you vs. feeling like he's guilted into it and taken advantage), and that's the difference in how he felt about the ticket first (generous) and then when you brought it up in that moment. And it's a lose for him anyway, because now he probably feels guilty and bummed for the whole thing, you know?

And it's a lose/lose for you too, because you went out there, looking for validation. Even if you'd gotten it, then you'd wonder if it was only because you guilted him into it and you'd ask for something MORE, I think, as a show of his love. As others have said, you just need to choose to feel secure in this relationship (or not, and leave it), rather than continuously testing it.

I am making an effort to understand him and examine my part in it all, and Zengirl, I really appreciate your post because it is another tool in helping me do that. I do agree that me bringing all that up was a bad idea, in retrospect. I should have waited for him to do that. I can see how the way I went about it all seems manipulative. FTR, I am not concerned with the combining thing at all anymore--it is the rigidity of the 50/50 split and whether he is willing to be more flexible on that in the future.

Good. I would drop it for now, and if it comes up again, do so in smaller bits, where he has a "win" in the situation and so do you. At some point, this might mean getting your own place for a time---being able to be independent when you can afford it may actually REALLY help this relationship, I'd think. The way it started, and that you've always seemed a bit dependent on him, is likely part of the issue. If he could see you, out on your own two feet, he might loosen up A LOT, as many of the things you've said about him actually make me feel he's probably a pretty generous person. As an alternative to the moving out thing, the occasional treating him to something (small) might help at first; if he is truly willing to be generous, he will then open up likewise.

But there's NO WIN, ever, on either side, in being asked to give someone something, particularly in being told it's instrumental to your relationship with that person that you give it to them. Then, there's no giving. There's only begrudgingly letting another take.

October 29, 2011

Ouch...
That man is playing head games with you because he knows how finances has you tied up.

That or he is testing her. Not the best way to go about it, if that is what he is doing.

October 29, 2011

Some of the guys like Art Critic and Pierre come across very generous and must have been taken advantage of in the past in my opinion.

It's all about perspective.. from my perspective I could afford it and it didn't make a difference to me so they weren't taking advantage of me...

I never held it over anybody's head.. and just lived life..

October 29, 2011

It was probably the timing of you bringing it up, and how he felt about the 50/50 request. I'm willing to bet he still plans on paying for India; he was just probably hurt and mad and annoyed about the whole finances thing coming up.

It really is a lose/lose for him the way you presented it, T. Even if he wanted to combine finances someday, he'd probably want to be the one who suggests it (thus feeling generous and like he's taking care of you vs. feeling like he's guilted into it and taken advantage), and that's the difference in how he felt about the ticket first (generous) and then when you brought it up in that moment. And it's a lose for him anyway, because now he probably feels guilty and bummed for the whole thing, you know?

And it's a lose/lose for you too, because you went out there, looking for validation. Even if you'd gotten it, then you'd wonder if it was only because you guilted him into it and you'd ask for something MORE, I think, as a show of his love. As others have said, you just need to choose to feel secure in this relationship (or not, and leave it), rather than continuously testing it.

WTF? HE was the one who brought up the 50/50 discussion this last time, after which I mentioned the ticket. It was in my mind at the time, why wouldn't I mention it? I wasn't trying to guilt him or otherwise manipulate him into 'giving' me something at the time.

October 29, 2011

What do you feel that you bring to the relationship? Do you feel good enough to bridge the disparity in financial status via other contributions?

I suspect that your suggestion about 50:50 is an attempt to bridge that gap. It's tangible and easily measured. However, if you think that you will always be the one who is 'behind' in the relationship, no matter what you do, and that you're not an equal partner and never will be, is it going to give you the long-term happiness that you seek? Will you be able to overcome your pride and internal conflict that somehow it's not 'fair'?

Even if he was happy with what you contribute to the relationship, financial or otherwise, if you are always left insecure about your position, that gap is only going to get wider.

October 29, 2011

just find a guy who's willing to support you since thats what you want

October 29, 2011

I have no idea...supposedly he loves me, so perhaps that's why. But he's so flighty I can have no reasonable idea what goes on in his head. Sometimes he says one thing and seems so sincere and then the next day it's different. For example, when we were feeling particularly close one night he said, "I want to take you to India with me, I want my family to meet you (he's going in January)." I gently said, "I would love to go but I wouldn't be able to reasonably afford the airfare." He said, "I'll take care of it." It seemed so sincere and so loving, I was really appreciative.

Then yesterday when he said he wants to keep the 50/50 split, I mentioned, "So...India?" He said, "Yeah, you'll be paying for that unless I decide I want to help you out. I could change my mind." I just said, "Okay, that's fine." I was SO hurt, especially because he seemed so sincere when he said just the other day that he wanted so much to take me with him that he would pay for my ticket. It was an incredible reversal.

Hrm. This does sound quite unnerving IMO. It sounds to me like he says one thing when he is happy and in love, and an entirely different thing when you both are in an argument. That isn't very unusual as far as human nature goes, but it's really not the easiest thing to have a partner who does that, because you never know which one is the truth.

Btw, I'm sure you know this already, but I'd just like to reiterate: Do NOT go visit his friends and family if he doesn't want to help you out with the airfare. I mean, this isn't some trip you're both going to go on to enjoy yourselves, this is something he wants you to do. If he cannot help you out with it, he should not expect you to fork up the cash out of your limited store to do it.

October 29, 2011

WTF? HE was the one who brought up the 50/50 discussion this last time, after which I mentioned the ticket. It was in my mind at the time, why wouldn't I mention it? I wasn't trying to guilt him or otherwise manipulate him into 'giving' me something at the time.

T, I'm sorry; I thought these discussions happened concurrently. I didn't realize they were two separate occasions.

I wasn't aware he'd ever brought the 50/50 thing up at all. How did he bring it up?

As to why you would mention it then. . . I wasn't trying to suggest you were trying to guilt him; merely presenting how it might FEEL to him. Intentions and how things feel on the other side often vary somewhat.

October 29, 2011

Please, to avoid any more confusion...

The 50/50 thing is NOT MY IDEA. It is HIS. It has ALWAYS been HIS. I have AGREED to it because it does work for me--I can manage it well enough, for now.

After the one time when I brought up the idea of combining finances as a show of commitment, which was a terrible idea, we had another discussion the other day--the crux of the dilemma in the OP--that HE brought up, insisting on maintaining the 50/50 split. That was when I asked him what might happen in the future, like if he wants to live somewhere I can't reasonably afford half the expenses, etc. That was also when I mentioned India as an "OK, so what about this?" and he completely reversed his stance on paying for my airfare, unless he 'changes his mind and decides he wants to help me out'. Seriously, the way he said that was pretty cold.

October 29, 2011

Please, to avoid any more confusion...

The 50/50 thing is NOT MY IDEA. It is HIS. It has ALWAYS been HIS. I have AGREED to it because it does work for me--I can manage it well enough, for now.

How/why did he bring this up? Did you just tell him, "Hey, I have a job now", and he said, "Okay, so you can pay 50%"?

Would you have offered it if he had not asked?

At any rate, zengirl's advice might not be applicable in TA's situation, but I think it's great advice all around. Certainly struck a chord in me at least.

October 29, 2011

Please, to avoid any more confusion...

The 50/50 thing is NOT MY IDEA. It is HIS. It has ALWAYS been HIS. I have AGREED to it because it does work for me--I can manage it well enough, for now.

After the one time when I brought up the idea of combining finances as a show of commitment, which was a terrible idea, we had another discussion the other day--the crux of the dilemma in the OP--that HE brought up, insisting on maintaining the 50/50 split. That was when I asked him what might happen in the future, like if he wants to live somewhere I can't reasonably afford half the expenses, etc. That was also when I mentioned India as an "OK, so what about this?" and he completely reversed his stance on paying for my airfare, unless he 'changes his mind and decides he wants to help me out'. Seriously, the way he said that was pretty cold.

I know the 50/50 thing was his idea. I meant the combining thing was something you brought up, and I thought that conversation was concurrent with this one, sorry.

If it was one day later (how long in between?) that he brought it up again, and you said, "India?" then I stand by the earlier analysis. He's still feeling stung by the whole combining thing. I'm a generous person, who has supported a partner financially before, and I would, too, T. So, I was just trying to explain the psychological effect such a thing could have.

Doesn't mean he's "right." Really, there is no win here, as I said. And you should definitely not go to India unless he pays, since it sounds like it'd be for him and you couldn't afford it. But the language he uses even convinces me of the psychological analysis I used: "decides he wants to help [you] out." That's what it felt like to him, when he offered the ticket.

Then, he felt like it was an expectation, a burden, that you wanted all his money to be yours too, as some sort of sign of his commitment, and he started to feel resentful and closed in and guilty and hurt and frustrated. He probably doesn't even understand or have the ability to articulate what he's feeling and why (most people don't when they feel things). So, he closed down a bit, and he changed stances about the ticket (wrong, of course) because now it's posed as not a way for him to be generous but something that's expected. ETA: BUT left the window open to still buy it for you, if he changes his mind, thus allowing him to decide to be helpful and generous.

Does that make sense?

I'm not saying it's a total he's right/you're wrong --- not at all. I'm just trying to see what happened, based on my knowledge of how people work. I don't think it's really a sign or signal of his love for you but rather just a product of how the whole topic now makes him feel, which is likely temporary*. (*IF left alone!)

Edited October 29, 2011 by zengirl

October 29, 2011

T, I'm sorry; I thought these discussions happened concurrently. I didn't realize they were two separate occasions.

I wasn't aware he'd ever brought the 50/50 thing up at all. How did he bring it up?

As to why you would mention it then. . . I wasn't trying to suggest you were trying to guilt him; merely presenting how it might FEEL to him. Intentions and how things feel on the other side often vary somewhat.

Well, Friday when we had the discussion we were talking boundaries. Recently we've had exes sort of chasing after us and we had discussed that particular thing a few times--I shut mine down (C, who I've posted about numerous times here) from the first, telling him I am happily involved and there is no chance for us. He accepted it, we're sort-of friends and he's rooting for things to work out between BF and me. BF's ex wasn't so easily deterred--and he didn't handle it well when it first came out that she still is in love with him (despite being engaged to someone else). Instead of saying he's involved and is happy, there's no chance, he avoided it at first and cut off the conversation. He admitted to me later he 'liked the attention'; I told him I trusted him to deal with it as he saw fit, and he crushed her hopes.

He was feeling really insecure about C and wanted me to quit talking to him, I told him I wouldn't promise that because I refuse to agree to something that shows his distrust of me and is an effort to control me. He took me not agreeing to his demand as him not being important to me at all. When we had this general discussion the other day, we agreed to trust each other in our relationships with other people, meaning that we wouldn't control who we talked to/hung out with, etc.

Then after that was resolved he said, "I'm not going to support you financially." I was like, "Uh...what? When I brought up the idea of combining finances, it wasn't about you supporting me. It hasn't ever been about that. I understand how it's seen that way as you make a lot more money than I do, but it's about being a team, being really committed." He said, "Okay, but I still want the 50/50 split." That's when I got into how long that would be in place, etc.

The combining discussion and this boundary discussion occurred at least a couple of weeks apart.

October 29, 2011

So if I am reading this correctly, you brought up combining finances, and his response to that was "I'm not all in"?

Either way, combining finances should not even be an option at this point, not for him nor yourself. That is the last thing you'd want to consider doing with someone who isn't "all in".

The problem here is basic selfishness. Selfish folks are incapable of loving because they are always looking for themselves first.

In a true loving relationship there is no such thing as my money and your money. This is foreign or cannot be imagined by selfish people.

When a person is "all in" in a relationship and there is no selfishness that person does not keep score. I lived with a woman and even paid her tuition for school and I was not "all in". It was a rebound short lived relationship. I have zero regrets for giving her room and board and paying her school tuition.

With my former wife there were times when she did not work and it made zero difference to me.

This brings me to the issue of greed and materialism. This guy is all about money and Tigress will always feel that she is not pulling her weight despite putting down 50% of the expenses. This SOB probably wants even more and he would love to marry into money.

Why is Tigress attracted to such a man? Is this the Torn Curtain syndrome?

Why do people that are not committed play house?

Sign In

Money is getting in the way.

Recommended Posts

Els

zengirl

Pierre

Els

soserious1

Art_Critic

Fondue

Emilia

tigressA

snug.bunny

tigressA

Art_Critic

zengirl

snug.bunny

Art_Critic

tigressA

january2011

piggyoink

Els

zengirl

tigressA

Els

zengirl

tigressA

Pierre

What's New

My Activity Streams

More...