I know a couple who is not that extreme, but they do divide things up perfectly evenly and everything has to be fair that way. For example, there is a brand of cereal that they both like but I guess it is expensive, so they each have to have their own box to make sure no one eats more than their share. If one goes out for lunch, the other has to get something for themselves in return.
They both are like that apart from each other too. The woman was one of my roommates in college and you couldn’t share food with her, even things like ketchup were hers and hers alone. Going out to eat with them was always a pain in the ass, they would keep track of things like who ate more of a shared appetizer or the bread or something and then instead of just splitting it, they would want to pay less if they ate a little less (of course this did not apply if they ate more than others).
I think he refused to pay for any of her pre-marriage debt too. To me that’s maybe not as bad, but I don’t understand how it really matters. If one partner in a marriage says they won’t pay for something, don’t they just end up using their money for another bill that the one with the debt can’t cover anyway? Either way when the loan is paid that’s more money for both of you. If one is struggling to pay back debt then the other is stuck paying more of the bills. I would go crazy trying to keep track of whose money went for what and who owes who and all that. I just wouldn’t be happy if my husband refused to share cereal with me. To me part of being a couple is wanting the other person to be happy.
Dude definitely has an overinflated sense of his own self worth… I would not date this man… but then I don’t typically date men… being a straight man and all… But I will say if one of my sisters was dating this fellow (or one like him) I would give her a stearn talking to… and I’d whup his ass…
Firstly, this is seriously weird. There’s no-one I wouldn’t stand a meal occasionally. And separating groceries, meal tabs, etc, way overcontrolling.
OTOH, to what extent must a couple necessarily share? If they’re less serious than “long term” or whatever you want to call it, I can see keeping big finances separate. Even to the extent of making sure meals are bought in roughly equal proportion. Does it make a difference if you turn the sex of the couple round? How about if the lower-earner is the one insisting on separate finances?
Weird. If they both made the same amount of money, and it wasn’t very much, I’d understand splitting most things down the middle. (I can’t imagine ever refusing to share take-out or not occasionally buying them dinner.) When Mrs. Giraffe and I lived together in grad school (before we were married), we split the cost of the groceries and split the bill at restaurants unless one of us was taking the other out.
But once one person makes significantly more than the other, demanding exactly equal contribution to all expenses is just sad to me. Someone who puts financial fairness so far above consideration and generosity is someone I wouldn’t want to be with.
What really blows me away are married couples (with significantly different incomes) who act like this. It’s one thing to maintain separate accounts for household vs. personal spending and budgeting purposes. It’s another to maintain such a rigid definition of “mine” and “yours” that there is no real “ours”. What makes it even sadder to me is in states like California, divorce law requires 50/50 separation of everything, so even if you spend your whole marriage guarding “your” money from the other one, it’s really both of yours and they’ll get it anyway once the marriage falls apart.
Truly a mystery why that woman stayed with him for so long.
As to his actions, they say volumes about control and his need to have it. My husband and I have had a join bank account since we moved in together. At various times in our relationship he was working while I was in school and the opposite also holds true. Neither of us have ever tried to control the other with money or what that money buys.
Tres bizzare.
If I had met this man, I would have given him the kiss-off after he tried this the first time, there is no way I would have given him a second date.
Well, if I were dating a woman and she wanted us to meticulously keep track of and contribute equally towards the food purchases, I don’t think that would bother me greatly (in fact, I’ve been there and done that), especially if we tended to gravitate towards spending more time at her place than at mine, but I would not be happy if she went out with mutual friends and I had to stay home due to not having the money to join in.
Well, I say that, but if I’d been broke or near-broke for a fairly long time and she’d spotted me time and again and I’d been able to repay her only slowly (oftentimes being obviously pinched by the constraint of having to devote part of my income towards paying her back), then perhaps I could see her logic in that. I could see where she’d get tired of lending me money I couldn’t really afford to spend and then wondering if I’d have to borrow yet more before being able to repay her any of it. And why should she stay home and not go out with her friends just because I’m in poverty?
I dunno…different couples have different senses of borders and boundaries, including economic ones. I know couples who don’t even have separate bank accounts of any sort, at all. What you’re describing is pretty extreme in the other direction but I can’t really pass judgement based on that alone.
Well, to each their own, I say. If this is a situation in which the both of them are happy and/or one they’ve agreed on and been functioning in for some time now and neither one of them sees a need for change, then more power to them.
That said, I’d never do anything like that. I rather like taking people out when I can, especially if I’m romantically interested in them, and I don’t mind occasionally being taken out, either. Romantic interest isn’t even a prerequisite; I tend to cover my friends if they’re a little low on cash, sometimes, and the favor is occasionally returned, as well. It just seems polite, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s something that I appreciate if, say, I happen to leave my wallet at home by mistake (as I am very scatterbrained).
I don’t know. Things like this kind of go against a lot of the things I was taught as a child. Me mum would always stress that I should be “a gentleman” at all times, to the point of walking closest to the street, on the off chance that if a car were to pass by and hit a puddle, splashing the two of us, I’d catch the worst of it. That said, I use my own judgement on such things, but at least offering to pay for meals once in a while is definitely something that I feel should be done.
But that’s me, and what feels right for me may not be what others prefer. bamf
Date him, maybe, but I certainly wouldn’t live with him …
[slightly off topic] A radio presenter here decided to hold a phone in one night and several women called in saying their BF’s had dumped them and not said why. The presenter insisted it was because they were all crap at sex and no other reason. He then went on to say that fellas should take a woman they fancied to a pub for their first date, get in the first round of drinks. If she doesn’t pay for the second round of drinks, walk out and leave her sitting there. He’s living with his GF and I can’t help wondering what in Og’s name she sees in him … [/slightly off topic]
I was seeing a guy off and on for a couple of years. We had radically different incomes (he was going out to expensive business lunches, I was making minimum wage part time). We kept things seperate, and mostly I respected that. But sometimes it hit an extreme.
I was the only one of the two of us who bought the other Christmas and birthday gifts. That irked me. What really irked me, though, was the time “he took me out” to a birthday dinner, except that we met at the restaurant and it turned out to be dutch treat.
Also, was it only food he was stingy about? Like did he ever take her out to movies and pay?
Or did she ever pay for him too?
I don’t think it should be that the man pays for everything, naturally. I just don’t get the idea of not sharing. Even with people I’m just casual friends with.
Apparently this guy flunked kindergarten or something.
Well, I wouldn’t date him 'cus I’ve got my pesky “3 date rule” - the guy has to pay for the first 3 dates. They don’t have to be expensive dates (going for a coffee or an ice cream counts!) but he’s gotta pony up the cash.
After that I’m quite happy to treat or to go dutch or whatever. But he’s gotta do the 3.
So Bart never even would have gotten a first date.
Out of curiousity, kittenblue, had Miranda ever asked Bart to dinner and paid for him? I’m not defending Bart’s actions by any stretch of the imagination, and I know she wasn’t making much money with which to take him out, but sometimes it helps to do something nice for someone else to get them to do something nice for you (not that that should be a motive for every nice action, of course).
Regardless, I sure the hell wouldn’t have gone out with the guy. He sounds like a big dickhead, and I’m glad that Miranda found someone who treats her well.
That’s really bizarre behavior. Normal people don’t keep track of food that obsessively. No, I would not date this guy.
(Of course, I’m the person whose college boyfriend had to save from near-malnutrition, until I figured out how to cook and feed myself adequately with college-student food–which I largely learned from his household.)
Wait, wait, wait, hang on. Sorry to interrupt the usual SDMB agree-with-the-OP pile-on, but I’m confused.
I’ve heard for so many years, from so many sources, that women do not like being bought in the relationship, that they do agree that paying for dinner entitles the man to nothing, that it’s not just about money and presents and—forgive me—tit for tat, and here in this thread the majority of responses are “I wouldn’t date him if he didn’t buy me dinner.”
As nearly as I can interpret this seems-to-me-to-be-a-dichotomy, it’s really not about the money or the dinner, but that both are symbolic of how the woman infers the man’s level of generosity and commitment. Is this correct?
[/slightly off topic]