How much money do you spend on your girlfriend

The Corinthian

OldGoat wrote: »

The mental health of a poster is NOT the topic of discussion here.

Absolutely, I wasn't suggesting that.

CDfm

Kinetic^ wrote: »

No dice, I choose television.

With or without Sky Sports????

Maple

Meh, my last boyfriend was unemployed for the first 4 months of us being together so it was me who paid for/contributed the most for that time. Obviously once he started working, I bled him dry*.

To be honest, I prefer paying my own way on a date. I'm independent and while it is nice to be treated, unless I know the person I do feel uncomfortable unless I can contribute something. I'm not out for all that I can get.

In a relationship, I believe the tides of who pays the most ebb and flow depending on circumstances. I think it's nice to treat your OH and surprise them with gifts/nights out. It might cost nothing, it might cost a tenner and it might cost a couple of hundred euro. I don't put a price on something like this.

To answer your question OP from a female perspective, yes you can expect to pay about 500 a year on your OH but I don't necessarily feel that's the best attitude to be approaching a relationship with.


*Blatant lie

beegirl

krudler wrote: »

Cost of a girlfriend=€500 per year
Cost of a Thai hooker=€10 a session

finding out Thai hooker has a knob=priceless

Funniest thread EVER, especially this :D:D

donfers wrote: »

I disagree with most of that I am afraid.

You and a few other women have posted on this forum and the consensus from the girls in this thread would seem to be that they pay their way.

That seems to be the trend. I have plenty of male and female friends and the funny thing is the vast majority of the guys think they pay for most things whereas most of the girls say that they shell out occassionally and it's not always the guy.

Somebody is telling porkies then, or at the very least being equivocal with the truth.

This being the gentlemen's club, and I being male, mean that I can only speak from the male perspective. And almost every guy I know says that they pay more. Most of them don't mind or think twice about it.

So the two points I think that are interesting are


1. I find it a little hypocritical that some modern liberal-minded progressive women are happy to consent to an old-fashioned conservative "male provides for female" mentality where it suits them.

2. Many women, in my view, are in denial about this and perhaps justify their position with some self-delusion about how much they actually spend in comparison to their partner on each other. I have heard many women, indeed in this thread, claim they pay as much as their partner but when we drill down to the actual cold hard truth of who bears the expenses, she will often realise he pays a hell of a lot more. Maybe she sometimes takes stuff he pays for for granted and disproportionally highlights her spends as it is so outside the expected norm. Often the woman will say "well remember i got you dinner on x date or I always get a round in etc etc" failing to realise the guy can't recall a date he pays for dinner on as it is almost every date, or that he would only love to get 1 round on a nightout and leave it at that, patting himself on the back for doing his bit. No, for him the norm is round after round after round after round. I also know couples who earn roughly equal but the guy pays the full rent and covers most of the expenses on a night out. To be honest both of them are equally culpable for this and if they are both content with it then fine. I even know guys who have no job and are near broke who are still expected by their career girlfriends to not just go halves but continue to provide for her.

This is pretty offensive though... maybe you shouldn't generalise because this certainly isn't the case in all relationships. Me and my OH split everything, yes EVERYTHING 50%, not just 'occasionally' as you put it. And we have done so for the last ten years, including the first date (someone said the guy should pay on 1st date - nonsense)... and also through times where he has earned a lot more than me. That goes for rent, bills, groceries you name it. I also buy rounds by the way, even when I'm not drinking. So please don't say that all women are self-deluding on this issue... maybe you just need to meet better women

The Corinthian

beegirl wrote: »

This is pretty offensive though... maybe you shouldn't generalise because this certainly isn't the case in all relationships.

He wasn't suggesting that it was in all relationships, but unfortunately a lot of men will have the experience of such behaviour, so it does happen a lot more often than it should.

Kinetic^

CDfm wrote: »

With or without Sky Sports????

Sky Sports HD.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, which led to the accusation that paying for company was a bit sad.

But this is the thing... did you never feel that his one-sided 'generosity' should be repaid? I don't mean with tokenism, but with a real effort for you not to be "a tight git"? Even if you did not have the same level of income, did you not think of finding a way to repay him, or did you - as regrettably happens all too often - feel that you were entitled to him spending money on you simply because you're a woman?

An accusation of sadness.... So is he sad for not wanting to drink on his own or for wanting to buy a mate a few pints?

IT was never always one sided with us. I was never tight, but there were weeks where I would not have cash and he would and vice versa.
I never felt I was entitled to it, but probably would have been pissed off if he hadnt offered to bring me out. As he would be entitled to feel pissed off if I ever left him sitting in cause he had no money.

For me a man being a good provider is important.

The Corinthian wrote: »

by Quality's lack of response

Patience---

Its a virtue, Often in a woman never in a man.;)

My apologies for not being here to answer your question, I hope this makes your day. x

beegirl

The Corinthian wrote: »

He wasn't suggesting that it was in all relationships, but unfortunately a lot of men will have the experience of such behaviour, so it does happen a lot more often than it should.

Ok maybe he didn't say ALL but he did say the vast majority... I seriously can't believe that would be the case, in this day and age?!? I would have thought it would be the opposite... I think we need a poll here

CDfm

beegirl wrote: »

.. I think we need a poll here

Beegirl gets ready to do a little Beegirl poledancin. Beegirl FTW.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

An accusation of sadness.... So is he sad for not wanting to drink on his own or for wanting to buy a mate a few pints?

He's sad for paying someone so he does not have to drink on his own. If he wants to pay for his mate's drinks that's something everyone's done, but it his mate never repays him, then that too is sad as it's not really a mate, but a leech.

IT was never always one sided with us. I was never tight, but there were weeks where I would not have cash and he would and vice versa.
I never felt I was entitled to it, but probably would have been pissed off if he hadnt offered to bring me out. As he would be entitled to feel pissed off if I ever left him sitting in cause he had no money.

That's not what I asked though - did you pay your way or was it just tokenism?

For me a man being a good provider is important.

Nice to hear that our capacity as a resource is important to you. I think you've kind of demonstrated the OP's point.

My apologies for not being here to answer your question, I hope this makes your day. x

Yes you were, as you posted a number of times elsewhere since I posed the question. Don't tell fibs lass

beegirl

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes you were, as you posted a number of times elsewhere since I posed the question. Don't tell fibs lass

Ha, you actually went and checked when & where she posted... now THAT's sad!!! Adding winky face so you won't ban me

lazygal

OMG I've had such a laugh reading this thread!
I wonder now if my BF considers me an investment, a loss leader or a long-term NAMA style debt hole!
Seriously OP, as a women there is nothing less attractive than stinginess. I would also say the same for a cheapskate woman.

Maybe you should get a doll-they are cheaper than a woman and you won't have to take her out or invest any more than the initial capital spend!

The Corinthian

beegirl wrote: »

Ok maybe he didn't say ALL but he did say the vast majority... I seriously can't believe that would be the case, in this day and age?!?

He thought that the vast majority of the guys he knew thought this, and frankly that could well be the case, either because their unlucky or because they correctly think this.

Personally I do think it happens a lot more than many would care to admit. When I hear some women suggest that "a good provider" is important, it sends a shiver down my back because those are the ones who objectify you as a resource and are going to ultimately use you as an ATM in the long term.

I would have thought it would be the opposite... I think we need a poll here

That would imply that women are paying for the all the drinks and I really don't think that is terribly realistic outside of a Carlsberg advert

beegirl wrote: »

Ha, you actually went and checked when & where she posted... now THAT's sad!!!

No, it's research...

Adding winky face so you won't ban me

I can't ban you here and even if I could there's no reason to. Of course I could do a lot worse than that... but then I'd get banned :cool:

Sarah**

Hi All,

Havent entirely read the thread but just want to put in my POV!

I was in a relationship for 3 years. I was 20 when i started going out with him and he was 23. He lived at home and drove a company van and had no overheads. I lived in a two bed apt which i paid rent for, i have a car and pay all bills by my self. I earned more then him but would always end up paying for the majority of things.

The odd time he would pay and that was it really!!

We broke up because i was constantly broke and struggling and one day he rang and suggested we head to the cinema.... i informed him i was broke and had no money. He said alright cool well i'll call you tomorrow.

I just had had enough and called him back and said can you not pay for the cinema tonight and ill get you back next week and he replied saying that he was pretty broke after being out thursday and friday with the lads....

I had enough and called it a day.

This wasnt the only reason but it played a major role. I mean he was 26 and when was he going to start taking responsibility with his money? I think it is hugely important for both sides of the relationship to have respect with money and go half way and sometimes treat the other to dinner/drinks/cinema or just a take away!

beegirl

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would imply that women are paying for the all the drinks and I really don't think that is terribly realistic outside of a Carlsberg advert

When I said opposite I meant it in relation to 'vast majority'... I thought that only a minority of women would expect a fella to pay for everything, these days. I could be wrong, of course, I am just basing this on myself and my own relationship really!!! Unfortunately it seems that 1 in 5 young girls want to be a 'WAG' when they grow up, so maybe things haven't evolved as much as I think they have :eek:

SLUSK

Looks like I won't be getting a girlfriend after all, she called and cancelled the date plants for the weekend because she is "sick". I know she does not want to give it to me straight.

Anyways I have deleted her number and blocked her on my msn so she can't see when I'm online. Don't have to worry about if she will cost me any money.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

He's sad for paying someone so he does not have to drink on his own. If he wants to pay for his mate's drinks that's something everyone's done, but it his mate never repays him, then that too is sad as it's not really a mate, but a leech.

That's not what I asked though - did you pay your way or was it just tokenism?

I would have paid when I could, but would not have taken him for granted or just expected it.

What about your relationship would you expect your partner presuming it is a female partner you have to go dutch and pay her way or do you like to treat her?

What are the circumstances in Gay relationships? Do two men always pay seperately... Or does it just boil down to the persons nature?

Nice to hear that our capacity as a resource is important to you. I think you've kind of demonstrated the OP's point.

Yes very important to me, My partner being able to provide for me is a good sign that if anything ever happened to me that I know my kids would be looked after.

It is a basic need, most mating animals will choose a partner that can support their parental efforts.

Yes you were, as you posted a number of times elsewhere since I posed the question. Don't tell fibs lass

I wanted to make sure I had the time to respond to your post.. I like to give you my full attention!!

opinion guy

SLUSK wrote: »

Looks like I won't be getting a girlfriend after all, she called and cancelled the date plants for the weekend because she is "sick". I know she does not want to give it to me straight.

Anyways I have deleted her number and blocked her on my msn so she can't see when I'm online. Don't have to worry about if she will cost me any money.

Dude maybe she is actually sick ??

Are you dissappointed ?

The Corinthian

beegirl wrote: »

When I said opposite I meant it in relation to 'vast majority'... I thought that only a minority of women would expect a fella to pay for everything, these days.

I understood, but was being pedantic - ergo the smiley. But yes, at least IMO, only a minority of women would expect a man to pay for everything in Ireland. Those who expect a man to pay for almost everything (token equality) are far greater in number.

Quality wrote: »

I would have paid when I could, but would not have taken him for granted or just expected it.

Well, you actually do expect it - if you do not get it the man is 'mean' or 'tight' in your eyes, and that really is much the same thing.

What about your relationship would you expect your partner presuming it is a female partner you have to go dutch and pay her way or do you like to treat her?

Everyone goes through tough times financially, so whether you are in a romantic or platonic friendship there will often be times when one carries the other financially.

But you're not suggesting that there ever will be a time where you would be able to bankroll a boyfriend, or buy him dinner. You have no incentive to earn more money to do this - after all, why do you need to? Your financial needs are met. Why do I say this? Because not once have you hinted here any obligation to repay him or go Dutch - it appears alien to you from what I can see.

What are the circumstances in Gay relationships? Do two men always pay seperately... Or does it just boil down to the persons nature?

No idea.

Yes very important to me, My partner being able to provide for me is a good sign that if anything ever happened to me that I know my kids would be looked after.

And if something happened to him?

Did you concentrate on your career prior to settling down and having children? Did you set up various pension and insurance plans when you were single for such events? Are you both working and co-parenting with him so that is something happens to either one of you, then both of you will be financially viable?

Or is the answer that he has life insurance that will cover you in such an event?

It is a basic need, most mating animals will choose a partner that can support their parental efforts.

Fine, if that is how you want it to work, then great. But if so, please don't start talking about career equality and just accept that if men should be providers, then women are the carers.

I think I speak for a lot of men where I say that we are actually rather pissed off with this cake and eat it attitude. You can't have both because men would be paying for that choice.

I wanted to make sure I had the time to respond to your post.. I like to give you my full attention!!

Maybe you did, maybe you didn't.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, you actually do expect it - if you do not get it the man is 'mean' or 'tight' in your eyes, and that really is much the same thing.

But you're not suggesting that there ever will be a time where you would be able to bankroll a boyfriend, or buy him dinner. You have no incentive to earn more money to do this - after all, why do you need to? Your financial needs are met. Why do I say this? Because not once have you hinted here any obligation to repay him or go Dutch - it appears alien to you from what I can see.

On the contrary, I have never said that I dont contribute financially or that I would never be in a position to repay him.

But the point is my partner has never made me feel under any pressure to repay him or go dutch... That is probably "sad" in your eyes?

Tell me do you itemise your bill when you are going dutch with your partner?

And if something happened to him?

Did you concentrate on your career prior to settling down and having children? Did you set up various pension and insurance plans when you were single for such events? Are you both working and co-parenting with him so that is something happens to either one of you, then both of you will be financially viable?

Yes I am currently in my final year in college (part time), If I were to return to full time employment my salary would be on par to my partners.
Yes pension and insurance plans are set up. We are home owners and married also so that makes things a little easier.

Or is the answer that he has life insurance that will cover you in such an event?

We are both covered equally.

Fine, if that is how you want it to work, then great. But if so, please don't start talking about career equality and just accept that if men should be providers, then women are the carers.

Now that is bollox, women in Ireland on average are paid at least 15.5% less than their male counterparts doing similar jobs. As far as I can see their is no equality despite legislation. Perhaps it is expected for women to be the carers. Do you think women choose to be paid less and be treated less favourably.

I think I speak for a lot of men where I say that we are actually rather pissed off with this cake and eat it attitude. You can't have both because men would be paying for that choice.

Well you shouldn't be speaking for other men, you should be speaking for yourself.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

On the contrary, I have never said that I dont contribute financially or that I would never be in a position to repay him.

It was hardly on your list of priorities though - you never mentioned how important this is to you, but had no problem pointing out how important a man being a provider was.

But the point is my partner has never made me feel under any pressure to repay him or go dutch... That is probably "sad" in your eyes?

Personally I think at least one of you should have felt the obligation to go Dutch - you certainly didn't by the sounds of things.

Tell me do you itemise your bill when you are going dutch with your partner?

Where did I suggest the employment of exact accounting practices?

No one is complaining about a man covering 51% percent of the costs, or even 60%. What we are complaining about is covering 90% of the costs.

On a side note, while not done in Ireland, in most countries you can ask to have a bill itemized between people. Ireland and the UK use the round system instead.

If I were to return to full time employment my salary would be on par to my partners.

Will you? Or will you both go part time and share the burden of child care?

Now that is bollox, women in Ireland on average are paid at least 15.5% less than their male counterparts doing similar jobs.

I'm sorry but unless you want to give me credible evidence of that, I am not going to accept it.

There have been numerous threads on this subject and time and time again, when the facts are examined, you find that they have often been massaged one way or another; part time workers are lumped in with full-time, or non-similar jobs suddenly become similar somewhere along the analysis.

Well you shouldn't be speaking for other men, you should be speaking for yourself.

I am speaking for myself and part of that is the opinion that my views are on various levels shared by many others - it should not be terribly difficult for you to find a thread on the topic of cake and eat it feminism.

I am also in a far better position to speak for other men that you are, with respects.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

It was hardly on your list of priorities though - you never mentioned how important this is to you, but had no problem pointing out how important a man being a provider was.

There are a lot of things I havent said or dont feel the need to say. It is important for me for the man to be a good provider therefore I said it. I appreciate very much the fact that my partner provides for me. I dont take it as a given.

Personally I think at least one of you should have felt the obligation to go Dutch - you certainly didn't by the sounds of things.

From as far back as I can remember we have pooled our finances.. We would never see eachother short.

No one is complaining about a man covering 51% percent of the costs, or even 60%. What we are complaining about is covering 90% of the costs.

Would you complain too if your partner gave up her job to raise your kids?

Where did I suggest the employment of exact accounting practices?

On a side note, while not done in Ireland, in most countries you can ask to have a bill itemized between people. Ireland and the UK use the round system instead.

Fair enough if you are watching your pennies...

Would it bother you if you went for dinner with your partner and you ordered chicken and they ordered fillet steak the steak being a lot more expensive and you going dutch with them?

Will you? Or will you both go part time and share the burden of child care?

i will eventually when the children get older, I will further my education and work part time until then!

I'm sorry but unless you want to give me credible evidence of that, I am not going to accept it.

link
WOmen in the Global Workforce
Second paragraph
Second last sentence

I am sure I could find many more reports to substantiate my claim, It was also on the news in recent weeks. Along with inequality when it comes to women being promoted.

There have been numerous threads on this subject and time and time again, when the facts are examined, you find that they have often been massaged one way or another; part time workers are lumped in with full-time, or non-similar jobs suddenly become similar somewhere along the analysis.

Part time workers should not be treated less favourably than full time workers.

I am speaking for myself and part of that is the opinion that my views are on various levels shared by many others - it should not be terribly difficult for you to find a thread on the topic of cake and eat it feminism.

I am also in a far better position to speak for other men that you are, with respects.

So you think that your opinion and views are shared by others, that is a bit presumptuous of you.

Dudess

SLUSK wrote: »

I have seen some guys spend money on their girlfriends in a way that the costs spiral out of control.

If a guy spends an out of control amount of money on his girlfriend, while she may be a demanding nightmare of a woman, this is his choice too.
No man HAS to spend a lot of money on his partner (difference between that and forking out for the bulk of the lunch bill if she's down to her last fiver and the ATM is broken) - certainly none of my exes had to.
It saddens me that there are indeed some disgustingly moneygrabbing women - I'm not even talking about obvious gold-diggers, just women with the "well he can pay for it - fuk him, he's the man!" attitudes. But it saddens me also the way here and elsewhere these women are used to attack all women in this regard. The vast, vast majority of women I know, and am friends with, are not one bit like that.

beegirl

Khannie

The Corinthian wrote: »

He's sad for paying someone so he does not have to drink on his own. If he wants to pay for his mate's drinks that's something everyone's done, but it his mate never repays him, then that too is sad as it's not really a mate, but a leech.

The friend may never be in a position to repay and I wouldn't care in the slightest. I don't keep tabs on my friends. I think buying a friend a pint with the notion that he's a leech if he doesn't pay you back is properly sad.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So it's really about charity work?

Not in the slightest. It's a simple cost / benefit analysis.....

Drink on my own = boring and depressing but I get to drink more.
Drink with my friend = not boring or depressing but I get to drink less. Depending on the friends earning potential there's some risk that I may not get paid back.

Easy choice for me.

In the case of the homeless guy I was hungry and wanted food so went to get some. I knew he didn't have money and didn't want to eat it in front of him. The potential that he would leave to try and get some food wasn't worth the cost of buying him something to eat. The cost of the discomfort of making him hungry while I ate away in front of him was also a factor, so I bought him something to eat. We continued our conversation and everyone was happy. Cost -> a few euro. Benefit -> excellent conversation. He wasn't there to try and leech food off me. Of course I can't be 100% certain of that, but the fact that he continued talking to me for some time after he'd been fed (several hours) is indicative of the contrary. Anyway, it didn't feel like charity, whether you want to call it that or not.

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you're seeing a lady that you really like, but she earns very little. Let's say you'd like to go on holidays with her. Your options are:

Don't go on holidays because she can't afford to split the cost of everything 50/50
or
Go on holidays but you pay for more than 50% of the cost.
or
Go on a crappy holiday.

What would you do?

(you can reverse the situation if you like so that you're the one who earns less)

CDfm

SLUSK wrote: »

Looks like I won't be getting a girlfriend after all, she called and cancelled the date plants for the weekend because she is "sick". I know she does not want to give it to me straight.

Anyways I have deleted her number and blocked her on my msn so she can't see when I'm online. Don't have to worry about if she will cost me any money.

I am going to get all freudy now.

Slusk you have been keeping your self out of the girlfriend frame so long you are starting to believe your own hype.

CDfm

Khannie wrote: »

The friend may never be in a position to repay and I wouldn't care in the slightest. I don't keep tabs on my friends. I think buying a friend a pint with the notion that he's a leech if he doesn't pay you back is properly sad.

Khannies Schooldays

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRXvPNRo

Quality

Khannie wrote: »

Hypothetical scenario: Let's say you're seeing a lady that you really like, but she earns very little. Let's say you'd like to go on holidays with her. Your options are:

Don't go on holidays because she can't afford to split the cost of everything 50/50
or
Go on holidays but you pay for more than 50% of the cost.
or
Go on a crappy holiday.

What would you do?

(you can reverse the situation if you like so that you're the one who earns less)

You forgot about option D

Go on holidays but bring pen and paper to make inventory of what said girl eats drinks and each cost incurred.
On return from holiday. Invoice Girl:D

Dont forget to incur interest on the loan... That should speed her up on paying it back.

LegacyUser

Wow this thread is great! Just reading some of the posts, we have a man giving a woman the inquisition about her financial situation with her husband (without any hint of irony-imagine if a woman was questioning a man about his financial situation....she'd be labelled a gold digger quicker than you can say 'I love having cake AND eating it'), we have another man saying that girlfriends are too expensive (you should buy a cat, love-they basically pay for themselves. Problem solved). Basically men who don't know how to deal with their anger except in posts that thinly veil their contempt for women.

And then we have the gentlemen who realise the value of love and companionship, and I would bet (using my boyfrend's money, of course) that these gentlemen are far happier than those 'men' who are angry at the injustice visited upon them by previous girfriends.

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

There are a lot of things I havent said or dont feel the need to say. It is important for me for the man to be a good provider therefore I said it. I appreciate very much the fact that my partner provides for me. I dont take it as a given.

You don't take it as a given, but it's pretty obvious you wouldn't take him without it.

Would you complain too if your partner gave up her job to raise your kids?

Yes.

Fair enough if you are watching your pennies...

Or if you don't want to be taken for a ride.

Would it bother you if you went for dinner with your partner and you ordered chicken and they ordered fillet steak the steak being a lot more expensive and you going dutch with them?

Not if they got me back on another occasion. It would bother me if I was financially subsidizing them as a rule, especially if they then thought I should be doing as much as them in other aspects of our relationship, such as housework.

i will eventually when the children get older, I will further my education and work part time until then!

But, and leading to the next point, assuming you do so (many women plan to but never do) had it not occurred to you that by then you will be trailing many men who didn't take any break in terms of level and experience - and thus pay?

I ask this because that is a frankly a far more likely cause for inequality in pay than discrimination. In fact, the only really senior women I have ever worked with or known never took time off of child care. Either they never had children, hired nannies from the onset or the father took time off instead. One couple I know, both parents take a day or two off per week and use a crèche the rest of the time - as a result they have both suffered career-wise, but have both benefited overall.

As to why women are the one's who stay at home (about 400k to 8k men in Ireland)? You can hardly say it's because men are forbidding them from working. Actually, do any 'equality' groups ever talk about this particular disparity?

link
WOmen in the Global Workforce
Second paragraph
Second last sentence

An unsubstantiated press release - and that is all that link really is - is hardly credible. Indeed all it claims is that "women's pay still remains an average of 15.5 per cent lower than men's" nothing about this being for the same job.

I am sure I could find many more reports to substantiate my claim, It was also on the news in recent weeks. Along with inequality when it comes to women being promoted.

I have no doubt you could, but I did say credible evidence.

Part time workers should not be treated less favourably than full time workers.

But neither should they be getting the same overall salary and this is something that many surveys don't take into account. I worked once with a woman who used to complain how she was underpaid for her level at 35k per year - which would be true, except she got 35k per year for working two days a week. For that she was overpaid for her level.

So you think that your opinion and views are shared by others, that is a bit presumptuous of you.

My opinion and views are certainly shared by others, or do you think that I am alone on the planet for having them? Many men will certainly differ to me, but that does not mean that there is not genuine resentment in men at the cake and eat it attitude that many (not all) women have.