« Previous | Home | Next »

You Get What You Copay For

I’ve been arguing a point with a male friend who’s in a relationship with a very nice woman. His girlfriend got on the birth control patch because they wanted a more reliable method than condoms. She’s just a student, and in their two years together, birth control has set her back $1,140 ($570 a year). She’s been asking him to split the cost of the patch ($35/month) and her yearly checkup to renew it ($150), and he's balking. He feels that since she's the one using it, as opposed to him using condoms, he shouldn't have to help. If you say he should pay, he promises he will. What's the verdict?

--The Mediator

Yes, he correctly notes, “she’s the one using” the birth control patch -- mainly because slapping a medicated sticker with female hormones on his hairy back won’t do much more than increase his bra size from 46AAA to 46B, and maybe make him lactate a little.

So, who was the eighth-grade teacher who forgot to send your friend to summer school to repeat sex ed? Somebody should break the news to him that babies are made by a man and a woman having sexual intercourse, not dropped off by a giant cartoon stork. Maybe once he gets hip to the whole sperm meets egg/egg inflates into baby thing, he’ll come to understand that his girlfriend isn’t wearing the patch as a fashion statement or because it’s a recreational drug and she’s looking to get an estrogen buzz.

What’s more, she isn’t just paying for the patch in dollars and with that day at Disneyland otherwise known as a visit to the gynecologist. Potential “adverse reactions” published by the pharmaceutical company include nausea, vomiting and weight gain; depression, corneal shape-shifting and cerebral hemorrhage; and then there’s yeast infection, loss of scalp hair and hirsutism. While most women use the patch without major side effects, there is a chance his girlfriend could end up bald, with a really big gut and a beard.

Mr. All Play, No Pay may not know there are health risks involved, but the fact that his girlfriend has to beg him to undo the padlock on his wallet is seriously disgusting. As for the princely sum she’s looking to have him chip in, let’s see…it’s $35 a month for the patch, plus the yearly $150 doctor exam ($12.50 per month), which comes to $47.50 a month. Divide that by the two people enjoying pregnancy-free sex, and you get a grand total of $23.75 a month per enjoyer -- a considerable savings over $1,228.08, the average monthly cost, according to a 2005 USDA report, for middle-class parents to raise a child to age 17. In other words, this guy could be getting off cheap, with highly effective child-support prevention for less than a dollar a day. Instead, he’s merely getting off -- while rubbing his girlfriend’s nose in what a tightwad he can be.

My verdict? If you’re sleeping with somebody who quibbles about going halfsies on birth control, you aren’t having sex, you’re getting screwed. And remember, as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote, “Action is character.” This guy’s actions suggest he’s the kind of boyfriend who’ll always be there for her -- until the chips are down or the check comes. And, who is she? Let’s hope, somebody who finally sees the wisdom in telling him to keep his $23.75 and put it toward a case of Kleenex and a magnum of Vaseline Intensive Care.

Posted by aalkon at March 21, 2007 9:09 AM

Comments

"My verdict? If you’re sleeping with somebody who quibbles about going halfsies on birth control, you aren’t having sex, you’re getting screwed."

Precisely. In fact, I'd say this is sort of a canary-in-the-coal-mine situation that foretells much self-centered behavior instead.

What's really stupid about this behavior is that there are women out there who careless about birth control - either accidentally, or deliberately. If a guy knocks someone up, he has very little control over what happens next, except to the extent of refusing to marry someone who wants to marry him. Women who are conscientious about birth control are to be prized. Karma dictates that if he doesn't pony up and loses her, he's likely to get stuck by someone who assures him that don't worry! she's got the birth control taken care of...only to surprise him with a "guess who's going to be a daddy!" announcement some time later.

Posted by: marion at March 21, 2007 9:32 AM

Why are some guys so selfish? Why are some women such doormats?

Does he contribute anything to the relationship? Does he do anything for her at all? Does his selfish attitude extend to sex itself? Does he care if she enjoys sex or even has an orgasm?

Just curious...

Posted by: Chris at March 21, 2007 10:55 AM

You know, I thought that most women already had their significant others do this - I know I do. If they want to keep having baby-free sex, than they need to pony up, just like I do every month. Also, a good idea is to have your SO go with you to your prescribing appointments, so he can hear the nurse/doctor tell you about the possible side effects of the birth control that you choose. Also, if you educate him on methods using the literature that these clinics provide, maybe you can find the method that works the best for both of you. My thought is, that I should only have to pay for all the birth control if I'm the only one getting laid.

Posted by: Jessi at March 21, 2007 11:35 AM

If this guy demands back-payment for the condoms he used with her, I hope she leaves pronto...

Once again, I say thank goodness for cheap and accessible birth control!

Posted by: Jina at March 21, 2007 1:17 PM

So, the monthly cost of birth control is $47.50.

How much does it cost to keep a baby going for one month? I'll bet a lawyer would make him 'pay halfsies' if that happened...

If all he has to pay is just under $24/month, he should be thankful...

Posted by: Diane at March 21, 2007 1:32 PM

Thank you!

As a woman who uses the ring-shock I'm not afraid to stick my finger up my vagina twice a month-I've long been saying birth control should be split in half.

After all I wouldn't be shelling out the 50 bucks a month if I were just having sex with myself.

It's only fair he antes up or shuts his zipper up.

Posted by: the paper doll at March 21, 2007 2:03 PM

It always shocks me how few women in these situations are willing to make the one counter-threat that's likely to be taken seriously...as in, no halfsies on birth control, no sex. Of any type. Period. Until ante-ing up is done. I'm not advocating withholding sex as a method for settling all disputes...but it seems to me to be appropriate in cases such as this.

Posted by: marion at March 21, 2007 6:41 PM

All the comments so far are from women, who all agree with Amy. Just so it doesn't look unbalanced, here's a man who agrees too. Not just with sharing the dollar cost, but also with what reluctance to share might say about the future of the relationship. I'd tell him to change his attitude, sharpish. Then allow him time to change and show it. People can change if they want. But if he doesn't, then consider it a cheap lesson and move on.

Posted by: Norman at March 22, 2007 12:42 AM

Asking for birth control payment? That's like lawyers who charge you $250 an hour for their time and then haggle over the nickel-and-dime copy charges on their bill. Typical female pettiness. Like he's not already shelling out big bucks for her every time they go out.

It is a good and bracing reality check for him, however. He should realize that, if he marries her, no matter how much he pays for her car, her house, her food, her dinners out, her engagement ring, she is going to be nickel-and-diming him for chump change for the rest of his life.

Buddy, when she rolls over in bed one day and stares at you, bleary-eyed, smeared makeup, a little frayed and wrinkled around the edges and expects immediate performance, be sure and send her a bill for the Viagra you need to get it up.

Posted by: big bill at March 22, 2007 4:18 AM

I emailed the link to this to my boyfriend... I pay for my own birth control and gyno visits...I wonder what he'd do if I asked him to split the cost with me?

Luckily health insurance covers most of it, but I'd like to watch him attempt to craft an argument that holds water and isn't totally asinine.

Now, how about the argument men in relationships seem to dole out: if you're seeing the gyno ANYWAY and getting a pap ANYWAY (and therefore STD testing is not an additional pain in the, uh...) why do I have to get tested? (B/c in a monogamous relationship, why should both partners have to suffer?).

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Gretchen at March 22, 2007 6:49 AM

I never asked guys to pay for half of my birth control pills. I spent more time on the pill with no partner (when I'd be paying for the whole thing myself anyway) than I ever did on the pill with a partner. My partners never lasted more than two or three months, so there was just never any reason to bring it up. I use the past tense since I got my tubes tied and now don't have to pay anything.

These two have been together for two years, so maybe it's time to ask him to pony up, I dunno. I just couldn't see myself presenting a "bill" to my significant other each month, asking him to pay something. Maybe let him pay for more dates than I pay for and call it even.

Posted by: Pirate Jo at March 22, 2007 7:33 AM

Big Bill: it seems that we were discussing poor college students who don't have health insurance - that last part is an assumption b/c I've never heard of a $150 copay for a yearly pap and cervical exam.

I wouldn't ask my boyfriend to help pay b/c he does throw down a lot of cash on my behalf and I appreciate that. I was also taking the pill long before he came along to assuage other female issues that the pill helps and I'd be taking it if we weren't together. Kid-prevention is just a helpful side affect. Furthermore, I'm not paying an arm and a leg like the woman involved in the letter and I have never been the type divide up the bill at a restaurant down to the exact amount of tax I owe. So sticking to my boyfriend for $10 a month just because he's getting ass, too, seems petty.

So, the point is: this girl's situation seems a bit unique (poor college student on the pill purely for birth control and it's uber expensive) and her boyfriend seems particularly stingy. The bottom line is that she's using birth control so that the two of them can enjoy baby-free lovin' and when you're so pressed for cash and not backed up by an HMO on daddy and mommy's dime, it's totally reasonable to ask your man to help out.

Equality can be a great thing if people aren't selfish and suffer from relationship and financial tunnel vision - her boyfriend can help pay for birth control and she can help pay for dates (if she isn't already).

ciao

Posted by: Gretchen at March 22, 2007 8:07 AM

big bill, this guy doesn't sound like the type that pays for dinner, car, etc. He sounds like the kind of guy that just shows up at her apt., expects her to cook dinner for him, and leave him alone while he plays video games on her couch all night. Then when he rolls into her bed at 2 a.m, he expects her to be a porn queen and get him off, then wants to roll over and sleep. She's probably afraid of being alone, and thinks she's supposed to do all the work in the relationship, so doesn't say anything.

Anyone else see this as a possibility?

Posted by: Chris at March 22, 2007 8:07 AM

"Like he's not already shelling out big bucks for her every time they go out."

It didn't sound like he was. In fact, he sounded like a cheapskate who didn't manage his money well, and was trying to snake out of one more bill. (I have to edit these letters for length, or my column would be all letter and no answer, and bore people senseless.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 22, 2007 8:23 AM

Dear “Goddess”,

In typical female fashion, you’ve responded with an answer driven by pure emotion and little forward-thinking or reasoning. Of course it is fair to go “halfsies” on pill purchase, but only if all other expenses are shared as well.
The man’s actions are seriously disgusting? I don’t think so. In misleading fashion, you’re trying to convince us that he has no concerns for his girlfriend’s health and is cheap. You’re depicting him as a heathen ignoring severe issues such as depression and/or hemmoraging. That, my friend, is hyperbole. It’s not that drastic. He just doesn’t want to chip in for birth control. Does she chip in for his gym membership so he can stay sexy for her? Does she always pay 1/2 at dinner? Odds are…probably not.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you. However, I’d first get more information. If they both pay half for everything, then this should be no different…and you’re right, he should chip in. However, if she doesn’t chip elsewhere, and he pays for most of the other stuff, she should consider herself lucky for getting off cheaply….or, the guy should start demanding an equillibrium for all other expenses. The person asking advice doesn’t say. I would find that out before giving advice…advice that may affect her relationship.
Quoting F. Scott Fitzgerald (or anyone famous) doesn’t lend credence to your argunent. Make an argument strong enough to stand on its own footing instead of on the shoulders of famous writers.

Posted by: Dave at March 22, 2007 1:53 PM

Dave, in typical fashion of those who post without thinking first, do you really see vagina prints in my answer?

See my comment directly above hers. Perhaps you're an old fucker, but it's very common for people in their early 20s to go half on everything. In this case, it appeared the birth control -- prevention against paying to raise an unwanted kid -- was the one thing nobody was going half on.

Furthermore, regarding the gym membership, etc., my column is based in data, and it's far more important for women to look good to keep men attracted, and far more expensive. Nobody has to pay another person's personal care costs -- but there's a shared benefit in preventing pregancy. See details above.

Regarding the F. Scott Fitzgerald quote, I think "action is character" is a rather wise statement, so I used it, and credited him. Because it was wise, not because he was famous.

Regarding your comment, "I don’t necessarily disagree with you"...

No, apparently, you just are very much in need of attention. You've gotten some. Now, shoo.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 22, 2007 2:01 PM

if these two have been together a couple years, and are trusting each other enough to use a form of birth control that doesn't protect against STDs, then shouldn't this be enough of a partnership to be splitting costs like birth control? eventually somewhere down the line, decisions like 'not having kids right now' become decisions made by two people together, not just one.

I couldn't take pills, they make me sick... it was like a little bit of morning sickness to start off everyday. yippee. So we went with a copper IUD instead. very minimal few days of discomfort, a bit expensive upfront ($250 - split) but for 10 yrs, well worth it. And when we decide permanently that we're not having anymore kids, he's getting snipped, since it doesn't make much sense for me to have major surgery for what we can accomplish with minor for him. I'd say I'd happily pay half, but since we've combined our households & expenses, it just all comes out of the same bucket.

"her car, her house, her food, her dinners out, her engagement ring" if she's married? wouldn't a normal couple consider those things "ours" at that point? and if she's a student, she's probably not looking for a sugar daddy to pay for "her" stuff.


Posted by: Tami at March 22, 2007 2:08 PM

Big Bill's stereotypical and sexist assumptions are based on no evidence given in the portion of the letter Amy published.

I will make an educated guess--based on the fact that this girl has been on the guy to pay for what is a significant burden on her student budget--that she's not with the guy because she's a golddigger. If he's stingy about this, then I'm going to assume he's not very generous with other things like dinner and gifts.

Let's stop this stereotyping nonsense that is as outdated as Mrs. Roper chasing Mr. Roper on a Three's Company episode. Puh-leaze. I make twice as much as my fiance and despite his boy-ego protests that he pays for as many things as I do, I know that I do all the financial heavy-lifting. Whatever. Not a big deal. When he gets out of his current deadend job and into another with more promise and pay, then I'll ask for my diamond studded earrings. Til then, his wonderful cooking and long footrubs will suffice nicely.

Posted by: Wendy at March 22, 2007 3:52 PM

Dave,

I'm sorry but you didn't succeed at crafting an argument that holds water. Amy's (she's the Advice Goddess, this is her website - no needs for quotes, love) answer wasn't emotion driven at all. In fact, quite the opposite. She logically pointed out that birth control is a special issue - it's not dinner, it's not movie tickets or a night at Nine Zero. It's a CHILD. A living, breathing person who needs to be fed, have its diaper changed, and supported until god-knows-when. And for a couple that isn't ready to reproduce, preventing a pregnancy is absolutely necessary and must be addressed in a serious manner. In case you're too old to remember (or an old fucker, perhaps?) people in college tend to be broke and this woman IS paying a lot of money for B.C. If he's half as stingy elsewhere she should seriously consider masturbation instead. It would be far more gratifying and far less expensive.

It's not about tit for tat or sticking it to your partner (metaphorically...and then literally), it's about equally bearing the responsibility of safer sex and acknowledging the fact that birth control isn't a female only issue - even when condoms aren't used. How is that NOT logical? How is that emotional?

Now, perhaps your doting girlfriend is a little too nice and lenient and does not actually hold you responsible for mini-Dave-prevention. Maybe she should! And maybe she should stop baking you Toll House cookies b/c it's turning you into a chauvinist. And then you'll charge her for your gym membership.

P.S
You owe me $130 for birth control, my dear.

Posted by: Gretchen at March 22, 2007 6:03 PM

Another point: I assume he enjoys sex more without condoms. Meanwhile, she's leaving herself open to side effects - minor and major - from using hormonal birth control. Seems to me that *he's* getting the better end of this deal, by far.

Posted by: marion at March 22, 2007 6:16 PM

"I don’t necessarily disagree with you"...

"No, apparently, you just are very much in need of attention. You've gotten some. Now, shoo."

Ha. Go get 'em, Amy.


Bottom line: At a certain point in a relationship, your finances, possessions, and living space starts to blend together into one. That means splitting the costs fairly.

I think she tell him that if he won't pay half, she'll stop taking the pill. Then HE can spend HIS money on some rubbers. Sound fair?

Posted by: Jaime at March 22, 2007 8:07 PM

Amy,

I like open dialogue; i think these things need to be discussed. My purpose wasn't to draw attention. Rather, it was to impart the notion of "wait, let's get all the facts."
I read the italicized question, which mentioned nothing about the man being otherwise cheap/frugal/stingy. If he pays any less than 50% of everything, he is obliged to VOLUNTEER to pay part of pregnancy-prevention costs. I completely agree.
However, as men sometimes (but not always) pay a larger percentage of "dating" expenses, I don't think it's reasonable for the female in such a hypo to request reimbursement. It would be laughable and lack tact.
Your intial answer merely made some presumptions (i.e. that the guy was otherwise cheap) which i didn't see in the letter. If the letter was edited/condensed, fine. Otherwise, i don't think we should be telling a girl seeking advice to request money IF the possibility exists that she shouldn't be entitled to any. Thanks for posting my previous comment! I love fiery discussions.

Posted by: dave at March 22, 2007 8:26 PM

Indeed, Marion. (Gretchen is hilarious -- the comment at the end.)

Dave, your purpose was obviously to cut me down. If you're going to attempt that, another little hint: You're not going to get me on lack of logic. My column is based in reason and data.

We can speculate who pays what for dinner and whether he gets one blowjob or two to her one or two. Those things weren't part of the question, hence they weren't part of the answer. We're discussing birth control here -- not everything under the sun. If that doesn't work for you, sell your own advice column and include what you want in it.

That said, I had information in the e-mail that I revealed above, and Wendy, above, made the wise educated guess that a girl who's with a boyfriend who chisels her on the birth control isn't with him for all the dinners he buys her.

This, unfortunately, isn't a fiery discussion, but it's lovely you feel that way.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 22, 2007 9:21 PM

I am occasionally amazed at the number of guys out there who don't realize that they essentially lose all of their autonomy when their sex partner gets pregnant. Oh, they can refuse to marry her, sure...but otherwise, whether they end up driving to an abortion clinic or paying child support for 18 years is completely, totally up to her. Human biology isn't equivalent - men have 0% chance of dying in childbirth - and the state is unlikely to let guys off the hook for supporting their biological children any time soon. Given this, a woman who takes birth control seriously is someone to be cherished and prized. Paying for half of it gives you the right to ask questions and receive answers about the method, which in turn ensures that you have the knowledge to determine whether you feel comfortable with using that method alone, or would prefer to back it up with condoms. It also gives you (some) leeway to say, "Hey, I don't see your patch, honey, what's up?"

Men who view non-condom birth control as something solely under the purview of their sexual partners all too often end up getting referred to as "the father" in ironclad court documents that require a certain part of their salary to be deducted from each paycheck. Clearly, this guy has never gotten an "Um, I'm late. No, I'm LATE!" call and experienced the white-knuckled terror that goes along with that. Just you watch - his next girlfriend will be all, "Oh, don't you worry about that, honey!" and then will end up "accidentally" knocked up. If you're a guy who doesn't want to be a parent, then you need to give your partner's pro-birth-control actions a lot of positive feedback.

"Now, how about the argument men in relationships seem to dole out: if you're seeing the gyno ANYWAY and getting a pap ANYWAY (and therefore STD testing is not an additional pain in the, uh...) why do I have to get tested? (B/c in a monogamous relationship, why should both partners have to suffer?)."
Gretchen, not quite sure what you're asking here. Are you saying that you know guys who argue that, as long as you're getting tested for diseases anyway, they shouldn't have to? That's idiotic. STDs don't always transmit right away, and they're often asymptomatic in men. Besides, they can have some really, really nasty effects on the female reproductive system. Even if you're sure you don't want kids, pelvic inflammatory disease is not something you want to screw with. The goal here should be for neither partner to pass any STDs on to the other, and unless you're a virgin, you run the risk of having picked one up without realizing it. There's also the fact that STDs wreak more havoc on the female reproductive system than they do on the male - the least a guy can do is ensure that he's not leaving his girlfriend with permanent scarring because he hates visiting the urologist.

Posted by: marion at March 22, 2007 9:37 PM

Marion is exactly right. You can fuck or you can get seriously fucked...what's it gonna be? And, as I've written before, I wouldn't be too quick to believe girls who say they're on the pill or some kind of birth control. And if you're using condoms, make sure you bring them, and they don't find their way to the business end of a pin before the action starts.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at March 23, 2007 12:18 AM

Marion:

That is exactly what I was after! Testing is important even when in a committed relationship because of that fact - some diseases don't express themselves until years after being contracted. That said, doctors also don't automatically test for all diseases. So you have to ask for what you're looking for.

Again, this goes beyond the bank account, this is about bringing little children into the world - or NOT! (and keeping out bodies safe!).

And Dave, please observe the above post concerning men's loss of control once their partner gets pregnant. How could you be sure you never got someone pregnant and that she had an abortion without your knowledge? I fully support women's rights to do so and if you'd like to duke that one out we can arrange that. Also, what if the girl was preg and wanted to keep it and you didn't? It doesn't matter that you had a hand in creating it, she has the final say on whether or not the baby is carried to term or aborted. Feel free to correct me on my knowledge on MA abortion regs - but last I checked I didn't need anyone's permission but my own to 1) abort it 2) sue for child support.

I'm just saying it can get really messy - esp. when you're in college like KIDS the I above.

If you have a girlfriend who says she's on the pill, how do you know she won't forget her pill sometimes?

You must really trust her if you're willing to forgo control over your reproduction time line. But honestly, I think most guys just don't think about it nor do they give a rat's ass cause it's not their body and they just want to hit it so a "yeah I'm on the pill" is good enough for them.

Posted by: Gretchen at March 23, 2007 3:33 AM

I honestly don't think Dave was looking to make a contribution to the dialogue. His comment seems more emotionally based, and appeared to me to simply be an excuse to vent about all the women who have exploited his generous nature in the past.

A number of the women who commented here made the correct educated guess that neither man nor the woman had much money in this situation. Why didn't Dave see that? Maybe he really is still living in the 1950s?

Posted by: Chris at March 23, 2007 6:39 AM

Well, this has been looked at from all possible angles, even some that are nonexistent. What a view! From my angle, if this couple is having sex on a regular basis, and only with each other (he tossed the comdoms and she knows that, so sex is unprotected), then their relationship is esentially the same as if they were married. All income goes into one pot, and all outgo comes out of that pot. It's simple, and fair. After all the sarcasm and innunduo die down - both Amy's and everybody elses, this guy is a jerk who should certainly ante up for the unrestricted pleasure he is receiving and, hopefully, providing.

Posted by: Jonathan at March 23, 2007 12:44 PM

If it's not a partnership, then what kind of relationship is it? This is the question that the couple have to decide - for themselves.

Posted by: Norman at March 23, 2007 3:33 PM

Johnathan,

I'm not sure what "pot" you're referring to, but I think you mean that when you're in a relationship, things more or less even out in the long run. I won't take you literally - b/c unless you're married or have joint bank accounts or sign over your paycheck to your S.O or own a house together there is no "pot." There might be some sentimental use of "our/ours." But no, no pot.

This couple is 1) clearly poor 2) clearly doesn't have real assets 3) things are NOT "evening out" in the relationship - and here's why; I'll give the gf the benefit here and assume she's reasonable and that she is picking this fight in particular because her boyfriend has been historically unwilling to yield to the "pot."

My boyfriend and I have been together and consider ourselves committed and a part of a long term relationship. I ASSURE YOU WE ARE NOT THE SAME AS BEING MARRIED. The two are not equatable on any level. If we wanted to get married we would - but we aren't and the reasons, although personal, obviously include the fact that we are simply not ready or willing to be in a MARRIAGE. Since this couple in question is NOT MARRIED they shouldn't be treated as if they were. Because they're not married, and all things aren't necessarily shared automatically, there needs to be a discussion.

I guess our conclusions are the same but I chose to implement a premise-centered approach (Philip Pettit).

Posted by: Gretchen at March 23, 2007 7:17 PM

County clinics are great! I got my checkups and birth control pills for free or for a small fee based on my income, for close to 20 years. There's also planned parenthood. It shocks me that there are still young girls having unwanted pregnacies in this day and time with all the info and availability of so many methods out there.

Posted by: chicknlady at March 23, 2007 11:18 PM

There's a time honored solution to this issue in which a man and a woman share all assets liabilties, incomes and responsibilty. And after two years together it's high time to consider it. It's called MARRIAGE.
K-

Posted by: kman at March 26, 2007 4:27 PM

"There's a time honored solution"

What the fuck? Slavery in America was "time honored."

Two years together and it's "high time to consider it????" Have you noticed the divorce rate lately.

Wake the fuck up.

Time honored.....bleck! high time...ptuey!

Posted by: kg at March 27, 2007 8:04 AM

kman better wake up. Marriage is just the beginning of all kinds of time-honored problems. How about when a man refuses to work and a woman has to support both of them because they're married? Doesn't sound like sharing to me. This guy sounds like just that kind of husband.

kman must be either married or a divorce attorney looking for business.

Posted by: Chris at March 27, 2007 8:31 AM

kg, I am with you on that... maybe they don't want to share assets, liabilities, incomes and responsibility....maybe b/c they're IN COLLEGE. If everyone used kman's rule of thumb, do you realize how many high schoolers would be getting hitched? It seems that this couple has some communication issues and some "sharing" issues. Marriage would be a death sentence to this relationship - not a solution!!

That has to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.

Posted by: Gretchen at March 27, 2007 8:38 AM

"She's using" the birth control, not him? Aren't THEY having protected sex?

As I understand it, sex with a condom isn't a great sensory loss for the female, (please correct me if that is wrong on that) so the patch she is one would be far more beneficial to him than her. Maybe she should go off the Patch so he can start buying (and wearing) condoms again? See if he changes his mind about who this is for...

Posted by: Morbideus at March 27, 2007 12:32 PM

Ladies & Gentlemen: Either party in a "relationship" has the right to ask for whatever s/he wants. If I want (and I do want) my man to pick up the costs of dating - dinner, drinks, vacations, movies, concerts, birth control, dry cleaning, kitty daycare, etc. - then it seems my obligation to myself is to find the man willing to do so. (Trust me, it wasn't hard.) Perhaps she should try a simple statement along the lines of, "I need $35 to buy my birth control pills tomorrow." There's nothing else to explain and she should let him carry the argument forward, if he dares. Ladies, there are millions of alpha-males out there, just waiting to haul the mastodon back to your cave. A "good provider" doesn't need to be wealthy - he needs to be generous and proactive in taking care of you. A man who is unwilling to take care of you is, quite simply, a poor investment of your time, effort and feelings. (Please, fellows, don't waste your effort arguing with me as this is the reality of sociobiology. 15 million years of evolution didn't change overnight because half your law school class was female.) If you want to grow-up to be a woman who works full-time, does 99% of the housework and childcare and essentially babysits a next-to-useless husband, stick with this oaf.

Posted by: suzy at March 27, 2007 9:17 PM

Morbideus, you are correct in your assumption. There are very few nerve endings inside a woman's vagina. They are mostly on the outside, and there are tons in the clit (more than in the entire penis, apparently!)

suzy, I agree with you. The terms of a relationship are something both the man and woman agree to, and can be completely different depending on the 2 people involved. As long as they both know themselves and are honest with each other, this kind of flexibility will ensure that they are both happy.

Posted by: Chris at March 28, 2007 7:54 AM

Thank you Chris.

Posted by: Morbideus at March 29, 2007 12:25 PM

Offtopic but somewhat related, if you are looking for fiction that involves hirsute brutes that are addicted to painkiller patches, I highly recommend Skinny Dip by Carl Hiaasen.

The brute in question has a bullet lodged in him, and goes around stealing lightly used fentanyl patches from elderly cancer patients.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9907E4DC113BF931A25754C0A9629C8B63

Posted by: jerry at April 14, 2007 10:36 AM

So by the same logic, women should offer to pay for half of condom costs, correct?

Posted by: Andrew at May 11, 2007 5:18 AM

I don't know about "offering to pay half." Doesn't that seem a little petty, considering the cost of condoms? Any of the guys I've dated would find that kind of cheesy and odd. Here's my notion of it: If women are in a relationship, they should pick up the condoms, too, just like the guy shouldn't be assumed to be the one who picks up the check at dinner. But, a pack of 24 Durex is $15.89 on Drugstore.com. I'm assuming that'll last people, say, two months, minimum (really probably four months, if they're college students and don't have that much time for fucking). So, she's going to ask him if he wants $2-4 or so every month? I mean, come on? Do you also divide every check down to the penny?

When I had a boyfriend who was poor, and we used to each pay every other time, I tried to engineer it so I paid at the more expensive places (ie, I chose more expensive places when I was paying and suggested seriously el cheapo ones when he was). If you care about somebody, you try to make their life better, and, at the very least, be fiscally fair to them.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 11, 2007 6:35 AM

Nerve endings or not, I enjoy sex without condoms much more than with. To me there's much more sensation. There are so many methods available now, it's not necessary to cope with the "overcoat" in a monogamous relationship.

And yes, if money is tight and expenses are shared fairly, of course the guy should contribute -- and consider himself lucky to boot!

Posted by: Pussnboots [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 16, 2008 8:58 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)