Gentlemen, does your SO's earning intimidate you? (mistress, success, dependent)

[TKramar]

Then they are obviously living beyond their means. That's a big problem for some people.

[Sanderling]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Plain and simple. I happen to prefer to be the one earning the income, but only one of the two need work outside the home.

Are you asserting that any family should be able to live on one income? Come now. And a corollary: Why should any one person's income necessarily stretch to support another? Or a family? Why not expect both partners to help support the family financially (as well in every other way)?

[miyu]

My hubby makes an excellent living now doing a reputable job making more than me, but when I'm done with my edumication I will actually be making 6 -10 x as much as him. This discrepancy is so big that he probably doesn't even have to work anymore. He doesn't feel inadequate whatsoever at this point because it hasn't become a reality yet, and he is a very secure person. Who knows, I might fail miserably, right? I have however already made it clear that he will be buying no porsches, ferraris, or other luxury items with my future money. He will buy any luxury item with his own money. I am also in my mind expecting that he will be doing most of the important domestic stuff and maintenance (he already does anyways because he's faster at it), while I help out on the side when I have time. So far, so good. But who knows how controlling I might become in the future when it becomes a reality... I'm trying not to become that type of insufferable person but I can feel myself being tempted, becoming more openly critical of things like finances and career. Ultimately I think the way that the man feels about the situation depends on how the woman treats him - as an equal or as a subordinate? I have to keep reminding myself that income isn't the only thing that defines a person's worth.

As long as a guy contributes 50% to the relationship I think there is no reason to be intimidated. But definitely have some respect for her earnings, don't think that you have a right to own luxury items unless you can buy it with your earnings.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Sanderling

Are you asserting that any family should be able to live on one income? Come now. And a corollary: Why should any one person's income necessarily stretch to support another? Or a family? Why not expect both partners to help support the family financially (as well in every other way)?

Sure, it all depends on what you are able to do without. As a corolllary, if you're going to expand your family, shouldn't you make sure you can afford to do so first? After all, those kids aren't going to earn you any cash for a while...

To answer YOUR corollary, earning income is not the only way a person can contribute something of value.

[MattB4]

Originally Posted by miyu

My hubby makes an excellent living now doing a reputable job making more than me, but when I'm done with my edumication I will actually be making 6 -10 x as much as him. This discrepancy is so big that he probably doesn't even have to work anymore. He doesn't feel inadequate whatsoever at this point because it hasn't become a reality yet, and he is a very secure person. Who knows, I might fail miserably, right? I have however already made it clear that he will be buying no porsches, ferraris, or other luxury items with my future money. He will buy any luxury item with his own money. I am also in my mind expecting that he will be doing most of the important domestic stuff and maintenance (he already does anyways because he's faster at it), while I help out on the side when I have time. So far, so good. But who knows how controlling I might become in the future when it becomes a reality... I'm trying not to become that type of insufferable person but I can feel myself being tempted, becoming more openly critical of things like finances and career. Ultimately I think the way that the man feels about the situation depends on how the woman treats him - as an equal or as a subordinate? I have to keep reminding myself that income isn't the only thing that defines a person's worth.

As long as a guy contributes 50% to the relationship I think there is no reason to be intimidated. But definitely have some respect for her earnings, don't think that you have a right to own luxury items unless you can buy it with your earnings.

I pity your poor husband. If you are already setting up what he can and can not do and how out of the goodness of your heart you will "while I help out on the side when I have time.", then he is for some rough sledding. I anticipate your marriage failing due to your attitude, unless it has a major shift prior to job success, no matter how self confident and secure your husband is.

The 50% contribution idea is strange. Does that mean you will keep money to yourself above a set idea what 50-50 is? Sounds like your husband has not done this to you during your education efforts.

[danielpalos]

I usually don't put in any effort at all to a hetero-sexuaual relationship if there is no sex involved. I have noticed that guys make better platonic friends for fellow guys than women do.

In my opinion, it depends on who wants the relationship more. I would want a relationship more often if chicks were using me for sex more often.

[Sanderling]

Originally Posted by TKramar

Sure, it all depends on what you are able to do without. As a corolllary, if you're going to expand your family, shouldn't you make sure you can afford to do so first? After all, those kids aren't going to earn you any cash for a while...

To answer YOUR corollary, earning income is not the only way a person can contribute something of value.

I completely agree with your last point, of course.

To your first, I say that "you" can be plural just as easily as it can be singular. I don't believe there is any inherent advantage to the family in having only one wage-earner, so why trim down to the bone to make it so? Realistically, especially now, providing for a family in comfort and security is likely to require two incomes.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by MattB4

I pity your poor husband. If you are already setting up what he can and can not do and how out of the goodness of your heart you will "while I help out on the side when I have time.", then he is for some rough sledding. I anticipate your marriage failing due to your attitude, unless it has a major shift prior to job success, no matter how self confident and secure your husband is.

The 50% contribution idea is strange. Does that mean you will keep money to yourself above a set idea what 50-50 is? Sounds like your husband has not done this to you during your education efforts.

I think she is just being honest. If you think about it, that is pretty much how most traditional family units have been in the past when the man was the always the higher or only breadwinner. Typically, he controlled the money, at least major purchases and luxury expenditures from his income and if the wife wanted extra she got a part time job or used her own money. He also might help out with domestic duties when he had the time or if he felt like it, but expected his wife to be responsible for all the domestic including child care.

Ultimately I think the way that the man feels about the situation depends on how the woman treats him - as an equal or as a subordinate?

I think this is the bottom line whether it is the man or woman earning the greater income.

[MattB4]

Look at like this. Her husband invested in her during the years required to get the education. Now that the investment is about to have a return his wife suddenly decides old so and so does not deserve what she is able to add to the relationship. Instead he should use his own money for things beyond what she thinks is necessary to have. Sounds like a control problem does it not? Now I agree both should be able to give input into purchases and not act irresponsible. However I see that she only talks about her husbands spending and not her spending on luxuries.

The qualifiers she makes are just to salve her conscience.

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by Sanderling

I completely agree with your last point, of course.

To your first, I say that "you" can be plural just as easily as it can be singular. I don't believe there is any inherent advantage to the family in having only one wage-earner, so why trim down to the bone to make it so? Realistically, especially now, providing for a family in comfort and security is likely to require two incomes.

Scenario: Two single people meet sometime in their 30's. Both work. Decide they want to marry--but retain their jobs. I would assume they live in the same household, but that may not be the case.

At this point, they're really nothing more than room mates that split the cost of rent and other expenses that happen to have sex with the legal recognition of the state. In other words, if two people get married, the lower wage earner should quit their job and take care of THEIR home. Male, female, whichever it happens to be.

I don't agree that it can't be done with ONE income. The kids may not have an Xbox or Wii...and might have to play with tin cans (actually, they're steel) and sticks, but it can be done.