So if your parents divorced, you totally support your Dad completely forgoing any and all compensation to her?
Yes.
Wow.
Honest question, do you have a form of autism?
No. We've had this conversation before, though admittedly I think I weaseled out and conceded she should get compensation to spare her feelings. Or I said something like their an exception since they are never going to divorce or something. But honestly, I don't think my dad should have to continue supporting her in a hypothetical divorce situation.
Even though she subsidized his career gains. Interesting.
So if your parents divorced, you totally support your Dad completely forgoing any and all compensation to her?
Yes.
That's a poor question... Cliff could easily be an adult and self-sufficient. [strike]Also his mother could've been the breadwinner.[/strike] Edit: Financially independant herself.
Which is exactly why the attempts to make this conversation personal are pathetic.
I'm trying to understand his rationale behind what he's professed as his position on the matter, and its quite clear now what that is. I'm not insulting or degrading his opinion even though I don't agree, and I don't appreciate your attempts to lower the discussion into harsh judgments such as "being pathetic"
I think it's funny that a certain side to this conversation can not help but make it personal.
Edit: By funny I mean interesting. And pathetic.
Of course it's personal, this is a personal issue and my personal feelings on it don't coincide with yours or Cliff's
I disagree wholeheartedly that marriage is "paying someone to spend their time with you", and that its effectively an exchange of money for sex if the two parties aren't earning similarly (same post).
It should be pointed out that "accepting money from your SO" is different than "being in a different income bracket than your SO."
So if your parents divorced, you totally support your Dad completely forgoing any and all compensation to her?
Yes.
That's a poor question... Cliff could easily be an adult and self-sufficient. [strike]Also his mother could've been the breadwinner.[/strike] Edit: Financially independant herself.
Which is exactly why the attempts to make this conversation personal are pathetic.
I'm trying to understand his rationale behind what he's professed as his position on the matter, and its quite clear now what that is. I'm not insulting or degrading his opinion even though I don't agree, and I don't appreciate your attempts to lower the discussion into harsh judgments such as "being pathetic"
I had my mom and my dad dragged into this and was basically told that they must've been bad parents.
It wasn't by you, so I'm sorry if I'm steaming a little bit.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I think it's funny that a certain side to this conversation can not help but make it personal.
Edit: By funny I mean interesting. And pathetic.
Of course it's personal, this is a personal issue and my personal feelings on it don't coincide with yours or Cliff's
I disagree wholeheartedly that marriage is "paying someone to spend their time with you", and that its effectively an exchange of money for sex if the two parties aren't earning similarly (same post).
It should be pointed out that "accepting money from your SO" is different than "being in a different income bracket than your SO."
Indeed
So if I take my boyfriend to dinner, a movie and post-film drinks, is that him accepting money from me? What about me paying a larger percentage for groceries, or rent? Maybe car insurance? Or is that just an indicator that we have a mutual agreement to contribute financially based on our income percentage?
I think it's funny that a certain side to this conversation can not help but make it personal.
Edit: By funny I mean interesting. And pathetic.
Of course it's personal, this is a personal issue and my personal feelings on it don't coincide with yours or Cliff's
I disagree wholeheartedly that marriage is "paying someone to spend their time with you", and that its effectively an exchange of money for sex if the two parties aren't earning similarly (same post).
It should be pointed out that "accepting money from your SO" is different than "being in a different income bracket than your SO."
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I work, my wife stays home with our daughter. We are a single household unit with separate working functions, just like in a company you have a single business unit with separate jobs. All the money I earn is our money. All the daughters that Emma cares for are our daughters.
Beyond that though, the really nice thing about a good relationship is that it gives you a window on another way of dealing with a person in which the I, in the best of moments, blinks out you really do love someone else the way you love yourself. That's the moral virtue of a relationship. There may be a division of labor, but in all the various forms that division has taken over the last ten years, I don't ever recall trying to go in like an accountant and figure out who was doing the best out of the deal.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are operating within the confines of our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
I work, my wife stays home with our daughter. We are a single household unit with separate working functions, just like in a company you have a single business unit with separate jobs. All the money I earn is our money. All the daughters that Emma cares for are our daughters.
Beyond that though, the really nice thing about a good relationship is that it gives you a window on another way of dealing with a person in which the I, in the best of moments, blinks out you really do love someone else the way you love yourself. That's the moral virtue of a relationship.
I don't really get Cliff's objection.
Something like your wife can withhold sex from you so you should withhold food from her. Or something. I saw something about leveraging sex.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
Marriage is about building a life together with someone.
I work, my wife stays home with our daughter. We are a single household unit with separate working functions, just like in a company you have a single business unit with separate jobs. All the money I earn is our money. All the daughters that Emma cares for are our daughters.
Beyond that though, the really nice thing about a good relationship is that it gives you a window on another way of dealing with a person in which the I, in the best of moments, blinks out you really do love someone else the way you love yourself. That's the moral virtue of a relationship.
I don't really get Cliff's objection.
Something like your wife can withhold sex from you so you should withhold food from her. Or something. I saw something about leveraging sex.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
That's a false dichotomy, for one. You can still value money without considering it to be the only important thing yet conceived by man, though it's rather odd seeing how money is simply an abstraction of man's exertions. For two I could just as easily turn it around into "If child rearing isn't important to someone, why would they accept it from their significant other?" Among the many numerous other services provided by homemakers which you consistently seem to value at $0.00.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
Marriage is about building a life together with someone.
Building a life together costs money.
A kindergartner could understand this.
Some one responsible enough to enter a marriage should also be responsible enough to share equally in obtaining said money.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
Marriage is about building a life together with someone.
Building a life together costs money.
A kindergartner could understand this.
Some one responsible enough to enter a marriage should also be responsible enough to share equally in obtaining said money.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
Marriage is about building a life together with someone.
Building a life together costs money.
A kindergartner could understand this.
Some one responsible enough to enter a marriage should also be responsible enough to share equally in obtaining said money.
Or, two people that love each other can build a life together however they choose. Clearly very few people share your views, but nobody is forcing you to fall in love with someone outside of your income or tax bracket so uh I don't even know why you bothered to post anything. Just to see how absurd your position is?
Some one responsible enough to enter a marriage should also be responsible enough to share equally in obtaining said money.
People who love each other enough to make a committment to share the rest of their lives together shouldn't care if one brings in more money than the other.
You've just given yourself to one person until you die on a range of levels.
Whose job gets the healthcare benefits and whose pays for the vacation is chump change at that point if you ask me.
I mean it sounds like you're saying it's irresponsible for someone of higher income to want to build a life together with someone of lower income. That should logically follow from your position, Cliff.
Is that what you believe? That both partners are irresponsible? I just don't comprehend your point of view.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
That's a false dichotomy, for one. You can still value money without considering it to be the only important thing yet conceived by man, though it's rather odd seeing how money is simply an abstraction of man's exertions. For two I could just as easily turn it around into "If child rearing isn't important to someone, why would they accept it from their significant other?" Among the many numerous other services provided by homemakers which you consistently seem to value at $0.00.
If child rearing isn't important to someone, they shouldn't have children.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't think anyone is making that claim. I know I'm not. It's not a metric for love or worth. It is the liquid representation of your time and effort, and it is the means through which you access things in life. It keeps you alive and it helps you enjoy yourself. It's one major way to feed your relationship...and your children. It's a huge part of how you take care of yourself and your family.
A relationship is an agreement or contract, like any other. To make it work, you need things reasonably defined so that both people clearly understand the nature of the relationship. So long as both agree, any form is valid.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are talking about our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
That's a false dichotomy, for one. You can still value money without considering it to be the only important thing yet conceived by man, though it's rather odd seeing how money is simply an abstraction of man's exertions. For two I could just as easily turn it around into "If child rearing isn't important to someone, why would they accept it from their significant other?" Among the many numerous other services provided by homemakers which you consistently seem to value at $0.00.
If child rearing isn't important to someone, they shouldn't have children.
Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence.
I really don't understand this bit. Adult relationships are, in big part, about interdependence.
I'm questioning if this is a good thing.
to be fair, I really think you're being dishonest here
you're not actually open to other people's perspective on this issue
you just keep repeating that you don't get it, or that you think it's wrong
so no, I don't think you're honest asking if it's a good thing
your mind is clearly made up on the matter
Basically I think someone should always be responsible for themselves and maintain their independence.
I really don't understand this bit. Adult relationships are, in big part, about interdependence.
I'm questioning if this is a good thing.
to be fair, I really think you're being dishonest here
you're not actually open to other people's perspective on this issue
you just keep repeating that you don't get it, or that you think it's wrong
so no, I don't think you're honest asking if it's a good thing
your mind is clearly made up on the matter
It shouldn't matter how much each person makes as long as they are both willing to contribute something to the relationship. You can't put a value on the time parents spend with their child, and its very important during the first few years of a childs life that one of the parents spends a lot of time with them. In some European countries there is so much emphasis put on this that both men and woman get significant time off work after the baby is born to spend with their child. I've been told by my economics professor (though I haven't checked into it myself) that they have conducted studies that show their is a correlation between how much time you spend with your kid in the first few years and how intelligent/successful they will be later on in life.
I disagree with the idea that the woman should stay home until the child is getting ready to move out. I think one of the spouses does need to stay home until the child is in first grade. Then there is a big window of opportunity around which the parents can try to work their schedules around. Possibly paying for a few hours of daycare if there is a gap between when one of the parents can get off work and pickup the child. In my mind it shouldn't matter that one person makes more than the other, as long as both of them are willing to contribute to each others needs.
I think what were seeing in the current economic climate is going to continue far into the future, it is not going to be reasonable for a family to have more than two children and live above the poverty line. The amount of money you need to make in order to have a reasonable standard of living is going up all the time, and the opportunities to make that amount are going down.
I have purposely been anti-social because I am trying to avoid becoming emotionally attached to someone. If I got into a relationship I know that I would not be able to provide a reasonable standard of living for someone else. I am twenty two years old, and the most I have ever made was under twenty thousand a year. I am a college student, even after I get my bachelors degree I know that I cannot expect to make more than 50k until I have a few years of experience under my belt, and with the job market the way it is it could be awhile before I am able to get a job.
I am comitted to making sure that any off-spring I have live a better life than I have. I am also going to make sure they do not have to financially support me in my old age. I plan on investing a good portion of my income into CD accounts for my childrens college education (before I actually have children) and the rest in stocks that on average pay out between five and six percent dividends (REITS and utilities). I feel that until I am making 60k a year and have saved up about fifty thousand dollars having children or even a serious relationship is a bad idea. If you don't talk about all of this stuff with your significant other before marriage, you are asking for problems.
I also think the idea that a woman should stay home all day and clean house invites problems... A woman is supposed to stay at home all day, and you expect that she is going to spend all of that time cleaning house? That gets borring fast, even if she is comitted to you, having too much leisure time makes life borring. You have a bad day at the office, say something you didn't mean, and your wife is pissed because she is being treated like crap after she has spent her entire day working for your benefit. In a healthy relationship both partners need to have interests outside the home, and in any economic climate a job is a good "hobby" to have.
It is vital not only for both partners to contribute to the relationship, but that they acknowledge each others contributions.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
If money isn't important, why wouldn't they accept any? Why would the exchange of money be any more significant than, say, passing the salt?
Is it just that you can't grasp how income could not be a huge deal to those in a committed relationship?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Y'know, I'm not really understanding Cliffs point of view either. If two people are getting married, it's going to be insanely difficult and straining to keep every single thing separate. I mean, if that works for you, fine, but good luck.
Having just moved my boyfriend into my home, and reading these threads (and also being horrendously low on money), and thinking about moving to the city, and graduating in a year, and finding a job...money has absolutely been on my mind. But y'know what? It's not really all that negative, because we talk about it, and our communication on it is very open.
At one point in my relationship with my boyfriend, I had more money than him, and I have absolutely no problem paying for things like entertainment, food, what have you, because...hell, I had more, and I didn't want to drain what he had when I had enough to spare! Don't get me wrong, he'd also pay for things as well, just not as often, because it just financially didn't make any sense for him to.
Right now, HE has more money than I do, with a more steady monthly income while I try and look for a job, and right now HE is paying for more things until I get a job and it equals out a bit more. Of course I feel bad about him paying for things like gas, or food, but he knows that at this point I need a bit of help, and am very appreciative of it.
You know why we're both okay spending money on eachother, and sharing income, and generally being okay if someone is making less than the other? It's because we love eachother, are in a stable relationship, and we like helping eachother out. That's just what you DO in a healthy functioning relationship! We know we're not mooching off of eachother with ill-intent, and I know that every penny I put towards my boyfriend is appreciated, and vice versa.
Hell, right now I'm getting a degree in Illustration, because it's something that I find fulfilling, and extremely enjoyable. My boyfriend is going to be getting a degree in Computer Science. Will he be making more? Most likely, at least in the beginning. Will he have a more stable job? Probably. Is he okay with that? Absolutely! This is something we've had to talk about due to the fact that a job in the arts isn't as stable as pretty much any other job. I had to let him know that there is a possibility that I will be making bupkis, especially in comparison to him. He is fine with that, so long as I'm happy with what I'm doing. He's also fine with me being a stay at home wife/mother if that's what I want to do (of course I want to add to the income though).
That arrangement might not work for other people, but it'll probably work for us. So long as both parties are happy, I see absolutely no problem with one person making less than the other, and one having to support the other a bit, financially.
the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support.
Are you seriously implying that divorce terminates all financial responsibility for one parent? Or are you laboring under the belief that child support is a princely sum of money?
Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.
It goes to the ex-spouse. Generally children aren't noted for their skills at handling money.
the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support.
Are you seriously implying that divorce terminates all financial responsibility for one parent? Or are you laboring under the belief that child support is a princely sum of money?
Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.
It goes to the ex-spouse. Generally children aren't noted for their skills at handling money.
the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support.
Are you seriously implying that divorce terminates all financial responsibility for one parent? Or are you laboring under the belief that child support is a princely sum of money?
Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.
It goes to the ex-spouse. Generally children aren't noted for their skills at handling money.
the fairness of one partner still reaping the benefits of the other's assets via alimony and child support.
Are you seriously implying that divorce terminates all financial responsibility for one parent? Or are you laboring under the belief that child support is a princely sum of money?
Does the money go to the kids or the ex spouse.
It goes to the ex-spouse. Generally children aren't noted for their skills at handling money.
So if your parents divorced, you totally support your Dad completely forgoing any and all compensation to her?
Yes.
That's a poor question... Cliff could easily be an adult and self-sufficient. [strike]Also his mother could've been the breadwinner.[/strike] Edit: Financially independant herself.
Which is exactly why the attempts to make this conversation personal are pathetic.
I'm trying to understand his rationale behind what he's professed as his position on the matter, and its quite clear now what that is. I'm not insulting or degrading his opinion even though I don't agree, and I don't appreciate your attempts to lower the discussion into harsh judgments such as "being pathetic"
I had my mom and my dad dragged into this and was basically told that they must've been bad parents.
It wasn't by you, so I'm sorry if I'm steaming a little bit.
Many of the posters had their parents and themselves or their SO dragged into this in the first post of this thread making it personal for them so when you defend that side of the argument you should maybe expect to get a little back. Considering how this thread started its been extremely tame.
Back to the topic:
As has been mentioned by many previously communication really is the key. Things do change so you can't plan for everything but you should at least have some sort of mutually agreed upon financial plan before getting married. If your opinion is that it is really important to have both people working than you should be discussing that before getting married. One partner may believe its really important to have someone stay at home raising children and taking care of the household. If you don't know this before hand or do know it and while not agreeing with it and choose to get married anyways that's your mistake and not a problem with the concept of marriage or marriages that value that set up. If you make significantly more than your partner and that's an issue for you don't get married. No one is forcing you to get married or be in a marriage with that setup so you shouldn't be bagging on people that use it and benefit from it.
I will note that if I choose to get married it will only be in the case that both people are working. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize the value of other set ups or see anything wrong with them, they just aren't right for my own personal situation.
Newblar on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
No, I told you, he's the male lead in a rom com that thinks he's better off being his own man
never depending on anyone but yourself
leading a fun life that he realizes is ultimately unfulfilling when he meets the sweet girl that convinces him to settle down
I am so not this guy. This isn't about me. I have my own shit figured out. I don't want to be in a commited relationship so I'm not. This is about people that are/have been/ whatever. I'm discussing it because I think it is an interesting topic, not because it personally affects me.
Your objection is "nu uh, i got it all figured out and don't need a relationship"?
For the sake of clarity, are we restricting the application of this conversation to people for whom their earnings are the most important thing in their lives?
Posts
Even though she subsidized his career gains. Interesting.
This is very important.
I'm trying to understand his rationale behind what he's professed as his position on the matter, and its quite clear now what that is. I'm not insulting or degrading his opinion even though I don't agree, and I don't appreciate your attempts to lower the discussion into harsh judgments such as "being pathetic"
It should be pointed out that "accepting money from your SO" is different than "being in a different income bracket than your SO."
I had my mom and my dad dragged into this and was basically told that they must've been bad parents.
It wasn't by you, so I'm sorry if I'm steaming a little bit.
The issue, for me, is consent and coercion. It's totally fine if a couple comes to an understanding about which one brings in most/all of the money, so long as they feel mutually benefited overall.
When the benefit isn't mutual, that's a parasitic relationship. When one expects more out of their partner than he or she is willing or able to give, that's a huge problem. When coercive pressure comes in- leveraging sex, even giving the cold shoulder or simply citing necessity, that kind of thing- then there is an element of force and the relationship is broken.
My girlfriend and I have had issues because of this because she believes what's mine is ours, whereas I'm a staunch individualist, regardless of the intimacy or length of the relationship. This makes things difficult when she tries to borrow from me on the pretext of necessity (ie., rent), because she thinks I have a fundamental duty to help. The net result is an uneasy removal of finance from the relationship, to the point where I refuse to discuss it. So I can say from some degree of authority that when people have different basic ideas about money in a relationship, it makes things extremely difficult, maybe unworkable.
It's important that both partners understand and respect each others' capacities, desires and intentions. Inequality is fine if there is consent in good faith- like one partner financing the other while he or she goes to school, or when one works and the other raises children. When people love each other, they'll do this shit, and there's no reason it can't work. The key is the non-coerced agreement.
I think the OP is generally right, but I would add that people can voluntarily enter into unbalanced arrangements. Prior to that, however, the default expectation should be that each of us looks out for number one. My money.
Indeed
So if I take my boyfriend to dinner, a movie and post-film drinks, is that him accepting money from me? What about me paying a larger percentage for groceries, or rent? Maybe car insurance? Or is that just an indicator that we have a mutual agreement to contribute financially based on our income percentage?
Also, "accepting services from your SO."
Dane Cook
I'm still confused as to why and/or how legal tender is the apotheosis of worth.
Beyond that though, the really nice thing about a good relationship is that it gives you a window on another way of dealing with a person in which the I, in the best of moments, blinks out you really do love someone else the way you love yourself. That's the moral virtue of a relationship. There may be a division of labor, but in all the various forms that division has taken over the last ten years, I don't ever recall trying to go in like an accountant and figure out who was doing the best out of the deal.
I don't really get Cliff's objection.
I actually don't think it is, but thats a whole other topic. Right now we are operating within the confines of our current reality.
To put it another way, If money isn't important to someone, why would they accept any from their SO?
Something like your wife can withhold sex from you so you should withhold food from her. Or something. I saw something about leveraging sex.
Wait, that was Torso Boy.
Can hardly tell one from another.
Marriage is about building a life together with someone.
Building a life together costs money.
A kindergartner could understand this.
Sounds like a horrible way to see things.
That's a false dichotomy, for one. You can still value money without considering it to be the only important thing yet conceived by man, though it's rather odd seeing how money is simply an abstraction of man's exertions. For two I could just as easily turn it around into "If child rearing isn't important to someone, why would they accept it from their significant other?" Among the many numerous other services provided by homemakers which you consistently seem to value at $0.00.
Some one responsible enough to enter a marriage should also be responsible enough to share equally in obtaining said money.
Or, two people that love each other can build a life together however they choose. Clearly very few people share your views, but nobody is forcing you to fall in love with someone outside of your income or tax bracket so uh I don't even know why you bothered to post anything. Just to see how absurd your position is?
People who love each other enough to make a committment to share the rest of their lives together shouldn't care if one brings in more money than the other.
You've just given yourself to one person until you die on a range of levels.
Whose job gets the healthcare benefits and whose pays for the vacation is chump change at that point if you ask me.
Is that what you believe? That both partners are irresponsible? I just don't comprehend your point of view.
If child rearing isn't important to someone, they shouldn't have children.
I haven't read the entire thread, but I don't think anyone is making that claim. I know I'm not. It's not a metric for love or worth. It is the liquid representation of your time and effort, and it is the means through which you access things in life. It keeps you alive and it helps you enjoy yourself. It's one major way to feed your relationship...and your children. It's a huge part of how you take care of yourself and your family.
Money is only about as important as your thumbs.
:^:
Well, I suppose you could just be a shut in who urinates into mason jars. That would solve that.
to be fair, I really think you're being dishonest here
you're not actually open to other people's perspective on this issue
you just keep repeating that you don't get it, or that you think it's wrong
so no, I don't think you're honest asking if it's a good thing
your mind is clearly made up on the matter
Good point.
I disagree with the idea that the woman should stay home until the child is getting ready to move out. I think one of the spouses does need to stay home until the child is in first grade. Then there is a big window of opportunity around which the parents can try to work their schedules around. Possibly paying for a few hours of daycare if there is a gap between when one of the parents can get off work and pickup the child. In my mind it shouldn't matter that one person makes more than the other, as long as both of them are willing to contribute to each others needs.
I think what were seeing in the current economic climate is going to continue far into the future, it is not going to be reasonable for a family to have more than two children and live above the poverty line. The amount of money you need to make in order to have a reasonable standard of living is going up all the time, and the opportunities to make that amount are going down.
I have purposely been anti-social because I am trying to avoid becoming emotionally attached to someone. If I got into a relationship I know that I would not be able to provide a reasonable standard of living for someone else. I am twenty two years old, and the most I have ever made was under twenty thousand a year. I am a college student, even after I get my bachelors degree I know that I cannot expect to make more than 50k until I have a few years of experience under my belt, and with the job market the way it is it could be awhile before I am able to get a job.
I am comitted to making sure that any off-spring I have live a better life than I have. I am also going to make sure they do not have to financially support me in my old age. I plan on investing a good portion of my income into CD accounts for my childrens college education (before I actually have children) and the rest in stocks that on average pay out between five and six percent dividends (REITS and utilities). I feel that until I am making 60k a year and have saved up about fifty thousand dollars having children or even a serious relationship is a bad idea. If you don't talk about all of this stuff with your significant other before marriage, you are asking for problems.
I also think the idea that a woman should stay home all day and clean house invites problems... A woman is supposed to stay at home all day, and you expect that she is going to spend all of that time cleaning house? That gets borring fast, even if she is comitted to you, having too much leisure time makes life borring. You have a bad day at the office, say something you didn't mean, and your wife is pissed because she is being treated like crap after she has spent her entire day working for your benefit. In a healthy relationship both partners need to have interests outside the home, and in any economic climate a job is a good "hobby" to have.
It is vital not only for both partners to contribute to the relationship, but that they acknowledge each others contributions.
If money isn't important, why wouldn't they accept any? Why would the exchange of money be any more significant than, say, passing the salt?
Is it just that you can't grasp how income could not be a huge deal to those in a committed relationship?
Having just moved my boyfriend into my home, and reading these threads (and also being horrendously low on money), and thinking about moving to the city, and graduating in a year, and finding a job...money has absolutely been on my mind. But y'know what? It's not really all that negative, because we talk about it, and our communication on it is very open.
At one point in my relationship with my boyfriend, I had more money than him, and I have absolutely no problem paying for things like entertainment, food, what have you, because...hell, I had more, and I didn't want to drain what he had when I had enough to spare! Don't get me wrong, he'd also pay for things as well, just not as often, because it just financially didn't make any sense for him to.
Right now, HE has more money than I do, with a more steady monthly income while I try and look for a job, and right now HE is paying for more things until I get a job and it equals out a bit more. Of course I feel bad about him paying for things like gas, or food, but he knows that at this point I need a bit of help, and am very appreciative of it.
You know why we're both okay spending money on eachother, and sharing income, and generally being okay if someone is making less than the other? It's because we love eachother, are in a stable relationship, and we like helping eachother out. That's just what you DO in a healthy functioning relationship! We know we're not mooching off of eachother with ill-intent, and I know that every penny I put towards my boyfriend is appreciated, and vice versa.
Hell, right now I'm getting a degree in Illustration, because it's something that I find fulfilling, and extremely enjoyable. My boyfriend is going to be getting a degree in Computer Science. Will he be making more? Most likely, at least in the beginning. Will he have a more stable job? Probably. Is he okay with that? Absolutely! This is something we've had to talk about due to the fact that a job in the arts isn't as stable as pretty much any other job. I had to let him know that there is a possibility that I will be making bupkis, especially in comparison to him. He is fine with that, so long as I'm happy with what I'm doing. He's also fine with me being a stay at home wife/mother if that's what I want to do (of course I want to add to the income though).
That arrangement might not work for other people, but it'll probably work for us. So long as both parties are happy, I see absolutely no problem with one person making less than the other, and one having to support the other a bit, financially.
Check out my art! Buy some prints!
It goes to the ex-spouse. Generally children aren't noted for their skills at handling money.
That may be changing.
I still don't see family courts changing how the handle this anytime soon.
Hahaha that is glorious.
Many of the posters had their parents and themselves or their SO dragged into this in the first post of this thread making it personal for them so when you defend that side of the argument you should maybe expect to get a little back. Considering how this thread started its been extremely tame.
Back to the topic:
As has been mentioned by many previously communication really is the key. Things do change so you can't plan for everything but you should at least have some sort of mutually agreed upon financial plan before getting married. If your opinion is that it is really important to have both people working than you should be discussing that before getting married. One partner may believe its really important to have someone stay at home raising children and taking care of the household. If you don't know this before hand or do know it and while not agreeing with it and choose to get married anyways that's your mistake and not a problem with the concept of marriage or marriages that value that set up. If you make significantly more than your partner and that's an issue for you don't get married. No one is forcing you to get married or be in a marriage with that setup so you shouldn't be bagging on people that use it and benefit from it.
I will note that if I choose to get married it will only be in the case that both people are working. This doesn't mean that I don't recognize the value of other set ups or see anything wrong with them, they just aren't right for my own personal situation.
Your objection is "nu uh, i got it all figured out and don't need a relationship"?
For the sake of clarity, are we restricting the application of this conversation to people for whom their earnings are the most important thing in their lives?