What's even more fun, is that there ARE a few men, albeit...most of them 10 yrs younger than me....who don't have a cow over the fact that I have a retirement income from working 30+ years rather than having extorted it from an ex husband through alimony.

LOL! go figure....why do these guys find it perfectly ok to accept a woman's income if it comes from her ex...but can't handle the thought that she worked for it herself?

This seems to be a bigger issue when there is not a balance in a relationship.

I think the balance idea is right on though...if both partners are working and both have comparable incomes, I doubt the issue of "who pays for what" comes up nearly as often. Also, past experience in this might play a part as well; if both partners are used to being self-sufficient, they aren't as likely IMO to take advantage of the other monetarily nearly as often.

When the balance is out of whack, though, or when one partner isn't fully pulling their weight? That's when a lot of problems arise. As we all know, disagreements over money are one of the top reasons marriages or relationships break down; often not specific amounts of money necessarily, but in discrepancies between how each partner handles their money as well. Frankly, in my experience, it's exhausting and very frustrating, when only one partner is pulling their weight and the other isn't contributing their fair share monetarily, not to mention it breeds resentment and a feeling of being taken for granted. I'm speaking as someone with no children, though.

This thread seems to have sequed into stay-at-home-moms, which can also be included in the discussion, but didn't strike me as being the OP's original intent, or at least, not his main focus when starting the thread. I could be wrong though.

When the balance is out of whack, though, or when one partner isn't fully pulling their weight? That's when a lot of problems arise. As we all know, disagreements over money are one of the top reasons marriages or relationships break down; often not specific amounts of money necessarily, but in discrepancies between how each partner handles their money as well.

Having been on both sides of the scenario, comfortable versus broke and in debt, I'll tell you that I'll always prefer being comfortable. As much as finances and materialism shouldn't enter into a relationship, somehow they always do, because the green stuff provides comfort and freedom, which enhances our spiritual mood and allows love to flourish, and lack of any material comfort when the bills are still pouring in as fast as they ever did, produces stress. Financial stress = relationship stress.

I guess most everyone just wants too much from a SO. Seems no man nor woman could fill those requirements.

Life is a beautiful thing. The forums are only for entertainment.

P.S. He will be recognizable because he has a rather large balls.

It's Savona's mouth that gets her in to trouble with men.
Anyone who reads the forums knows this inherently.

Financial stress = relationship stress.
My sentiments exactly.

You're making judgements about the guy when you don't know him.

Since when is never been married a bad thing?

As a man what I still see is some women have held on old stigmas that men should be footing the bills which is not looked upon favorably by many men and women. But I still hear it not so here, such as "no money, no honey" and the like. What I can tell is that our society will continue to have its problems and the need for smaller single residences will grow and probably outpace the need for multiroom family residential units as people opt for independece in both the sexes.

No, it comes from realists, men might bring it up more often than women but that is mostly because women are still somewhat socially compelled to feel entitled to a mans income(remnants of those 1950's, it wasn't that long ago). You may not be one but golddiggers aren't a myth, they do exist.

BUT, both partners SHOULD be prepared to help each other out. This means working. Especially in this shitty economy, both partners should be prepared to work, because that is what is necessary these days to create any semblence of comfort.

Too many women, especially young, pretty women, think the world owes them a living (and this could be said of young, pretty men too), and that simply being good-looking is enough, to snare a partner who can spoil them rotten while they lay around bored and lonely waiting to be laid.
I don't care how good a woman looks...laziness is unattractive and boring. It's not enough that she's merely pretty...she's got to have an animal drive in her that likes to accomplish things. Kicking ass and getting things done, giving, sharing, is exciting, and brings out that sexual animal, a willingness to please, too-!

WE (responsible women who believe in and support TRUE equality...where it's REAL...in the pocket) can't fight this battle for you. YOU (men) have to STOP supporting these women! LITERALLY and figuratively.

WE (responsible women who believe in and support TRUE equality...where it's REAL...in the pocket) can't fight this battle for you. YOU (men) have to STOP supporting these women! LITERALLY and figuratively.

Love,Quality of life and who pays

I agree and I don't support these women. I never have and I never will.

What bothers me is some women who label me as cheap, misogynist, and not a REAL man because I refuse to enter into a relationship with a woman who doesn't pull her weight in all areas.

A sure way to stop this non-sense is for all sugar daddies to drop off the face of the earth, but then the forums would be flooded with "Where are all REAL men with balls?". Both men and women are responsible for this tripe because it takes two to tango. The man offers and the woman accepts. Remove one variable from that equation and it no longer works.

If a guy buys into a woman's belief that a REAL man provides, what do you think he will do?

Don't you see how the female advocates for financial inequality take shots at a man's ego to get what they want?

In my opinion, they are just as guilty as the guy who plays their game.

I sure hate to see what happens to any woman who marries these kind of men and then for some reason karma kicks in and they are left with a wife who has an illness of some sort that makes her wholly dependent on them....in every way. For some men, it would make their skin crawl.

Materialistic? These men have it sewed up.

Can you imagine some wife saying this? "If I was with a man who was financially dependent on me, it would make my skin crawl. If he became ill, I'd have him in a nursing home so fast that you'd see my the soles of my running shoes smoke!! Hopefully his kids can pay for his keep. I'm not!!!" She'd be called a heartless byotch.
That's a person who is capable of love? Nope.

Now we are back to the men who have money as their primary concern again...

You see...most people who honestly love and care for a person...does not have money and equality as their Gods to worship to.

Can you imagine some wife saying this? "If I was with a man who was financially dependent on me, it would make my skin crawl. If he became ill, I'd have him in a nursing home so fast that you'd see my the soles of my running shoes smoke!! Hopefully his kids can pay for his keep. I'm not!!!" She'd be called a heartless byotch.
That's a person who is capable of love? Nope.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where even the basic essentials of life--food, shelter, medical care, education--are distributed according to one's ability to pay. In much of Western Europe, for example, people get free medical care, free day care, subsidized college tuition, etc. Not so in the US. You want medical care? You pay for it. You need day care for your kids? You pay for it. Want to send your kids to college some day? Start saving now, because it ain'y gonna be cheap.

Sure, some women are greedy. But many, many more are just being realistic. If they care about their lives and their futures, as well as the lives and futures of any children they may have, they literally cannot afford to be with a man who is poor. It sad, but true.

Savona,
You are a very attractive lady and you have a wicked sense with words. You will not have a problem meeting any man anywhere. Just put the wish out to Santa and leave it.
Whenever you go out, whether it's to a grocery store or to pick up something quick to eat, in a line-up, always acknowledge any man showing you interest. Even if it is just a fleeting smile. He could be the one.
P.S. He will recognizable because he has rather large balls.

It's Savona's mouth that gets her in to trouble with men.

Anyone who reads the forums knows this inherently.

Physician, heal thyself! lol

Can you imagine some wife saying this? "If I was with a man who was financially dependent on me, it would make my skin crawl. If he became ill, I'd have him in a nursing home so fast that you'd see my the soles of my running shoes smoke!! Hopefully his kids can pay for his keep. I'm not!!!" She'd be called a heartless byotch.
That's a person who is capable of love? Nope.