Boyfriend being too cheap

[Raze]

Just now, Lila9 said:

Women are not giving sex but receiving sex. Men are giving sex.

If a woman wouldn't like to receive sex from a man there might be a reason to that. Can be hormones and it can be that he might be selfish in sex and not fun to have sex with.

 

I don’t follow, in sex both people consent, it’s usually the man expected to make the first move so it leans towards the woman giving because he’s asking. But generally it’s a mutual give and take from both sides. 

Anyway that is true, but notice how the same logic isn’t applied in the scenario where a woman isn’t getting investment from a guy, the conclusion is he is selfish and she shouldn’t have to improve his behavior, whereas when the man isn’t getting what he wants the conclusion is he should assume he plays a hand in it and alter his behavior to see if it changes her.

[Princess Arabia]

21 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

That's all I'm saying.

Sometimes it's how we say things that matters. Your words were a bit condescending but your explanation showed more clarity in the point you were trying to make.

 

21 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

The level of entitlement with @Lila9's post is off the charts. Don't you women always say men aren't entitled to sex and whatnot? And I agree. But now watch what happens when the roles are reversed. Just reread @Lila9's post and ask yourself how this would look if that came from a guy talking about sex. Yes some guys here do talk that way, and you don't approve of that either, do you. So how am I the biased one here?

When guys speak about not getting sex here, they are single and are not in a relationships. That's what I'm speaking on when I say they are not entitled. Meaning random women don't owe you sex and neither does any girl you're approaching or even trying to get with. Some of them act as if they are entitled to be having sex just because they exist without putting in the effort or work to make it happen, as if it should just fall on their laps. When I mention that, i'm speaking about men who expect it from women who they are not in relationships with. It's good if it happens without that, but don't complain about the lack of it if you haven't claimed any one as your personal girlfriend or wife. I'm not saying you have to be in a relationship or married, but don't feel entitled to it and complain about the lack of it if you're just looking to just sleep around with random girls. The OP is in a relationship, there's a difference.

 

21 hours ago, Squeekytoy said:

You'd tell them both to figure something out, wouldn't you.

Well, that was my aim in my response to OP. I gave her solutions that might help not tell her to go work it out on her own in a dismissive fashion.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

44 minutes ago, Raze said:

I don’t follow, in sex both people consent, it’s usually the man expected to make the first move so it leans towards the woman giving because he’s asking. But generally it’s a mutual give and take from both sides. 

Anyway that is true, but notice how the same logic isn’t applied in the scenario where a woman isn’t getting investment from a guy, the conclusion is he is selfish and she shouldn’t have to improve his behavior, whereas when the man isn’t getting what he wants the conclusion is he should assume he plays a hand in it and alter his behavior to see if it changes her.

You are missing the point. What she means is in the act itself. The act of sex is giving and receiving. Giving and receiving happens simultaneously but in the male/female sexual act, the woman is receiving and the male giving. The female is also giving and the man is also receiving but in a different way. The exchange then becomes more on an emotional level, while the normal sex act in itself is more on a physical level. Please try leave logic behind when it comes to these topics as it very rarely applies to emotional issues as sex can be. This has nothing to do with your logical explanation on investment from a guy. That's a whole different topic in this case.

Edited January 5, 2024 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

1 hour ago, Lila9 said:

I apologize to Barbella if I came off as insensitive, my intention was to wake her up to her value and encourage her to put herself first

No, not at all. It didn't sound insensitive to me; more like on a "tough love" level. I can't really go there too harsh on this topic because it will be too harsh because of how I view this issue and I'm aware of how sometimes I can get carried away on emotional issues that becomes personal to me.

How about this "you frigging bastards, how dare you treat the woman in your life this way. The woman who could potentially bear your children who will get your last name and carry on your imaginary legacy that you so think is you. The only thing you got that anyone could remember you by, not your egotistical accomplishments that could possibly burn up in a fire or a frigging tsunami. If you think a friggin' chocolate bar can supplement the love I can show you that you do obviously crave if you're holding unto a dusty piece of heavy-metal laced tooth-rotting piece of brown filth........need I go on.lol

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by Princess Arabia

[Yimpa]

This is what a healthy relationship looks like:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/7-health-benefits-dark-chocolate

Edited January 5, 2024 by Yimpa

[Starlight321]

@Leo Gurawe are still waiting for your conscious communication episode

[Yimpa]

24 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

How about this "you frigging bastards, how dare you treat the woman in your life this way. The woman who could potentially bear your children who will get your last name and carry on your imaginary legacy that you so think is you. The only thing you got that anyone could remember you by, not your egotistical accomplishments that could possibly burn up in a fire or a frigging tsunami. If you think a friggin' chocolate bar can supplement the love I can show you that you do obviously crave if you're holding unto a dusty piece of heavy-metal laced tooth-rotting piece of brown filth........need I go on.lol

Let’s not forget this episode:

 

[Princess Arabia]

37 minutes ago, Lila9 said:

😂😂😂

That's brilliant.

 

I'm sure these guys won't think so. I'll probably secretly get a few haters after that rant, if I haven't already.

[Princess Arabia]

31 minutes ago, Starlight321 said:

@Leo Gurawe are still waiting for your conscious communication episode

He has already, SILENCE. He's indirectly communicating it by example.😇

Edited January 5, 2024 by Princess Arabia

[Princess Arabia]

I'll never look at a chocolate bar the same again after reading this post. Hehe

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, Princess Arabia said:

Throwing chocolate at somebody is not violence. Wouldn't stand up in court and that's a bit extreme. 

Chocolately violence.

[Yimpa]

On 1/3/2024 at 9:37 AM, Leo Gura said:

If he can see this, he will start to change.

Change is not just about money coins, it’s also about coining wiser ways to relate to loved ones.

Quote

Something a man should aspire to is to become so abundant in resources that he never again has to worry about sharing them freely with loved ones.

Just like your work with Actualized.org 

 

[Princess Arabia]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Chocolately violence.

Lawyer: Your honor, my client is very distraught because his gf threw chocolate in his face.

Judge: 10yrs for the defendant for disrupting my courtroom with this nonsense, and $4 fine for the plaintiff for wasting food.

[Girzo]

@Sincerity You Polish? Always have thought of you as American, don't know why. My best friend is so hella cheap, it took him 4 years to scrape a wall rug with big stain and the coffers (kasetony) from the ceiling and then repaint it all after moving into a PRL-furnished flat. Always wondered how that doesn't bother his girlfriend, turns out they are both hell cheap IT guys.

[eos_nyxia]

6 hours ago, Sincerity said:

From what Barbella said, the situation was that he kept the better chocolate for himself and only let her have the cheaper one

Among the many details and subtexts that I picked up on, I think this one here is the real kicker. I'm childfree, but everything about this on a gut level screams do not DO NOT have children with this person. There is no reason to assume that someone like this would treat his kids any better than his gf. Be prepared to pick up in a very unequal for everything, including in non-monetary ways.

What evidence is there that he's particularly generous with the quality of his time, attention, and affection in other ways? Every little thing that he does for you seems like a big deal, like "tit for tat", and if you treat your relationships transactionally, a transactional quality relationship is what you're gonna get. You reap what you sow.

Either that, or you'll get a woman who is either very inexperienced or has low self-esteem for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of people are counting on this, that you'll just take whatever you can get, which is whatever you think you deserve.

 

Edited January 6, 2024 by eos_nyxia
EDIT: not during the courtship phase of the relationship, missed that detail.

[eos_nyxia]

So there's a few other details:

1) being happy enough to scrum off you when it comes to going to more expensive places and for various expenses, even though he was making money and you were a student. If he was just against consumption and money wastage in general, he wouldn't be pro-taking your money when you could just save it and both not go out. He would be thinking of "us" or "you" and not just "him".

Splitting 50/50 is just a reasonable starting point for modern dating. It might not even be his preference. Maybe he'd just prefer that you pay for everything.

On 2024-01-03 at 3:30 AM, Barbella said:

We rarely ever go out as we're both introverts and prefer to have dates at home, but I can still see his cheapness in some situations. For example when I was at his house, I saw he has some chocolate and I asked him if I can have it, and he told me no because it's too expensive and that I can have cheaper one. I was honestly so hurt by that. (chocolate is like 4$)

This isn't cute.

Say that I don't have much money for gifts myself. Why would I be generous in other ways, like making homecooked meals from scratch, learning anything and everything about a person's preferences and desires and interests (including with physical affection and sexual touch) just to be treated in this way.

(Only exception I can think of is that you have some sort of explicitly agreed upon mutual cheapness of time/ energy/ money, or some sort of casual/part-time relationship.)

Quote

and that he hasn't got me anything in a while except those pancakes one time (he thinks he did a nice thing and he sees no problem with sharing one dessert)

This is a good example of a "tit-for-tat" mentality.
 

Edited January 6, 2024 by eos_nyxia

[eos_nyxia]

Quote

Or we rarely go to the cinema (like twice a year) and when we decided to go one time he told me ''I'll buy us some snacks at the supermarket and you get the tickets''.

Personally, I think this is acceptable as "thriftiness" rather than "cheapness" (the latter being a generosity issue). I grew up with thrifty parents, and it's something I'm more likely to suggest rather than my husband, lol. Not a big deal.

Quote

I'd say this behavior is mostly seen when it comes to giving and money, however sometimes I also wish he acted more like a gentleman in other situations. For example he criticizes me that I don't know how to carry my skis (he wouldn't think of helping me), or one time we were at the gym together and I was putting some heavy weights on a barbell, and he asked me if I needed help and I said no, and one guy heard our conversation and came up to me and helped me without saying anything. 

Here is another issue.

1. If he's not going to help you, is he at least going to explain how to do something "properly" in a non-condescending way? (Probably not, if he was going out of your way to criticize you for something which I assume has no real net-negative.) So then... he's just a critical person because he is. Is this good enough for you?
2. Clearly, you can see that all dudes are this non-generous. Even if it's just helping some random woman with no likely direct benefit. Hell, I open the door for random people all the time. Men, elders, children, etc.

Quote

I don't know what to do as I really love him and think he's a great guy, but when I think of a future with him it scares me. 

Just curious, what are his best points, from your perspective?

Edited January 6, 2024 by eos_nyxia

[Sincerity]

12 hours ago, Girzo said:

@Sincerity You Polish?

Yup 

12 hours ago, Girzo said:

My best friend is so hella cheap, it took him 4 years to scrape a wall rug with big stain and the coffers (kasetony) from the ceiling and then repaint it all after moving into a PRL-furnished flat. Always wondered how that doesn't bother his girlfriend, turns out they are both hell cheap IT guys.

Hahahaha 

My parents will always go on bragging about how cheap they bought some shoes or pants from a thrift shop, and always mention how nonsensical it is to buy things from company stores. They have these rules for themselves that they won't spend more than 100zł (~$25) on pants for example. Both have a fair share of trauma around money (even though they're not poor of course) and I know I have some too.

[Sincerity]

11 hours ago, eos_nyxia said:

Personally, I think this is acceptable as "thriftiness" rather than "cheapness" (the latter being a generosity issue). I grew up with thrifty parents, and it's something I'm more likely to suggest rather than my husband, lol. Not a big deal.

Interesting distinction! I'd say thriftiness would be a subset of cheapness.

[AndylizedAAY]

On 05/01/2024 at 3:14 AM, Leo Gura said:

You are strawmanning her situaiton.

@Leo Gura

Yeah I wanted to see how much of a jerk this person is from Squeekytoy's profile based on what he says in which his sense of humor isn't funny. You even told him that he is a jerk and that he strawmans people. I could be overreacting based on what he said to me but it has to do with you and your work and that I wasn't talking to him therefore I don't think I was overeating especially since he had a 3 day ban. I've already reported the post he sent to me in a different conversation so I don't think that a link is necessary, I'm pretty sure I already notified you using your name. I just wanted you to be the one to get people engaged in that conversation about the development of the book you plan to create and answering my questions that I think are meaningful to the conversation. 

Edited January 6, 2024 by AndylizedAAY
My commentary on Squeekytoy and the conversation I wanted to have with you and others.