Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really haven't followed this thread so I'm not sure of the particulars, but from what I see is that either extreme is too much for some people. Further, there is a difference between not being able to provide a woman with a certain lifestyle or whatever expectation surrounding that and being so selfish with money that you never buy anything for your partner. That's just weird behavior.
I really haven't followed this thread so I'm not sure of the particulars, but from what I see is that either extreme is too much for some people. Further, there is a difference between not being able to provide a woman with a certain lifestyle or whatever expectation surrounding that and being so selfish with money that you never buy anything for your partner. That's just weird behavior.
He does buy her gifts for special occasions but I don't see why she has to complain just because she has older gadgets and he isn't buying new ones for her.
Doesn't that fall under the category of gold digger? Clearly she can still provide for herself and her extras with her income so why should she expect her man to do it for her just because he makes more money than her?
He does buy her gifts for special occasions but I don't see why she has to complain just because she has older gadgets and he isn't buying new ones for her.
Doesn't that fall under the category of gold digger? Clearly she can still provide for herself and her extras with her income so why should she expect her man to do it for her just because he makes more money than her?
I just read the OP. It doesn't fall under gold digger from my pov. I don't get the sense that new gadgets or whatever were a requirement for the marriage (that would be the case for a gold digger). The way it reads to me is that she takes issue with the fact that she's not in a financial partnership. Imo, when two people who are not financial equals get together and deal with their finances in the way seen in the OP's marriage, it's a recipe for trouble.
I just read the OP. It doesn't fall under gold digger from my pov. I don't get the sense that new gadgets or whatever were a requirement for the marriage. The way it reads to me is that she takes issue with the fact that she's not in a financial partnership. Imo, when two people who are not financial equals get together and deal with their finances in the way seen in the OP's marriage, it's a recipe for trouble.
Exactly.
However would you agree or disagree that a woman who is seeking a man of equal to or greater than financial standing than herself is a gold digger or just someone who is looking to avoid the fighting that comes with monetary disagreements like the OP of this thread is experiencing?
However would you agree or disagree that a woman who is seeking a man of equal to or greater than financial standing than herself is a gold digger or just someone who is looking to avoid the fighting that comes with monetary disagreements like the OP of this thread is experiencing?
I don't think these two views are opposite sides of the gold digging coin. A woman who wants to avoid fighting that comes with monetary issues will earn her own money and not be a dependent. Seeking out a mate in order to be a dependent is a bit of gold digging imo. Now, people looking for their equals is quite natural and doesn't really enter the gold digging arena.
I don't think these two views are opposite sides of the gold digging coin. A woman who wants to avoid fighting that comes with monetary issues will earn her own money and not be a dependent. Seeking out a mate in order to be a dependent is a bit of gold digging imo. Now, people looking for their equals is quite natural and doesn't really enter the gold digging arena.
The OP does earn her own money and if she wanted to she could save up for those extras she wants but she not only wants her man to buy these things for her but she expects him to and is now upset because he isn't.
It is hard to find someone equal on a financial level can be difficult for the wealthier crowd. Does it mean that the person they are with is a gold digger if they simply couldn't make enough in their line of work even if they were at the top of their field? Is the richer person taking advantage of the poorer individual in anyway?
I think there is a BIG difference between DATING a guy and wanting him to buy expensive gifts, and being MARRIED to a guy who want to keep separate accounts and spend extra money on himself but not on his WIFE.
Marriage is a team sport...you operate as a unit...your money is my money and my money is your money...it's all our money!!After bills are paid there should be a joint account that combines her $300 and his $1600...which leaves them $1900 for both of the to draw from!
I think there is a BIG difference between DATING a guy and wanting him to buy expensive gifts, and being MARRIED to a guy who want to keep separate accounts and spend extra money on himself but not on his WIFE.
Surely she knew of this situation before they were married. Money issues don't magically vanish once you get married. I can see if she thought that perhaps he would suddenly be overjoyed at the thought of giving her a larger chunk of his paycheck but that clearly isn't the case and she does bare responsibility for this situation because she failed to resolve it before she married him.
He is keeping their finances seperate for a reason.
What is that reason or reasons? Is it because he thinks the OP can't manage money? Is it because he worries about his own finances incase of divorce or maybe he just doesn't trust the OP that he married.
The OP does earn her own money and if she wanted to she could save up for those extras she wants but she not only wants her man to buy these things for her but she expects him to and is now upset because he isn't.
I don't think it's about the things specifically. If he had more peanuts than her the issue would be the same. It make no difference that peanuts have no financial value. It's that a husband should not have more than his wife and vice versa imo.
Quote:
It is hard to find someone equal on a financial level can be difficult for the wealthier crowd. Does it mean that the person they are with is a gold digger if they simply couldn't make enough in their line of work even if they were at the top of their field? Is the richer person taking advantage of the poorer individual in anyway?
I don't know why it would be all that difficult. Rich people marry other rich people all the time. When folk do marry outside their class (financially or otherwise) there are probably other variables at play. That doesn't mean a lessor earner in a marriage is a gold digger either, to be clear. Or that anyone is taking advantage. It depends on intentions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
