How much money do you spend on your girlfriend

drunkmonkey

opinion guy wrote: »

Why what's happened ?

He got stung for the price of a happy meal, the gold digging ho!

Wibbs

Interesting thread. I'd fall somewhere in the middle on this. IME I would say that as a general rule the guy will end up paying more and be expected to. I've noted this in the past in both my own and others relationships. Not in any particularly conscious way, but its there. Even women who are extreme in this usually dont spot they're doing it or see it as an issue. Selection for a "provider" is fairly strong and I agree with The Corinthian that it can drift into cake and eat it time. In most cases the men and women dont see it as much of an issue. It's the way things are kinda thing.

I understand why its there as a woman is going to be more dependent should a couple decide to start a family. Purely on the practical front. She's more incapacitated for want of a better word, by pregnancy, birth and the first year(at least) of any kids life. So selecting for a man who will be able to provide in that case is sensible. It was far more sensible in the past. Its getting less so with external support and the change in working practices, so it will be interesting to see how it develops down the line. We see this in other gender areas. While women can still be looked down on for sleeping around, its less, much less than it was. Mostly down to contraception which obviates some of the biological/practical worry a man may have of raising kids that are not his own. Maybe a similar change will happen in this too.

But I would still say it's a fairly big selection criteria. We're less equal in this. EG Know a chap that was in a relationship for years. He supported her all the way through college and in the long process of her finding her career feet. Transport shelter and food etc for around 5 years all told. She was very appreciative too. Grand. He lost his job over a year ago. In an area hard to find another. So it was her "turn" as it were. When his savings started to go low and no jobs were in sight, the arguments started aimed at him. Within 6 months they had split up on her request. She's very sound as a person and Ive talked with her about this, but the fact is she sees the man as the provider. She wont admit it directly but its pretty clear. Extreme example? Not so much. I've known a few similar. I've also known women to stand by a guy too, so its not that, but more often than not a man feels happier in the supporting role financially than the other way around. Ive seen way more couples split because the guy fell on financial hard times than the other way around. Its happened to me. Got dumped for a guy because she simply saw more of a future with him. I met the guy and on all other fronts I was ahead, but not in that at the time. She as much as admitted it too, couched in the usual BS.

TBH I used to go a bit Grrrr about things like this. Now I dont. It is what it is and great if both men and women find someone outside the loop.

In the end a financially secure man is more attractive to a woman (tm), than not. Its one of the bigger attractants. It barely registers as an attractant for most men. Yes they may prefer a financially secure woman, but its less a practical consideration and more a personality thing and they wont leave her if she loses that security.

Look at the other thread about the correlation between youth and attractiveness in women. Unfair on women that men have extra time? Unfair that a man may look at a 28 year old woman as a better bet than a 42 year old woman? That a pretty 28 year old has more choice than a pretty 42 year old? Ditto for financial security in a man. Unfair? Yes, but all things being equal again it is what it is. In a way men have the advantage here again. They can earn attractiveness.

TL;DR? If a man tries to run a profit and loss account on a woman, he wont have her for long.

mood

Wibbs wrote: »

I understand why its there as a woman is going to be more dependent should a couple decide to start a family. Purely on the practical front. She's more incapacitated for want of a better word, by pregnancy, birth and the first year(at least) of any kids life. So selecting for a man who will be able to provide in that case is sensible. It was far more sensible in the past. Its getting less so with external support and the change in working practices, so it will be interesting to see how it develops down the line. We see this in other gender areas. While women can still be looked down on for sleeping around, its less, much less than it was. Mostly down to contraception which obviates some of the biological/practical worry a man may have of raising kids that are not his own. Maybe a similar change will happen in this too.

Totally disagree. I know many couples where the woman is the main breadwinner in the relationship. In some cases the women I know earn double what their OH earn.

opinion guy

Funnily enough I was just reading elsewhere about people moving in together and setting up a separate joint account purely to share expenses putting so much in a month. Seems like a very fair arrangement. Seems like alot of people do it.

I guess its just a difficult subject to generalise about .....(OP take note)

Wibbs

mood wrote: »

Totally disagree. I know many couples where the woman is the main breadwinner in the relationship. In some cases the women I know earn double what their OH earn.

Yes but my point is if he lost his job, whatever the disparity, it would be more of an issue than if she did. Plus you miss the other point by a country mile. The woman gets pregnant, the woman gives birth and the woman more than the man requires time off to do so(and usually puts more time into the rearing of the kids. All of which can impact her earning potential. Great if there's support for that from her job, but thats a relatively recent thing, so it makes sense for women to look for guys with stability in finances. Im not suggesting there arent couples were the woman earns more. I'd love to see where I said that. That's not the point I was trying to make. Nor is it exactly statisticly valid. I know far more men who earn more than their partners. I know far more women who jacked in the career to stay at home and have one kid after another, leaving the partner take up the slack than men who do. Doesnt mean its the average.

opinion guy

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but my point is if he lost his job, whatever the disparity, it would be more of an issue than if she did. Plus you miss the other point by a country mile. The woman gets pregnant, the woman gives birth and the woman more than the man requires time off to do so(and usually puts more time into the rearing of the kids. All of which can impact her earning potential. Great if there's support for that from her job, but thats a relatively recent thing, so it makes sense for women to look for guys with stability in finances. Im not suggesting there arent couples were the woman earns more. I'd love to see where I said that. That's not the point I was trying to make. Nor is it exactly statisticly valid. I know far more men who earn more than their partners. I know far more women who jacked in the career to stay at home and have one kid after another, leaving the partner take up the slack than men who do. Doesnt mean its the average.

In fairness thou this bolded part is largely a product of societal norms and culture. If you look at a place like Norway there is a year of leave given when a couple have kids. Either parent can take it or they can share it between them. Its far more flexible and allows those mums who want to work and those dads who want to stay home to do so.

Mums have to stay at home more when kids come along because the laws force them too (whilst also forcing the man to stay in work even when they might actually want to take time off). We need to update our laws to be more like the Norweigans. I for one would at least like the option to take paternal leave if and when the occasion arises.

Shane732

I'm just after reading through this thread - I don't know how I've managed to miss it over the past while.

Surely the OP was taking the piss with this?? If not then there's hope for us all!

Wibbs

opinion guy wrote: »

In fairness thou this bolded part is largely a product of societal norms and culture.

Oh yea and biology too though. Not so long ago the woman was almost entirely dependent on support with child rearing and the oul reptile brain may account for that in mate selection. But like you say as society changes and accommodates more men in that aspect then hopefully we'll seethat change(as we see it already, like in the example you give). It'll be interesting to see how the corporate structure regards men who chose this path. Women can get more leeway as far as taking time off for family than men. Its more "acceptable". Then again they also can get bypassed in the same structure because of the idea she may leave to have a family, so it defo cuts both ways.

As far as the OT goes I'd still say men are better advised to not count pennies as it will be noted and considered "cheap" more than the other way around all things being equal.

opinion guy

Even the Japanese are trying to make this more balanced (kinda):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8601360.stm

Pooh-bah

Female here! Well , I myself insist on a 'halfsies' system. It's fair and even! I look at it as I'm buying him dinner, and he's buying it for me! Or cimena tickets and what not! Sometimes I pay for it all and sometimes he does, but for the majority of occasions we use halfsies. If your scared to get a girlfriend because she might drain your funds, grow a backbone and learn to say no! If she's too demanding why would you want her anyway? We don't all se ye as pots of gold to grab from, be wary of the skanks and keep a keen eye out for a quality women 'cause were worth it in the end! Happiness is worth way more than money, Good luck to all of ye!

MoodeRator

If money is an issue, then there is an issue with the relationship.
Trust and sharing FTW. Otherwise.....why bother"

Jessica-Rabbit

SLUSK wrote: »

I don't know why you find this funny I am very concerned about the costs of having a girlfriend and it makes me feel almost ill that I might be expected to spend alot of my money on her.

During my two years in Ireland I lived like an animal to save money. I bought crappy shoes which were cheap. They made my feet bleed. I endured the pain just to save money. Me and the flat mates lived with hardly any heating during winter time just to save money.

I've bled, I've been freezing, I've been living in a cheap moldy house just to save money and I ain't about to let any girl take it from me!

Well me and my bf go 50/50 on everything and its the best way really.. sometimes we treat each other like somethimes he pays for dinner or for the cinema but i always make sure i pay next time.. if we are out having drinks we do rounds that way no one feels used or like they are being taken advantage of..:)

az2wp0sye65487

opinion guy wrote: »

Funnily enough I was just reading elsewhere about people moving in together and setting up a separate joint account purely to share expenses putting so much in a month. Seems like a very fair arrangement. Seems like alot of people do it.

I guess its just a difficult subject to generalise about .....(OP take note)

I can endorse that. Myself and the O/H have a joint account. Each month we both transfer the same amount into it. All our bills/mortgage/loans etc are paid out of it. Then whatever (small amount) we have left in our own accounts can be spread out for the rest of the month on luxuries like nights out/cinema/whatever.

But even so, there's still no 'my money' - 'your money' mentality going on. We'd both gladly spend our last penny on each other. The joint account thing is just for convenience; to make sure all the bills are paid so we know what we have to live on then for the month!

Actually, even from the start when we were first going out money wasn't an issue. Not that either of us had any! Maybe I'm just lucky that I found such a generous person. I know she'd go without so she could spend her last few euro on me if she thought I wanted something; and vice versa. Who needs money anyway??!?

GwayGal

What happened on the date ?

Malari

GwayGal wrote: »

What happened on the date ?

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.

There was no date.

arsenallegend

i used to spend loads on my ex never stopped her moaning:rolleyes:
i wouldn't go crazy on one now seen as i haven't got a job:p