Fiancé owes me money, need some perspective

[soserious1]

You pay alimony to a man???????

 

I sit here wandering what kind of MAN accepts alimony from a woman?

 

A man who sought fiscal relief & protection from the courts under the same set of laws that allow wives to decide unilaterally to end their marriages while being rewarded with most of the "shared" assets & few if any of the supposedly "shared" debts.

[Pierre]

A man who sought fiscal relief & protection from the courts under the same set of laws that allow wives to decide unilaterally to end their marriages while being rewarded with most of the "shared" assets & few if any of the supposedly "shared" debts.

 

That is not a MAN.

 

My ex-wife was no gold digger and she did not try to rip me. Her best asset was that she was not interested in money. She did not hire a lawyer and we use a mediator of my choice.

[soserious1]

That is not a MAN.

 

My ex-wife was no gold digger and she did not try to rip me. Her best asset was that she was not interested in money. She did not hire a lawyer and we use a mediator of my choice.

 

My Ex sought protection under the same set of laws available to women who wish to end their marriages while ensuring they get to take the bulk of the marital assets.

 

You got lucky in your divorce, I say entering into a marriage without a firm agreement as to how assets will be handled is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun, the bigger earner is going to get blown up & blown up hard in the vast majority of cases.

 

I like to "prove my love" by being fiscal responsible & prudent enough to provide for my own needs & pay my own bills. There is nothing wrong with expecting prospective partners to do the same.

[Pierre]

My Ex sought protection under the same set of laws available to women who wish to end their marriages while ensuring they get to take the bulk of the marital assets.

 

You got lucky in your divorce, I say entering into a marriage without a firm agreement as to how assets will be handled is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun, the bigger earner is going to get blown up & blown up hard in the vast majority of cases.

 

I like to "prove my love" by being fiscal responsible & prudent enough to provide for my own needs & pay my own bills. There is nothing wrong with expecting prospective partners to do the same.

 

I get you!

 

We operate based on our data base and most people do not have the same data base.

[soserious1]

I get you!

 

We operate based on our data base and most people do not have the same data base.

 

Sorry to say that it would appear that many people are sharing the "same data base"

 

The divorce forum here is booming, plenty of posts from newly heartbroken, poverty stricken people who thought they were indeed in "ours" marriages only to find themselves reduced to moving back in with their parents while their ex-wife & her new boyfriend live in the marital home.

 

 

Separation and Divorce - LoveShack.org Community Forums

[musemaj11]

You pay alimony to a man???????

 

I sit here wandering what kind of MAN accepts alimony from a woman?

Here goes Mr. Men-are-better-than-Women.

[dasein]

I think it is called 'agreeing with what someone actually says about herself'. You may need a degree to be able to do that, but most people tend to learn that ability at the age of 5.

 

The post I cited is a plain insult directed at another poster, not any kind of "agreement" with the poster.

 

Since you mention the age of 5, that's when I learned to be honest and not tell lies, thanks.

[soserious1]

The post I cited is a plain insult directed at another poster, not any kind of "agreement" with the poster.

 

Since you mention the age of 5, that's when I learned to be honest and not tell lies, thanks.

 

I'm quite used to being openly insulted by several of the women from the "sharing your money is caring" school of thought.

 

Divorced fathers who are flat broke from making hefty child support payments & alimony must be so comforted to know that there are so many single women out there just dying to provide them with free rent & groceries so that they can send all their money to their baby mama's!

[dasein]

I know you know that I'm not trying to come to your aid SS, but this thread really annoys me because what you point out about broke divorced men is absolutely true. If this thread were gender reversed, the complexion of it would be entirely different, and that is a big pet peeve of mine here on loveshack. $1500 is not a whole lot of money, but it's not a $20 bill either, and it's certainly not an opportunity to shift blame away, via nitpicking and rationalizing, from someone who made a promise to pay and didn't keep it.

 

That's really the point of departure here. She agreed on a certain arrangement and broke her word. OP is rightfully annoyed. That's really it, no further "angles" on it other than by dishonest rationalization. Through all the nitpicking at OP, we never get to the broader picture of how her lousy behavior is likely affecting the relationship in general bad ways. When people LIE to us, we tend to LOSE TRUST. When people act like unnaccountable little children, we LOSE RESPECT for them. Where is a relationship headed once trust and respect are gone?

[LittleTiger]

Well no, I eat as much as the average man because I do a lot of sport for example and not all guys eat a lot.

 

Even if it's the man eating more, in a shopping trip you can buy expensive stuff for your hair etc in a supermarket while he buys a big piece of steak. Your shopping habits won't match exactly with quality and quantity. I'd say over time it evens out. I'm happy to pay 50% as a woman.

 

I think 50-50 is the cleanest arrangement and a shared bank account is the most fair. It works very well for my sister and her live-in bf and it's what I would do if someone moved in with me.

 

Missed this before:

 

I'm pretty small but I eat a fair bit too because I'm very active and sporty. My fiance, however, is an athlete and eats four times what I eat on an average day and up to six times what I eat when he's training or competing.

 

We may be an extreme example but the 'average' woman should be eating around 20% less than the 'average' man.

 

50/50 may well be the 'cleanest' arrangement but it's just an example of how impossible it is to truly split things fairly when you are sharing a life with someone.

[dasein]

We may be an extreme example but the 'average' woman should be eating around 20% less than the 'average' man.

 

Women make it up and then some on toilet paper and power bills associated with "Im cold! Im hot!" all year.

[LittleTiger]

I know you know that I'm not trying to come to your aid SS, but this thread really annoys me because what you point out about broke divorced men is absolutely true. If this thread were gender reversed, the complexion of it would be entirely different, and that is a big pet peeve of mine here on loveshack. $1500 is not a whole lot of money, but it's not a $20 bill either, and it's certainly not an opportunity to shift blame away, via nitpicking and rationalizing, from someone who made a promise to pay and didn't keep it.

 

That's really the point of departure here. She agreed on a certain arrangement and broke her word. OP is rightfully annoyed. That's really it, no further "angles" on it other than by dishonest rationalization. Through all the nitpicking at OP, we never get to the broader picture of how her lousy behavior is likely affecting the relationship in general bad ways. When people LIE to us, we tend to LOSE TRUST. When people act like unnaccountable little children, we LOSE RESPECT for them. Where is a relationship headed once trust and respect are gone?

 

If the OP and his fiance made an agreement about splitting the costs of TV/bed 50/50 and also agreed exactly what the time frame was for her to pay her share, then you are correct, she has gone back on the deal and an element of trust will be lost between them.

 

However, I suspect that their communication is rather lacking and that no such well-defined agreement was discussed. If so, she hasn't yet done anything to warrant loss of trust or respect - yet. All the OP needs to do is talk to his fiance and find out 'when' she will pay her agreed share.

 

If he can't talk to her, or if she refuses to discuss it/pay, then they have a serious problem and definitely should not be talking marriage.

[dasein]

However, I suspect

 

Don't "suspect," read the thread. OP has been clear that her paying half was the agreement, why continue to ride the nitpick train? OP has been more than clear that they agreed to split the costs of the tv, bed and groceries.

 

This thread in the context of the "should I loan my BF 1500" thread is so telling. Here, posters are trying to nitpick OP into being at fault in a plain, simple scenario. They agreed to split certain expenses. She reneged. She shrugs off his requests for her to keep her word. Simple, that's really it. How much money at issue? ~$1500. Yet all manner of unwarranted conjecture and rationalizations about OP being at fault are offered and banged like a gong over and over.

 

In the other thread, when the gender shoe is on the other foot, all manner of conjecture and rationalizations offered characterizing the guy (who hasn't even borrowed the money yet, let alone reneged) as a dirtball for merely asking to borrow money from a GF. How much money? $1500 :lmao:

 

I think the "Great Hypocrisy Judge in the Sky" is watching both these threads and laughing.

[LittleTiger]

Women make it up and then some on toilet paper and power bills associated with "Im cold! Im hot!" all year.

 

This just illustrates my point.

 

It is not possible to work out who spends what when two people share a life. You cannot work out who eats what, who watches more TV, who sleeps longer, who uses more electricity, gas or water, who uses more toilet paper or toothpaste, who wears down sofa or the carpet faster etc etc

 

What happens when children come along in these 50/50 relationships?

Do these couples split the cost of nappies, babygrows and baby food - if a woman breastfeeds perhaps she should ask her partner for his share of the 'cost' of her breastmilk, since they will be saving on the cost of formula!?

 

Seriously, in my head it is that ridiculous.

[LittleTiger]

Don't "suspect," read the thread. OP has been clear that her paying half was the agreement, why continue to ride the nitpick train? OP has been more than clear that they agreed to split the costs of the tv, bed and groceries.

 

I have read the thread and nowhere did I read that there was a timeframe discussed. She said she would pay and of course she should, no argument - but they didn't make any agreement about 'when' she should pay - that is my point.

[zengirl]

If the OP and his fiance made an agreement about splitting the costs of TV/bed 50/50 and also agreed exactly what the time frame was for her to pay her share, then you are correct, she has gone back on the deal and an element of trust will be lost between them.

 

However, I suspect that their communication is rather lacking and that no such well-defined agreement was discussed. If so, she hasn't yet done anything to warrant loss of trust or respect - yet. All the OP needs to do is talk to his fiance and find out 'when' she will pay her agreed share.

 

If he can't talk to her, or if she refuses to discuss it/pay, then they have a serious problem and definitely should not be talking marriage.

 

This is really the crux of it. The fact that she tried to pay back $300 already and was rebuffed because of the 'how' also suggests to me that everything is extremely murky in these communications.

 

This thread in the context of the "should I loan my BF 1500" thread is so telling. Here, posters are trying to nitpick OP into being at fault in a plain, simple scenario. They agreed to split certain expenses. She reneged. She shrugs off his requests for her to keep her word. Simple, that's really it. How much money at issue? ~$1500. Yet all manner of unwarranted conjecture and rationalizations about OP being at fault are offered and banged like a gong over and over.

 

In the other thread, when the gender shoe is on the other foot, all manner of conjecture and rationalizations offered characterizing the guy (who hasn't even borrowed the money yet, let alone reneged) as a dirtball for merely asking to borrow money from a GF. How much money? $1500 :lmao:

 

I think the "Great Hypocrisy Judge in the Sky" is watching both these threads and laughing.

 

I, and many others, said it was perfectly fine for him to request the loan and that, in some relationships, it would be given. The OP of that thread also has posted several other issues in her much less serious (than the one in this thread), 6 month relationship, and she seemed to be expressing discomfort with loaning him the money -- which, in that case, was not for something they would share together. I think the parallel is faulty and you're ignoring the bulk of that thread if you want to make this a gender issue.

 

There may be some outliers who think men should always pay, but that's not the bulk of the advice here. Instead, the emphasis has been on financial communication being a crucial part of any serious LTR or marriage.

[dasein]

I have read the thread and nowhere did I read that there was a timeframe discussed. She said she would pay and of course she should, no argument - but they didn't make any agreement about 'when' she should pay - that is my point.

 

Oh cmon, he clearly stated that payments are being made and she isn't paying her part. Moreover, the cost of groceries is generally split when they are purchased and payment due immediately. When OP asks her to pay, she doesn't even dignify it with an adult response.

[LittleTiger]

This thread in the context of the "should I loan my BF 1500" thread is so telling. Here, posters are trying to nitpick OP into being at fault in a plain, simple scenario. They agreed to split certain expenses. She reneged. She shrugs off his requests for her to keep her word. Simple, that's really it. How much money at issue? ~$1500. Yet all manner of unwarranted conjecture and rationalizations about OP being at fault are offered and banged like a gong over and over.

 

In the other thread, when the gender shoe is on the other foot, all manner of conjecture and rationalizations offered characterizing the guy (who hasn't even borrowed the money yet, let alone reneged) as a dirtball for merely asking to borrow money from a GF. How much money? $1500 :lmao:

 

I think the "Great Hypocrisy Judge in the Sky" is watching both these threads and laughing.

 

I haven't read the other thread but just had a quick look so I knew what you were talking about. I think the big difference is that the OP here and his fiance are engaged to be married - when they get married their finances will be legally joined, however they split costs on a day to day basis.

 

In the other thread they have been dating 6 months and there has been no mention of any commitment. Big difference and therefore no hypocrisy.

[LittleTiger]

Oh cmon, he clearly stated that payments are being made and she isn't paying her part. Moreover, the cost of groceries is generally split when they are purchased and payment due immediately. When OP asks her to pay, she doesn't even dignify it with an adult response.

 

Exactly! It is a communication problem.

 

Telling strangers on the internet that his fiance won't 'pay up' what she owes is not the best way to express his concerns about the situation. If he can't talk to her their relationship is doomed!

[spookie]

Don't "suspect," read the thread. OP has been clear that her paying half was the agreement, why continue to ride the nitpick train? OP has been more than clear that they agreed to split the costs of the tv, bed and groceries.

 

This thread in the context of the "should I loan my BF 1500" thread is so telling. Here, posters are trying to nitpick OP into being at fault in a plain, simple scenario. They agreed to split certain expenses. She reneged. She shrugs off his requests for her to keep her word. Simple, that's really it. How much money at issue? ~$1500. Yet all manner of unwarranted conjecture and rationalizations about OP being at fault are offered and banged like a gong over and over.

 

In the other thread, when the gender shoe is on the other foot, all manner of conjecture and rationalizations offered characterizing the guy (who hasn't even borrowed the money yet, let alone reneged) as a dirtball for merely asking to borrow money from a GF. How much money? $1500 :lmao:

 

I think the "Great Hypocrisy Judge in the Sky" is watching both these threads and laughing.

 

One of the many differences between those threads, is that in this one, they are living together and engaged, wheras in the other one, it's a new relationship.

[threebyfate]

Don't "suspect," read the thread. OP has been clear that her paying half was the agreement, why continue to ride the nitpick train? OP has been more than clear that they agreed to split the costs of the tv, bed and groceries.

 

This thread in the context of the "should I loan my BF 1500" thread is so telling. Here, posters are trying to nitpick OP into being at fault in a plain, simple scenario. They agreed to split certain expenses. She reneged. She shrugs off his requests for her to keep her word. Simple, that's really it. How much money at issue? ~$1500. Yet all manner of unwarranted conjecture and rationalizations about OP being at fault are offered and banged like a gong over and over.

 

In the other thread, when the gender shoe is on the other foot, all manner of conjecture and rationalizations offered characterizing the guy (who hasn't even borrowed the money yet, let alone reneged) as a dirtball for merely asking to borrow money from a GF. How much money? $1500 :lmao:

 

I think the "Great Hypocrisy Judge in the Sky" is watching both these threads and laughing.

The moon is blue.

 

I agree with your synopsis.

[dasein]

This is really the crux of it. The fact that she tried to pay back $300 already and was rebuffed because of the 'how' also suggests to me that everything is extremely murky in these communications.

 

No it's not, it's a complete nitpick. She agreed to pay, she has not and refuses to, refuses to even discuss it. OP is annoyed. The fact that he gave her some side money under some other obligation that we aren't privy to the full details of is wholly tangential. The fact that there was no written or oral agmt as to when she would pay is wholly tangential. She was supposed to be paying for the bed and tv all along and hasn't, and should pony up half the money for groceries when they are bought. She hasn't. Who knows what she is spending her money on, but whatever it is, it isn't her preexisting, voluntary, matured obligations to OP.

 

I I think the parallel is faulty and you're ignoring the bulk of that thread if you want to make this a gender issue.

 

I don't want to make this a gender issue so much, but a LS issue with respect to certain posters constantly bending over backward to defend whatever a woman or women do. WHY? What does that benefit an OP (or anyone else), to get lousy biased advice (and most likely just a bunch of lecturing and blameshifting)? It's not a pure gender issue because several female posters are on the right side of this thread and the other one.

 

But the telling part is the different way the threads are phrased in the replies. Man seeking to borrow money is presumed guilty, irresponsible, spendthrift, cheater, nitpicked ("why does he need to go to HK?") whereas woman who is absolutely in default on existing obligations in this thread is nitpicked and rationalized on behalf of, despite her level of fault being extremely clearcut.

 

In short, man who wants to borrow $1500, "call the jerk police and get out the microscope!" Woman who refuses to pay $1500 she already owes? "Well you see OP, you had $300 yet gave it to her, loving couples don't keep score, you are anal, selfish, MEMEME, and finally, you didn't execute a written repayment plan on your agreement to split the bed, tv and groceries, so this is just as much your fault." What an egregious load!

[zengirl]

No it's not, it's a complete nitpick. She agreed to pay, she has not and refuses to, refuses to even discuss it.

 

I've not seen anywhere cited that she refused to discuss it.

 

OP is annoyed. The fact that he gave her some side money under some other obligation that we aren't privy to the full details of is wholly tangential.

 

The OP did not consider it tangential and considered it applicable enough to share that information. It's also clear that she would've paid $300 back this way had the OP allowed her to. He said so. Therefore, he could've had $300 of the debt back already that he does not have, but he did not want it.

 

I don't disagree that she should pay the money, if she agreed to it (if she's this passive in these discussions, I truly wonder how active she was in the discussions about the purchases, honestly). I don't disagree it's wrong to fail to do what you say you'll do when you say you'll do it (this is what they left murky, it seems). I do disagree with vilifying one person when it's clear the communication is at least partially at fault. Communication is both people's responsibilities.

 

I don't want to make this a gender issue so much, but a LS issue with respect to certain posters constantly bending over backward to defend whatever a woman or women do. WHY? What does that benefit an OP (or anyone else), to get lousy biased advice (and most likely just a bunch of lecturing and blameshifting)? It's not a pure gender issue because several female posters are on the right side of this thread and the other one.

 

Thinking there's a "right" side is the whole problem. This thread is about a person in a relationship with another person who wants to fix a problem. There's no need for a villain. There are no sides. There are two people who should work together to figure this out. That's how I see a relationship. That's how I see both this thread, and the $1500 thread you cite.

[dasein]

I've not seen anywhere cited that she refused to discuss it.

 

Read the OP, she gets a sad look and says "oh yeah," that's the equivalent of a refusal to discuss it. A sincere person would say, "I realize I owe you, and will be able to give you money on XYZ day." She is plainly taking advantage of her fiance's better nature by shrugging it off in a slimy way.

 

The OP did not consider it tangential and considered it applicable enough to share that information.

 

Yes, he mentioned it in passing, the $300, and gave some explanation that I couldn't puzzle out fully. Someone not interesting in rationalizing blame onto him would have just let that lie.

 

(if she's this passive in these discussions, I truly wonder how active she was in the discussions about the purchases, honestly).

 

Wow. So with nothing in the thread even implying that the bed and tv were not joint decisions... other than the fact she clams up when the bill is due... you are "honestly" as you say, ready to shift more blame, based on yet even more elaborate castles in the air, via some extrapolation that leads to "OP dragged her into buying the tv and bed?"

 

Communication is both people's responsibilities.

 

Other than the $300 tangent, where is there any indication in this thread that OP and GF weren't very clear with each other about jointly paying for the bed, the tv and the groceries? One party feigning indifference to their obligations does not a "communications difference" make, just an instance of bad behavior and bad character. Every bad thing a woman does in the world can't be rationalized away as simply a "communication breakdown."

 

Thinking there's a "right" side is the whole problem.

 

In many threads here, most, all but a few, there is room for debate, there is no villain, no real bad guy. This thread isn't one of those, is very clearcut, despite the repeated efforts of you and others to paint it as one.

[zengirl]

Read the OP, she gets a sad look and says "oh yeah," that's the equivalent of a refusal to discuss it. A sincere person would say, "I realize I owe you, and will be able to give you money on XYZ day." She is plainly taking advantage of her fiance's better nature by shrugging it off in a slimy way.

 

I really don't view that answer as a refusal. It's not a great answer, granted. I'm not saying it is. It's also very much NOT a refusal. It's the exact opposite of a refusal --- a refusal to discuss is an active choice to NOT discuss something. She's absolutely passive. I don't see any evidence she's taking advantage of him --- she may be, certainly, and some people do --- especially since she has lent him money and attempted to pay him back in that way.

 

Yes, he mentioned it in passing, the $300, and gave some explanation that I couldn't puzzle out fully. Someone not interesting in rationalizing blame onto him would have just let that lie.

 

Not really. The things you can't puzzle out are often where perspective lies, and that's what the OP requested -- not blame, perspective. I'm not blaming the OP at all for his feelings. I'm just suggesting he examine some things so he is better prepared to deal with this situation in a productive manner.

 

Wow. So with nothing in the thread even implying that the bed and tv were not joint decisions... other than the fact she clams up when the bill is due... you are "honestly" as you say, ready to shift more blame, based on yet even more elaborate castles in the air, via some extrapolation that leads to "OP dragged her into buying the tv and bed?"

 

I'm not blaming him for that. If she was passive in those discussions, it's on her too. However, re: taking advantage. If she was active in those discussions but passive about the debt --- I'd say the OP has far more to be wary of than if she was passive in those discussions as well. Did I say he dragged her into it? That's not at all what I meant -- perhaps if you read what I say and not what you think I mean, discussions could get farther.

 

Other than the $300 tangent, where is there any indication in this thread that OP and GF weren't very clear with each other about jointly paying for the bed, the tv and the groceries? One party feigning indifference to their obligations does not a "communications difference" make, just an instance of bad behavior and bad character. Every bad thing a woman does in the world can't be rationalized away as simply a "communication breakdown."

 

The mere fact that they haven't had an actual discussion about this suggests to me they likely didn't have a clear, actual discussion about other things. This IS a communication breakdown. It may also be bad behavior, but I see no evidence that it is. First and foremost, the communication must be repaired before we can make that judgment.

 

In many threads here, most, all but a few, there is room for debate, there is no villain, no real bad guy. This thread isn't one of those, is very clearcut, despite the repeated efforts of you and others to paint it as one.

 

This is where we disagree. I'm not trying to "paint" anything. Merely stating how I see this --- as an issue where two partners have an issue with financial communication that can potentially be resolved.