My boyfriend is being too cheap

[aurum]

@AliceK your bf sounds like he is being cheap to me. Which usually stems from fear.

A conversation may or may not change things. But it needs to be had. It may be scary or uncomfortable, but at the same time, mature relationships require this sort of communication.

[Gianna]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

BOTH men and women are doing this, its pretty much so rampant that almost every love story told in movies and t.v. shows uses this trope. Heck I'm even doing that, because the truth is the "right person" is actually an illusion. There is no "right person" there is only a person who is willing to be committed to making a relationship successful.

Hm, I never thought about it like that! Interesting. It reminds me of this scene in the Disney movie Soul: 

“I heard this story about a fish. He swims up to an older fish and says: “I’m trying to find this thing they call the ocean.” “The ocean?” the older fish says, “that’s what you’re in right now.” “This”, says the young fish, “this is water. What I want is the ocean!” 
 

I interpret this as the endless seeking for a concept which is never actually in direct reality. So finding the ‘ocean’ (concept) is never actually achieved because all you’re  ever experiencing is water. Hehe. Maybe it’s the same for “a perfect relationship” is what you’re saying?  So sad!!! I like to believe in a symbiotic relationship  but I guess that’s what committing to making one work is. 

[Gianna]

19 minutes ago, something_else said:

It’s like trying to meditate to cure your hunger

Hehehehe. Hm, maybe! Or it’s like trying to meditate to find/be fed the food you actually want and therefore will get   
 

Because what I was essentially saying is you’re not getting what you think you want because you don’t really want it but you want something bigger (that you think you can’t have) and so you’re really wanting something else. So it’s not direct and God works directly and so that’s why it’s not working. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Gianna

[Tudo]

@AliceK Well,  seriously, if you are pretty and have many options, I would have a serious conversation with him and if he didn't change, I would dump him tbh. If you are beautiful and a feminine girl, I think you deserve better. Dump him while you are young and desired by a lot of men.  Don't waste your youth with this kind of man, or chances are that you are going to regret it.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Tudo

[something_else]

42 minutes ago, Gianna said:

Hehehehe. Hm, maybe! Or it’s like trying to meditate to find/be fed the food you actually want and therefore will get   
 

Because what I was essentially saying is you’re not getting what you think you want because you don’t really want it but you want something bigger (that you think you can’t have) and so you’re really wanting something else. So it’s not direct and God works directly and so that’s why it’s not working. 

The point is it’s hard to mediate and be spiritual when you’re literally starving

And maybe improving your spirituality can help you understand your desire for food, help you pick better foods etc. but if you’re so poor that you can’t even feed yourself any food at all, spirituality is not where you should start

That is where many guys are when it comes to sex

I’m mainly just trying to encourage you not to give the “spiritual” style dating advice to guys who struggle with women because it’s likely to rub them up the wrong way. That only works for women and for guys who have already got a decent dating life

Edited March 28, 2022 by something_else

[Stovo]

It sounds like your boyfriend is living for himself rather than the relationship.

[Gianna]

@something_else Okay fine.
Hehe. 

I see what you’re saying. 

[Eph75]

This is culturally different. 

To me and from where I come this feels very obsolete. It's something that my 70 year old parents would say just because that's the way it should and need to be. They don't "understand" the options, they're just not right. 

Men used to be the economical  dominance and paying for everything while women weighting in with other factors to maintain a dynamic in the relationship. 

With increasing gender-equality women want more equal rights, not only in society but also in relationships.

This gets counteracted by the holding on to the man only being a man if he pays. 

Not anything needs to be this or that way. 

The who-does-what is an ultimately an agreement, between two people, where the cultural expectation needs to give way just like the expectation for women to be the ones that by default should cook, clean and take care of children.

From expectation to choice. 

And of course this takes who has the majority of the income into account, but leave gender outside of the equation. 

This doesn't make you "room mates", does the definition of "more than room mates" equate to "man pays"? 

It also doesn't mean that the man can't be the one that pays. It just doesn't make that assumption. Men often wants to pay and take care of/spoil his partner. 

What happens in a non-traditional relationship between another combination than man-woman partnership?

Are expectations different then, or does one assume the masculine role and is expected to pay as well? 

Very likely, but doesn't that more-so put the need for agreements more into light.

It shouldnt be one way or the other.

Communication is the key. 

It's a patriarcal phenomenon that is beneficial for women. Removing other patriarcal phenomena to achieve equality but maintaining that which benefits the woman doesn't support gender-equality.

It's not surprising though. 

Essentially paying for the woman would be paying for her devotion/gratitude. The woman feels taken care of, and the man feels important, the care-taker. 

It matters where in the world we are, and how progressive our specific country is.

There's not one answer. The more ridig the answer the more likely holding dogma. 

The US is still very traditional from many aspects. 

Everything in a relationship boils down to the ability to communicate in a creative and constructive way.

As does this.

Without communication there are unsurfaced assumptions and expectations. 

Expectations are resentments in the making.

We can only control ourselves.

All else, if need stay healthy, needs to be based on acceptance within others. If not, it's us pushing ego onto other. 

That doesn't mean we need to accept the opposite. We're free to choose. 

===

Focusing on being one's own financial pillar and manage own spends is a form of freedom, a freedom that can be transcended.

Dependancy is not.

Dependancy holds us back, unless we surrender into it, from where it can be trancended too. 

You can only make this your own choice. It cannot be chosen for others. 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Eph75

[Razard86]

9 hours ago, Max_V said:

@Gianna For sure. Nothing wrong with the occasional treat.

But to have it set up that it is the norm for men to take care of women financially is bad for men and women both. Women get taken less seriously if they do prefer to be independent, and men have to work significantly harder as opposed to women just to have a partner. 

I'm so glad I found someone with the same idea as me. So refreshing. True equality is Men and Women working together. But it seems to me evolutionarily speaking our biological genes have not caught up with modern social conditions.

[Razard86]

5 hours ago, Gianna said:

Yes and they have that issue because they believe in the thought, “I can’t be picky because I can’t even get a single girl.” 

Guys (or girls) will fall into such lack perception that says, “I can’t be picky”, “I can’t get a single girl,” because they fundamentally believe, they can’t get whatever they want (hence lack perception). 
 

They’ll try to prove it to themselves by pointing to their experience but their experience only looks like that because they’ve fallen prey to their own illusion which is the illusion of ‘lack’ in infinity. And so they’ll only see (experience) their own illusion (lack). 
Which is why it’s a self-perpetuating cycle that starts with believing the thought, “I can’t” “shouldn’t” “not possible” (anything lack). 

 

What do you want? Well it doesn’t matter because you’re going to tell yourself you’re too picky to want that, you shouldn’t want that, and so you won’t get it/give it to yourself. 
 

Here’s an example:

Let’s say you want a supermodel girlfriend  that’s also into epistemology.

God would say, “Okay. Here you go!”  
But your ego will distort you, “No. That’s too picky. There’s no super models that are into epistemology. That’s not a thing here on Planet Earth. Don’t let yourself want that because you won’t get it because it’s not possible and then you’ll be disappointed. That kind of girl doesn’t exist.” 
 

And so you spend 4 months doing pickup at a club getting rejected because they’re not the actual girl you really want. The God in you is trying to get you what you really want but you won’t let yourself have it because you don’t believe you can.  So you’re in this rejection cycle that doesn’t have to do with the external reality but the rejection/fight in your internal reality between what you really want and what you think you can get. (Those two things are rejecting each other. And that manifests externally). 
 

You hold yourself back from Creation in your own Dream because you’ve fallen prey to your own illusion of lack (unworthiness, powerlessness, despair). 
 

Once we realize we are God, we will see that this entire conversation we’ve been having about what girls should or shouldn’t get or want, or what men should or shouldn’t do, or not do, and what we should all expect, and get, is ultimately a conversation about self-worth. 
Where is your self-worth? Because that’s what you’ll get. 
And what I am trying to say is that you should have the highest of self-worth and have/get whatever you want because ultimately you’re giving it to yourself. And if you aren’t giving it to yourself you’re either in resistance to your own desires (and thus have issues around self worth) or are having issues around receiving. 
 

We all need to work on our resistance around receiving if we’re having issues getting or believing in getting whatever we want. Because God(yourself) will give you(yourself) (and thus receive) whatever you want. There’s no judgement or discrimination there. 

You are giving and you are receiving. 

So if you’re having issues around giving (desiring big) = self worth issues 

 

If you’re having issues around receiving big= receiving issues. (Which is probably self worth issues as well) It all comes down to self worth. 
 

We have to look at our traumas, emotions (self concept/worth), and thought/belief programs to start rewiring our dream. 

Completely agree with this entire quote. Can't really argue with that. Way to drop the hammer on this entire forum topic. LOL.

[mojsterr]

"Most men take better care of their car than the woman they are in a primary relationship with."

I know this is not the case in your relationship, but it's a good quote.

 

To get to the point. You need containment. You're not getting it from your man. He's not playing his role like a man should and that's why you will never feel cherished - like a woman should. We both have roles that we need to play, it's in our biology. That's why there is a Masculine and a Feminine. They are different.

And if things don't go like they should, the woman starts playing some of the man's role and there becomes an imbalance. He needs to play his so you can play yours.

Teal explains it much better.

 

 

 

Also, for the love of god

18 hours ago, Max_V said:

@AliceK Yes, if I was earning 3 times more, I would temporarily pay for the bills, but only if that came with the promise that the girl would get a job that would allow us to 50/50 it. If she just lived off my money I would leave. 

 

Don't listen to this guy lol

Edited March 28, 2022 by mojsterr

[Max_V]

@mojsterr If you interpret masculine containment as being a money-cow, you are not getting the point. And if that supposedly is the point, I don't want a partner. One person having to work excessively hard just to fit a role is utterly stupid.

 

[Leo Gura]

There is a difference between being a sugar daddy vs a cheap-ass.

This sounds like a clear case of cheapassery.

[How to be wise]

Leo has become a dating coach now.

[Razard86]

22 minutes ago, How to be wise said:

Leo has become a dating coach now.

Lol he always was. You just figured out? Self-Actualizing is a broad category that fits into all aspects of life. He is basically a Reality Coach. Meaning he will go as low conscious or high conscious as he deems fit.

Edited March 29, 2022 by Razard86

[Byun Sean]

In this case I think there is a more meta issue of communication. Ask yourself why you cannot discuss this stuff that your saying on the forum with him?

If it feels awkward or unsafe question that.

 

The more you cannot discuss certain topics with your partner the more you will keep guessing and the further apart you two will be no matter what.

 

You cannot control his money tendencies or how he may react in response but you can control if you communicate with him openly or not.

 

If you don't communicate your mind will likely just keep projecting the worst case scenario onto how he may react which is usually far away from actual reality and then you'll never communicate ever.

 

 

[bejapuskas]

You guys should stop assuming your gender roles. I am not sure if you had discussed this, but if you never bring it up, I dont see why he would be to blame. One year relationship for some people doesnt mean one starts taking care of the other financially, thats not a universal thing. 

Some girls would get angry at a guy paying for them, as it would maybe seem for them like he assumes their responsibilities and roles etc. Some guys get jealous of their female partners who earn more money than them which is annoying and this also adds to the whole mixture.

Discuss this i suggest. What are your assumptions, what are you willing to do, how serious are you about your relationship, what life style do you imagine?

[Dumuzzi]

Dump. Him.

I'm really allergic to gold-diggers, but this is the reverse, nothing worse in a guy than a cheapskate. My sister had a husband like that, she even had to pay her half of the honeymoon expenses. Didn't last long...

[bejapuskas]

@Gianna It is really easy for a cisgender woman who is fine with the gender roles as they are set up to think that relationships work so easily. Saying such universal statements about what NATURAL women (as if that even exists) want sounds a bit transphobic to me and uninclusive. If we wanna get more perspectives on this thread and learn from all of them, we should try to consider more how the things we say influence others.

[Pavement]

I think at early stage of relationship sharing costs is normal… have you had a discussion about the future of your relationship?  
Just tell him how you feel.

But if he’s behaving like a miser and counting every penny, then try and confront him on things.

 If you don’t want to spend much money just tell him ‘hey, I have no income you know, you have more money than me. If you wanna eat at the expensive place then you’ll have to pay..’  

Show that you’re annoyed by his behaviour. 

“tbh I’m sick of you counting every penny we spend it doesn’t make me feel good” and then go from there and see what his response is.  

If married and if there are children involved I think it’s reasonable to expect the man to cover more financial costs - the woman has gone through pregnancy and is staying with the child.  It’s also reasonable since for women they get more tired as they age so it’s harder for them to keep working full time (depending on the job of course),and they become hardened. but men are physically stronger and not as emotional creatures so they can handle it better.