Fiancé owes me money, need some perspective

[soserious1]

In the very 1st paragraph of this thread the OP states that he & his girlfriend purchased an $800 bed 1 YEAR ago & his girlfriend still hasn't paid her half!

 

I year without making a payment, now she's not paying for groceries & when spoken to about it she gives sad puppy eyes & says "oh yeah" ? Sorry but it's pretty clear cut to me, no twisting this to somehow be the man's fault. This is a woman behaving in an appalling fashion, why can't people just say that?

[threebyfate]

The two have similar salaries after the tax man takes his cut. Why is he able to save and maintain financial obligations where she can't?

 

Scrub the genders for a second. How comfortable are you with an SO who breaks commitments and promises so casually, with only a sad look and an "oh yeah"?

[zengirl]

The two have similar salaries after the tax man takes his cut. Why is he able to save and maintain financial obligations where she can't?

 

Scrub the genders for a second. How comfortable are you with an SO who breaks commitments and promises so casually, with only a sad look and an "oh yeah"?

 

I never predicated any of my responses on the genders. I don't really see promise-breaking in action here; I see a lack of communication.

[threebyfate]

I never predicated any of my responses on the genders. I don't really see promise-breaking in action here; I see a lack of communication.

A lack of communication? How so? They agreed to joint spending. He reminded her of her obligation. He's not her father to ensure her financial obligations are met. Must he nag her to death over her financial obligations? Since when are adults responsible for each other's actions? To suggest so would be to suggest that adults within relationships have full rights to control each other. Case in point, gaining weight.

[soserious1]

I never predicated any of my responses on the genders. I don't really see promise-breaking in action here; I see a lack of communication.

 

The woman owes the guy $400 for a bed they bought 1 year ago, she now doesn't pay for her share of the groceries, when he speaks to her about these issues she gives him sad eyes and says "oh yeah" but doesn't get out her checkbook.

 

Do you think if he puts a padlock on the fridge & puts a cheap dog bed on the floor for this woman to sleep on she might suddenly learn to communicate or what?

[zengirl]

Do you think if he puts a padlock on the fridge & puts a cheap dog bed on the floor for this woman to sleep on she might suddenly learn to communicate or what?

 

Do you think that's a way to settle discussions? Honestly?

 

The OP thanked me for my suggestions in attempts to communicate earlier in the thread (and mine weren't even the best -- serial muse made much better ones), so I believe he truly does want to work this out, rather than vilify his fiancee. I know why you come from the perspective you do, soserious, and I think what your ex-H dragged you through was a crime (and would be if you were a man as well -- not a gender issue at all) but I do not assume there is usually a villain in such situations or have any financial push-buttons myself.

 

It takes 2 people to communicate. The OP's fiancee is not 'refusing' to communicate or even 'refusing' to pay --- she attempted to pay $300 that was not taken. Rather, she is avoiding. That's not great communication on her part, but a communication dynamic like that usually requires both parties to be culpable and can be fixed by either party. I assume the OP would like to actually communicate with her, rather than just hear how awful she is.

[dasein]

This just illustrates my point.

 

No it doesn't, couples are completely free to establish 50/50 arrangements or 80/20 or whatever they want. It's effectively a derail in this thread to talk about men eating more or toothpaste, etc. The couple in question, not you and your SO, not me, decided to split 50/50. It is within their capacity as adults to decide so, and not really for us here to second guess their arrangement. It's irrelevant to the topic.

 

She isn't paying her half that she agreed to pay. OP says he is annoyed, losing trust, thinking of her as a child. Yet we can't even get to the effect this is having on OP's relationship based on the seemingly infinite desire and need of certain posters here to shift blame to OP for some reason via all manner of contorted reasoning, bad assumptions, out and out accusations, refusal to read what is actually posted in the thread (and I went back and read the whole thing, thanks for wasting my time, of course the thread says -exactly- what I thought it did, there was no "hidden justification" in a post somewhere for continuing to coal-rake and boogey man OP). Mind boggling.

[soserious1]

Do you think that's a way to settle discussions? Honestly?

 

The OP thanked me for my suggestions in attempts to communicate earlier in the thread (and mine weren't even the best -- serial muse made much better ones), so I believe he truly does want to work this out, rather than vilify his fiancee. I know why you come from the perspective you do, soserious, and I think what your ex-H dragged you through was a crime (and would be if you were a man as well -- not a gender issue at all) but I do not assume there is usually a villain in such situations or have any financial push-buttons myself.

 

It takes 2 people to communicate. The OP's fiancee is not 'refusing' to communicate or even 'refusing' to pay --- she attempted to pay $300 that was not taken. Rather, she is avoiding. That's not great communication on her part, but a communication dynamic like that usually requires both parties to be culpable and can be fixed by either party. I assume the OP would like to actually communicate with her, rather than just hear how awful she is.

 

Oh please! "she's avoiding" the man asked her about the money, he asked her to pay for her food!

 

Why cannot you just admit that this is an example of a woman behaving badly! This woman has no problem opening her mouth wide enough to insert the OP's groceries into it does she?

 

And yeah, I bet a padlock on the fridge & a dog bed on the floor for her would get her opening her mouth to discuss the issue nice & fast, he has asked her for the money, the time for talking is over, now is a time for action!

Edited April 24, 2012 by soserious1

[zengirl]

She isn't paying her half that she agreed to pay. OP says he is annoyed, losing trust, thinking of her as a child.

 

Really? He said that?

[threebyfate]

As a compromise, if she isn't savvy with financial management, perhaps she should give her paycheque to her fiance to manage?

[dasein]

It takes 2 people to communicate.

 

The whole "communication" sub theme in the thread is absurd, just a device to levy some blame on OP in a situation where a woman is clearly, indubitably at fault and it's hard to tag the man with fault in the usual way. Complete BS subterfuge.

 

There's not one GD thing to sit down and "communicate" here to GF other than "keep your word and pay up!" no need for some long heartfelt discussion of why adults who agree to split expenses or specific purchases are expected to honor their word and pay their obligations. She agreed to pay, she didn't pay, she blows off his requests. That's it. There is no fault on his end due to failing to communicate. Nothing suggests their arrangement or understanding are or were anything other than crystal clear.

 

Upon rereading the thread, I find some of the "this is a really tangled situation" sentiment expressed to be entirely disingenuious, fanciful and purposefully structured to assign blame to OP. WHY? Is there some blameshift jar somewhere that every time a woman successfully shifts bad behavior onto a man a quarter gets dropped in? Is there going to be a "shift the blame" marguerita party somewhere paid for by all those quarters? Why then?

[dasein]

Really? He said that?

 

Yes, was a paraphrase of the OP where he said he couldn't trust her with money.

[soserious1]

I cannot think of a single creditor that has EVER approached me with velvet gloves to gently ask if my repaying my debt was causing me hardship. Any time I had an issue with making any sort of payment in a timely way it was incumbent on me to go, hat in hand & humbly speak to the person to whom I owed money to explain myself & attempt to establish new terms for repayment.

 

The OP's fiance` knows she owes this money, the OP has spoken to her about it, responsibility for further communication rests on this woman!

 

OP padlock the fridge, pick up a cheap dog bed at Target & put it on the floor of your bedroom for her to sleep on, when she responds in shock simply turn to her with sad puppy dog eyes & say "oh yeah.. that.. it's what happens when you try to play me for a chump & stick me with your bills" then walk away & say nothing more.

Edited April 24, 2012 by soserious1

[LittleTiger]

I cannot think of a single creditor that has EVER approached me with velvet gloves to gently ask if my repaying my debt was causing me hardship. Any time I had an issue with making any sort of payment in a timely way it was incumbent on me to go, hat in hand & humbly speak to the person to whom I owed money to explain myself & attempt to establish new terms for repayment.

 

The OP's fiance` knows she owes this money, the OP has spoken to her about it, responsibility for further communication rests on this woman!

 

OP padlock the fridge, pick up a cheap dog bed at Target & put it on the floor of your bedroom for her to sleep on, when she responds in shock simply turn to her with sad puppy dog eyes & say "oh yeah.. that.. it's what happens when you try to play me for a chump & stick me with your bills" then walk away & say nothing more.

 

 

Soserious1, I understand why you are angry with men or women who take financial advantage but don't you think this is going a bit far?

 

You might as well advise the OP to dump his fiance and take her to court for the money she owes him. Of course then they would have to chop up the TV and the bed so they could both have half!

[soserious1]

Soserious1, I understand why you are angry with men or women who take financial advantage but don't you think this is going a bit far?

 

You might as well advise the OP to dump his fiance and take her to court for the money she owes him. Of course then they would have to chop up the TV and the bed so they could both have half!

 

Actually I advised the OP that a couple is better off with each person "owning" outright the various bits of furniture & electronics in the house because it cuts down on headaches if the relationship ends.

 

One of my alternate suggestions to the OP was that he have his girl purchase an item for the household that they both want, that is equal in value to what she owes for the bed & TV. If they split up, she owns that item outright, the OP owns the bed & the tv.

[threebyfate]

How come people aren't willing to rebutt my post about letting the OP handle his fiancée's paycheque since he's better at saving than she is?

 

After all, aren't they living together so finances should be comingled...right, right? After all, aren't couples supposed to rely on each other's strengths, of which his strength is financial management?

[LittleTiger]

How come people aren't willing to rebutt my post about letting the OP handle his fiancée's paycheque since he's better at saving than she is?

 

After all, aren't they living together so finances should be comingled...right, right? After all, aren't couples supposed to rely on each other's strengths, of which his strength is financial management?

 

I won't rebutt it because, if she is financially irresponsible it's not a bad idea - of course, based on the information we currently have, we don't know for sure that she is.

[threebyfate]

I won't rebutt it because, if she is financially irresponsible it's not a bad idea - of course, based on the information we currently have, we don't know for sure that she is.

Pattern of behaviour:

1. Didn't repay the cost of the bed over a year ago.
   
2. Didn't repay the cost of the TV relatively recently.
   
3. Didn't buck up for groceries even more recently.
   

 

Her behaviour is getting worse.

 

Normally on a baseball diamond and in the corporate world, three strikes and you're out. Luckily, this isn't pro-ball or business.

[LittleTiger]

Pattern of behaviour:

1. Didn't repay the cost of the bed over a year ago.
   
2. Didn't repay the cost of the TV relatively recently.
   
3. Didn't buck up for groceries even more recently.
   

Her behaviour is getting worse.

 

Normally on a baseball diamond and in the corporate world, three strikes and you're out. Luckily, this isn't pro-ball or business.

 

That is the just the information we know - we don't know what else is going on in their relationship. The OP presented his case in a particular way - from his perspective. There are two sides to every story.

[threebyfate]

That is the just the information we know - we don't know what else is going on in their relationship. The OP presented his case in a particular way - from his perspective. There are two sides to every story.

This argument is used ad nauseum on LS. We give advice based on information given, rather than trying to create fictitious maybes to validate our imaginary stance.

[LittleTiger]

This argument is used ad nauseum on LS. We give advice based on information given, rather than trying to create fictitious maybes to validate our imaginary stance.

 

There is a good reason that this argument is used ad nauseum on LS..... because it is a valid argument. It has nothing to do with validating an imaginary stance.

 

None of us can give helpful advice unless we have the full story and the OP in this case is not telling us everything. The $300 story doesn't add up for a start so what else is missing?

 

Sometimes people's stories have a completely different slant when they have posted on the same thread several times - one or two posts that don't quite add up is not everything we need to know in this case.

[threebyfate]

There is a good reason that this argument is used ad nauseum on LS..... because it is a valid argument. It has nothing to do with validating an imaginary stance.

 

None of us can give helpful advice unless we have the full story and the OP in this case is not telling us everything. The $300 story doesn't add up for a start so what else is missing?

 

Sometimes people's stories have a completely different slant when they have posted on the same thread several times - one or two posts that don't quite add up is not everything we need to know in this case.

Instead of making up fictitious possibilities, ask the questions to get facts.

 

But most people reading this thread can smell the gender bias/double standards within this thread.

[zengirl]

How come people aren't willing to rebutt my post about letting the OP handle his fiancée's paycheque since he's better at saving than she is?

 

After all, aren't they living together so finances should be comingled...right, right? After all, aren't couples supposed to rely on each other's strengths, of which his strength is financial management?

 

Depending on how they're planning to manage their finances, this may well be a very good idea, TBF. I think they should sit down and hash some things out. Many couples comingle funds and one person handles the bulk of the finances.

 

My POV is absolutely not based on gender. Were the OP a woman and his fiancee a man, I'd say exactly the same things. Truly. I think financial communication is more of an issue in many situations than finances.

[threebyfate]

Depending on how they're planning to manage their finances, this may well be a very good idea, TBF. I think they should sit down and hash some things out. Many couples comingle funds and one person handles the bulk of the finances.

Okay OP, looks like we've come up with a solution to your problems.

 

The question is, how well will your fiancée handle the proposed solution?

 

*sad face*

[Stephanie]

Would anyone care to enlighten me as to what exactly this bickering is accomplishing? Has the OP received any sound advice about his situation?

 

This thread wasn't about how finances should be divided. This thread wasn't about whether or not the OP gave the whole story. This thread wasn't about whether or not certain LS members are marriage material. Yet, somehow, all of this was discussed.

 

I am hopeful that the OP found helpful advice amidst the bickering and debating, but this thread won't be open any longer to allow derailing to continue.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Stephanie