Bravo Amy. I get so frustrated hearing women who mistakenly think a man - any man at all - is necessary and they don't have what it takes to make it. (I'm not bashing on men. I simply think we should be in a relationship because we want to be with that person, not because we need to be.)

LW, you have moxie to handle everything going on in your life right now. You deserve someone in your life who adds to the equation and contributes to bulding the life you are working to attain.

Hopefully, you will put an end to this guy taking advantage of what you provide and discover how very capable you are in your own right.

"He treats me well and works hard, but he's unmotivated"

One of these things is not like the others...

Been there and done that. It was a lot easier with the larger of three mouths to feed that were depending on me. I gave him an ultimatum: find a job or find another place to sleep. I'll still see you, just not on my couch night after night after night. Yeah, he made dinner once in a while, but trying to take care of 4 people on my (then) measly salary was NOT cutting it. Grow a backbone where your wishbone is, LW, and cut this guy loose. You can do better.

It was a lot easier with the larger of three mouths to feed that were depending on me forgot to add the most important word: GONE.

Cousin Dave, I had a double take at the exact same sentence you did. How does someone who's "unmotivated" work hard?

I marvel at how oblivious she is. As Amy points out, she's already on her own, why should she fear it? While her boyfriend isn't, she's obviously a very hard worker. Look how hard she works at unseeing the evidence before her.

He got angry at her sensible suggestion to go job-hunting early to beat the heat, huh? I'm sure he did. Nothing gets under the excuse-maker's skin more than a sensible solution. "How dare you try to undermine my efforts at justifying being an indolent user!"

not the same but similar - had a man who was too busy at work to ever be home - yet his job wasn't doing us much good - we ended up filing bankruptcy. i had a choice: be alone with him and two children to care for; or be alone without him and two children to care for. i chose the latter. my eldest is now 25 and working for a nonprofit trying to save the world; my youngest is about to graduate from college with a degree in finance. has it been easy? HELL NO! i can still barely pay the rent. my kids paid for their own education. but i taught them something very important: you stand on your own two feet - you work hard - and you take care of your own. my ex? still a nice man - and still not helping his children at all. it was scary - it still is, sometimes - but LW, you know what you need to do (you're already doing it!) it isn't easy - but you are already alone: why prolong the agony?

addendum: lest anyone take offense to my statements 1) that my children paid for their own educations (as if i did nothing) and 2) my ex still doesn't help them - he paid no alimony, only $150 a month child support (total - not per child) and that for only a few years. we shall not discuss legality - just advising anyone interested (or not!) of the facts. so it was basically the three of us - me, myself, and i - paying for rent, food, clothing, etc etc ETC (2 kids - think about it!). excuse me as i ramble. short story long: LW - what the HECK are you waiting for here?!

The guy could be working hard at home - cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc. He could also be helping raise her child while she works and goes to classes. LW isn't complaining that she has to do all of this. LW isn't saying he's out drinking or hanging out with friends.

Not looking for a job could be due to a lot of things - difficulty explaining to prospective employers about being fired, learning disability, depression, anxiety, etc - other than lack of motivation. That, plus if he is helping out at home, make me believe that dumping him at this point is premature.

Our relationship has never been about money

It's not really about money now. It's about your fiance's refusal to make himself less of a burden on you, both now and when you get married. When you talk to him again, don't make it all about money: tell him you feel as if you're supporting two dependents and are insulted he's accepted that as the status quo. Saying he needs to make a certain amount of money is the surest way to get him to go all moral high ground on you. Make the conversation about how his attitude is affecting you and your daughter, because that's the core issue, not simply the dearth of finances. I'm sure you'd feel differently and would be willing to help him out more if his situation weren't due mostly to lack of motivation.

"How dare you try to undermine my efforts at justifying being an indolent user!"

Love. Is it weird I'm attracted to you right now?

"Grow a backbone where your wishbone is."
~Flynne

One of the keys to life. Well said. I will carry that with me. Thank you.

She's a single mom and wants a man who'll give her money. He doesn't want to support her and her kid. That's the basic problem.

He's not producing more, because she's not worth it.

This is a common pattern with single mothers. They present too much of a liability to stable affluent men, and so end up with guys who live on the margins of society. But that's what they deserve.

Single mothers are all cost with no benefit. Women tend to have a blind spot on this issue. They fall into the assumption that men are obliged to devote themselves to women without regard for the value of the woman. But men aren't so different from women in this regard. They'll weight the value of their partner and behave accordingly.

She's a single mom and wants a man who'll give her money.

No, she's a single mom and wants a man who doesn't make himself another dependent. It's not about money, really, it's about equitable contribution, which includes both time and effort. He's not contributing anything of value to the relationship, or she'd have had a great big BUT somewhere in that letter.

He's not producing more, because she's not worth it.

No, he's not producing more because he's fine with sponging off others. A man like that won't find a woman who's "worth it," he'll find a doormat who's so desperate for a man she'll lick his boots clean and be grateful for the opportunity. People who continually take advantage of others don't magically change when the right person comes along; they change when they're tired of all the potentially right people kicking their asses out.

The bit about the soda machine is just terribly depressing. You can see an adolescent doing something stupid like that. But a grown man?

No.

I absolutely agree with what every woman here has said and I agree with Amy.

AND...

She seems hesitant to toss him aside. Maybe she has valid reasons for this.

1) Right now, he is reasonably free daycare. Have you priced that these days? If she isn't near mom/sister/good friend etc, tossing him aside might mean a fiscal hit far worse then a couple meals a day and some old clothes.

2) Maybe he's really good with her daughter. Knowing that she might need some male role models in her life, so far, THIS is the best mom can do...and she's seen a lot worse.

3) Maybe he provides her with a pretty good emotional support system. Yes, he's a loser. But he also is the guy who draws her baths, scrubs the tub, does the laundry, rubs her back and hugs her when she's had a traumatic day. She says she loves him. Why is that so hard to disbelieve? Is there an income threshold on love? (Yes. If he really loved her, he'd try harder)

4) Not to be crass, but while he's obviously not exactly a prize...maybe Mom isn't either for a variety of reasons. Yes, she should be able to live without anyone in her life but her daughter, and be well satisfied with the hum of a vibrator to assuage her lonliness. Maybe. Maybe he's worth the occasional casserole.

5) Maybe she's actually satisfied with the arrangement, but the carping of friends and family about 'that guy' has her doubting something she's okay with. This is a bit of a stretch, but it takes all kinds.

Frankly, I'm playing devil's advocate here, because I'm frankly embarassed this is a guy. But life isn't always simple or black and white. I'm just offering nuance to a situation which is certainly more complicated then a 'thank you' post coitus.

She signs her letter "Trapped", but she is far from trapped. He's a hell of a lot more trapped than she is from a financial standpoint. It doesn't sound like her financial situation would change at all were she to give him the boot except that wouldn't be some guy laying around eating up the food and using up the toilet paper.

@jacob -- I'll agree with you that single mothers present a liability. I avoid dating women with children at home myself, but what makes you say that they deserve it? I'm sure some do, but sheesh -- there are all sorts of different situations that bring women to single motherhood.

flydye,

I also thought about the daycare angle. But they've been engaged for a while and the girl is presumably not his. That means the little girl is at least seven and is school aged. That's not to say that he isn't contributing to her care, but I think if he were contributing in a significant way, it most definitely would have been mentioned in the letter.

As for the emotional support, it's certainly possible, but one normally draws emotional support from those that one greatly respects. From the tone of the letter, it doesn't sound like that's happening.

You're fifth point is spot on. She clearly is satisfied enough with the arrangement. Otherwise she wouldn't be putting up with it.

She's one of these people that are afraid to let go of the last branch until she has ahold of the next one. Both men and women seem to be guilty of this in about equal numbers and it leads to the most ridiculous relationships.

@NumberSix

You are projecting like crazy.

Let me set out some facts, because it's obvious that the ladies here are out to demonize this guy, and are just making shit up at this point.

1. They've been engaged for seven years, and likely together longer than that. He's presumably been working and helping her out that entire time.

That's why she acknowledges that 'He treats me well and works hard'. Nowhere does she claim that he's sponging off of her or taking anything from her. For all we know, she's living at his place. Keep in mind that she doesn't have a degree and probably only works part time. Where do you think the money is coming from?

In fact..

2. She actually tells us that she's 'scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother'. Which indicates that he's been supporting her and her kid.

So seven years of support, but now that he's been out of work for three months, she wants to dump him.

3. You've got to take her description of him with a grain of salt, because she's obviously trying to portray him in a negative light. He's an unmotivated lazy idiot and a petty criminal to boot. Funny that that's only been an issue since he'd lost his job.

The boyfriends mistake has been to support a woman that he's not married to, along with the child of another man. Look what it's gotten him - nothing, not even gratitude. Seven years or commitment and she's going online to trash him for not giving her more money.

He should have been saving his money, not giving it to her. If anyone is being victimized here, it's him.

>> No, he's not producing more because he's fine with sponging off others.

Where does she say that he's sponging off of her?

Is there another version of this letter somewhere?

What are people reacting to that makes them think that he's sponging off of her?

Creature From The Slack Lagoon
You gotta have a J-O-B
If you wanna be with me.
Ain't nuttin goin on but the rent...

Motivation? He's plenty motivated to come up with lame-ass excuses as to WHY he can't sack up and act like a man. You give that guy 30 days to get a job AND enroll in GED classes or get the hell out!!! And stick to it. No ifs, ands or buts and not one lousy excuse. He's been sitting on his ass and enjoying himself on your dime long enough. I guarantee that you will see the real him come out like gangbusters. Give him the ultimatum and watch him show his true colors - he is not someone you want to spend any time with at all.

Like my grandma always said - "Honey, if ya don't date a bum ya won't marry a bum!!"

Jacob, you sound charming and empathetic.
"They'll weight the value of their partner and behave accordingly."
If they've "weighted" (evaluated?) the "value" of their partner and determined that said partner isn't *worthy* of the individual to expend the time and effort not to be a financial liability themselves (I.e., being of equal or lesser "value" than the partner in question), the logical course of action would be to move on.
Since this guy hasn't, and is in fact not himself an asset to the young lady who is "no gain" to him: I highly recommend to this truly hardworking woman to fulfill her potential, without the *liability* of this Prima Donna, by moving on herself.
Of course, this is based on looking at the situation from a purely financial standpoint; in the perspective of respect founded in love as the basis for a relationship, this guy isn't exemplifying respect in any form for this woman or her position. For that matter, it doesn't sound much like he has much respect for anyone, particularly himself if he has no apparent desire to at least get a Good Enough Diploma ("But Mom! Uh, I mean, Baby! I CAN'T go to school, it's humid out! Do you have *any* idea what that will do to my HAIR?!) On that basis, he is an emotional liability as well. She may not have to worry about him having the motivation to leave the house in the heat when HE'S in heat, or porking the teenage coworker at Pudgy's Pulled Pork Shack (it was raining when he was supposed to go to his imaginary job). However, if she's having to save dimes out of her waitress tips to buy the marriage license now, she'll have to pay later for the divorce when she's figured out that he just misses his mommy and she just happens to cut the crust off his sammiches the same way.
On a serious note, Snoopy may be on to something important with the possibility that this guy is depressed. If that's the case, get him help - but if he insists that he's fine, he can make a choice between signing a psych evaluation or a job application.
LW, if you still plan to marry this couch-dimpler, hope that he can get a job at Long John Silver's for long enough to use the employee discount for the reception. Maybe the sodas will be free.

Jacob,

I'll agree with you that it may be that this guy is being treated unfairly. However, we only have the information in the letter to go on.

It's unlikely that he's been socking money away to weather a three month hardship based on the lack of education and means. I'd be right there with you if the letter writer seemed to be nagging the shit out of the guy after seven years of support. However, he's complaining that he can't possibly go out and look for a job because he's too hot or it's too rainy. For Christ's sake, at least be out looking.

There has to be some serious depression associated with joblessness and I'm not without sympathy for this guy, but damn. As men, we don't have the luxury to be depressed and all of that shit. He needs to be contributing in some way.

@vB thanks for demonstrating why it's a bad idea for men to get together with single mom's.

Look at what you're doing. You're convinced that this guy is a worthless POS. But why? - because he's having a relationship with a single mother.

If he were involved with a woman without kids, this would just be a story about a guy who'd lost his job and was having trouble finding a new one. But because she's got a kid, everything he does is suspect. People automatically assume that men who date single mothers are losers. This thread is an excellent example of that. The people here are so convinced that he's a loser that they're making things up to justify their assumptions. Next they'll be claiming that he's abusing her and raping her daughter.

He's in a no win situation. He's stuck with her and supported her, so he's a loser. He's lost his job, so he's a loser. He's been out of work for three months, in the middle of a depression, so he's a loser.

hmm.. it seems like there's a pattern here. Maybe this is why smart men stay the hell away from poor uneducated women with illegitimate children.

@whistledick I get what you're saying. But the letter doesn't say that he's taking anything from her and that's what everyone is accusing him of. They're all convinced that this is some Lifetime Television movie and poor Valerie Bertinelli is being taken advantage of - she's so brave!!

All we know is that he'd lost his job three months ago, and that she's turned on him.

However, he's complaining that he can't possibly go out and look for a job because he's too hot or it's too rainy. For Christ's sake, at least be out looking.

He probably is, or was. I don't buy her claim that he hasn't looked for anything in three months. It's not credible. The guy is purportedly a hard worker but suddenly loses it and decides never to work again?

More likely, he can't find anything. The unemployment rate for guys at his tier of the labor market is about 25% right now. It's really really bad right now.

@ Jacob:

How do you know the child is "illegitimate"? (I hate that term)

How do you know the child is "illegitimate"? (I hate that term)

That's true, I don't. So forget 'illegitimate'. In any case, it's not his daughter.

Jacob:
"Maybe this is why smart men stay the hell away from poor uneducated women with illegitimate children."
I believe you've just supported the theory that this guy isn't all that bright - he is with a poor uneducated woman with an "illegitimate" child. She's doing something about being uneducated; he is not, and remains less educated than she.
Regardless of who moved in with who, she's currently supporting him by paying the bills while trying to improve her employability. There is no reference in the letter that implies that he supported her; I well doubt he'd have the means to support two adults and a child on his minimum-wage employment alone. The disconcerting issue presented is that he shows no discernible intention of contributing to the household again in the near future, much less support her.
If he were with a woman without kids, I would still say he's a wimpy couch-dimpler who should be dimpling his own couch in his own place with his own defaulted rent and empty refridgerator until he musters the big-boy courage to brave the meanie elements and carry his well-pressed weight. whistleDick summed it up beautifully:
"...we don't have the luxury to be depressed and all of that shit."
All that being said, one can't argue with logic against misogyny.

Regardless of who moved in with who, she's currently supporting him by paying the bills while trying to improve her employability.

You don't know that. She doesn't claim to be paying the bills or supporting him in any way. There's no indication that he's relying on her for anything.

There is no reference in the letter that implies that he supported her;

Yes there is, otherwise she wouldn't be concerned about making it on her own.

I well doubt he'd have the means to support two adults and a child on his minimum-wage employment alone.

So do I, but who told you that he's been making minimum wage?

Again ladies, this is not the Lifetime Television forum. If you'd like to discuss your favorite melodrama about courageous single mothers and the losers they love, please go to womenarealwaysthevictim.com. Otherwise try to stick with the facts at hand.

Jacob, you seem to be the one projecting a lot more into the situation than is actually in the letter.

True, it doesn't specifically say she is supporting him, but she is the only one who is employed, so that is a natural assumption for us to make.

You seemed to assume that he was supporting her and being taken advantage of, implying that he has been financially successful in the past, yet she claims that they've been unable to get married for 7 years because they "couldn't afford to" and also that he is "undereducated and unmotivated", can only find "low-paying work with bad hours", and is making all kinds of excuses not to even look for work.

It also doesn't say that she was an unwed mother, or specifically that the child isn't his, though this might be inferred from her use of "my" (though many moms say "my child" as habit, not because the child isn't biologically their partner's).

At any rate, his lack of employment, education, and motivation - much less his stupidity in stealing from his last employer - appears to have nothing to do with her being a single mother.

We're not looking to label him a loser, but the evidence seems pretty compelling.

So, exactly where are you finding all this sympathy for the guy?

I have to edit these letters for space reasons, but she's paying the bills here...working her ass off while he lies on the couch.

Jacob, if a guy is jobless and not looking, and there's no indication that he is a trust-funder, where do you think his money comes from? Do you think he does a little dance (assuming he can pry himself off the couch) and dollar bills rain out of the sky?

He's a sponge.

And she's a single mother who supports her child and is working to better herself and he's a guy lying on the couch being paid for by her, and not lifting a finger to support himself. This isn't about Lifetime, etc. (that's just a cheap shot you threw in hopes of looking good in your unsupported arguments). This is about a woman who's already on her own, save for the near-dead man's body on her couch, understanding that all he provides is ballast.

Jacob - Are YOU the guy she's living with? You're certainly going to some extraordinary lengths to justify his lousy behavior.

She's employed, going to school and had a kid. She works, she's trying to improve her station in life and take care of her child. Yes, we only have her letter to draw from but according to it, if it's too hot, too cold, to whatever he can't go job hunting? No one in their right mind would look at that and think for one minute this is a guy worth having around. We can suppose and imagine and infer until next year - but in the letter she says he is making no effort to help provide for the home expenses. I can't for any reason think of why he needs to benefit from her hard work.

She has enough on her plate without him hanging around mooching and sponging and I wish her the best of luck in her studies. For her childs sake, I hope she graduates and finds a well paying job AND a better person to share her life with.

So, exactly where are you finding all this sympathy for the guy?

I don't actually have much sympathy for him. He's cooked his own goose and now he's stuck. What I'm reacting to is that so many people, without the relevant facts - which Amy strangely decided to leave out - want to cut his head off. For the crime of... committing to a single mother and losing his job?

So now we've learned that she is paying the bills while he's been lax in finding a new job. That's not good, but I don't see why it erases 7 years of a committed relationship during which he has apparently been working and contributing. But again, single mother, liability, don't do it..

Also it's pretty disgusting how she's turned on him so quickly. No one who actually loves someone would go out of their way to portray them so negatively. She's been using him and now is disappointed that he's not going to be able to save her.

that's just a cheap shot you threw in hopes of looking good in your unsupported arguments

Looking good? Why do you always pursue personal attacks on people who disagree with you? Why even have a forum? Do you really expect a bibliography of cites on a blog forum? That's asinine.

This is a common pattern with single mothers. They present too much of a liability to stable affluent men, and so end up with guys who live on the margins of society.

@jacob I notice how you say "single mothers." And not "single parents." I find this interesting. I'm curious -- do you think single fathers also present a liability to women?

I agree with you that we can't accurately assess this situation without hearing his side. But I find it interesting that you're making it a gender issue.

Not sure if you come around here a lot, but I have the feeling that, if the genders were reversed (single father with an out-of-work girlfriend), people on this forum would be just as harsh toward her as they are toward this guy.

Granted, some commenters on here are throwing around some "Act like a man!" rhetoric. And I disagree with that -- I think the word "man" should be placed with "adult."

Jacob, you're an ass. I'll admit I didn't give any of your drivel any credibility after your first comment about what a liability single mothers are. I am the single mother of two (legitimate) young men who I raised alone from the ages of 2 and infancy. I have been in a few relationships over the years and none of the men involved saw me as a liability. In fact, just the opposite, and any one of them would still tell you that today. Maybe you just attract the bottom of the barrel because that's where you live.

"Also it's pretty disgusting how she's turned on him so quickly."

Seven years is quick?! Have you even read the letter? Most people wouldn't have put up with an umotivated, undereducated partner for that long, but she apparently has because she loves him. Yet, now, he won't even go out and LOOK for a job! That's why she's writing in.

Amy didn't leave much out, at least for most of us to get the accurate picture. I think you need to re-read the letter.

Seven years is quick?!

No 3 months is quick.

He's also posted as Mel

No. Melanie is my girlfriend genius.

Something about jacob started to seem a little fishy to me, so I went and looked at his IP.

Bullshit. You looked up my IP to try to embarrass me because I don't agree with you.

Don't you think that it's a bit hypocritical for someone whose on a crusade about their privacy and 4th amendment rights to try to silence other people by divulging private information and making false claims about them on this basis?

This is what I'm talking about. You get childish and vindictive whenever someone disagrees with you. Now you're claiming that there's all sorts of information that you've withheld that bolsters your case. But why would you withhold this information in the first place?

The guy is a compulsive thief as well?!? Then why did you deliberately mischaracterize what he'd been fired for?

The truth of the matter is that you've been dialing it in for a while now and are probably falsifying these letters. They're too pat and the characters are straight out of central casting.

Mel has my deepest sympathies. Whatever you do Jacob don't knock her up - you'll have a (gasp!!!) single mother on your hands.

Where does she say that he's sponging off of her?

He's sponging off somebody, and if it's not her now, it'll be her if they get married. Saying "I do" won't make him a different man. My calling it "sponging" doesn't come from the fact that she's working and he's not, that wouldn't be at all fair. But his general attitude speaks to the kind of man he is: unmotivated and willing to steal things of little value from a nursing home (because he can, not because he needs them). And it doesn't sound as if LW is trying to portray him in a negative light. She actually tries not to sound too harsh in the letter and says she still wants to stay with him. Which is due to her own issues, which she needs to work on, but the first, quickest step to acting like you deserve more out of life is to get rid of a guy who doesn't treat you that way. If they can't talk about it and come up with something, they don't need to be together. She's enabling him, too, which isn't doing him any favors.

No, 3 months is quick.

It's really, really unlikely that this problem started three months ago. The guy didn't magically change personalities. People can get depressed and unmotivated when suddenly out of work. It happened to me, as a matter of fact. But if that were the case, wouldn't LW have said something to that effect?

I realize that you are a guy who likes to go for irrational overreach in your arguments, but nobody's eating your privacy here, kitten.

Here we go w/ the ad hominem attacks again. You barely know anything about me. Why do you keep trying to characterize my personality based on a handful of comments? So far you've accused me of being a liar, irrational, fishy(?) and are even attacking the existence of my girlfriend and the idioms I've used.

The fact of the matter is that your columns have gotten progressively lazier over the past while and it appears that you're not making much effort. I bet that you know that.

Did you read the letter or did you just see "single mother" and start railing?

You'd presented a misleading account of the events surrounding this woman's dilemma. I responded to the facts you'd presented. Now you're mad because I didn't agree with your assessment. It's really that simple.

So what I expect that you're going to do now, is to resort to some more gratuitous self promotion and condescending tone to distract from the fact that I'm correct in my basic criticism of what you're written here.

so many people, without the relevant facts - which Amy strangely decided to leave out - want to cut his head off -jacob

I'm sory jacob, I didnt realise you had hacked into Amys email and have proof that she withheld information from us.

Are you going to share with the rest of the class your discoveries?

Or are you just blowing smoke?

Amy, you can't take the high
road when you're dealing
with a lowlife. This "Jacob" has no
character and is not worth any further effort
or thought. He is clearly not capable
of rationale or decency. Your columns
are brilliant as are you with your
sound advice.

I'm not going to spar with Amy any more because I don't want to read that she's jumped off a bridge or something.

I'm sory jacob, I didnt realise you had hacked into Amys email and have proof that she withheld information from us.

You haven't been following along have you?

But Chris is desperate for someone to respond to her, so maybe one of you folks can sign in using my name and go at it with her.

Jacob 1, Amy Alkanon 0

"He doesn't even have a high school diploma and can only get low-paying work with bad hours"

This line reads to me like his work has been sporadic at best, and nonexistent now. And if it weren't, then he's one blessed drop-out.

I know stay at home dads and they bring real value to the table, as does any partner committed to raising good kids and caring for the home and enabling the other to concentrate on their career. It doesn't sound like that's him. You don't have to stop seeing him if you REALLY don't want to-but he DOES have to step up and contribute. It's hard for 2 people to better themselves at once, but is he even thinking about school once you're done? What are his longterm plans?

Engaged for 7 years? WTF is that about? Stay happily unmarried or get married if you want, but I really hate the long-term engagement people. Were you in high school when you started?

And all that ignores the red flag of risking his paycheck for some soda. And stealing.

And the fact that your daughter is (probably) bonded to him. A man you aren't married to, and living with. Not great for her.

Our jacob must be another couch-weight for him to defend LW's boyfriend so vehemently. A couch-weight, and a misogynist, which is why I don't believe for one minute that he has a girlfriend at all. Jacob is just another sock-puppeteer.

Jacob=less than zero.

Thanks Amy. You held your ground and
came out on top.

Jacob is right about something:
there is something fishy about the letter and Goddess' response to it.

What is missing from both is why LW said
"I'm scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother."

Are they living in his house?
Is she afraid that she would not be able to find a better man who will be willing to live with her?
Something else?
Why engagement is so long?

To LW: It does not seem like you love the man.
You probably like the safety, in whatever form he was providing it, but asking whether you shall dump you fiance after seven years engagement when he is out of job for three month in a tough job market indicates that there is no love involved here, only fears, or something else omitted either by you or by Amy.

I am not getting the condemnation.

He is not a father or husband to anyone involved. He apparently made no parental commitments or marital promises he is breaking here.

This gal is obviously peeved that he is not bringing home money, but if she wants rent and grocery money, she should speak up. Yeah, he may bail. But welcome to free agency, lady--she was never promised anything, it appears.

"So, exactly where are you finding all this sympathy for the guy?"

Sympathy? I would ask why everyone is condemning a guy who undertook no obligations, and is simply not taking on the financial support role that this woman's baby-daddy properly has.

She should vet her bedmates better before letting them move in.

Really jake? I saw you and your 'girlfreind's' posts, I saw you make alot of assumptions, but I didnt see you post an excerpts from the LW's corespodence with Amy

You talk big about only working with the facts at hand, those being its
1.too hot and humid or rainy or bright to even leave the house to look for work
2.getting fired for theft,
3.not graduating high school,
4.getting mad about the suggestion to look for work before it gets to hot.

Those being the facts you deduced
1.Single mothers are a problem for all of society and deserve lives of hardship on the margins
2.all women have grossly overinflated idea about what they are 'worth'
3.men are the victims of bloodsucking (single mother types particularly) women
4.shes a bad person for having an illegitamte child
5.all the women on this website are melodrama fans who blame men for everything, always - like Lifetime movies
6.she is a gold digger carring only for money for money sake and not for the thing is buys like food and clothes for her kid,
7.the reason he cant find work has nothing to with the fact he refuses to look for work,
8.we should stick to the facts at hand, a requirement apparently beneath you
9.Amy left out facts (facts which you know about[how you know about them you refuse to tell]facts you refuse to share whilst claiming you did infact share them), all in some bizzare conspiracy to get a handful of unknown strangers to dump on a guy online that none of them know and will never even recognise should by some strange coincidence they ever acctually meet in real life.
10.Amy mischarchterized the guy as a thief when writing he was fired for theft
11.Amy is an outright liar and a con artist who fakes her letters because no one would ever really ask her for advice
12.By apologising for asuming you didnt have a girlfriend she really "super secretly" meant to imply that you didnt have a girlfreind
13.Amy is going to kill herself if you ever post here again, because you are such a superior wit that she'll have no choice but to commit suicide in order to stop the pain of being bested by your radiant brilliance

So these are the 13 things you have deduced from the letter and a half dozen exchanges with other people on the message board.

Its a wonder that you dont write an advice column given your talents for insight, mind reading, and remote veiwing

Amy,
I am sure you don't need me to tell you this, but I will anyway. Your columns are always funny, insightful, and full of worthwhile advice. While some of the scenarios presented do seem fantastic (two liter bottles of pee come to mind), I also believe that they are real. Humanity is endlessly fascinating and diverse and I think your mail reflects that truth.

Keep up the good work and ignore the trolls.

"Plenty of people disagree with me plenty. Lovelysoul thinks I'm kind of an ass with some frequency (although she wouldn't put it that way, I don't think). There are just some things where she thinks I'm off-base. No problem."

For the record, Amy, I never think you're an ass. We disagree on some things, but I always know that your opinion is the result of very intelligent evaluation and careful research. Often, when I disagree with you, I question myself and challenge my own opinions because I respect you so much. Your logic has changed my opinion on several issues.

Single motherhood has been one area where we've clashed, and it's nice to see you defend it here.

"I won first place for my column this past month in the So Cal Jlism awards (and was a finalist for Journalist of the Year for a funny advice column)..."

Congratulations on your hard earned recognition.

I first stumbled upon your column back when Pittsburgh had two weekly papers. When the weekly that carried your column folded, I was glad to find your work online. Reading your column has taught me a lot about how to concisely construct an argument with critical thinking and solid research. And puns.

"Sympathy? I would ask why everyone is condemning a guy who undertook no obligations, and is simply not taking on the financial support role that this woman's baby-daddy properly has."

Well they've been engaged for seven years, so yes I would say that's an obligation.

But I think the purpose of the condemnations is to get through to LW that her fiance who she's oh so in love with has proven himself to be selfish, lazy, unmotivated, and unethical. If she'd realized this herself she'd be walking away instead of writing for advice but apparently she hasn't; hence everyone's desire to spell it out for her.

Plus it's hard to get around the fact that this guy was fired for stealing soda from a nursing home. I'm pretty sure that officially makes you a Bad Person.

"The bit about the soda machine is just terribly depressing. You can see an adolescent doing something stupid like that. But a grown man?"

Yeah, that was the crowning glory. If you're going to steal, at least steal something that's worth the risk, damn it. Embezzle from the office or lift all of the computers over the weekend or something. Getting fired over a can of Coke? Jeez.

This thread has proved to be very interesting to me; it speaks very near to my heart.

We do, often, speak in stereotypes. I appreciate people like Jacob who can make us think more clearly about what we are writing. Jacob, I hope you don't leave this group because I do appreciate you view point, although I mostly don't agree. It is obvious that you are an intelligent person, but I hate that you have been so scorned....I say that because you seem so bitter. Sorry if I have misjudged.

Anyway, I have an interesting take on this issue. I am much like the LW, but older with an older mate. When we met, he wasn't working but enrolled in school. He had been in the military for nearly 10 years, but suffered a severe bout of depression when his mother suddenly died. He was receiving unemployment benefits when we met. I have advanced degrees and teach at a public institution. I am not rich by any means, but make a decent living. I have 5 kids. 4 biological and one adopted after I became divorced. I adopted him as an older child. I was married 16 years. I met my present boyfriend after I had been divorced seven or eight years. I didn't really want a relationship, so I didn't care that he was just in school at very close to 40. We ended up falling deeply in love.

At first, things were fine. I didn't care that he didn't work. He cleaned my house, cooked dinner, did the yard work, totally kept me on my A game. I had never been more efficient in my work or with my family than when he was arranging our life. He even packed my lunch and started my vehicle in the morning. I swear to you all that I have never felt more loved in my life than when we were together. I was perfectly fine with the arrangement and didn't care he didn't work. I had been taking care of the bills and having him around didn't change any of that much at all. Again, I'm not rich, but I manage my money well. I told him on many occasions that I didn't care that he didn't work and that I appreciated his attention to the details of our life together. I bragged on him to family that I had never been so organized and so on top of my game both professionally and privately.

Bottom line??? It wasn't enough for him. He would feel emasculated sometimes and create arguments....cause fighting. Although I loved him and still do to this day, I believe that the root of our problems was his disappointment in himself at the lack of a career. He wasn't happy being a stay at home guy. Whether society imposed that or he imposed that doesn't matter. He loves me more that anything. He texts and calls me every day to this day saying as much. He apologizes for causing fights and begs to come back into my home. All I can think about is what led up to the break up.

I encouraged him to get a job...any job. I told him I supported any decision he made in terms of work. He refused many jobs, as if they were beneath him, which shocked me. Later, he always had an excuse why he couldn't search for work. During extended lulls, I told him that I was satisfied with his house husbandry. He never felt it was enought. But, I could tell that he didnt' want to work, even though he wasn't happy not working.

I tried so hard to make this relationship work. I still love him dearly. Even writing this post, I am very emotional. But, we couldn't make it work. It just didn't happen. And I would have loved having a stay-at-home boyfriend.

Jacob, as well-meaning as I believe you are being...please remember that there are so many diameters to each situation. You seem angry, and, because of that, guarded and less rational than you could be. I say that in kindness, not with meanness.

Amy, one thing you didn't address that I seriously wanted to hear your take on was this:

"Why do I stay? Because I love him, and I'm scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother"

I know everyone says low self-esteem blah, blah, blah...but I wanted to hear your take on this. I consider myself a pretty intelligent person, but I have a huge problem getting over the man I have just described. Everyone, including close friends and family, tell me he is not worth my time. Believe it or not, I still love him so much. We talk and sometimes he visits me, but honestly there is a place inside me that wishes he would be happy with being my house boyfriend so that we could have a great relationship.

I know it is not going to happen, which is why he ends up back on his sister's couch after each visit. But, I seriously love this man and wish it would work. All I find myself thinking is...."What is wrong with you, KG, that you don't demand more from yourself than a man who can't be happy with himself or with you."

Jacob you sound like a bitter man. Perhaps you had a bad experience with a single mom. But frankly that is all the time I wish to spend on Jacob.

LW - from your description you man is;
1. A thief and one who repeatedly stole even after you asked him to stop, and he got fired for theft
2. Undereducated and cannot get a better job than one that is low paying with bad hours
3. Unmotivated to find a job and got angry when you suggested getting up earlier to look for get job
4. You have not been able to to get married because you cannot afford it.

Now look at you
1. You are going to school
2. You are working part time - paying all the bills
3. You are raising your daughter
4. You are motivated and doing everything you can to provide a good life for you and your daughter.

As you get better educated and gain better employment, you are going to see a bigger and bigger gulf between you and your current boyfriend. Now if during these 3 months he had been getting his GED and looking for a job, I would not say what I am about to say.

WHAT ARE YOU HOLDING ON TO? It is very likely he is worried about looking for work for fear of what his former employer would say about him. If you are hoping you can change him, give that thought up. The only person you can change is you and you are already working on that.

You are moving forward and he is not. I am not saying he is a bad guy but you two are traveling very different paths and it is doubtful those paths are going to stay close together.

If this guy was working hard (albeit at dead-end jobs) for years, and now all of a sudden can't be arsed to get off the couch and look for work, is it possible that there's a problem with clinical depression that he should be seeking treatment for?

Jacob, as well-meaning as I believe you are being..
Posted by: kg

Are you insane? in a half adozen rants he called single mothers gold digging bloodsuckers on the prowl to screw over men, that they deserved, DESERVED, to live in poverty simply for being a single woman with a child, that women in general have an over inflated sense of self worth, and that Amy was a charlaten and a liar who was such a failure that she had to fake letters to herself and was so lazy and incompotent as to 'phone in' replys to her own fake letters!

how the fuck is that in ANY way "well-meaning"?

*applause* to lujlp!
Also, I agree wholeheartedly with Chris and sheepmommy.
I agree with momof4 as well. The engagement of 7 years may be because she's draining the wedding jar for grocery money.
Agreed, Shannon. Sometimes people do things they're not proud of and it doesn't automatically make them Bad People, but the guy was asking for bad results if this behavior was persistent and significant enough that he was even asked to stop.
"I would ask why everyone is condemning a guy who undertook no obligations, and is simply not taking on the financial support role that this woman's baby-daddy properly has. She should vet her bedmates better before letting them move in."
Spartee, I repectfully disagree. I feel that this assertion is debatable on the basis that living with someone (just as with living alone) comes with obligations. IMO, the Only Exception to this idea would be if the LW had explicitly stated that she did not expect contribution to household expenses as part of their cohabitation. Since this is not implied as the circumstance, I believe that he has an obligation to contribute, whether as a property owner, corenter, or undocumented cohabitant. Anything less than making an effort to find employment or improve one's marketability for employment is simply taking advantage of the other individual - whether it's a parent or other family member, significant other, or roommate: UNLESS, as stated, an explicit offer for support has been made to the unemployed person (I.e., "Don't worry about it, I'll take care of everything.") Being in a relationship doesn't entitle you to being taken care of unless the offer's been made.
I'd like to second Michelle in congratulating Amy on her acheivements. She should be very proud of every award her hard work and perseverance yields.
Kg, I was moved by your story and empathize with your plight; thank you for sharing it. I believe that your story helps to illustrate the fact that context is everything; it sounds as if you have experienced something of the opposite problem, so to speak.
*shakes worthit's hand*

"I hear Chris Potter is editing one of the weeklies there now, and I'm going to hit him up to carry my column."

The City Paper.
http://www.pittsburghcitypaper.ws/gyrobase/index

What's funny - strange but entirely like Pittsburgh - is that the paper is still redirecting traffic from the old url of the other weekly that folded *years* ago:
http://www.inpgh.com/

(Pittsburghers are notorious for giving directions based on landmarks that no longer exist.)

I think Chris Potter has been there since forever. I've heard only good things about him, never an unkind word, even in what is essentially a very, very small town.

It would be great to read your column on the bus on the way home from work on Wednesdays, once again. Good luck!

KG, that's heartbreaking. It seems like he needs to work things out on his own/make himself happy before he can be in a relationship again. It's particularly awful because you still both love each other -- but have realized that the relationship may be doing more harm than good at this point in his life.

Amy, I am happy to do so.

M

There are so many quotable quotes in here! Amy, you've outdone yourself with this letter... "is he a man or is he Goldilocks?" among others.

@ Jacob... LW said he 'works hard', but that was in the past because he lost his job due to theft from his employer. Criminal activity does not sit well with future employers, and i bet LW's b/f knows that when he applies to any future job, and his references are checked, he will be outed as a thief. This is what is leading LW's b/f to low self-esteem, blaming the weather, and displaced anger at LW.

I'm with you, Amy, Jacob has an axe to grind when it comes to single moms. His letters rang of sour grapes.

I agree with the analogy Cousin Dave put forth, in that, stealing soda pop is just plain crazy, but it is a cry for help on LW's b/f's part... too bad he couldn't stop himself from petty theft and examine his behaviour before it all went down, then get himself off to the nearest adult education centre for some heaping helpings of GED.

@ Just sayin' ...you go girl!

@ Spartee ...i imagine things were a lot rosier when the 2 of them first decided to move in together; things usually are in the early days. From there on out, living with someone, married or not, can be an eye-opener. As LW said: he WAS a hard worker, but now, he's unemployed... why? because he chose to steal from his employer. It's a no-brainer. The guy's a loser with a capital L. Also, generally speaking, when 2 people move in together, Spartee, i'm sure they split the bills with both of them working. Now that he's not working, her small salary has to be spread thinner than ever, and she has a right to complain about it. Spartee, swap their positions, with the LW being the unemployed, undereducated schlump who won't job seek, and the b/f complaining. What would you say then?

kg,

I'm sorry about your situation, but I am curious about a few things you say here based upon things you have said in the past.

In particular:

"When we met, he wasn't working but enrolled in school. He had been in the military for nearly 10 years, but suffered a severe bout of depression when his mother suddenly died. He was receiving unemployment benefits when we met."

and

"At first, things were fine. I didn't care that he didn't work. He cleaned my house, cooked dinner, did the yard work, totally kept me on my A game."

In the past you have made it very clear that you were a strong advocate that the man had to prove himself to be a provider financially for you to be romantically interested in him. You were actually very adamant about this point.

The perspective you were forcefully and resolutely arguing for in the past seems to be greatly at odds with your current admission that you are deeply in love with an unemployed man who cleaned your house and cooked dinner for you.

"In the past you have made it very clear that you were a strong advocate that the man had to prove himself to be a provider financially for you to be romantically interested in him. You were actually very adamant about this point."

Perhaps the heartbreak that she experienced with the unemployed man changed her pespective?

"Spartee, swap their positions, with the LW being the unemployed, undereducated schlump who won't job seek, and the b/f complaining. What would you say then?"

Easy. If you want to keep sleeping with a single mom, you likely need to provide money AND daycare. That is typically the deal such gals seek from live-ins. (No condemnation there--that is just how competent single moms are wired. The foolish ones seek less or something else entirely.)

But if you look again, I believe my comment was mainly directed towards the people here: why be so upset with this guy as an outsider? He is not a father or husband who made promises regarding support. He can work to the extent he wants, without failing a family or spouse.

Being unmarried, she can dump him if he does not work to her liking. So if he wants to be a lazy schlub, he has no obligation to do otherwise, and she can cut him loose.

Spartee, i'm not sure if you went out of your way to ignore the facts, but nevertheless, you are only just repeating your first post.

LW says she loves her b/f. I'm sure the b/f loves her too, or did when they first moved in together. So theirs is a relationship, not a business deal.

It bears repeating that usually, when people move in together, they make agreements on how they will pay for groceries, rent/mortgage, bills, etc. The b/f has reneiged on his end of the deal, not making any contributions.

Spartee, how do you know what promises as a non-father and non-spouse this guy might or might not have made to LW? You are making gross assumptions.

Yes, of course she can dump him; we are all encouraging her to do so. You are supporting our argument, but just in a very twisted way by trying to make it sound like she is a bitch and is somehow to blame for this situation HE finds himself in now.

My take on this is that you, Spartee, are just as much sour grapes as what Jacob is.

It is truly illuminating how fast and unconstrained females on this forum are to turn to ad hominem.

Even more amazing is the fact that the Goddess of this place expounds the virtues of politeness.

Neither Spartee not Jacob are "sour grapes" --- but your own unwillingness to face their arguments is.

@Amy

What is rude is not a disagreement but ad hominem.

@Such as?

>>My take on this is that you, Spartee, are just as much sour grapes as what Jacob is.

>>I'm with you, Amy, Jacob has an axe to grind when it comes to single moms. His letters rang of sour grapes.

>>Nice try, but you lose, kitten!

>>Mere Mortal's posts always sound to me like something Borat would write.

etc...

Couple the above comments with lack of counter-arguments and it becomes ad-hominem.

I enjoyed Borat comparison and think it is a compliment. It is still an ad-hominem.

Jacob expressed opinion about LW because that's what letter writers ask for. Jacob was not asking to assess his persona. So, calling him "sour grapes" is an ad-hominem in discussion about LW.
Is this too fine a point?

If it is, I promise to make a sacrifice of a jar of gypsy tears.

I believe that the raging hostility Jacob has evidenced in his demeanor concerning the character, work ethic, and financial stability of an entire group, I.e., unmarried and dating mothers with children, would more accurately categorize his comments as ad hominem.
"Neither Spartee not Jacob are 'sour grapes' --- but your own unwillingness to face their arguments is."
I believe the arguments in question have been addressed, negating a purported unwillingness to face them. As the statement concerning "sour grapes" is an expression of an opinion concerning the posters and speculation upon the perceived basis of their arguments, it doesn't seem to me so much ad hominem as is directly approaching the debate at hand with blatant bias (such as how Jacob has expressed, IMO, a harshly skewed perspective of the LW's situation, given his evidently fierce disdain for single mothers as a group). I believe "Sour grapes" isn't meant as an attack on a dissenting opinion so much as an assessment of the ad hominum expression of that opinion.
Spartee, you do have a point that the bf is free to do as he wishes as well as the LW is free to dump him. I believe that's why the LW asked for advice based on opinions concerning what the bfs alleged behavior says about his involvement in the situation, and how that compares and contrasts with her involvement, to the end of evaluating what her course of action should probably be to the end of benefitting all.
"I am not getting the condemnation. He is not a father or husband to anyone involved. He apparently made no parental commitments or marital promises he is breaking here.
This gal is obviously peeved that he is not bringing home money, but if she wants rent and grocery money, she should speak up. Yeah, he may bail. But welcome to free agency, lady--she was never promised anything, it appears."
The LW's basic inquiry is whether she should remain in a committed (at least on her end) relationship with her now fiance, presumably to become married. The behavior he's reported on exhibiting is not that of a responsible husband, father (as he would be filling the surrogate role of, should they marry), or, consequently, a provider, by any stretch of the imagination. This is the basic point that has been (hotly) discussed here - since if the LW *were* to stay with this guy and get married, he would be incurring the obligation (legally in addition to ethically) to support his then-would-be-dependents: his wife and minor child. If he doesn't want any part of current or future financial obligation to a woman with a child whom he did not father (which his behavior indicates), and that's what she expects from a partner but has no reasonable anticipation of this guy fulfilling such an obligation, there's no discernible reason besides emotional attachment for her to remain in a relationship with him. That's appears to be her major issue, and why she wrote to receive confirmation on what her emotional attachment is at odds with. The only condemnation given to the bf is that his behavior is clearly, IMO, at odds with the obligations he could reasonably expect to encounter in the long-term as part of being in a serious, marriage-anticipated relationship with the LW. Seven years of engagement should have given him ample opportunity to evaluate and re-evaluate the implications of his position in taking on a pre-fab family.

@ValiantBlue

Both Jacob and Spartee make an important point that is not addressed or faced by those who call them "sour grapes":

It is only three month since the guy lost his job.
(Repeat it three times).

If a woman gets annoyed to the point of seeking justification for dumping a guy who lost his job and she does it after much less then the average time others spent on seeking a job in a given employment environment, she herself invites a criticism.

Imagine that a woman thinks of dumping a guy after one day he lost his job. Who is she other than a prostitute with a long term contract?

How about a week? A month?

A year or three would be a good reason to start questioning the guy's attitude, but three months in this job climate?

@Amy

>>>So, calling him "sour grapes" is an ad-hominem in discussion about LW.

>No, it's a description of his attitude.

Discussing poster's attitude instead of his/her arguments is an ad-hominem.

Mere Mortal, you say "ad hominem" like it's inherently bad. Why is it so awful to link a poster's attitude to his writing? That attitude does actually have something to do with what he posted. It's not a personal attack to hold someone accountable for what he writes, attitude and all. I've been taken to task for coming off too snarky toward someone who didn't deserve it, and I apologized for my tone, because I didn't intend it to sound that way. Because I hold myself responsible for whatever I post.

A year or three would be a good reason to start questioning the guy's attitude, but three months in this job climate?

Again, anyone who believes the guy's attitude started only after he lost his job, please stand on your head. If that were the case, LW would have written it in the letter to further justify why he's such a good guy having a hard time.

@ Jacob, Spartee, and now also Mere Mortal...

I have the sneaking suspicion that the above-mentioned 3 have no children, or, if they do, they might be the type of parent who flits in and out of the household and doesn't lay a finger down in childrearing, true parenting, or discipline; it's probably the poor wifey (Mom) who does it all.

Why am i making this assumption? Based on fact. I have a few siblings who are childless. Some are married, others aren't, but they are childless siblings of mine. You wouldn't believe the gross assumptions and criticisms that come out of their mouths regarding childrearing, discipline, what i should and shouldn't do, and what it takes 24/7 to feed, clothe, house, educate, and keep a child healthy. It's a difficult job when the child(ren) are "normal"; even MORE challenging and scary when it's a child with special needs.

It wouldn't possibly have passed your collective consciousness at all that when it comes to caring for and protecting her child, this LW has every right to want to do what's best by her child. No?

And, Mere Mortal, even though it is only 3 months since the b/f lost his job, you are forgetting WHY he lost his job. He stole from his employer. This fact has somehow gotten buried. IMHO, it would cause havoc in my heart and soul if i found out my b/f had a criminal side that was not earlier evident, and i would seriously doubt his character from that point forward.

But, you're entitled to your opinions, all of you. Thank you for the entertainment, Jacob, Spartee, and Mere Mortal. Carry on.

Who knew that using a common phrase such as "sour grapes" would incur such wrath? I only meant that Jacob's and Spartee's dissertations on single Moms stink. Really, that's all i meant, and i have a right to my opinion.

Also, everything ValiantBlue said points to one thing: the b/f is acting in a passive-aggressive manner by spending his days on the couch, refusing to job seek, and blaming the weather. In my experience, people who act this way are trying to get a rise out of whomever the passive-aggressiveness is aimed at, ie: the LW. He WANTS her gone, as evidenced by his behaviour; he just can't bring himself to voice it. So, i stand by my first post ...she shouldn't marry him.

Mere Mortal: repeat 3x, then maybe you'll get it: he stole from his employer. My other reason for the assumption that you especially (Mere Mortal) don't have children is because you advocate that LW should wait a year or 3 before she takes action?... her child could be very badly influenced by the schlumpy b/f's behaviour, should LW continue living with him. Three years is preposterous. Doh.

MereMortal,
The point of concern for the LW and those "condemning" the bf is more the fact that he's given up job searching before starting, rather than the actual loss of his job and subsequent unemployment. The situation itself does not define a person, but one's reaction to their situation does.
"If a woman gets annoyed to the point of seeking justification for dumping a guy who lost his job and she does it after much less then the average time others spent on seeking a job in a given employment environment, she herself invites a criticism."
That theory bypasses the LW's actual main issue, which is not so much that he is unemployed or that he has been rejected by potential employers, but has not been attempting to become employed. Apologies if I have misinterpreted, but the phrase "the average time others spent on seeking a job in a given employment environment" gives me the impression that the bf's complacency has been overlooked, as he's not been seeking a job in any given employment environment.
"Imagine that a woman thinks of dumping a guy after one day he lost his job. Who is she other than a prostitute with a long term contract? How about a week? A month? A year or three would be a good reason to start questioning the guy's attitude, but three months in this job climate?"
It hasn't been a day (again, not the joblessness at issue but the refusal to rectify it) - it's been three months. The job climate is immaterial if there's no presence within it, because of the environmental climate, to attribute one's unemployment to its harshness. Assessing a woman in the scenario you describe as a "prostitute" is your prerogative, but is IMO hardly directly comparable to the LW. I agree that a year or three as you state would be a potentially tolerable timeframe to be unemployed in a circumstance of unsuccessful job hunting, but this isn't the case as described. LW's preference that her bf show some interest in exercising compassion toward her situation, as she has tried to do so toward his, doesn't make her a gold-digger or a prostitute. However, his preference to make every effort to avoid job-hunting makes him out more so to be a gigolo for the time being, IMO.
She reads to me as a woman who may at least be better off taking a trial separation from her fiancee in order for them both to evaluate their respective priorities in life as well as their expectations from a relationship - be they from each other or other people. In the meantime, each would be financially responsible for themselves (and, of course, she to her child also) and could focus more on how they actually feel about each other's presence in their lives rather than finances.
"And, Mere Mortal, even though it is only 3 months since the b/f lost his job, you are forgetting WHY he lost his job. He stole from his employer. This fact has somehow gotten buried. IMHO, it would cause havoc in my heart and soul if i found out my b/f had a criminal side that was not earlier evident, and i would seriously doubt his character from that point forward."
I agree wholeheartedly, Bluejean Baby.
"Discussing poster's attitude instead of his/her arguments is an ad-hominem."
MereMortal, Bluejean Baby is correct as the arguments presented are themselves ad hominem in the respect that they're largely affected by deeply seated bias (specifically in Jacob's case) against the group of single mothers as a whole. The skewing of a perspective on a given situation because of one's opinion on an aspect related to it (ad hominem) is distinctly separate from expression of an opinion as stands alone, such as an opinion on whether an individual is biased and speculation of why. Jacob's ongoing explication that LW deserves whatever she gets because she's part of a degenerate group could be described as ad hominem; the observation of this bias and the expression thereof is an opinion and not, in my perception, ad hominem.

"Pittsburghers are notorious for giving directions based on landmarks that no longer exist."

Directions to my house used to include the phrase "turn straight where the three-legged dog used to live." I miss the 'burgh, but I don't miss navigating it.

@Bluejean Baby
>>I have the sneaking suspicion that the above-mentioned 3 have no children, or, if they do, they might be the type of parent who flits in and out of the household and doesn't lay a finger down in childrearing, true parenting, or discipline; it's probably the poor wifey (Mom) who does it all.

I can not speak for other two, but as far as I am concerned, your assumption is grossly inaccurate.
I know what childrearing is from washing baby's derier to instilling discipline of learning (my kid now is in college).

I am just lucky to be resistant to feminist agitprop that permeates this forum.

Now, the important question "WHY he lost his job. He stole from his employer."
It is important indeed.
I happen to be skeptical that this is "the fact".
It is possible that it's the truth, but sounds more like a reported excuse for firing a guy with an intention to conceal the real reason.
It is easy to invent such petty misdemeanor as "stealing a can of soda" when employer wants to get rid of a guy. Never heard that someone was fired for that as the main and only reason.

Re: "he hasn't looked for a job since. He said he couldn't when we had a rainy period; now he says it's too hot. When I suggested he get up early to beat the heat, he got angry."

Most here seem to accept this at face value.
I don't. This "couldn't when we had a rainy period or too hot one" sounds like a guy who don't want to be bugged about it. It feel hurt and he is probably looking for a job but nothing turns up. He knows how bad situation is and the last thing he wants to hear is his fiance nagging him about it. I have been unemployed several times and know how it feels.

Once again, I would not take everything LW says at face value. It seems to me she looks for a validation of her idea to dump him and therefore cannot be fully trusted in her description of the situation.

And, ladies and goddesses, I'll repeat another important and yet unanswered question: why she wrote "I'm scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother."? Is it an unfounded fear or is he actually contributing something that she does not mention?

@Amy
>>I don't know about you, but once I graduated college (which my parents were generous to pay for, save for some of my living expenses in New York that a scholarship I won didn't cover), I never again expected anyone to support me. Not my parents, not a man.

Truly admirable, O Goddess.
And I mean it.

>>The point is, you don't lie on your ass while somebody else supports you.
Nothing in the letter indicates that she supports him or that he is not actually looking for work.

Uh, Mere Mortal, read the letter again.

"Three months ago, he was fired from a nursing home for stealing drinks from the soda machine, and he hasn't looked for a job since."

Ignoring the is he/isn't he a parasite question for a second, why can they "not afford to get married"? This, to me at least, is a sign that there might be some other issues at work here, and that money very much is a concern.

Now back to the main attraction.

As for the excuses, having struggled to find work after graduating college and going through a long period of depression and an overpowering feelings of helplessness and worthlessness along the way, I'm sure I gave some pretty worthless excuses around that time too.

The fact is, we simply don't have enough details from this letter to know one way or the other. We do know enough to know:

1) This is about money, and she needs to be honest with herself about that.
2) She's not happy with things as they are, and won't be until they change.

So she needs to sit down, figure out what she wants, and make that happen. If he can't be a part of that, she needs to choose between what she wants and what she can have with him. Either way, rough times, unpleasant conversation will be on the agenda.

The guy never had money, though, Rik, so it's not like she's lost her sugar daddy. She's been with him for more than seven years and he's never had steady or lucrative work, so the issue is why it's a problem now. I still contend the issue isn't with the money, but with her fiance's attitude. Had he lost his job and been looking for another, or at least not have been making feeble excuses about why he couldn't look, we'd never have heard from her. That would have just been more of the same for her. If this problem was a recent manifestation, she'd have said so. The money is nowhere near the top of the list of things she needs to be honest with herself about. The top of that list needs to be why she's stayed so fucking long with someone whose basic attitude toward life is at war with hers and why she's so scared to be on her own, considering she'd have less pressure on her without the guy. The money issue that isn't really a money issue is just the thing that finally put a crack in her rose-tinted glasses.

She needs to make more than a halfhearted attempt to talk to him about this. I agree that "can't afford to get married for seven years" is an excuse, but I think it's an excuse to hide the fact they just aren't suitable. I have to think that one or both of them keeps putting off the wedding because they know they don't belong together but don't want to be alone. "Engaged" in this sense is just a limbo where she's not totally committed but she doesn't have to be out in the scary world all by herself, like she's afraid she'll float away without an anchor. LW: be a better mom by being better to yourself and give your daughter a model for marriage other than "grab onto the first guy who'll have you and don't let go."

Spot on, NumberSix.

Wow, this conversation is still going on?

It's not a matter of this guy being a zero, it's more a matter of this woman being afraid to be alone. So many people, women and men, paint themselves into a very bad corner in this way.

LW, being alone is not a frightening thing. If something has been taking up space and hasn't done you any good in a long time, throw it out.

@NumberSix

Re: The guy never had money, though, Rik, so it's not like she's lost her sugar daddy.

How do you know that? The guy might have had additional income from an inheritance or something and now it is depleted? (I know one such case.)
---------------
@Amy She tries to help him every which way (this I couldn't fit in) etc.....

It is so nice to have cards up one's sleeve!
Where is the card that reveals why she wrote "I'm scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother."?

"I have to think that one or both of them keeps putting off the wedding because they know they don't belong together but don't want to be alone. 'Engaged' in this sense is just a limbo where she's not totally committed but she doesn't have to be out in the scary world all by herself, like she's afraid she'll float away without an anchor."
I believe NumberSix presented the most succinct and plausible answer to the question of why she wrote "I'm scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother."

Yeah, conv still going. When I read the letter, my impression was that the LW was afraid of being alone, i.e., manless -- not so much that she was afraid of trying to make it financially on her own. She sounds to me like a gal who hasn't been without a boyfriend since age 15. At this point, I hope she takes the leap. She'll never figure herself out if she doesn't. Good luck, LW!

@ Mere Mortal, thank you for the laughs, especially the "feminist agitprop". Kudos to you for not inserting the word "lesbian" in there somewhere!

Regarding thiefs and nursing homes, it is at epidemic proportions here, constantly in the news, with elderly, frail, sometimes bedridden seniors who are unable to defend themselves, having their room tossed, their belongings rifled through and stolen even while they lay there sleeping, by nursing home STAFF, be it the nurse, the receptionist, the physiotherapist, or the janitor. I can't tell you how disgusting this is, that seniors are subjected to such vile "employees", some not just thieving from them, but assaulting them as well. Nursing home residents are just so vulnerable.

With that scenario in mind, a nursing home that catches a thief - even a thief of soda pop - might just take that small step in their minds and wonder if he was the one stealing valuables as well. (Nearly) every nursing home has these thieves. Life is full of people taking advantage. Management fires their asses for theft. of. anything. period.

@ Mere Mortal... "Is it an unfounded fear or is he actually contributing something that she does not mention?"

It has been proven that pheremones are to blame for (some) interactions between consenting adults... with this in mind, perhaps LW has been content with the scent of testosterone in her midst, and it is just recently that she has emerged from the mist to question what the heck is going on.

If all of the above is just drivel and we might not really have the total story, or LW has left out important details, maybe it's just that she's got the 7 Year Itch. Interestingly enough, LW never actually states that they live together.

I'm kidding about the 7 Year Itch, of course. But what i said (above) about the scent of testosterone in her midst is truly a factor for some women.

The bottom line is that they are not a match and they need to go their separate ways, and it sounds like LW has to take the lead in making the split happen, though she's fearful.

In Ontario, Canada (where i live) they would be considered to be in a commonlaw marriage, if they are living together for 7 years, and they would have to split the material goods like in a divorce, and LW might even end up supporting b/f for a period of time until he can get on his feet. The Ontario Courts have made living together the same as marriage, so people should never "live together" unless they know for sure they're with The One.

@Bluejean Baby

>>perhaps LW has been content with the scent of testosterone in her midst, and it is just recently that she has emerged from the mist to question what the heck is going on.

Good idea! Then a sound advice to LW would be

"Get a bottle of pheromone perfume and see if it replaces your b/f. This will clear things up."

instead of

>>Act like you're worthy.

@Amy There's no evidence humans have a functioning vomeronasal organ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomeronasal_organ#Human_beings

@Amy

Here you go, o Goddess.
Where is it indicated that I posted Wiki article in order to disagree with you?

In fact, I posted it to provide other participants with easy way to get an idea what is vomeronasal organ.
But for some reason you are using it for just another ad-hominem all the while ignoring an important question I asked you several times.
This silence speaks volumes.

Mere mortal you had two points
1. eveyone dumping on this guy for being unemployed - point of fact we were dumping on the guy for making excuses as to why he couldnt even leave the couch to go look for work

2. we didnt fully discuss jacobs points, there fore disagreeing with him and charecterising him in a negitve light is ad hominem attacks.

Very well I'll take that challange is you'll play along and put your money where you mouth is.

Here is a list of the various rguments jacob made before he disappered

1.Single mothers are a problem for all of society and deserve lives of hardship on the margins

2.all women have grossly overinflated idea about what they are 'worth'

3.men are the victims of bloodsucking (single mother types particularly) women

4.shes a bad person for having an illegitamte child

5.all the women on this website are melodrama fans who blame men for everything, always - like Lifetime movies

6.she is a gold digger carring only for money for money sake and not for the thing is buys like food and clothes for her kid,

7.the reason LW boyfriend cant find work has nothing to with the fact he refuses to look for work,

8.we should stick to the facts at hand, a requirement apparently beneath him

9.Amy left out facts (facts which he knows about[how he knows about them he refused to tell]facts he refused to share whilst claiming he did infact share them), all in some bizzare conspiracy to get a handful of unknown strangers to dump on a guy online that none of them know and will never even recognise should by some strange coincidence they ever acctually meet in real life.

10.Amy mischarchterized the guy as a thief when writing he was fired for theft

11.Amy is an outright liar and a con artist who fakes her letters because no one would ever really ask her for advice

12.By apologising for asuming he didnt have a girlfriend she really "super secretly" meant to imply that he didnt have a girlfreind

13.Amy is going to kill herself if he ever post here again, because he are such a superior wit that she'll have no choice but to commit suicide in order to stop the pain of being bested by his radiant brilliance

So

Which of these thirteen arguments of jacob's would you like to discuss with the group?

Here you go, o Goddess.
Where is it indicated that I posted Wiki article in order to disagree with you? - mere mortal

Its indicated by the fact that you quote her line saying humans dont have such a functioning organ.

If it was really just about providing info to the board you wouldnt have quoted Amy, yo have said here is some info on this subject and nor mentioned Amy or her quote at all

@lujlp

>>Which of these thirteen arguments of jacob's would you like to discuss with the group?

Few if any of your 13 points are Jacob's.
It was imputed on him by folks who have reading comprehension problems.

I definitely disagree with Jacob when he implies that single deserve to suffer --- it is just wrong, but that was not his primary point either.

He started with these:

1. They've been engaged for seven years, and likely together longer than that. He's presumably been working and helping her out that entire time.

2. She actually tells us that she's 'scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother'. Which indicates that he's been supporting her and her kid.
So seven years of support, but now that he's been out of work for three months, she wants to dump him.

3. You've got to take her description of him with a grain of salt, because she's obviously trying to portray him in a negative light. He's an unmotivated lazy idiot and a petty criminal to boot. Funny that that's only been an issue since he'd lost his job.

and then veered off topic.
---------------------------------

Was Jacob using ad-hominem? Yes. Wrong for him but even worse for Amy, since she determines the spirit of this forum.
-------

Take care girls.

"Living is easy with your eyes closed, misunderstanding is all you see."
And there are much fewer problems with imaginary boyfriends: you can invent any rules for them you'd like.

@ Mere Mortal: "2. She actually tells us that she's 'scared I wouldn't be able to make it on my own as a single mother'. Which indicates that he's been supporting her and her kid.
So seven years of support, but now that he's been out of work for three months, she wants to dump him."

I have an insight into this particular behaviour, even when a person is scared they aren't going to be capable out on their own, it may not have anything to do with money, rather, it could have to do with the emotional support he lends as a step-parent. We do not know how old LW's daughter is, nor do we know if the daughter is a special child (special ed, challenging issues).

I can speak to this situation myself, since i do have a special child, my oldest, and i can honestly say that even though my husband and i live like good buddies these days, (ie: no intimacy) he is a FANTASTIC father to our special child, and i would then go further to say that i am not sure i would be able to make it on my own as a single mother, should i leave due to the initmacy issue. Yes, i think about leaving, but... that's a huge "but" ...can i do alone what needs being done for my special child? I'm not so sure about it. Will our special child thrive in a single parent household?... probably not. One of the reasons why i still do love my husband is because of the love and support he gives to our special child.

While LW indicates he has been supporting her and her "kid" as you put it, Mere Mortal (i prefer the label "child") that support could be emotional and relationship support.

It's not always about money. Does that shed some light on it?

The guy might have had additional income from an inheritance or something and now it is depleted?

Yes, you're right. He may also be a secret duke who was excommunicated as a result of a scandal involving two chambermaids and a goat. He probably just took a series of low-paying jobs with bad hours to feel like he's still one of the guys and was quite content until his money all ran out. Are we supposed to refrain from giving advice and commenting based on likely scenarios if there's a teeny, tiny chance of an unlikely scenario that wasn't even mentioned in the original letter? If that's true, I need to amend my advice to the woman whose boyfriend kept bottles of urine scattered around his living room: he may be pissing liquid gold, so you should shut up and be grateful.

NumberSix is correct. There is no way he had an inheritance or other form of income because LW specifically says they "haven't been able to afford to get married" for 7 years, during which time he's only had low paying jobs with bad hours. Please read the actual letter, not what you want to imagine.

"You seem to be motivated by a childish desire to win at all cost rather than to honestly discuss an issue according to evidence. As does your pal, Jacob."
This is gold, Amy. Although I'm sure it will somehow be determined as ad hominem, it's beautifully succinct.
While LW indicates he has been supporting her and her "kid" as you put it, Mere Mortal (i prefer the label "child") that support could be emotional and relationship support.
I concur, Bluejean Baby.
Beautiful, NumberSix and lovelysoul.

Sorry mere mortal, but those were the 13 arguments put forward by jacob, I went thru his orgininal posts half a dozen times to make sure I could compile them into one post.

Your refusal to debate them is the height of hypocracy given not 3 posts ago you were bitching at the rest of us for not debating jacob's misogonistic points,

Also your ad-hominem attack on my 'reading comprehention' is just so ironic dontcha think?

Whats a sutible synonym of hypocrite? I can only use it so many times, and your behavior calls for it to be used at thrice the level beyond which using the word becomes passe

As ValieantBlue rightly points out, I don't think there has ever been so many instances of the misuse of the term "ad hominem" in one thread -- anywhere ... ever.

In some minds, it must mean, "an argument that disagrees with mine and is slightly snarky."

To the offenders, please visit your local community college and retake Logic 101 before continuing to annoy the shit out of innocent people. Jesus.

*does Logic 101 chicken dance*

Well, it is a good thing that only a person's feelings can get hurt via the internet. Bluejean Baby's odd jihad (say that out loud for the alliterative effect) might otherwise poke out an eye.

An example:

"My take on this is that you, Spartee, are just as much sour grapes as what Jacob is."

As a preface, some pedantic sermonizing: "Sour Grapes" is a reference to an Aesops' Fable where a hungry fox failed to leap high enough to reach a bunch of luscious-looking grapes still on the vine. The fox then walks away bitterly muttering that the grapes are likely sour anyway, so why should he care if he cannot get them? It is a morality tale, reminding us to show some stoic composure and objectivity in the face of personal disappointment. We should avoid such failings, the fable suggests. (So, remember, readers: Bluejean Baby invokes a *morality* tale to condemn Jacob and Spartee.)

In this instance, I cannot see where I am stalking away from an unachieved goal, muttering that no one should want that goal anyway, due to its likely infirmities. But whatever.

My point is not that Bluejean Baby's allusion fails as a matter of disciplined writing. Rather, my point is that Bluejean Baby used that literary reference in a condemnatory tone towards me and Jacob as a short-hand attack on our ability to discpline ourselves in face of disappointment. In sum, Bluejean Baby used a literary reference as a shorthand to impute moral failings on the part of a speaker. That is *not* an engagement on the point I made.

My point, if you recall, was that this guy is under no obligation to feed and clothe anyone here, and neither is the LW obligated to feed and clothe him. So...if she doesn't like what is up with him, she can either deal with it directly and tell him "cash, or you gone,baby!", or she live with it as is, hoping things get "better".

So, yeah, folks, Bluejean Baby responding to that point with, "You exhibit the failing of the fox in Aesop's fable" is an ad hominem. (Again, it is also an inapt literary reference, but hey, who hasn't shat that bed once or twice in an internet posting, eh?)

Put another way, I may well be like that fox in some regard (I don't get how, so whatever), but that does not address whether those grapes are or are not sour. Perhaps the fox is actually right as he stalks away: he may be a bitter failure, but upon second glance, the grapes may well look sour to informed, objective people. The fox's bitterness and moral failing on its own does not negate the view at all. It may not even make the view regarding the grapes' ripeness suspect.

Finally, remember that Bluejean Baby followed that misstep up with this whopper of an ad hominem post:

"@ Jacob, Spartee, and now also Mere Mortal...I have the sneaking suspicion that the above-mentioned 3 HAVE NO CHILDREN, or, if they do, they MIGHT BE THE TYPE OF PARENT who flits in and out of the household and doesn't lay a finger down in childrearing, true parenting, or discipline; it's probably the poor wifey (Mom) who does it all."

(Let me clear my throat so this comes through clearly, folks: (ahem) Any time you care to retract that, you may, Bluejean Baby, because I kind of think you should. Don't you, as you reflect on it now?)

Yes, Ms. Alkon, and others, that is an ad hominem. Because even if every single bit of that fabulist nonsense Bluejean Baby is conjuring into her mind in that paragraph were true, it has no relevance to the point I made or those points that others made.

Not only is Bluejean Baby making things up, Bluejean Baby is trying to claim that our characters and life experience are so obviously deficient that our positions are therefore highly suspect. But that conclusion actually does not follow, even if her fantasies were true.

Let me provide an example of this same reasoning at work against Bluejean Baby:

"We can ignore Bluejean Baby's views on this situation, because I have the sneaking suspicion that Bluejean Baby has no children, or, if so, Bluejean Baby MIGHT BE THE TYPE OF PARENT who nightly assaults them using torture devices last deployed by Idi Amin."

Obviously, my statement is not only a shocking, outrageous slur, devoid of any evidence whatsoever (i.e., it is essentially a lie), but it really does not negate a single argument Bluejean Baby made. It is, in fact, a lie told to provide the basis for an ad hominem attack.

Simply making up new facts like that would earn you an "F" in the logic classes I took as an undergraduate. And using them to then make ad hominems would result in no better a grade.

So, in between you guys strutting about Logic 101 and chickens dancing, can you take a minute to show me where am I going off track here? Because apparently, I need to go get my money back from that rotten undergraduate school and try again at Dumpwater Comm. College.

Late to the party, but this made me burst out laughing:

"feminist agitprop."

hahahaha really??

Amy has always had some harsh words to say for women who deserve it -- those who drain the welfare system by having loads of kids they can't support out of wedlock and those who take advantage of men via paternity fraud. If the genders were reversed here (single dad, chronically unemployed woman), I'm sure she would have given the same advice.

Feminist agitprop my ass...man, it was just a few weeks ago that I was arguing with several commenters who were insisting that a woman who falls asleep at a party deserves to be raped.

This website has a stunningly diverse commentariat, and that keeps things lively. If you stick around, I bet you'll find yourself in the majority soon enough while someone else is swimming upstream. That's the beauty of this place.

Spartee,

In the instances you cite, you are correct and your undergraduate money was obviously well spent -- though I don't know that the typical reader would have deconstructed the term 'sour grapes' to such a degree. You have to admit that the term has been thrown around an annoying amount of times throughout the rest of the thread.

@sofar

>>If the genders were reversed here (single dad, chronically unemployed woman), I'm sure she would have given the same advice.

Really?

For starters, how many times Amy labeled with the word "loser" in her postings here a female? On how many occasion she resorted to ad hominem towards a female poster?

To be exact, I made a statement about this forum, not the Goddess who is by far more balanced in this respect (treating genders equally) than many others (like lovelysoul, numbersix,Bluejean Baby, etc.)

Mere Mortal, you may actually want to read posts before assigning gender bias to commenters. I, for one, have no problem calling out LW's of either gender, and I have spent much time on this site defending against bias against men. Also, I have seen Amy talk about female posters' attitudes. You should spend some time in the archives before making statements like that. Amy has had many female LWs she's advised to grow some self-esteem and stop being losers. Yes, I believe Amy would advise a man whose fiancee had been fired for theft, was lazy and chose not to look for a job while expecting them to get married to dump her. Past precedent suggests it.

@ Mere Mortal:

For starters, how many times Amy labeled with the word "loser" in her postings here a female?

She's used some harsher words than that for female LWs. Here are just a few examples of the tough love:

"Pavlov's dog" (7/19/2011)

"pathetically insecure" (7/12/2011)

"your toxic fear and festering insecurity" (6/28/2011)

"vindictive, mouth-foaming shrew": (7/8/2008)

And, most famously:

"...you got a trough of Haagen-Dazs, stuck your snout in, and didn't look up for two years straight." (March 23, 2010)

So, I'd say she dishes it out to both sexes.

But you say you're talking about the commenters here and the feminism that it this site is apparently rife with. I'm not sure how often you come around here, but some really awful things are often said about women here, too. In fact, a lot of times, this place makes me seem like Andrea Dworkin.

If the roles were reversed, and the unemployed person were a woman, I guarantee you, you'd see the following in the comments:

"gold digger"

"probably fat, too"

"needy"

"lazy"

"probably doesn't even put out"

I think the original letter is a beautiful example in favor of cohabitation prior to marriage, particularly in light of the subsequent assertions that anyone in a long-term relationship has no reasonable expectations from their partner until and unless they marry - regardless of how long they've been together or whether they plan to marry.

I apologize for hurting your feelings, Spartee. While the term 'sour grapes' is commonly used THESE DAYS to denote that someone is taking a needlessly pissy attitude over something, i suppose i could have searched for and made use of more educated terminology so as not to assault your finer senses. I was definitely forgetting my Aesop's Fables.

I also apologize for theorizing on your parenting style. I was out of line there. Very sorry.

Geesh, talk about getting off topic... there's you, spouting about university degrees, Aesop's Fables, Idi Amin, and jihads. Just sayin'.

If you go back and actually read through my posts, i have said that LW should leave him, they are not a match. Go. Look.

Really, though, i did not set out to make any kind of personal attack on anyone, not you, Spartee, nor Jacob, nor Mere Mortal.

bla bla bla...

This guy lost my respect at "...engaged for seven years." That's longer than a lot of marriages, for god's sake. He ain't gonna marry you! A seven year engagement is like having you on layaway - he's keeping you off the market, and will take you home IF/WHEN he can afford it. And it sounds like a pretty huge IF.

Move on LW, you seem like someone who is interested in improving your station in life; find someone who can inspire you to grow into the person you want to become, not someone who will hold you back. Do you think that once you get your degree and establish a career that he will still be able to hold your interest?

The fact that you wrote what you did to Amy shows that you already sense that he won't.

I completely can't agree with your point but it is your opinion - I understand it.