Boyfriend pays for almost everything.... (marriage, female, husband, children)
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.
There's nothing really wrong with it... unless it is making you uncomfortable. It IS making you uncomfortable, so it's time to have a good, productive talk about it. If you aren't able to do that for any reason, there might be a problem within the relationship. In a healthy relationship you can talk things through and resolve the issue so that both of you are comfortable.
Well said.
Relationships need both sides to exercise flexibility when one is asking for a change.
It's hard to know if this guy is always paying because he thinks that's what men are suppose to do, kinda like opening the door for her, etc. That's harmless. But if he is ALWAYS trying to please her, and acting like he is to take care of her, this is somewhat approval seeking behavior and that spells disaster eventually. A woman does not want the man seeking her approval by always being her butler, provider, etc. I would also wonder if he exhibits any other type of controlling behavior.
However it IS the man's job to lead the relationship forward and provide for a family, but do so with her desire in mind. A woman that enjoys her independence and success wants to share it with someone she loves. It's fun to be the one treating the other, especially as a surprise.
When the woman speaks up about something it's usually something bothering her. This woman is telling her FEELINGS and he's ignoring them, thinking he's suppose to. A man's #1 job is to listen and know her feelings. If he doesn't, there will be consequences. If this keeps bothering her, and her repeated requests are ignored, she will feel her feelings don't matter.
Generally I personally like things to be balanced in dating (splitting tabs feels persnickity at my age and income point, so more like taking turns paying usually) but if he's paying out of generosity, rather than a desire to control or to make you feel indebted, I wouldn't worry about it. I WOULD keep offering to pay and coming up with ways of doing my own part, though, like being the one to buy tickets or book rooms. If he offers to reimburse you, it might be easier to play it off like "nah, but you can take me out somewhere nice," rather than just refusing. Might him into the habit of taking turns paying.
I wouldn't like it or feel comfortable with it, but to each their own.
I would feel uncomfortable too, because I can easily pay my own way. I guess it might also have something to do with where a person is financially in their life. I know if somebody really needed help and I was in a position to do so, and I wanted to pay for things —if they refused that would make me feel kind of strange, too.
Holy cow, I thought we'd moved beyond these theories (if you can call them that) of "masculine" and "feminine" energy after the 1960s.
I honestly have never heard it discussed at all by anyone in my life, whether co-workers, friends or family. This seems to be unique to this forum and it's pretty rampant.
I don't understand the "he's a keeper" comments at all.
His need to be The Man would drive me bonkers. Because this isn't about him showing interest or whatever. It's about him disregarding your wishes so he can satisfy his need to be The Man. The car windows thing is way too much. It's YOUR car. Presumably YOUR insurance. Why would you just throw up your hands and turn that all over to him? Is he your dad or your boyfriend, for goodness sake? Do you want to be a damsel in distress in this relationship? What do YOU want -- a partner or a caretaker?
Apparently you have never made the mistake of having kids with 'The Man' who really wasn't one.
The last thing society needs is to encourage more men to be less than men. You can object to traditional roles all you want but the reality is that it actively promotes Misandry. Women can renounce their role in favor of what used to be the man's role but it leaves a void in options for men; whose biology is not as susceptible to propaganda as you may wish them to be. This only promotes Misogyny while pedastalizing the male role ... not the actual man.
Strong societies depend on strong female & male roles. Clearly, the OP has managed to find a man who is too genetically superior to be indoctrinated by the relatively recent social experimentation.
Location: Huntersville/Charlotte, NC and Washington, DC
26,691 posts, read 41,629,721 times
Reputation: 41324
Quote:
Originally Posted by coschristi
Apparently you have never made the mistake of having kids with 'The Man' who really wasn't one.
The last thing society needs is to encourage more men to be less than men. You can object to traditional roles all you want but the reality is that it actively promotes Misandry. Women can renounce their role in favor of what used to be the man's role but it leaves a void in options for men; whose biology is not as susceptible to propaganda as you may wish them to be. This only promotes Misogyny while pedastalizing the male role ... not the actual man.
Strong societies depend on strong female & male roles. Clearly, the OP has managed to find a man who is too genetically superior to be indoctrinated by the relatively recent social experimentation.
Genetically superior? No this is the mark of a potentially controlling guy. That damn sure is not superior. Men can always “take the role” of equal partner who can take on more if needed.
The last thing society needs is to encourage more men to be less than men. .
What I've seen here is many posters seem to believe that gender is simply a "social construct", not something that is based in a person's brain and wiring. They believe we should live in a genderless society and even using words like "masculine" or "feminine" is demeaning and insulting.
However, it's not easy for someone who is oriented a certain way to be, and act, gender neutral.
I agree. The man paying for everything is bad on two fronts: (1) It sets the precedent of him being a stable provider who makes up in money for what he lacks in sex appeal, and (2) It could become a control tactic because "he pays for everything". I, personally, follow MPTOW---Men Paying Their Own Way. (hehe! ) That said, I've paid for my past girlfriends' dinners, but it was part of my present on special occasions. Or, it was a low-cost spontaneous idea she might not have budgeted for, like "let's get ice creams together, my treat". I never paid for both of us on a normal dinner date.
What I've seen here is many posters seem to believe that gender is simply a "social construct", not something that is based in a person's brain and wiring. They believe we should live in a genderless society and even using words like "masculine" or "feminine" is demeaning and insulting.
However, it's not easy for someone who is oriented a certain way to be, and act, gender neutral.
Except men paying for things has NEVER been part of the social construct. For hundreds of years, it was not uncommon for men to marry women because they had money and could help the state or due to strategic monetary reasons. Part of a woman’s value was often what she could bring to the table for marriage. It has only been extremely recent that paying has become attributed to men.
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.