Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hello Project, I need to vent myself and maybe even of an advice. At the moment I'm a bit out of my mind because I broke up with my partner (life partner) and I don’t know what to do, we had, fortunately only rented, a shared apartment but the contract is registered only under my name. At the beginning we paid it dividing the expenses, but now I'll have to pay for it only of my own, and then the world has fallen on me, but I cannot stay with him anymore. We have not broken for problems of betrayals or for various jealousies but for money matters, you understand, Project, just money. 
I am 34 years old, he one less, we both work, he earns more than me, not much more than me, but more than me. Our families have never sailed in gold, neither his family nor mine. As a kid I was used to not throwing money and I know how much effort it takes to earn it. We live together in the same apartment for years, we share the expenses, I try to save money because I don’t want to find myself bad and even worse to ask my parents for money, for him instead to ask for money is not a problem, but has become a habit, but I don’t mean asking for money to do something concrete, like furnishing the kitchen, but to throw them away in the most incredible ways. For the last Christmas I had made some savings “with a maximum effort” and I had put aside 500 euros to make him a gift, since he is always chasing money. 

I gave him the 500 euros, he came out and spent all of them in less than an hour, he bought two shirts of 100 euros each and 300 euros of books, which of course are still in the bookshop package. I was very upset, then he went to ask his parents for money for Christmas. Recently "for two months in a row" he spent all his salary in 15 days and then came to me because he didn’t even have the money for the bus. Frankly, I cannot stand anymore such a situation. We have filled home with absurd things, bronze samovars, books written in who knows which language and expensive furnishings that are completely out of context. When I tried to reason with him about these things he remained very upset, he looked like a beaten dog but then he didn’t change attitude and at the first opportunity he was ready to throw away all his salary from the window. I really loved this guy and I tried for years to underestimate his ways of doing but sometimes I just cannot stand it anymore.
Last year we took a new car, I would have taken the cheaper basic model, not him, because a bigger engine has more recovery, because with the alloy wheels security is greater, etc. etc. and we ended up increasing the price by almost 30% adding options that are absolutely useless. Last week he began to say that the house is small and that he would rent a bigger apartment and it made me nervous: but who gives us the money to pay for a bigger house? He began to talk about asking for a loan but he said it "seriously", therefor I began "seriously" to worry and to think that in his brain certain mechanisms are jammed and that maybe he just tries to keep his feet on the ground without succeeding.
I tell you, I just felt moments of panic, I said to myself: how can I go on with a guy like this? It's better that I go my way because with him a real dialogue is not possible, just he doesn’t realize, I sent him back to his parents and I told him that I wanted to be alone "for a while", he then called me on the phone with the usual abandoned dog air and this has aroused in me a tide of scruples and I don’t know what to do, I would like to be with an adult who is able to control himself but he is not so, is a very good guy but in some things he doesn’t have a minimum of self-control, it's like a child who doesn’t understand the value of money.
What should I do Project? Have I to pretend nothing at least in words this time and then always pretend nothing? I love him but the idea of getting back together doesn’t excite me, it would still be a compromise choice. I could even pretend that it’s nothing, hoping that something will change but I already know that nothing would change. What do I have to do?
konigdernacht answers:

I can only laugh, rather than cry bitterly, reading this post! The situation is very particular and focuses on some issues of a couple's relationship:

1) home economy;
2) respect for money;
3) respect for the partner;
4) respect for the parents (of the partner of the writer).

That said, I would have two dispassionate advices:
a) if the two really love each other and if this money story is the only stain in the relationship, the two could continue to live together and the guy with his feet on the ground could register expenses and make the partner understand one of the basic principles of the home economy, namely that if TOT enters and TOT is spent, there is a budget balance; if TOT enters, and 2 TOT is spent, a debt accumulates; if 2 TOT enters, and TOT is spent, there is gain! It is certainly not high finance! Obviously, this registration serves to educate the partner and, once educated (in a short time hopefully), it should end up because registering all expenses is not really nice!
b) if the two love each other but the situation is truly unsustainable - I imagine that the guy with his feet on the ground has not a few anxieties and tachycardia about this absolutely unnerving situation - the road to follow can only be one: leave, remaining just friends, but following everyone his own road! On the other hand, one considers himself as a life partner, not as a nanny.
A wish you true happiness, dear writer.
Alyosha answers:

In my opinion the money has little to do with all the story or better the money management has in some way just something to do with the management of feelings. In southern matriarchal families it is quite usual that it’s the woman who collects the money of all the family members and then decides how to spend them. Unfortunately I realize that certain automatisms, right or wrong they are, in a gay couple don’t exist, because the roles are not so obvious, among other things I cannot even say if it is bad in itself. The point is that those who control the money that a person can spend control the movements of that person, affect their way of thinking and reasoning. And in a gay couple there are two different ways of doing, well beyond the mere problem of money. Right or wrong, his positions and his attitudes towards the world are radically different from yours, dear thrifty.
He lives more for today and with less thoughts on his mind. I state that about cohabitation I don’t understand anything, but in short, his money is only his and yours is only yours. Once you have split your expenses in half with his money, he can do whatever he wants, if he then asks you for money after having spent everything, don’t give him it. So I don’t understand why you should keep his money. If then when he has finished his money he asks his parents, it's not your problem. His relationship with his money is not your business, he manages it as he wants. In short, behind this money business, I see more an attempt to influence his way of thinking, doing and behaving, and I also see a certain frustration and a sense of betrayal that you feel if he doesn’t do what you think should be done.
Save money, be moderate in spending etc. etc. they are not values in themselves, they are not right in themselves, I mean, but they are right only for you. In short, it isn’t said at all that despite the fact that you and your boyfriend are two different persons you aren't able to stay together, but my dear writer, you should give up your attempt to change him and you shouldn't even let him change you. In short, I repeat, divide the expenses as you were two simple roommates and when he is in trouble don’t help him. Sooner or later he will get rid of his bad habit if he realizes that when he needs money he has to earn it by himself. But if there is more, in short ... you will reason on your own, I feel seriously too little expert to give advice on such long stories ...
Gianni replies:

Sorry if I intrude in the discussion, I read carefully the first post and the answers of Konig and Alyosha, given that it is not only a problem of gay couples, even heterosexual couples face financial obstacles day by day in order to move forward, there can be discussions, clarification of ideas, none of us is perfect, Someone can buy too many books, CDs, shoes, shirts, home furnishings for the bedroom or kitchen, whatever you want, but, and I say it with full knowledge of the facts, if you decide to be a couple, you do it after you know thoroughly the mate, because it is not possible, after attending each other for a long time, to discover things that were not seen before or you did not want to see, it is too easy to create a couple and then destroy it for reasons that can be overcome with a serious and responsible speech. When you are more than 30 years old, you should already know how expensive life is (in every sense). If the financial problem is an excuse to want to download the partner, then it is another matter ...
pavloss replies:

I am very perplexed. I don't think that the guy who writes wants to "download" his partner for reasons of money, I think, rather, that he loves him and fells very upset in front of the irresponsible behavior of the one close to him. The fact is that the problem he throws on the carpet is true and undoubtedly goes beyond money. When a person takes into account that he doesn’t exist only for himself but for another one with which he makes a family, all the possible problems, even if they may appear very difficult to overcome, are considerably dampened. The ability to adapt as a couple must not come from one side only. If it comes from only one part, sooner or later the equilibrium is lost and a "no return" process starts, as seems to be the case described by this guy. I have the impression that the spendthrift guy is rather closed in himself, willing to see only his reasons, is quite spoiled (asking frequently one's parents or family for money when you have a job and earn money it is not decent in my opinion!). If he is willing to get out of this vicious circle he can very well recover the couple relationship with his partner, otherwise he will compromise it forever (and it seems very real, this) but he will also lose his true balance in relation to life. 

The man who sees his partner unbalance this way, rightly dreads because he also feels himself dragged into a paradoxical situation that he would never want. I would simply put him in front of an aut-aut: "Either you change or I go my way". In fact, what kind of "love" is what forces the other to humiliation and indigence for a total inability to have a relationship with money? Here on the part of the spendthrift there is a hermetic closure on himself that is to absolutely avoid, if you want to live as a couple. Otherwise it is better that everyone stays on his own. I met a similar case in the heterosexual world. An uncle of a friend of mine, long ago, married a woman who wanted luxury and forced him to do crazy shopping, far beyond his financial capacity. At one point, the indebted man saw that his life partner was never happy: obtained 100 she wanted 1000, obtained 1000 she wanted 10,000 and so on. They ended up divorcing and, by law, because they had a son, he had to help her keep the son. The son, became an adult, for years went to his father asking for money, saying "Dad I’m used to living in luxury, I cannot do without it". Meanwhile, his father entered an acute depressive crisis of which his ex-wife and son were responsible. Recently he committed suicide. This shows how a deranged relationship can also lead to extreme situations.
konigdernacht answers:

pavloss wrote: “I don't think that the guy who writes wants to "download" his partner for reasons of money, I think, rather, that he loves him and fells very upset in front of the irresponsible behavior of the one close to him. ... When a person takes into account that he doesn’t exist only for himself but for another one with which he makes a family, all the possible problems, even if they may appear very difficult to overcome, are considerably dampened. ... what kind of "love" is what forces the other to humiliation and indigence for a total inability to have a relationship with money?”

I absolutely agree with you, pavloss: the two are a couple, a family, so the debts of one are also debts of the other, and this in my opinion escapes the reading of Alyosha, which sees the two as entities absolutely detached, each extension of himself. Not to mention that as long as there are parents of the spendthrift, all is well. Once disappeared, where does he go to ask for cash? He would end up charging himself and the couple of debts, creating many problems! If then there are assets to be seized for breaches or lack of finances by the spendthrift (and maybe pulling out parents), since the two reside in the same place, the creditors will go into the couple's house and take furniture and whatever belongs to THEM, not only to the spendthrift but to the couple!
project answers:

Pavlos and Konig say things that I also feel mine. I state that soon (as far as possible) I would like to organize a themed evening in chat entitled "what does it mean to have a guy" because I think that the concept of couple is still seen in a very vague, while, in the couples who go on, there are inevitably shared economic balances and shared responsibilities that guarantee the stability. Indeed, Gianni is right when he says that before creating couple you should know your partner very, very well, to evaluate not only the reliability in terms of emotional stability and fidelity of the couple, but also in terms of respecting the commitments undertaken and also of objectively adult behavior. In gay couples there are no legal obligations and there are no children and the couple, if it goes on, it’s only for its internal cohesion, such a couple certainly has emotional and sexual components and whatever you want, but also depends on the reliability of each of the partners. 

I will only give you an example. How do you see a couple in which one of them is systematically one hour late for appointments and never warns if he doesn’t come back or if he's late, etc. etc.? You can tell me that such thing are trivial but basically they are forms of disrespect and disaffection. A couple is a small company that has its own resilience and resistance, but has also its limits. Without reaching the extremes of which pavloss speaks, for a guy, seeing in the partner an irresponsible behavior, that despite the work doesn’t make him economically autonomous, it is really worrying, and seeing that  speeches are useless and that the partner thinks of everything but the couple and his mate, is truly discouraging. If an older guy behaves like a kid it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that he's immature, and feeling in couple with an immature guy is frankly depressing.
Editor replies:

Alyosha wrote: “I state that about cohabitation I don’t understand anything, but in short, his money is only his and yours is only yours.”
Well, living as a couple, being a couple, doesn’t mean being 1 + 1, that is, two small singularities, but exactly a couple, a family in short, in which you have to keep under control your defects for the good of the whole family.
Barbara answers:

When a couple is together for so many years, money management becomes an important issue. Money establishes lifestyle, values, priorities, even serenity, as the story of this guy demonstrates. The use of money tells us a lot about what we are. Now it is obvious that this story is anyway a point of view, but there are objective data that make us reflect. The excesses create real problems. Living with a person who borders on compulsive shopping or, at the opposite end, with a person with an unexpected stinginess is a fatigue that can be intolerable. In the first case you can get involved in debts that your partner is likely to contract, because cohabiting with another guy, it is difficult, as Alyosha would like, to stay out of the consequences. In the second case, referring for example to heterosexual couples, one also comes to speak of economic maltreatment when one of the two partners limits the other in expenses that are actually necessary. We should find a meeting point. But in some cases it is not easy to reach it, because the use of money refers to significant meanings and life choices. 

Could the author of the email renounce the serenity and dignity that derive from the savings? Perhaps in the same way the partner cannot give up many objects, which represent something fundamental for him. There are people who don’t go out if they do not wear a signed garment: this is a sad reality, but anyway very real. What are objects for many people? They are something that defines them, which guarantee them a status, which increase their self-esteem. I think this guy has tried to change things and that his putting himself apart can also be, from his point of view, an extreme attempt to make the person he loves sober.
Alyosha replies:

Thanks for the underlining, Editor. I hope that things are better for you, What have I to tell you? Next time you will tell us how your relationship is working, at least I was honest. The life of a couple is something that for me doesn’t exist at the moment, I would like it, as all of us, I think, but I don’t crucify myself for the fact that there is not and I try not to think about it! I can only say what I think in the abstract, because something I think (don’t worry, I have this flaw and many others) and for fairness I have to premise that they are only ideas and not real experiences. Inheriting the heterosexual model in my opinion it’s a mistake, being in two but not sharing the management of children is not a detail.
The heterosexual family remains focused on offspring, the gay one definitely not. Sharing spaces, times, emotions, ways of reasoning is one thing, merging one into the other, "complementing" is  another one. Among other things, it is not said that heterosexual couples working like this, go well. The idea that everyone should have his own things, however, seems fundamental to me, this is the premise for every possible sharing. If the division of goods is already done in heterosexual couples, I don’t see why the idea that everyone manages his money as he wants, once the common expenses are covered, cannot be a solution. I repeat there are no children to grow and this is not a detail. It doesn’t just mean not having the responsibility of a third party in the couple, but also have no one to whom we can leave our savings, so the fundamental question is: what do you keep making money for?
I'm not saying that spending everything is a right lifestyle, but I don’t think it's that wrong either. Not having children as a common project, requires a shared project of another nature, that is to have an idea of a solid common future. I repeat, in my opinion, it is not bad either, the children cover too many times the total absence of common background visions, so I repeat: the fact that many hetero couples simply go on like this, doesn’t mean that they go well. If a "filìa" is missing, first of all in the sense of thread that connects, even before that in the sense of bond and love, if a son is missing who could be somehow like a thread, as I see it, a gay couple in the long run does not have many possibilities, but I can be wrong, I have premised on purpose not to have great experiences in this regard. If, as usual, here there were no basic preconceptions, to push to stigmatize the "spendthrifts", we would immediately realize that the reasoning also works in reverse.
In short, everyone for what I read, would like to pull in his direction and this is not possible, the thread if too much pulled, breaks. The problem I see is definitely another: this guy is spoiled. When the money ends he asks his parents or his boyfriend, here is the mistake in my opinion. Everyone is free to do what he wants, but he must assume responsibility for his decisions. If every time he's in trouble someone will help him, this guy will never grow up. Hence the advice not to help him, the ideal would be that not even the family would help him, but on that you cannot do much. But on one thing I would like to be frank, if people are continually treated as irresponsible, there is nothing to complain if they become really irresponsible.
And the idea that my boyfriend has to deal with my money, would make me irresponsible and would be in essence the exact equivalent of what my parents do when they give me the money. If this is the situation I can only share the choice made by the guy who wrote, that is let him go, I simply didn’t want to reduce him to an economic issue. I read Barbara's comment now and it's what I mean: on the surface we see the management of money, underneath there's a world. In Italy there is not even the recognition of gay couples, if a guy asks for a loan for a house he puts it on his paycheck crying alone the legal consequences if any. One could very well find an agreement whereby the other pays half of the mortgage payments exactly as he now pays half of the rent. I know that if the differences in the vision of things are too many, you cannot continue to be together and that's exactly what I'm trying to say. 

But if I had to make the decision to leave my partner it would not be only for an economic question because, sorry if I repeat all the time, under the economic issues there are other things, perhaps more important. Everything we do in modern society needs money and if someone claims to come to manage for me the money that I make on my own, in reality he claims to manage my person, I just wanted to emphasize this. Having said that, I remove the trouble, I leave the field to the experts of the couple. Experts not in a polemical sense, but in the sense of having had experiences, which I personally don’t think I have. Forgive me Editor if I allow myself, but the sum has been taught to me in primary school, the next time tell me something that I don’t know already. Good continuation.
Barbara answers: 

It is very interesting what you say about the fact that it is not said that gay couples should follow the same rules as the other couples. He reminded me that there are also heterosexual couples in whom the use of money is separate. It would be interesting to understand which solution is better. In a heterosexual couple, a good percentage of women contribute by working at home, but it is true that many women feel a discomfort in feeling "maintained" by their husbands. The fact remains that it is difficult, especially in a "lean time" like this, to apply the rule of separation of money, if for example one of the two loses the job. Here the situation is different. The guy's companion makes consciously (I don’t know how much ...) choices that go beyond his own economic possibilities. And rightly, as Alyosha points out, to see that your partner puts you regularly in front of the fait accompli, assuming that you have to cover his budget holes, asks you a few questions about the relationship: does this partner respect me? Do he respect my freedom, my values, my efforts? Does this partner want an equal relationship or does he want to turn me into an acquiescent parent? a relationship like this corresponds to my needs?
Alyosha replies:

Barbara wrote: Does this companion want an equal relationship or does he want to turn me into an acquiescent parent? I thought exactly this. In reality I dared even more in my reasoning, because I fear that the person who wrote the post can take slowly the role of parent but he has probably in mind a different parenting. When a relationship begins behind each of the two partners there is always the fabric of our fundamental relationships. In my opinion it would be decisive if, in the meantime, the guy who wrote would took off this role of a quasi-parent. One partner evidently gives it to the other and the other takes it. Surely from this point of view to loosen a little bit the stress it can useful to entrust each one his own money once the common expenses have been covered. 

As usual I can be wrong, but that: "I sent him back to his parents" a little made me think of the idea of a package to send back to the sender and helped me to reinforce the idea that this guy is considered not only an irresponsible, but almost like an inert object to displace from one place to another. Even the idea of maneuvering his money for him is very reminiscent of the idea of moving it, as if it were inanimate. Behind the reactions of the parsimonious guy there is also the attitude for which his ideas are all right and the other is a kid. What's absurd about wanting a mortgage to buy a more beautiful home? Ok, maybe materially it will not be feasible, but it's not an absurd thought. And what's absurd about the idea of wanting a car with a big displacement? So you understand that the type that writes is not fascinated by cars, unlike his partner. Why are the more relaxed behaviors all considered weird? And in spending all the money on the books? What's there really wrong?!?!?! 

They are not "strange" ideas as they are represented, but only other visions of the world. As I see it, one can and must seek agreement, but only if the other is placed at our same level (and therefore is not helped when he makes mistakes, in the sense that has emerged) and if his vision of the world, however different from ours it may be, has in our eyes equal dignity compared to ours. If there is not this condition of substantial parity, but one is more "high" for some reason than the other, higher up with his moral code, with his judging gaze, no agreements are possible, because agreement by definition presupposes that we are all on the same level. If there is a difference in the relationship, there are more or less peaceful forms of bargaining on things to do, but it still remains the idea that one of the two guys has the responsibility to do for both while the other should simply take in loan in his behaving  the code of values of the first. 

There remain only different forms of control over people, however frustrating for those who exercise this control, because given the situation described, it seems clear to me that the other doesn’t prove a performer so reliable of the will of the first (even if the first keeps saying that his mate understood the lesson). It is also clear that the parents of the spendthrift still retain a power, which they will exploit if necessary. For parents, treating a guy as a capricious child who must be satisfied is a sure way to keep him connected to them and not make him develop mature relationships and according to what I read in the conclusions it is a method that works great! However, the division of expenses I thought of it as an initial phase, I repeat, as I see it, letting both partners have their spaces of autonomy is the indispensable step for every possible sharing. Slowly, as agreements on things are found, the number of expenses faced together would grow in a spontaneous and progressive way. But it is only a hypothesis, I cannot say how much in fact it can be concretized.
konigdernacht answers:

You, Alyosha, wrote: “As usual I can be wrong, but that: "I sent him back to his parents" a little made me think of the idea of a package to send back to the sender and helped me to reinforce the idea that this guy is considered not only an irresponsible, but almost like an inert object to displace from one place to another.” Come on, Alyosha, we are not doing the exegesis of a passage by an author, the writer has simply used an ironic hyperbole to say that his prodigal boyfriend went back home to his parents, or that he asked him to come home to his parents for the moment. About the fact that his boyfriend is an irresponsible, I don’t think there is any doubt at all: it is absolutely evident! But you also say:

“And what's absurd about the idea of wanting a car with a big displacement? So you understand that the type that writes is not fascinated by cars, unlike his partner. Why are the more relaxed behaviors all considered weird? And in spending all the money on the books? What's really wrong?!?!?!” There's really nothing wrong ... in the fantasy world or if you're a “maintained”. We can reason clearly in the abstract, but in my opinion a fact that often escapes your discussion is that of practicality: that is, one can spend all his money in books, ok! But then what do you eat? The pages of the book? How do you pay your bills? Certainly not with the sheets of the book! So if one cannot distinguish his primary needs (eat and pay bills first), from secondary and unnecessary (if you buy a utility car instead of a big car, it's always a car that you buy), he should really do an accelerated course of life!
FreedomTower answers:

I quote pavloss: "Either you change or I go my way", the effort must be of both of them not of just one, otherwise the relationship  becomes a repressing one’s own frustration, there are things that are only discovered during cohabitation and it is precisely for this that the cohabitation in a relationship is the litmus test, because one experiences being together and living side by side day by day and one can  see all the moods and attitudes of the partner throughout the day every day. Returning to the beginning of my post, I think you have to give him an ultimatum, after all it’s for years that you tolerate this continuous wasting money, if he really loves you, he will try to change, in the end, you're not asking him to limit himself in who knows what but just to save something because even if it's not your money it's also for his good that he has to change, because even if he doesn’t ask you for money, he will continue to ask his parents (who spoil him so, even if I don’t know anything about the situation) and also to ask friends, maybe untrustworthy and dishonest friends ... 
Alyosha responds:

My speech wanted to go somewhere else, what to tell you? Keep on thinking it's just a matter of money and practicality, for what I gain from it, I don’t care at all. A minimum effort to go a little bit beyond the surface of things could be done sometimes, maybe it’s useful or maybe it's perfectly useless. My text is not an exegesis, but the impression I received from the complex of things I read. And I repeat, I have very much the idea that behind the claim to manage the money of the other there is a desire to condition his movements. The idea of sending him back like a parcel post confirms the impression I had of it. In a country submerged in debt I would not be surprised if someone bought a car in debt with a safe income. It is the other who sees his boyfriend's ideas as weird and doesn't give him any basic legitimacy, that instead they should recognize each other! 

Now I stop in fact, not being able to interact with the direct interested, this discussion seems to me basically a school case, because all the arguments and all the possibilities are in principle possible. In general, however, if it should make sense to ask for advice, it is good to help to reflect on what one is doing, not just to say that it is right or wrong. Right and wrong, in my opinion, don’t even exist, therefore it sounds very strange to argue that in a relationship one of the partners is completely right and the other is completely wrong, I couldn’t even conceive a similar thing.
salvettino answers:

Hello everyone, I joined recently and I find it very interesting an exchange of views, such as the one allowed by this blog. Meanwhile, I would like to respond to this message, I have to premise that I’m 28 years old and I too, years ago, had a story that came to an end because of the money that my boyfriend was continuing spending. I point out that I bought a house while he has a flat in his mother's cottage. I paid and still pay a mortgage, while the rest of the expenses we would have to theoretically divide. But it was never like that, because I saw that he was always without money already in the middle of the month and then he asked me for money on loan, so what would I have had to do? In addition to my first job, every night I went to work in a take away pizzeria to earn only a few pennies. When I had a little bigger expenses, I could never count on him because he never had any money. 

So, do you still say that money has nothing to do with it? In my opinion, money certainly have something to do with the end of my relationship: why did I have to go and do a second job in order to be financially quiet and he, instead, was at home playing in front of the PC? He was missing money more than me. Perhaps the fault was only mine because at first I didn’t remark the thing, but unfortunately, when you persevere, you end up with an inevitable rupture of the relationship. I cannot say that I still don’t like him very much, but going back and put me together with him another time together would be useless. In fact, now I'm only working based only on my first job, if I had to change my mind about restoring the relationship, maybe I would ruin my existence, I would be condemned to a second job forever to maintain him. But who makes me do it? And furthermore, I also ask you: who makes you do it? At some point in life, people is no more able to change, if they have been accustomed since children in a certain way, they will always remain the same. At 40, we cannot change anymore.
redelmondo answers:

I report my experience: I started working a few months after we met, he started working roughly 5 years later. I immediately opened an account in my name. After some time we decided to open a joint account and I gave him an ATM and a credit card. It was normal for me that he could use all the money we had if he needed it, and I didn’t go to check expenses. I didn’t "lend" him money. I usually lend money but just for work in the bank but but I gave money to my love only in custody and administration. Now we both contribute to our finances, we have the same attitude with respect to money. An attitude antithetical to that of my mother, who burns whole her money (it is she who pays practically all the household expenses - the two of us contribute just to maintenance) but she throws away from the window thousands of euros a year in stupid things. 

Now I remember my poor father crying, while he was dealing with bank statements, now I'm an adult and I understand him, seeing how upsetting me is that my mother is unable to keep money when she has some in her hand. My love and I are really afraid to find the house mortgaged because my mother had to buy a new handbag or a  woman dress. if you have not understood yet, I live with my love and my mother happily under one roof. In the case of the guy with a boyfriend prodigal, on my opinion he should make the matter very clear. since the recklessness of his boyfriend's expenses is very difficult for him to bear, he should impose an ultimatum: fixed a sum of tolerable monthly expenditure, he should make his friend to allow him  save the rest, to put it on a savings account, in a glass jar above the fridge, under to the mattress, or wherever you like. 

The boyfriend is not able to manage himself, so he has to be managed if he doesn’t want to be single again. Now if this is an impassable wall, not wanting to accept the condition can become the yardstick of the love tried, not so much for the money itself, but for the lack of capacity for sacrifice. Sometimes he seems to behave like would a child. I notice that in gay couples one of the two partners behaves often like to a capricious child, so it is right to pose as a kindergarten teacher. No kidding. As for the money that he is given away by his parents, nothing wrong, let's see it as an anticipation of inheritance
Telemachus replies: 

Interesting this thread, I had escaped it. I wonder if the guy of the email has tested the hypothesis that his boyfriend may have some pathological type of obsessive-compulsive disorder, which causes him to arise the urge to buy large quantities of things even perfectly useless or even completely outside of his economic scope. And in fact there are also "accumulators", i.e. people who feel the need to fill the house of the most unimaginable and disproportionate amount of junk (whether expensive or not). When the gap starts to become so excessive, unfortunately, saying simply that "he’s a flawed person" may no longer be able to explain the situation. After all, by analogy, a compulsive addiction disorder, perhaps more disastrous but not dissimilar, is that of gamblers, who fail to realize what they are doing and are unable to stop.
Alyosha answers: 

Telemachus, in fact the pathology exists, the "shopping addiction", more widespread among women, and difficult to identify among men, for a whole series of social conventions to which you refer. Buying a car with a disproportionate cost, as well as spending dizzying amounts to cultivate a hobby is something that has a certain social recognition and above all it’s not normally considered "shopping". A friend of mine studied such problems for the thesis. In general, the nomenclature has never impressed me much, but it is only my personal point of view.
salvettino answers:

Hello, now I have solved the problem convincing me that I will stay alone, without a boyfriend. In fact, I stay with the payments for the car I bought thanks to a loan in my name and I'm still paying. I am waiting in vain for the slow return of the sums I have lent him. Especially now that he's jobless I don’t even know what I have to do. Here's what it means to trust. I think my eyes were just closed to persuade me to do something like that. Mah!
Lokiluk answers: 

I find myself in the same situation as the writer ... but with the opposite role. I'm a little younger than my partner and I like going out with friends, I like beautiful things ... My partner is very thrifty, he has defined an annual budget within which the expenses of our couple must be limited. I recognize that being told that we cannot afford the restaurant or the cinema every weekend is frustrating and that feeling we are not rich is very unnerving (I know, I have no absurd claims, sometimes just a few "I'd like", but never a "I must have It"). But I also know that he is right. At first I was offended by his reproaches. Then I realized that being part of a couple, I didn’t have to think about myself, but about us. My partner, it must be said, is not an inveterate prohibitionist, a fervent supporter of Zwinglian rigorism. He also likes to spend money sometimes. But when money is scarce and work is uncertain, I admit it's fair to take some responsibility. If the writer's boyfriend is able to understand what it means speaking about a “we”, then perhaps there is hope of fixing things. Anyway, however ... the thing seems to me a bit pathological.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)