She's living with this guy why, exactly? Idiot.

Mr. Cheapskate thinks nothing of ripping you off for $400 plus 1/2 of living expenses, yet all you are giving your sons is $60? Hand him a mirror.

Before he bought the freezer and the meat, did he ASK you if you would take it in trade for rent and living expenses? Does the freezer and meat really belong to you, or would he take it with him if he moved out? Is he also upset when the meat is used to feed your sons?

It appears to me as if he has decided to cheat you out of rent and living expenses because he is jealous of your sons. He is so attached to his money that even after the $350 is turned over to you, he begrudges you for helping your sons with any part of HIS money. He doing this in order to punish, manipulate and control you into spending it the way HE wants you to. When that doesn't work, he threatens to not pay you at all.

Keep this in mind: In every society, men are born and raised to be providers. Men who are truly in love are generous and give from the heart. Even if they don't have much money, they will DO things for you to give you happiness. Ask yourself if you want to live with such a stingy, manipulative, and controlling man.

This will not get better when your sons leave. It will get worse the longer you know him. Not only will he begrudge you their birthday and Christmas presents, but he will resent every dime you spend on your grandchildren.

This is YOUR home. YOU have all of the power. All you have to do is refuse to let him manipulate you. Tell him your sons will be moving out one day, and you are not going to raise another "baby". He has two choices: willingly/ happily help pay expenses or move back into his own place. It's okay to decide to date without living together.

Have some questions with this one before I call either one cheapskate.
How long has he been living there? If it's only been a month or two, and this guy paid $2600 to the improvement of the house, instead of $400 rent, he is anything but a cheapskate, he very well may have spent more than she did on her house.
However if he has been living there 3 years and never paid rent, and only spent 2600 on the house and plans on taking the freezer with him, then I can see calling him a cheapskate.
Before I decare anyone cheap, I want to see the itemized lists.

Second question where was she and her spine when he moved in, he announced his rent and he changed it. She had a chance to say something at each of those times, what did she say? I have rented to people and rented from people, it is never a one sided discussion.

I want her as a landlord. Who wouldn't? I get to decide how much rent I'll be paying, and drop it any time I feel like.

I know that "roles are changing", or so they say, but how on Earth could this guy look in the mirror and feel at all like a man? It feels good to provide for a woman. It's how we're wired.

This guy needs his man card taken away.

Three years? Holy crap! And he's contributed $1200? I don't count the freezer. That's there to hold the meat for him to consume and he probably would take it with him when he leaves. I'm betting she didn't ask him for half a cow and freezer to put it in.

That's $33.34 a month and it's getting lower every month. What a bargain! Imagine all the money he has been socking away. He must have a fortune in his savings account. I'll bet it will never be spent on the letter writer.

Did the original letter say anything about what this guy does for a living?

LW, the sex isn't THAT great and even at $8.34 per pop (assume twice a week for three years), you're still probably getting cheated by this cut rate giggilo.

There is no way in hell I'd live in someone's house for free if I wasn't related to them in some way without paying my way or helping out A LOT.

BTW, this is NOT the LW's fault except for not laying down the law when the first rent discussion came up. He arbitrarily changed things. Yes she should stand up more but that's what this conversation is about, isn't it?

But using Laura Gr's soft diplomacy, you can outline the bills for him with $400 being the absolute floor. He can cover the groceries and lawn care himself (AND pay for the mower) instead of rent etc if he doesn't like giving her money.

Conversational tip: "Well, if you believe that my sons should pay their own way without help, why are you insisting on MY charity now?"

He doesn't get to decide he wants to move in (don't know if he was invited or not). He doesn't get to establish his own rent...or even if he has to pay!

Heck, next time you take HIM to dinner, go to the ladies and walk out, stiffing him with the bill. When he asks, tell him YOU changed your mind about paying your share too. Yes, this is tongue in cheek but a guy this (words fail me) needs an anvil dropped on his head.

I don't know if you can do better then this guy but you certainly aren't doing well.

"...but a guy like this (words fail me) needs an anvil dropped on his head."

Words didn't fail you. You evoked great visions of Wile E. Coyote, a very pleasant way to start the day.

I agree with Amy. He should be as much fun as Disney World considering what she's paying him. He's just as expensive.

Disturbed—what seems to be the problem? The idiot suit you bought and paid for fits you very nicely.

What do you think's gonna happen if you get married?

"I'll pay for the napkins. You can pay for everything else because you can afford it."

Derp! Get a grip, dumbass!

I've said it before, but there is a world full of lonely nice guys out there who would make terrific boyfriends and husbands. Yet so many women pursue creeps and losers (excuse me, I mean bad boys). I see it all the time and it never ends well for them. Yet it continues.

Men who are truly in love are generous and give from the heart. Even if they don't have much money, they will DO things for you to give you happiness.

Absofuckinlutely. My BF and I have been together 8 years, and in that time, he has done a thousand times more for my daughters and me than their father has in 18 years. LW, I'm sorry, but you need to cut the apron strings, here. It will NOT get better with this guy. Cut him loose now.

Back in my late twenties, for a year and a half, I dated a guy who had been in a bad motorcycle accident -- spent 3 months in a coma, was paralyzed on the left side of his body for about a year -- 4 1/2 years before. He still had a lot of pain and motion problems; he always will. Unsurprisingly, his job situation suffered. He was pretty darned broke. I wasn't rich myself, though I did a bit better than he.

And you know what? He did his level best to keep our relationship on an even financial keel. No, he couldn't treat me lavishly, but he took me out to inexpensive-but-nice restaurants (think good little neighborhood ethnic places), paid for beer, rented the videos. We did live together for a little while, and he *always* paid his half of the rent and utilities.

This was a guy who sometimes had trouble going up stairs.

I don't have a lot of patience for women who see men as meal tickets; I have no patience, either, for men who see women that way.

To LW:

Dump him.
He should be a born-again liberal.

DTMFA, DTMFA.

If he's this awful now, imagine what a monster he'll turn into if you have grandkids. Bought the little tyke a plastic tricycle?! I'm deducting it from the measly amount of money I throw your way! Spent money on a plane ticket to see the grandbaby?! Taking it out of our joint account!

It sounds to me like the money is a way to punish you for being involved in your children's lives - this guy wants to be the one and only center of your attention, apparently. Which is weird that he'd choose to date a woman with kids in the first place.

Dump him, dump him. Do it now, kick him out, and make sure he doesn't have any access to any of your bank accounts.

I don't have a lot of patience for women who see men as meal tickets; I have no patience, either, for men who see women that way.

Exactly. Adults of both sexes shouldn't take advantage of other adults financially.

My boyfriend has a new business that is sucking up his money, as businesses are wont to do. It's getting to the point where I have offered to cover 100 percent of our rent for the next several months. And it is KILLING him. He's so embarrassed. But we're going to reach an agreement, decide exactly how many months I will be paying for all the rent, and what we will do when that limit is reached because, frankly, it's not cool for me to subsidize his dream indefinitely. He knows this.

If LW's boyfriend is hard up (ie, working 14-hour days and still unable to make ends meet) that's one thing. But, no matter what, they need to come up with a financial agreement -- as "unromantic" as that may be.

Hey, he is humping her, and she says it is great.
Any guy who agrees to live-in and hump good is worth a lot on the open market.

Maybe LW should be a little more generous--try finding another live-in lover who can fake sincerity like that.

The split doesn't have to be 50/50 financially to be fair, either, but he should be trying.

My husband makes three times what I made when I was working, and he never expected me to kick in 50 percent of all expenses. I saved us money, though, by making him breakfast and lunch to take to work and doing other things to cut costs and improve our quality of life. Now that I am unemployed, I've taken on more of the domestic chores and am trying to make it fair that way until I can contribute financially again. Unless this guy us scrubbing their toilets and planning all their meals, he sounds like a tightwad mooch.

Ok with it being 3 + years, he is a cheapskate.

Though I think people are exagerating, no where does it say he never paid rent, just that at some point he stopped. But that being said, $400 rent is less than I paid a decade ago, when I last rented a room. if they are equally sharing the house the payments should be somewhat equal (I say somewhat since in paying a mortgage she is gaining value in the house every month), 400 out of 1250 is not.

However every day of those 3 years she has had the chance to say pay up, pay your fair share, or to throw him out.

Jeez, how many wives and live-in hump girls are riding off of their boyfriends?

You girls need to see a proctologist--this is the 2010's. Guys can get paid too, and more are.

Women are getting a lot of the better jobs--ergo, there are fewer male breadwinners to go around. So, make do.

You want a live-in hump job? Pay up, girls, pay up.

Okay, LW, here's a suggestion, if you just can't bring yourself to toss him out on his ear:

Get a new bank account, that is for BILLS ONLY. And only on agreed-upon bills, not anything where he comes home and says, "Hey, I just bought a 60-inch TV and WE'RE paying for it!" Once you have that account, show him how much you are putting into it to cover the bills, and explain that any money you are giving to your sons is coming out of whatever money you have left over, not the bill money. Then tell him that you expect him to pony up for the bill money, which is being used to cover BOTH your expenses.

If that doesn't do the trick, you might as well either learn to live as a sugar-momma, or suck it up and tell him to leave.

BTW, the LW is probably deep into her 40s (has kids through college).

Now where is a gal like that going to find a live-in "great" hump job?

The best advice: Keep paying LW, as they are plenty of others who will. Keep on paying, and pretend it's all about love.

In today's world, a guy over 40 who can deliver a good hump job is a valuable commodity.

"and shouldn't be if one person makes considerably less than the other"

I disagree with this sentiment. What would be fair is what both parties agreee is fair, in both cash and work about the place, and based upon paying for what you get.
Not fair based upon what their relative salaries are. If I work hard and get a raise/bonus, my rent should not increase. Likewise if I quit or, cut back on the hours I work, it would be unfair for my rent to automatically decrease.

I agree with Joe. The guy is banging the LW, despite the fact she is in her deep 40s, and he doing a "great" job of it. Man, he is earning his money. He is contributing to the happiness of the household and some near-menopausal women's sanity. That is worth tons and tons of money, btw.

This is the 2010s. Let's get used to it. Virile middle-aged men are being paid the way younger women used to get paid.

Fair is fair. He is doing enough. In fact, if LW knows what is good for her, she should set him up with a new set of wheels.

Or LW risk losing a really good thing--forever, in her case. Now where is a gal on 50 going to get a "great" live-in hump job?

Pay up baby, pay up, and make it sweet.

"My boyfriend moved in with me after his landlord raised his rent. He announced that he'd give me $400 a month (half of what he was paying at his place), then cut that to $350."

I assume he was holding a gun to LW's head, as I don't get the sense from the letter that LW disagreed with what is obviously a raw deal (and getting rawer all the time).

Why would it be a "raw deal?"

She is getting "great sex" with live-in boyfriend out of this. For a gal closing in on 50, that is quite a deal, not a raw deal.

She doesn't even have to put out any actual cash, though she should consider sweetening the pot, to keep him close.

BOTU, you're wrong. Depending on how hot she (still) is, she can probably do a lot better than this moocher. It may not be fair, but women can have great sex with lots of guys. It doesn't even matter our age. A woman can go to any bar and let it be known she's ready to have sex, and she'll get her pick of takers, many of whom will stick around for more.

It's actually sad that it takes most of us UNTIL our 40s or 50s to realize this truth - the power of pussy - but LW should wake up and realize that she doesn't have to put up with this jerk.

I was terribly afraid when I became single again at 40. I though I wouldn't attract anybody and would spend my life alone, yet I had tons of guys chasing me, and just (at 47) married a guy who rocks my world - AND helps pay the bills.

LW has options. She doesn't need to support this idiot. It's actually better to be alone than to be with a guy who resents you spending $60 on your children. That is sick.

aaaahahahaha! I love your response, Lovelysoul. I was thinking the same thing myself. It doesn't take a whole lot of convincing for women to get laid. 50 is not old anymore and women at that age are gorgeous; but, even if she isn't very attractive, it is very easy to find a man who will hit that and keep coming back for free. I've heard it said: Pussy ain't got no face...so whatever, Botu.....Add a sandwich after sex, toasted with mayo only on one side, and he will be available for life.

Lovely-kg:

Oh, baloney.

Sure, you can get laid by some creep in a bar.

But a live-in "great sex' hump-man? Who can hold a conversation?

Now that is worth spending the bucks on.

More and more women are paying for their live-in men. Why not?

They are equal. And maybe they want a more than equal mate.

And if you want something good, you gotta pay, pay, pay.

Sheesh, I am not that hot, and I ain't hardly trying, and in the last year any number of 40-somethings have dropped hints they "own their own homes" etc. Okay, I am kinda hot, but not a movie star.

I'd like to broaden the conversation a bit if I could. This has some connection to the LW's plight, but it deals mostly with money and gender dynamics.

Man meets woman. Man marries woman. Woman is a stay at home wife for whatever reason (Please accept the handwave) Man accepts that he is paying the bills. Man is reasonably well off and even can afford some help for her at home with the chores (i.e. she isn't just cleaning, lawn service does the lawn etc) She has a nice standard of living (i.e. she is not skimping on things for her like shoes and nice outfits which are definitely HER things.)

How is this not analogous in some ways to the current situation? Man is essentially paying for (to use LS's phrase) pussy on demand. Is she taking advantage of him? When WOULD she be? What mitigating factors is she bringing to the table except 'love'?

I have my own opinions. I'm just curious to hear what others have to say on the matter.

(I am overlooking the whole resentment of the kids thing, which I know is probably a key factor in the conversation. I want to focus right now on the monetary issues)

Flydye: yup. I thought the same thing: how is this not simply the same as lower-earning gal living with her higher-earning man? Happens ALL the time, and most people don't bother commenting, let alone condemning.

BOTU is one of the more amusing trolls on the internet, btw. I enjoy his deeply irreverent posts.

Three questions which require one word answers which would help judge this a bit better. (I still think he's scum, but I'd like to know what quality of scum)

Is she making more/less/ the same as him?

Is he doing his share of the chores or more?

Did she invite him in or did he make an assumption there too?

Flydye and Spartee...I agree and am not generally a conformist to societal rules...but this issue does have a level of social stigma. Guys usually do the providing and women usually keep house. Can it work the other way around? Absolutely. But both partners have to believe and feel the situation works well for them. Often times, a man will take on the less-money-making role or even the no-money making role; but, does he do it without a pervading feeling of inadequacy that can transform into a feeling of negativity that invades the relationship in a detrimental way? I think maybe his passive-aggressiveness might be a reflection of his feelings of inadequacy...plus his jealousy of the kids is just weak, weak, weak!

Botu...
"Oh, baloney." hahaha!
who said holding conversation is a plus??? Fuck, eat your sandwich, lil peck on the lips, and a wave as you back out of the drive-way. That, I would pay for; I just don't have to.

"Okay, I am kinda hot" Oh, baloney!!!!

Hot people are not filled with rancor and hostility! Half of the reason they are hot is because they know how to have fun, how to treat a person, and how to avoid a chip on a shoulder the size of a black hole. You are most definitely not hot!

Man meets woman. Man marries woman. Woman is a stay at home wife for whatever reason (Please accept the handwave) Man accepts that he is paying the bills. Man is reasonably well off and even can afford some help for her at home with the chores (i.e. she isn't just cleaning, lawn service does the lawn etc) She has a nice standard of living (i.e. she is not skimping on things for her like shoes and nice outfits which are definitely HER things.)

How is this not analogous in some ways to the current situation?

Well, for one thing, he offered to pay rent, and is now reneging on the deal. If he lost his job, or had not made the offer in the first place, sure, it would be analogous. Instead, he's gone from roommate to moocher, and is trying to use some specious argument to justify it.

"How is this not analogous in some ways to the current situation?"

It is analogous to a point, but the fact that he's a man is huge. When a man loses a job and finds himself in the position to depend financially on a woman, self-worth issues, depression, and all manner of horrible shit show up. Gender roles mean something and aren't just made up out of thin air by "society". Feeling un-manly is a very painful emotion for men.

I can't imagine how this guy can justify it to himself.

That, and what WayneB said about the bait and switch. It clearly began as a financial arrangement.

Flydye: yup. I thought the same thing: how is this not simply the same as lower-earning gal living with her higher-earning man? Happens ALL the time, and most people don't bother commenting, let alone condemning.

I think his attitude alone is enough for condemnation.

And a wife isn't a boyfriend. But the principle isn't that different

kg,

You are going from discussing the principle to psychoanalyzing the BF. The only argument you are saying isn't fairness but that an uneven social stigma exists.

How is the situation any different if it was a GF living rent free and spending her guy's money? (If the answer is the LW is feeling taken advantage of, guess what? A lot of guys in this situation feel the same way. The only difference is they are more likely to bitch to their friends and less likely to propitiate Advice Goddesses...)

Any update from the letter writer? Are they still together?

It's hard to believe that this was the first time his lack of integrity showed. Do people usually sign a lease of sorts when moving in to a preexisting living arrangement? Can she sue for back rent?

"How is this not analogous in some ways to the current situation? Man is essentially paying for (to use LS's phrase) pussy on demand. Is she taking advantage of him? When WOULD she be? What mitigating factors is she bringing to the table except 'love'?"

The offer to pay rent is key. Golddiggers don't offer to pay rent. The agreement of sex/companionship/arm candy is implied upfront and fairly obvious from the income disparity.

There are certainly men who do this as well as women, though it's a bit more rare to see a guy totally mooch off a woman. Men prefer to be the providers.

We have friends who got married a couple of years ago. She is a millionairess, and he is a sailboat captain. They live in her waterfront house, and she buys all the "toys" and apparently pays for most everything.

It doesn't appear that she minds. He's not terribly good-looking - they're about equal in looks - but he does have enough pride to continue working, and picking up checks when they go out to dinner (he's too much of a man to let her publicly immasculate him).

That's also part of it. Where are his balls? What kind of guy just does nothing? Even if he can't help pay bills right now, is he cooking, cleaning, running errands, providing labor? (sex doesn't count).

So, lovelysoul. Would you equally condemn a woman who lived rent free with a man?* Would you ask 'where is her pride' at not ponying up her share...or even part of a share? Are women given a pass because of the 'power of the pussy'? I can easily imagine a woman starting by paying rent but gradually finding other uses for it...(But honey, I'm buying these clothes to look good for YOU!)

But since we are speaking of balls...let's twist it a bit. Would you be as (secretly) contemptuous of a guy who was fired or not working and supported by his wife? In this economy, it's more common then you'd think. Aren't these expectations emotionally harmful to the men they are directed at? I have a neighbor who is in exactly this situation. Now, I know him first hand and if he wasn't sending out resumes and doing whatever odd lot jobs he can find, I know I'd be looking askance, but that's our social training. Even HE feels bad. (I don't know that any of this applies to LW's pantload, btw. Just discussing social conditioning)

*For the record, I find his actions at least as repugnent as you do...but again, I'm heir to the same social conditioning.

How is the situation any different if it was a GF living rent free and spending her guy's money?

It's the same thing, just with the genders reversed. Though most women are more tactful than to get into specifics regarding the amounts. But the result is the same. It's a very common arrangement.

Also BOTU has a point, however inelegantly stated. The LW is an older woman with kids. She recognizes her situation and so does he. That's why he feels at liberty to behave this way. Realistically most women this age aren't getting the pick of the litter when it comes to boyfriends.

So basically the LW is willing to accept the character flaws of the boyfriend as long as he pays enough rent.

Awesome.

It's the same thing, just with the genders reversed. Though most women are more tactful than to get into specifics regarding the amounts. But the result is the same. It's a very common arrangement.

From which side? Male moocher or female 'girlfriend'?

So basically the LW is willing to accept the character flaws of the boyfriend as long as he pays enough rent.

Awesome.

Short, sweet and cutting through a great deal of BS.

>> From which side? Male moocher or female 'girlfriend'?

For women I mean. I've only known of a few situations where women have supported men in this way, and it's never been good.

I've only known of a few situations where women have supported men in this way, and it's never been good.

I've actually known several, and they have been on the lower income side - and it's always the same. Woman complains that she does everything and pays all the bills, but when you tell them to kick the lazy bastard out, they reply, "But I love him! I can't!"

Okay, seriously the double-standard here is amazing.

How many women find themselves strapped for cash, and move in with their boyfriend, and pay only part of the rent etc. ? They are not called "moochers" etc, they are called "girlfriends."

The guy gets a live-in hump job, and benefits from the arrangement. Otherwise, he would not agree.

The guy in this story ran into a rent buzzsaw. So he doubled up with LW. She gets a live-in hump-job, and benefits from the arrangement. Otherwise, she can have him move out.

Listen, LW is near 50, and ain't no way Brad Pitt (Johnny Depp, Noam Chomsky, your choice) is moving in. She is lucky anyone moves in. The biological imperative is for men to mate with fertile women, or who seem to be. Read Alkon, The brutal facts of life.

If this guy is a moocher, then so are the majority or large minority of women in America,

If you are 50, and want a live-in lover who provides great sex, then prepare to pay, pay, pay. Probably for men or women.

Now that they have money, women are finding out what men have always known: The good stuff costs. But at least you you can pay for it now.

Before, only wealthy widows could hire a husband. Now that option is opening up to many more.

Cheers!

Flydye, to answer your questions, I'm rather contemptuos of "kept" women - those who nothing but shop, have spa treatments, and spend their husband's money all day. I have a niece like that, and her FB status updates turn my stomach.

But she's married to a man 15 yrs older, who is also hispanic. A lot of guys are macho about this and don't WANT their woman to work (particularly when they're 28 and built like a brick s--thouse, like my niece is). So, apparently, he's ok with the arrangment - she has the power of the pussy and he's got all the money. If both sides are getting what they want, who am I to judge?

I think it's different if a wife is staying home, taking care of the kids, and genuinely working to keep up the house, pay bills, etc.

Again, many husbands expect that of their wives, so the issue is really whether or not one side feels taken advantage of, as LW seems to.

Under BOTU's analysis, she's a dog and should just be grateful he's there. That is sometimes a part of the equation - if one side has all the looks and the other side has all the money (such as my niece's scenario) maybe then, it is a fair trade in a sense. Men have been trading money for looks for eons. No reason why women shouldn't do it too...as long as everyone realizes the risks of such a deal (usually divorce/breakup down the road, as the one with the most commodity to trade makes a better deal).

But I don't get the sense he's that big a prize in this case. If LW is even halfway attractive, financially stable and sane, she can do better than a moocher who criticizes her expenditures while contributing nothing of his own.

"Listen, LW is near 50, and ain't no way Brad Pitt (Johnny Depp, Noam Chomsky, your choice) is moving in. She is lucky anyone moves in. The biological imperative is for men to mate with fertile women, or who seem to be. Read Alkon, The brutal facts of life."

I'm not talking about Brad Pitt. A nice, balding, middle-aged guy can't get the kind of women that Pitt or Depp can either - no matter what he believes his "biological imperative" is.

Everybody has to be realistic about what league they're in, and choose accordingly. But there ARE choices...at any age. My mother remarried in her 70s. Wonderful guy, also in his 70s. Sure, no Brad Pitt, but he pays most of the bills because he's a gentleman.

"But I don't get the sense he's that big a prize in this case."

Yeah. He's fun (LW says), but it doesn't sound like he brings a lot to the table (aside from the cow in the freezer).

I think that while the stigma is bigger for freeloading boyfriends/husbands, a lot of people likewise wouldn't respect a non-working live-in girlfriend or wife (assuming there are no kids and there's no attempt to find gainful employment).

"A nice, balding, middle-aged guy can't get the kind of women that Pitt or Depp can either - no matter what he believes his "biological imperative" is."

Hee hee.

I think that while the stigma is bigger for freeloading boyfriends/husbands, a lot of people likewise wouldn't respect a non-working live-in girlfriend or wife (assuming there are no kids and there's no attempt to find gainful employment).

The 'non working' part is a fact not in evidence with the boyfriend. We know he has SOME money, or the LW wouldn't expect him to pony up his share.

This suggests that he DOES work.

> he pays most of the bills because he's a
> gentleman.

And she acts like a tightwad because she's a lady.

But there's no double standard.

I agree with BOTU that there is a double standard. But I don't agree that it is necessarily a bad thing. You simply can't apply all the same standard to both sexes and be honest with yourself at the same time.

For the record, while I'm not contemptuous of "kept" women as is the, aptly named, LovelySoul, I kind of snicker at the keeper of such a woman. I think they're suckers.

There's a friend of mine at my work who has no respect for women at all (visiting prostitutes regularly, etc). He's married to a woman from a third world country who is literally thirty years his junior. She comes from a no shit poor as hell background and certainly benefits from the relationship. I don't begrudge him or her that. It's basically a business arrangement where both parties benefit. She's very subservient and sees to his every need. Good on them. It makes logical sense. But, it's definitely not for me.

Several times I've heard my friend complain that, "Jesus, it's like dealing with a kid."

I don't say anything, but I snicker like hell inside. Yeah, dumb ass, that's because she is a kid (She's twenty-two or something).

I don't care how good she cooks, cleans, or fucks. That would just be a real pain in the ass to have someone that you don't really love or respect milling around your house. I guess I'm too comfortable keeping my own company even if that means settling for whacking off more than what might otherwise be necessary.

So, WD, is it just the visiting pros, or visiting pros whle haing a willing wife that he treats like crap that makes you think he doesnt respect women

"The 'non working' part is a fact not in evidence with the boyfriend."

I was referring to other people's discussion upthread of slightly different situations with financially dependent women. In some ways, it makes it a lot worse that LW's boyfriend is working and presumably has money but doesn't want to contribute as they previously agreed.

An additional issue is this couple's future together. I suspect that LW's boyfriend is financially sound and prudent, which is a big mark in his favor, but if they are going to have a future together, he can't expect to get rich off of her giving him free rent. This may be a good time for the dread "Where is this relationship going?" talk, along with a heart-to-heart with him about what their financial life together would look like if/when they eventually married. If he wants to go on exactly the way things are now indefinitely, I think it's time to move on. I strongly suspect that he's really happy with the present arrangement, and frankly, why wouldn't he be? If there's no satisfactory answer, think I'd offer him the opportunity to move out and continue dating for a while while he gets his priorities straight (and discovers how expensive it is out in the cold hard world).

I've seen a number of relationships involving stingy men and normal women (not mall addicts), and it's a miserable life for the women if the couple isn't able to come to some sort of compromise. I personally am married to a non-spender and (having heard stories of men who just appear at home with new cars or other toys), I count my blessings. There was a fairly lengthy period of adjustment where my husband needed to stop asking me "Why do we need XYZ" (when XYZ was a basic necessity of civilized life) and I needed to learn about the magic of budgets and how much better it is to earn interest rather than to pay interest. Dave Ramsey (the personal finance guy) helped me a lot.

So, I think there is hope for LW and her boyfriend, but I think she needs to make him a little bit less comfortable.

Here's an alternate possibility that may fit the LW's story: her boyfriend has had some financial setbacks that he is embarrassed to tell her about.

I think that the LW already knew, before writing to Amy, that her BF is taking advantage of her. Her girlfriends probably told her the same thing. And maybe her kids, too. LW just wanted some outside or neutral party to validate what she already knew.

We can all agree about it. The question that arises is what is she going to do about it?

I think their relationship is pretty well done. When it becomes more about accounting, it is a transaction and not a relationship. She can keep him as a boytoy as long as she doesn't let him become entangled in the house ownership. Keep that nice and separate and clear. Then he is just a fella paying her to stay in her bed and providing her steaks. (I feel like I am channeling BOTU). Maybe he is worth $400 /month in companionship, sex and steaks. It is up to her to decide that.

I am a bit skeeved out by her word choice. "He announced..." ,"He decided..." It sounds like she is a doormat letting him do whatever he wants.

Two quick sayings that seem germane:

Is the fucking you're getting worth the fucking over you're getting?

People can only take advantage of you to the degree you allow it.

I think their relationship is pretty well done. When it becomes more about accounting, it is a transaction and not a relationship.

Are you sure? I mean, there is a lot to lose! She is going to give up great sex and a man she loves. She's going to miss the steaks. She already has more then THREE years invested in him.

Don't you think she should give it another year? She should get a financial counsler. Why are you suddenly jumping the gun and wanting to end an otherwise beautiful relationship for ONE mark of disrespect? (wink)

In some ways, it makes it a lot worse that LW's boyfriend is working and presumably has money but doesn't want to contribute as they previously agreed.

Another fact not in evidence. We don't know if there was or was not a formal agreement. We don't know if, when he suddenly started shorting her, she didn't do the passive unhappy female thing and say 'okay' when his checks suddenly got skimpier and skimpier then Lady Gaga's wardrobe.

We also don't know how long in the three years he WAS paying rent. A year? Up to last month? It would be nice to know how long he's been a dick.

"Don't you think she should give it another year? She should get a financial counsler. Why are you suddenly jumping the gun and wanting to end an otherwise beautiful relationship for ONE mark of disrespect? (wink)"

1. They're not married.

2. They don't have kids together.

"We also don't know how long in the three years he WAS paying rent. A year? Up to last month? It would be nice to know how long he's been a dick."

Actually, I think we do know. He said he'd pay $400, he eventually cut that down to $350 and now (approximately 3 years later) he wants to pay nothing. The "pay nothing" was triggered by LW's $120 a month to her sons. So paying nothing is a new development, rather than a situation LW has been living with for some time.

I continue to wonder if LW's boyfriend has some sort of financial trouble he is not sharing with her.

Even under the initial $400 a month program, the boyfriend's rent was a steal. Even in our part of Texas, $300 is as low as you're going to get for ye olde garage apartment.

I would eat all the best steaks in the freezer then kick him to the curb.

Or tell him to pay up or get out. But really, why would she want to stay with him if he is such a manipulative ass?

It is her freaking house!

I think it was a poster on this board that said "grow a backbone in place of your wishbone."

"He said he was never helped like this by his parents, and apparently money's no problem for me if I do this."

I actually would like to see him run that one past a couple's therapist and see how far he gets.

I was paying $350 a month for an efficiency in a seedy part of town in Pittsburgh in 1997. I'm guessing LW's place is a lot nicer.

"Is the fucking you're getting worth the fucking over you're getting?" lol

Is the fucking you're getting worth the fucking over you're getting...or is it better than no fucking at all?

Look, LW is not going to get some other guy to move in and be her companion or marry her. Without paying that is.

What do they say? A woman's chances of getting married after 45 equal that of getting struck by lightning. While riding a train.

Alkon should have advised LW keep this guy happy, with a new set of wheels perhaps, and some nice clothes. And a gym and spa membership, so he stays looking nice.

Cricky-Almighty. this is the 2010s. Across America there must be any dozens of millions of women living with their hubbies or boyfriends, and not paying exactly half. No one bats an eye.

Time are changing though. I see more and more women (especially in the 40s-50s) advertising their material advantages. They tell of vacation homes in the desert, that they have a place in Buenos Aires, or that they own their house free and clear.

in George Washington's time, men married for the dowry. We may be getting back to that eventually.

"What do they say? A woman's chances of getting married after 45 equal that of getting struck by lightning. While riding a train."

They've proven that statistic wrong, BOTU. Amy can site the details.

I just got remarried at 47, and I don't "pay". My husband makes less than me, but he contributes roughly equally to the bills. We don't really keep tabs because there's no need.

He also keeps up the yard, cooks, and even does laundry. When we go out, he usually pays. He's of that generation of men who are old-fashioned in that way.

And he's a good-looking guy too. Not quite Brad Pitt, but definately in the same ballpark.

Of course, I realize I wouldn't have attracted a man like him if I didn't also keep myself up, which I do. If there's any "paying", it's to the gym, the aesthetician, and salon. :)

So, it really depends on LW. If she's grossly overweight and unattractive, she may have a tough time. But a reasonably attractive female over 40 won't have a hard time finding a man, especially in this day and age, with online dating, FB, etc.

I personally think it's easier than ever. One click of a button and you can have a date any night of the week!

I can see how older women in the past - who had to wait to be set up by someone, or try to meet men through church, or social gatherings in their small communities, might have despaired, but the internet has opened up the dating world.

As I said, my mother remarried in her 70s to a childhood sweetheart, and plenty of others in her age range are hooking up with past loves online. It's a phenomenon! Where have you been, BOTU?

"Where have you been, BOTU?"

Paying women to have sex with him. He's convinced himself it's the norm.

@lovelysoul My husband makes less than me, but he contributes roughly equally to the bills. We don't really keep tabs because there's no need.
He also keeps up the yard, cooks, and even does laundry. When we go out, he usually pays. He's of that generation of men who are old-fashioned in that way. And he's a good-looking guy too. Not quite Brad Pitt, but definately in the same ballpark.

The thing about imaginary husbands ---- they can be anything you'd like them to be.

I don't have an imaginary husband. He's just a good one. I'd gladly post a photo, but I'm not sure how to do that here.

Actually, google "Tanya Cleary" on Facebook, and you can see our photo. We're the blond couple that first pops up.

Funny defense mechanism Mere Mortal has developed. Any relationship that doesn't conform to his beliefs is declared imaginary.

@I don't have an imaginary husband. He's just a good one.

I believe you. As with Amy's Gregg, I am sure there is a man in the vicinity of Goddess with name Gregg the same way there is a husband in yours.
I just doubt that their portraits on this forum are all there is to them.

You are free to believe otherwise.

Even under the initial $400 a month program, the boyfriend's rent was a steal. Even in our part of Texas, $300 is as low as you're going to get for ye olde garage apartment.

I am not defending him by a longshot. But he is paying for a ROOM, not an apartment and he's also not getting any equity in this house. Paying a third of a house shared by potentially 4 is reasonably generous PLUS more then his share of the groceries and 'gestures' for the lady.

Oh..that's right. She's sleeping with him. Let's just say that cancels out.

Flydye, I had similar thoughts. Until I re-read that now he is not paying anything at all.

Now he's decided he shouldn't have to pay anything because he never charged me when I stayed over frequently at his apartment one year.

"I believe you. As with Amy's Gregg, I am sure there is a man in the vicinity of Goddess with name Gregg the same way there is a husband in yours.
I just doubt that their portraits on this forum are all there is to them."

Well, I find that to be an excuse people use to not be their best. "Nobody else really does this," etc. To suggest that Amy and I are not being treated as well as we describe is just a another way of saying that other women should except mediocre treatment - lower the bar.

And the only ones who benefit from that are men who don't want to be as good to their women as they should. If you can convince the whole female population that men like Gregg and Jeff don't actually exist, then maybe they'll accept losers and moochers.

The sad part is that this mind-fuck actually works with most women, who will settle for men like that, fearing the good ones aren't really out there.

But they are out there. It takes some weeding through to find them. It takes some failure and heartbreak, but once a woman knows precisely what she wants, and moreover, what she deserves, she won't accept less than a good man.

@Well, I find that to be an excuse people use to not be their best.

Lovelysoul, "best" here means "best" according to fantasies of creators of chick-flicks. To satisfy every capricious fantasy of a woman is not what most men consider "being their best." Deal with it.

I don't have to deal with it...because my husband does satisfy every "chick flick" fantasy I have.

I came home yesterday to find all our laundry washed and folded, plus he transplanted my struggling tomato plant from a pot into the ground.

That's just the kind of guy he is. I'm not saying he's not RARE. Unfortunately, this is true. But it's sad that men like you must justify not being that thoughtful and considerate.

Women too. I'm not suggesting it's only guys who don't try to be their best. Women also use the same excuses - "It's too hard to lose the weight....only supermodels look that good and they aren't REAL".

Basically, these are all ways of saying that it's just too hard to be what your partner needs you to be...so you might as well not even try. It's a lame cop out.

It really doesn't take that much extra effort to be kind and decent to your partner, and do the little things that make them happy. And this behavior isn't just found in chick flicks.

LS,

You are going to get a Friend request from Crid. I posted this on the other thread about health care. Now, be nice and accept his request.

"It's gonna hurt."

Crid, I got a good news.

Go to Facebook and search "Tanya Cleary". She is a 47 year old married woman with two children. She is also known as LS.

You insulted her so many times in the internet for being crazy, I always pictured her as a sad woman with many cats. I was wrong.

Now, go to Facebook and request her to be her friend. Go ahead and do it. Do you want to see more of her or not?

I have a feeling she got more bikini pictures to share with friends only.

Life is going to hurt a lot less.

Lovelysoul: I am happy for anybody who can find real love. However, for many the options are not so perfect.

More and more women have money as they enter middle-age, and more money than available men. Ergo, guess who is going to end up paying the bills?

I think this is actually liberating for women, if they would think about it. In a truly equal society, women as well as men will enter relationships where money is a factor.

Our LW is one such woman. The guy is not a tightwad--he is a stud (as defined by LW) and worth his weight therefore.

LW should treat stud nicely. If she wants it to last. At least a while longer, until she can find a new hump-job.

@LS I came home yesterday to find all our laundry washed and folded,...

That makes me sad. The man has nothing better to do with his time than to fold laundry. Wow. Are you sure he is not depressed or something?

"But they are out there. It takes some weeding through to find them. It takes some failure and heartbreak, but once a woman knows precisely what she wants, and moreover, what she deserves, she won't accept less than a good man."

Indeed.

I personally don't much care for 80% of chick flicks, because usually, I feel like the hero and heroine are selfish jerks and don't deserve to live happily ever after.

I have a good husband, something that I hope that I appreciate more with every year. He isn't perfect, certainly, but he loves our kids, is smart and respected in his field, a good provider and is sober, financially prudent and kind. I am very lucky to have him, and particularly to have picked him out of the field when I was in my early 20s.

I forget the quote, but I think Aristotle said something about happiness being the product of the exercise of virtue. If we are to be happy, we must first be good. If that is the case, it is a mistake to think that happiness lies in squeezing the maximum out of one's romantic partner, to the detriment of the relationship and one's own moral development.

Chang, I don't know if you're being funny, but I'd welcome a friend request from Crid, though I doubt he'd offer one. I'd love to see what Crid looks like (I have this snarly curmudgeon pictured).

"Our LW is one such woman. The guy is not a tightwad--he is a stud (as defined by LW) and worth his weight therefore."

She didn't say he was a stud, just that the sex was good, which, to me, is the bare minimum. Presumably, it's good for him too.

I don't disagree with you that liberated women can pay more of the bills these days. I just think for most women paying them in exchange for "good" or even "amazing" sex isn't something we'd do. Certainly, there are some women who may, but they're in the minority.

If the guy sounded like a great companion, I could see her sticking with him, but his criticism of her measly payments to her children rule that out.

"That makes me sad. The man has nothing better to do with his time than to fold laundry. Wow. Are you sure he is not depressed or something?"

Please! That was after a full day of work. He likes to stay busy. He likes to make me happy (and vice versa).

What's sad is that this would make him the target of guys like you, the butt of jokes and suggestions that he can't be for real.

But it works both ways. I'm sure if I told a room full of women that I have sex with him basically whenever he wants it, I'd get the rolled eyes, and "yeah right" looks.

Still true though. I don't care what they think. My priority is my relationship. If other women want to tell their guys that women like me don't actually exist, it's the same pathetic reasoning....same excuse for what they AREN'T doing for their men.

Wow!! Mere Mortal I dont know who she was but man did she do some damage! Can you say therapy?

@LS That was after a full day of work. He likes to stay busy. He likes to make me happy (and vice versa).

OK. If all of this is true then understand, please,
two things:

1. Your husband is not simply RARE but EXTRA, EXTRA RARE.
2. From 1. it follows that advice derived from experience with an EXTRA EXTRA RARE man is pretty much useless for 99.99% of women.

My hubby is is a good guy, too. He's a great dad and very reliable. He has zero intuition or mind-reading ability so I have to be very clear if I want something. He wears a belt AND suspenders because he has no butt. He cannot, for the life of him, figure out what does or does not go in a recycling bin. He's a hard worker. He's a crankypants when he starts talking about politics. He's a lifetime member of the NRA. He always gets his dirty clothes in the hamper. He can find whatever clean dish he wants but is somehow completely lacking in the knowledge of how to empty the dishwasher and get said items back in their spots. It is indeed a puzzler. If he's being a crab, I tell him so and then leave him to it. He goes to every local gun show like other guys watch football games. Whatever. The can feed himself if left to his own devices, but dinner will always be browned hamburger, cooked egg noodles and cream of something soup mixed together. He likes his salsa super-mega-hot. Like firebreathing inferno hot. Ugh. I woke up last night to an empty bed. He heard the puppy wake up so he took the pup out for a walk in the yard. At 3am. Naked. What a guy! (Our closest neighbors are like 1/4 mile away so he wasn't flashing a granny)

He's imperfect. So am I. I think I'll keep him, though. And... I will continue to pluck that one pesky chin hair that keeps sprouting on my face. I'm not one to let myself go even if I have been married 20+ years.

Actually, google "Tanya Cleary" on Facebook, and you can see our photo. We're the blond couple that first pops up.

Sorry lovelysoul, but you've just disqualified yourself from ever presenting your experiences with men as normal. You look like you're 47 going on 35.

First: I think it unseemly that we are throwing stones at anyone here's relationships. Both ways. Telling LS that her Jeff isn't what she thinks he is is rude. Telling BOTU that he has the sex appeal of a man shouting on a subway platform in his underwear is equally rude.

We are all here to throw stones at the letter writers and their relationships! I thought we were clear on that.

Second: LS, it looks like you're pretty awesomely happy in your relationship if I picked the correct person from FB. Congrats.

Third: Laura GR. I am of course saying he should pay rent. I'm just suggesting that the original $400 offer on a $1250 house wasn't as bad an offer as some people were suggesting, provided he also ponied up a share of utilities and groceries. That's all. Oh...and it sounds like you have a pretty good relationship too.

@flydye I think it unseemly that we are throwing stones at anyone here's relationships.

If someone is willing to use his/her relationship as an example/argument, s/he shall be prepared it to be scrutinized.

Given how defensive LS reaction was, I think I hit a nerve. If she does not like it, let her refrain from bringing her relationship as some example for others to follow.

I think there is a big difference between saying that 'X practice is unrealistic' and saying that someone has a made up relationship.

YMMV.

$400 offer on a $1250 house wasn't as bad an offer as some people were suggesting, provided he also ponied up a share of utilities and groceries. That's all. flydye

Agreed.

Unilaterally changing the amount then eliminating it altogether is makes him a jerk.

That makes me sad. The man has nothing better to do with his time than to fold laundry. Wow. Are you sure he is not depressed or something?

Someone's gotta fold the laundry. Otherwise it just sits in the laundry bag getting wrinkly. Jeff sounds practical to me.

No one in my house is too good to fold laundry, kids included.

flydye: "Telling BOTU that he has the sex appeal of a man shouting on a subway platform in his underwear is equally rude."

BOTU has talked about what a good idea it is for men to turn to young prostitutes. I assumed he was speaking from experience.

I knew a guy who lived with a woman who owned the house and was paying more of the bills as he was retired/partially disabled after an illness. After a while she felt he wasn't putting enough into the till; he felt she wasn't taking into account the "sweat equity" he was contributing to her home in terms of landscaping, maintenance, repairs, etc. It seems both parties need to come to a financial agreement before they live together, and one party shouldn't be able to unilaterally alter the agreement. The LW let this situation get away from her the first time he "announced" he was reducing his contribution and she let it slide.

"Second: LS, it looks like you're pretty awesomely happy in your relationship if I picked the correct person from FB. Congrats."

Thanks, flydye. I am.

"Sorry lovelysoul, but you've just disqualified yourself from ever presenting your experiences with men as normal. You look like you're 47 going on 35."

Aw, jj, that's sweet. I don't know that I've ever classified my experiences with men as "normal".lol

The same basic principles apply though. When dating, we all must assess our marketability and target "customer."

I obviously have a broader market appeal than many women my age, who may look their age, but that doesn't mean they don't still have options. They may have to lower their requirements a bit, just as older men do.

Mere Mortal is correct - he did hit a nerve. It's that I've seen so many friends give up on love, believing it doesn't truly exist. They settle for mediocre or dissatisfying relationships believing they can't do any better.

I was the same way until age 40. Then, something snapped, and I laid it all on the line looking for love. It was an enormous leap of faith, and I was terrified, but the gamble paid off.

I don't mean to make people nauseous describing my wonderful husband and marriage (bear with me - I'm still a newlywed!), but I don't want women (and men) to believe that these happy endings don't exist.

he did hit a nerve. It's that I've seen so many friends give up on love, believing it doesn't truly exist

How many of them were looking for love, and how any of them were looking for LOVE™?

This has degenerated into a gender war. That is too bad.

I look at it this way. If I was to move into a boyfriend's home, my home would have to be sold or rented out. However I would want to be secure so I doubt I would sell my home. I have seen too many relationships go down the tubes and the person who sold their home has nothing to show for the relationship and no where to live because all the money that went into the home was suddenly the person in whose name the home was in. This happens to both men and women.

While I do believe this man is taking advantage for the situation, I do believe he should pay half the bills. I do believe it is interesting he feels he gets to choose how much of the mutually incurred bills he should pay. $350.00 does not pay for his upkeep. In most places it would not pay for a room with a bathroom and use of the kitchen. Let alone use of the entire house.

I really love his reasoning that he did not charge her when she spent the night at his place before he moved in. That is apples and oranges, she was paying a mortgage, utilities, at her home. I am pretty sure she did not charge him for the times he stayed at her place. MOOOOOOOCH!

Most second marriages have a separate account called the house account. It is the checking account that pays for the mortgage, all the utilities, and other house bills including groceries. Since the house belongs to the LW, I would say her BF should pay no more than 1/3 of the mortgage and 1/2 of the other household bills. The freezer and the side of beef is something he will probably take with him if he leaves. He will leave the home improvements when he goes but frankly it sounds like with his small amount of payment towards the household expenses. She has paid that back over the 3 years he has lived there.

I have seen a lot of speculating about if this guy still has a job but no-where does she say his financial situation changed except his landlord raised his rent. He then decided he could pay less than 1/2 of what he was paying before. He sounds like a MOOCH to me!

He is not being an adult, he is acting like a teenager and she needs to decide if this is the life she wants. She is resentful and angry and I for one do not blame her, however she needs to grow a back bone and have a come to Jesus meeting with this jerk. LW has to figure out why she has allowed this to go on for so long. Why she put up with him deciding he could reduce his contribution from an abnormally low figure because she is helping her sons with $60.00 a month, each? What she does with her money for her sons is none of his freakin business!

If I thought I loved this guy, I would first research the facts. First how much I make verses how much he makes. Who makes more? Who does what chores? I would have it all out on the table both money and time. I would talk to a counselor about it and I would ask him to go to a relationship counselor about it (not my counselor). Let's face it he came into the relationship with nothing but a few moveable things. It does not sound like he had any real estate, or anything else.

You know as I write this I am wondering if this is his way of making her do the work of the break up while he saves his money for a security deposit on a new place.

Worthit:

I would would say it is his way of being liberated. Where is it written the guy has to pick up most of the bills? Cannot the guy be the one who is kept around as he is sexy (by LW's account).

If a guy brought out a calculator and began toting up his girlfriend's contributions to the household, he would be labeled "cheap" or "tightwad" etc. "Not generous," for sure.

This lady is doing the same thing--she does not seem very generous, In fact she seems like a tightwad.

In her age bracket, she should pick up the bills, especially if she has more income than the guy. The guy does seem flush.

More and more middle-aged women have money. Ergo, they are going have options, like live-in boyfriends who do pay exactly half of everything.

Getting married? Now that is tricky for LW. If roles were reversed, the gal would be angling for marriage, so she could get alimony when she tired of the relationship (or vice versa).
But this guy is low-maintenance. He is not angling for the security of alimony.

I would say LW has a great deal. She is not going to get "great sex" from a love in lover-boy likely unless she accepts this situation. Likely she will be lonely as she sounds about 50. Who is going to move in with a 50-year-old lady and deliver "great sex." Really she better treat this catch very gently.

He sounds like a wonderful catch under the circumstances--but if he starts angling for marriage, she should be prepared to say no.

Let me get this straight:
Three years ago he announces that he is moving in and only paying half the amount of the rent he was paying on his apartment.
He slices the amount after he moves in.
He only occasionally buys groceries.
He only once contributed to the upkeep of the house.
He now feels that he should not contribute anything.
And he is going out of his way to drive a wedge between LW and her sons.
Sum things up?
No amount of sex is worth being taken advantage like this. A good rent-boy is cheaper. The part where he thinks he can come between her and her children alone is a dealbreaker. But hell, he can take a flying leap over any one of those things. He was just softening her up to where he thought she wouldn't stand up to him.

I was just thinking that at some point you have to ask yourself questions like, "If I got cancer or became chronically ill and a financial burden, would this guy stand by me, or would he split with his freezer and remaining steaks?" I don't think we really know the answer to this question yet (although I have my suspicions), but I think it's a good time to give the relationship an overhaul and figure out if he's just obtuse (but maybe teachable) or if he's a selfish jerk.

This longterm issue is why I think BOTU's stuff is beside the point. Who cares about great sex now if it means that you are wasting your time with someone who will run out on you at the worst possible moment, when you could find someone who is crazy about you and would take a bullet for you. When you're having chemotherapy, "great sex" will be literally the last thing on your mind. Of course, it's hard to tell at first what kind of critter you're dealing with, but not wanting to chip in generously for basic living expenses now suggests that he will not be very excited about helping you keep up your COBRA payments down the road.

Of course he will split when the going gets tough. That's not the point. The point is he provides companionship and "great sex" to the lady. And he is not asking for a ring, and thus the alimony time-bomb.

He sounds rather low-maintenance in that regard. If the LW ever tires, she can boot him, and be scot-free.

Many many a man wished he could boot the wife, and get out scot free, believe you me. This lW gas a great arrangement.

This LW should count her lucky chickens--she can be free and clear anytime she likes--and meanwhile, she is getting companionship for a very few shekels.

"Of course he will split when the going gets tough. That's not the point. The point is he provides companionship and "great sex" to the lady. And he is not asking for a ring, and thus the alimony time-bomb."

For most women, that is the point. We care about the long-term, and when the going gets tough - when you're going through chemo - is not the time to look for another companion. Most of us hope to already have someone who is truly in love with us and cares about our well-being by then. And the time for LW to start looking for that is now.

This may be a purely female ability - to plan into the romantic future - as I've known several middle-aged men who dumped their loving wives for hot young toys, only to get sick and have no one there to care for them.

Maybe the sex was worth their ultimately sad and lonely existence to them, but that isn't the case for most women.

At some point, other aspects besides sex must take priority. LW is at that point in her life.

@LS At some point, other aspects besides sex must take priority.

On the other hand, healthy sex prevents many illnesses.
You know, "Dick a day keeps doctors away."

Is it better to spend bucks on anti-depressants than on a live-in hump job?

RE: Suspenders and belt! In the UK there's a phrase 'belts and braces' (braces are suspenders in the UK). This means taking extra precautions - even to a ridiculous degree.

Lovelysoul says:

"This may be a purely female ability - to plan into the romantic future - as I've known several middle-aged men who dumped their loving wives for hot young toys, only to get sick and have no one there to care for them."

"At some point, other aspects besides sex must take priority. LW is at that point in her life."

These may very well be true, but I am dubious about the claim that men do not care to find someone who will stick by them into old age.

The reason I find this claim unlikely in general is that men tend to die earlier than women, so their time horizon to locate someone willing to look after them when they are old and senile is shorter.

Anecdotal accounts of most people I know that have family in the older age ranges is that generally it is the women who end up caring for their old husbands before they die. Then the rest of the family cares for her as she finishes out her remaining years. Your personal experience might differ.

Beyond this general sentiment, I'm also not convinced that the LW has ever been planning into the romantic future.

After all, she has two post college age children. What happened to their father? Were they ever married? Is he still alive? Did he leave her or did she leave him?

The answers to these questions are all relevant when determining how much effort the LW has put into planning her "romantic future". For all we know she was the one who dropped the ball on this one and is now scrambling last minute to grab a safety net.

This wouldn't be much different than smoking for 40 years, getting diagnosed with emphysema and suddenly quitting smoking while crossing your fingers that your health improves.

I see no evidence to suggest that either men or women are better at planning for a stable future. I do see evidence that some people are very good at it while others plan their retirement around purchasing lotto tickets.

"Anecdotal accounts of most people I know that have family in the older age ranges is that generally it is the women who end up caring for their old husbands before they die. Then the rest of the family cares for her as she finishes out her remaining years. Your personal experience might differ."

This is true. I just meant that usually the gender that trades this emotional security for sex with no strings, as BOTU is suggesting - assuming they do so - is male.

I suppose a woman could approach this with an actuarial mindset and presume that she will likely outlive all her companions and end up alone anyway, so she might as well just pick them based on sexual compatibility - regardless of whether they show any real commitment to her long-term - but I doubt this reasoning would appeal to most of us.

I don't even think it appeals to men either. Most older men who trade in their wives for younger models genuinely believe (or want to believe) that she'll be there for them...not running off with the cute cardiologist the moment he develops heart trouble.

Few people would be content in a relationship that merely offers sex and not much more...but my guess is that the highest percentage of people who are would be male, not female.

There are some. I sometimes watch that silly "Millionaire Matchmaker" show, and she's had a few ridiculously picky millionairesses, who only want the buff, sexy, younger boy toy types - because they CAN have them, of course. Just as rich men do. The question is whether it's wise.

I think it's less wise for women than men, as we do become less marketable with age. Both genders do, but an older man will have an easier time finding a new companion, especially if he has money. There are more golddigger women than men.

So, each year a woman spends with somebody who isn't long-term material is probably a waste. She may find herself starting over at 60, and she won't be able to "buy" sexy lovers as easily as her male counterparts.

My point stands: The take on this guy (LW's guy) is completely sexist. He is called a tightwad. It is assumed he should somehow kick in half, even if he is taking a role traditionally assumed by women.

I think LW's relationship could be both empowering for her, and liberating for him. Why should he "give it away"? He is not even getting a ring and promise of alimony, if he is kicked to the curb. No equity in the house. He gets nothing.

The LW is the breadwinner, but she is selfish with her money, and wants her lover-boy to kick in. She is the tightwad, cheapskate in this picture. Is she thinking about his future?

More and more, as middle-aged women with good jobs become the norm, we will see more and more arrangements where the traditional roles are reversed. Fine. This is called equality.

Men, however, are going to have to learn the tricks of the trade--getting that ring, so that alimony can be assured. Once you get that ring, you don't even have to put out much anymore--and then when wife wants a divorce, you can get some monthly income in addition to pending Social Security.

While claiming your wife is an insensitive boor.

The economy is changing, and men will have to change with it.

From a purely financial basis, the notion that he should be paying rent doesn't really make sense. Whether he lived there or not, her house payment would be exactly the same. Moreover, when she sells the house, would he be given a portion of gains?

If you want to split your house payment and/or rent, either sign a joint agreement or sublent to the other person with a legal agreement. This also means that when the don't pay their legal obligation, you evict them. If you aren't willing to do that, don't whine about the person not paying rent.

As for other expenses, failure to pay his fair share is selfish IF he agreed to do so. However, it may not be half--could be less, could be more.

"My point stands: The take on this guy (LW's guy) is completely sexist. He is called a tightwad. It is assumed he should somehow kick in half, even if he is taking a role traditionally assumed by women."

That's fine, if it's the role she wants her man to play, but it's apparent by her writing to Amy that this wasn't an "arrangement" they had. This is vastly different from a sugar daddy (or mommy) saying, "Move in with me, and I'll take care of all your expenses."

Of course, she is free to do that, but this is not what she chose to do with this particular man. It would be the same as some girl targeting a wealthier guy, suggesting she'd move in and pay $400 or whatever towards rent, then, once she's comfortably ensconsced, backing out of paying anything at all, assuming he will just support her.

It's HIS home. Therefore, he gets to decide if this person, who has shown an obvious lack of character, is worth keeping around. I don't get that from this LW. She said the sex was "good" not "awesome". She's obviously feeling that what he's contributing isn't worth the expense.

So your BF's a sex machine, but he expects you to pay all the bills? Guess what, you're living with a prostitute, but fortunately, at $625 dollars a month, he's a rather inexpensive pro.

Go find yourself a sex machine who actually respects you enough to chip in significantly. Good luck.

lovelysoul-

Actually, LW (who is probably 50+) described the sex as "great." She has had kids, has been having sex for a few decades (we can assume) and ergo I assume she knows what is great sex.

Hell, I would pay for great sex, as defined by me. Essentially, in my generation, most men paid for sex and companionship.

(Interestingly enough, in many societies, it is brides who have to post a dowry, and in the USA, George Washington married at least in part for the dowry-land holdings, as did many men of his generation. So times change, and norms change).

We are entering an era where women are expected to provide more economic security.

I agree with mpetrie and some others, that actually this guy is giving it away. $625 a month? No future assured? No alimony? No equity in house?

LW's love-boy needs to up his rates. Some wheels, clothes and the ring. Once he has the ring he can play it out for alimony when time comes.

The guy is living with a cheapskate, the LW. He is giving her great sex and "fun" companionship, but she is sniveling about a few hundred in rent.

He should find a real women who will take care of him and not pull out her calculator to count pennies. Someone more generous. And he should ponder life without alimony--he should maybe go for the ring.

"LW's love-boy needs to up his rates. Some wheels, clothes and the ring. Once he has the ring he can play it out for alimony when time comes."

I love how this guy has suddenly become a "love boy", ala Richard Gere in American Gigolo.

Look, there are certain requirements. A tubby girl with bad teeth can't just call herself a "supermodel", and a middle-aged cheapskate can't just call himself a "boy toy".

As a former trophy wife myself, I maintain there are certain physical standards that must be met before one can be a trophy or toy.

Unless I see photos of his buff, lean body, then I'm not bestowing that title on him. He's a cheapskate, not a gigolo.

LS-

Yes, we do not know how great looking he is, or his age.

That said, it is LW--not you or me--that defined him as providing "great sex" and "fun" companionship. Ergo, he is successful at his role in the household, regardless of what you or I think. Anyway, to a woman, looks are second to acting and basic presentability.

Therefore, LW is a niggardly cheapskate, just using this guy --on top of that, she actually wants him to pay rent! He is supposed to pay rent for the priviledge of servicing her with "great' sex and companionship.

This love-toy needs a stern talking to. He needs a lot more out of this deal, or he needs to move on. He is stuck with a tightwad penurious loser.

What's his future in this?

Lovelysoul Says:

"a middle-aged cheapskate can't just call himself a "boy toy"."

To be fair, I see no indication that the man in this scenario is middle-aged.

For all we know he is half her age.

To be honest, that is the only way that the following statement makes any sense at all:

"He said he was never helped like this by his parents, and apparently money's no problem for me if I do this."

I mean, what 40+ year old even cares what their parents did for them financially two decades prior?

On the other hand I could see someone making a comparison if they were in the same age range as the aforementioned sons.

That wouldn't make it proper behavior, but it makes more sense for a 28 year old to begrudge the meager financial allowance of a 23 year old than it does for a middle aged man to even worry about it.

Furthermore, a middle aged man who is renting an apartment for 800 a month isn’t doing fantastically well for himself. When I graduated from college 800 a month was the cost of my starter place.

The more and more I think about this situation the more likely it seems that the LW is not in exactly the same age range as her paramour.

The dynamics of this relationship appear very different when we think they are both middle aged versus the woman being decades older than the man in this situation.

"Keep this in mind: In every society, men are born and raised to be providers. Men who are truly in love are generous and give from the heart. Even if they don't have much money, they will DO things for you to give you happiness."

Which also means that you should have dinner on the table when he gets home. Not take-out, not crap, but a real dinner. And on the weekend, when he's mowing the lawn (I have a third acre and did it with a gas-powered push mower in Arizona heat until I couldn't), cleaning the pool,and trimming the shrubs and trees, you should have lunch and liquids ready.

I do all the harsh, dangerous work in my house. I expose myself to all the dangerous chemicals, pool or household. I'm the one on a ladder (6 feet to 18 feet up) painting the house whether summer or winter (inside or out); I'm the one being a pretzel in the AC closet; I'm the one under the sink for three hours cleaning out the plumbing (anaerobic sludge all over me); I'm the one lifting the back breaking weights; and I also clean and cook and worry about how things are slowly breaking down, watching and planning for the next job. This isn't to make less of what my wife does, but to make a point about the difference. And yes I changed diapers and stayed up till 0200 to get babies to sleep before going to work by 0800-0900 (my time was flexible).

The last I saw on studies, men and women work almost equal hours (about 1/2 hour more on the women's part). At work outside the home, men do all the hazardous jobs in society (we die on the job at about a 9 or 10 to 1 ratio versus women because we are both by nature and nurture trained to put ourselves at risk, while protecting women). At work around the home, we still do the hazardous work. If a factor was applied to take this into account, the "women aren't paid enough" argument would not only evaporate, but fair-minded people would laugh at the very mention.

After skimming this, I find the women and men are in general agreement about him not doing his fair share, but if this was a woman not paying her half, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the women would be less, uh, adamant on how she was a deadbeat. It is a societal prejudice that needs to end because it is based on an expectation of both sexes' labor that has changed.

Generosity, giving from the heart, is a two-way street that too many men and women see as only one-way. If you inside home, the home should damn well be in order, physically and financially. If you work outside the home, the money is to support the previous, and it is neither the woman's nor the man's to dispose of, but both and only by mutual agreement. (I've gone through "I can spend the money anyway I want" where her money was only her money, and my money was only her money too, after all that was my purpose, to supply her with money. Adolescent thinking.)

As for this guy, unless Amy has redacted more from the letter, he needs to man-up with more money. BTW, I use the phrase man-up on women too. The response is like the deer in the headlights, total shock. Woman-up just doesn't work, it's meaningless when it shouldn't be.

Finally, "Alimony is just as deserved when the Woman pays" should be a t-shirt.

After skimming this, I find the women and men are in general agreement about him not doing his fair share, but if this was a woman not paying her half, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts the women would be less, uh, adamant on how she was a deadbeat. It is a societal prejudice that needs to end because it is based on an expectation of both sexes' labor that has changed.

Which is exactly my point. BOTU wants a sudden 'role reversal' but that ain't going to happen.

I am just as driven by our societal stereotypes as anyone else and think this guy is not performing the way he should. I am also objective enough to wonder if it was a woman 'giving up the best years of her life' to a guy for rent free living, we'd even bat an eye? We wouldn't, provided she did a certain minimum of light housekeeping (Yes, I've done it too), and sex on deman...when she feels like it. (Aside from LS's dude, I don't think anyone is getting sex on demand except for the Sultain of Baharain)

"That said, it is LW--not you or me--that defined him as providing "great sex" and "fun" companionship. Ergo, he is successful at his role in the household, regardless of what you or I think. Anyway, to a woman, looks are second to acting and basic presentability."

Providing great sex and fun are pretty standard requirements for being in a relationship for everyone. There's nothing to suggest that LW doesn't also provide great sex and fun, so their contributions are probably equal.

A sugar daddy/momma - boy/girl toy arrangement is very different. Usually one party has superior looks, while the other has superior funds.

I see no indication that LW is that well-off. She gives her college-age sons only $60 per month, not vacations in Greece or sports cars.

The fact that her boyfriend even states that "apparently money is no problem" for her because of the measly $60 proves that she isn't wealthy by any stretch. People with the means to keep "boy toys" or "trophy wives" around have obvious wealth. No one needs to point it out or pick through their finances to find proof.

And I respectfully disagree with Reality. That statement is more likely to be made by a middle-aged person because times have drastically changed since we were kids. It's not so unusual for parents to help their 20-something kids financially these days, whereas many guys of a certain era were given no help and pride themselves on this.

It sounds to me like he resents the relationship she has with her sons. She says he didn't even start being this way until he found out she was helping them. In my view, no matter how great the sex is, this is a dealbreaker. A grown man shouldn't be jealous or resentful of his girlfriend's children.

Flydye,

There is only one thing I would give Islam, it has a better understanding of the male/female sexuality than Christianity (in all other ways I'd go for a relatively pacifistic carpenter over a pedophile brigand, yeah he found a six-year-old sexy, maybe it was the culture at the time, but yeeech).

Part of the male/female contract is sex, home, and money. If you're female and getting all the sex you want, it's likely you are cheating the male(generous of the heart anyone?), so you need to give more as a woman. Home is something to please both and should be mutually agreed upon, as should how money is spent. When any of these three things are one-sided, conflict ensues. I leave out religion, my wife is Christian and I am an atheist, because that can be worked out through caring for and respecting the beliefs of both.

However, the spouse staying home doing a minimum of housework while the other slaves for money needs a spanking for an attitude adjustment (it can be fun, you know, angry sex).

There's an old adage about men in marriage, which I paraphrase: "In marriage, give a man the final say, and he'll seldom use it, but when he does it is really important to him." Women should take notice.

Well, here we have a saying, "Happy wife, happy life". My Cuban friend, married almost 30 years, and still passionately in love with his lovely wife (who waited years for him to get out of prison in Cuba) says this a lot.

You make no sense. A woman getting enough sex is neglecting the home? She can't have both a clean home and plenty of sex? Seriously?

Lovelysoul Says:

"And I respectfully disagree with Reality. That statement is more likely to be made by a middle-aged person because times have drastically changed since we were kids. It's not so unusual for parents to help their 20-something kids financially these days, whereas many guys of a certain era were given no help and pride themselves on this."

You might be correct, but I am still not convinced he is middle-aged.

He might be, in which case his behavior is even less understandable, but I'm going to leave open the door to the possibility that he is much younger than the LW.

Again, that doesn't make the behavior of begrudging the small amount of money given to her son's acceptable, but the dynamics of the relationship would be very different.

I'd be interested to know if there was an age disparity or not.

I agree that it isn't so unusual for modern middle class parents to help out their college age children financially.

Based upon the financial details of this couple, I wouldn't classify either of them as doing particularly well for themselves.

There are several scenarios I can imagine that wouldn't make the LW quite as sympathetic. One if that the guy is much younger than she is. Another is if she left a stable relationship with the father of her children and then pursued a life of fun dating with much younger men.

Now these might not be the case at all, in which case the LW remains quite sympathetic. However, if these scenarios were the case, she would bare a significant amount of responsibility for her current situation.

More information here would help me to better formulate my opinion.

No, lovelysoul, reread what I wrote. A woman wants less sex than a man, in very few cases is it otherwise. In that area, a woman has to give more...

"Happy wife, happy life" can be paraphrased as "Don't give the bitch what she wants and she'll make you miserable". Sound better?,no?, yet same meaning, just harsher. Its a phrase that nurtures adolescent women of any age and hard learned by men. So "happy husband, happy life" is what women should live by? Do they or is it the other phrase?(See, there is two sides to this among good men and good women.)

My point was at the last of my earlier comment of 6:27 is that men almost almost always defer to women regarding the marriage, but a woman that believes she should always have the final say is destroying her marriage. Because when men really say its important to them, it is. Just like when men go to the doctor... Why is it so hard to understanding that both have the same root?

No matter his age, this guy isn't sympathetic at all. His whole basis for not contributing financially is that she supposedly has no money issues. Yet, LW sounds like she struggles to pay the $1250 in mortgage and utilities, plus more for groceries and lawn care (could he not even cut the grass for her?).

Then, he also claims that he doesn't have to pay anything because he never asked her to pay rent when she "stayed over frequently one year" at his place. What kind of guy asks his girlfriend to pay rent when sleeping over anyway? Permanently moving in with someone is very different.

This guy went from paying $800 per month rent and his own utilities, groceries, etc, to a basically free ride...which would be fine if LW was Miss Moneybags and wanted a freeloading sex toy. But she's clearly not in that kind of financial position, so it bothers her, rightfully so.

Even most self-respecting boy toys would do more than this lazy dude. It's rare to find someone this willing to appear like a total user...and justify it with such lame reasoning.

lovelysoul says:

"No matter his age, this guy isn't sympathetic at all."

I'm not defending the guy. I agree that he really isn't very sympathetic.

I think most people are in agreement on this issue.

As a result I am more interested now in whether or not the LW is sympathetic.

I'm not totally convinced she is.

She might very well be, but to me it depends on details that are not currently in evidence.

Reality, I'm curious what flaw in her character you feel would justify his behavior? You mentioned her leaving a marriage. Would that justify her being used financially?

It seems pretty clear that she has poor judgement, or lacks the ability to stand up for herself in oposition to his ridiculous excuses, but, other than that, I can't think of any character flaws that would create this scenario.

loveysoul,

The whole point of my part in this little exercise is would the same vehement judgement be expressed if the sexes were opposite? I sincerely doubt it.

Never met a guy who called a woman a "loser" or whatever, because she couldn't pay for dinner, when she did the invite or when it was simply a weekly routine. The woman isn't sympathetic in that situation either. She's an adolescent deadbeat.

I don't see this guy as sympathetic either, neither would I a woman doing the same in the same situation (what's between your legs is not a great gift that absolves all else, it has no more worth than a penis, no more no less in reproduction, no more no less since the Pill and Roe v. Wade), but there's a bigger issue here about the responsibilities of both sexes in a shifting dynamic that has always existed but is more so today. The Japanese have a phrase "running on flowing water". Both sexes have to give and take up the slack when necessary.

I'm curious, what's the difference between a boy toy and a girl toy? An emasculated man versus an empowered woman? Or would the woman just be used? Or the same?

Reality,

If I look at both sexes as equal, I don't see the LW as sympathetic either, especially when she could just put a stop to it (move out, it's my house). A lot of men support their live-in girlfriends (who should pay equally but don't, nor do they expect to). Such a high price for a tube of wet muscle (I'm reiterating that there is no difference between penis or vagina, if men denied women in the same fashion, women would be talking about how abusive men are; come to think of it, I read a Swedish feminist list of how women were abused and it included denying sex, the irony being lost on the gender feminist writer).

"The whole point of my part in this little exercise is would the same vehement judgement be expressed if the sexes were opposite?"

I think so if the facts were the same. Financially struggling guy and girlfriend who offers to pay $400 to help out, then reneges on the deal once settled in, using absurd excuses, such as, "You give your kids an allowance. You obviously don't need my money".

I believe we'd be telling him the same thing we're telling this LW: You're being taken advantage of.

lovelysoul says:

"Reality, I'm curious what flaw in her character you feel would justify his behavior? You mentioned her leaving a marriage. Would that justify her being used financially?"

I don't recall trying to justify his behavior or even saying that there was a justification.

I am merely trying to explore her part in all of this.

The point is that she is not a child, she has a hand in determining her own future and course of action.

Some of the posts here seem to indicate that what has happened here was essentially done to her, but this type of talk eliminates her own agency in these matters.

Your own posts suggest that the LW has made a good faith effort to look for a long term stable relationship and despite her Herculean efforts she ended up with a mooch.

What I am saying is that we have zero evidence that the LW put in a good faith effort to look for a long term stable relationship.

For all we know this relationship is with a man half her age which would suggest that stability wasn’t at the top of her priority list.

That doesn’t justify his actions, but when stability is low on your priority list, one shouldn't act shocked when they get an unreliable partner.

The whole point of my part in this little exercise is would the same vehement judgement be expressed if the sexes were opposite?

Pull down a man's pants and a woman's -- you are going to be in for a surprise! Yes, men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and want different things in partners. Women prioritize providers due to the fact that they are the ones who got stuck dragging the kid across the Sahara if they got pregnant, and men prioritize beauty, because what we consider beautiful are signs that a woman is a healthy, fertile mother of a child.

So the answer is 'no'.

"Your own posts suggest that the LW has made a good faith effort to look for a long term stable relationship and despite her Herculean efforts she ended up with a mooch."

I don't believe I suggested that. I have no idea what her dating history is. Apparently, she has been with this guy for at least 4 years, as Amy said they've lived together for 3, and he alludes to one year where she frequently stayed over.

She has college-aged kids, so I'm assuming she's in her 40s or 50s. Unless she's a pedophile, he's got to at least be over 24, and most likely older.

Clearly, she let him move in under the impression that he would contribute financially, yet she didn't assert herself when he reneged. And she's let this go on for 3 years, which has been a mistake.

Maybe LW is being taken advantage of, but maybe not. After all, her live-in loverman gets nothing in a break-up. No alimony, no equity in the house, nada. Meanwhile, in addition to keeping a menopausal women happy, he ihas been fixing up her house and bringing in moose carcasses, or something to that effect.

Do you how many guys would love a live-in cutie who also did repairs, and brought home real steaks?

Yet LW gets off scot-free, after boyfriend provided great sex and companionship for four years, and she provided the house (it sounds like she is the breadwinner).

In a break-up, he gets kicked to the curb--he should go for the ring. That way he can get some alimony, and won't be so easily shunted aside, if she drags out her calculator and makes her niggardly little calculations again.

Lovelysoul,

The argument that many posters have been attempting to make in this thread is essentially that the LW has a reasonable expectation of stability and responsibility from her romantic partner.

On the face of it this seems like a great argument, however it assumes several things that are not in evidence.

One can only have reasonable expectations of their partner if they go through the proper motions to vet those expectations.

As an example unrelated to this specific situation, it sounds great to expect your partner to work a full time job and contribute financially to the family, but what if your partner is disabled? If that were the same that expectation goes from reasonable to unreasonable very quickly.

So the question I have is what measures did the LW go to in order make her expectations reasonable?

If this woman is 50 and is dating a 26 year old for example, it is kind of unreasonable for her to expect the kind of stability and responsibility that she is now looking for. The reason is that clearly stability and responsibility were not high on her priority list when establishing the relationship if the age disparity I mentioned was accurate.

People only get to expect certain behaviors AFTER they have properly sought out those behaviors.

As a result it isn’t clear to me if the LW did her due diligence in properly vetting this relationship. Based upon what little we do know I’d have to say that she hasn’t made stability and responsibility her top priorities in terms of selecting a romantic partner. It is also possible that she eliminated a stable and responsible relationship in preference of this “fun” relationship with “great sex” (of course this might not be the case, but we have very few details of how her current relationship even started).

Sometimes in life you get what you bargained for, and based upon what little we know I’m not confident that the LW wasn’t complicit in the creation of the scenario she is now lamenting.

"If this woman is 50 and is dating a 26 year old for example, it is kind of unreasonable for her to expect the kind of stability and responsibility that she is now looking for."

Why? 26 yr olds can't make agreements? They can go to war, yet can't keep a promise to pay $400 towards the mortgage?

She's not just assumimg. She made a deal with this guy before allowing him to move in with her. I don't care how young he is, if he told her he'd do XYZ, then reneged, it's his fault, not hers.

Sigh. Again, fact not in evidence. We know he DID give her money, but not that there was a sit down discussion over it. We know that he dropped the money down, but again, we don't know if she just accepted it or they had 'a talk'

We DO know that they have had ONE conversation, when he told her 'you don't need the money'. Which makes him a d***. But that doesn't make him an oath breaker unless we are told otherwise.

I am being a bit pendantic here, but sometimes we jump to conclusions.

Hmm. They might have had two conversations: "Here is what I paid in rent before".

Scratch all I said before. He's a d*** and changed his tune.

There is a principle in divorce law, from what I understand (not being a lawyer).

If a spouse cheats on the other, and the other spouse finds out about it, and over a period of time does nothing about it, i.e. doesn't instigate action or file or move out etc, then they are considered to be 'reconciled' to the new arrangement/prior action. Not that the person can't divorce anyway, but that they can't cite the adultery as the 'cause' anymore (which from what I understand has some legal implications).

So too with the LW. If she didn't bitch up a storm the first few $350 checks, then she is sort of waiving her right. She IS bitching now...and so here we are.

"He announced that he'd give me $400 a month (half of what he was paying at his place), then cut that to $350."

And then apparently continued to cut it to nothing, based on his absurd excuses. It takes time to really flesh out when someone is going to dishonor a commitment. All we know is that he moved in on the $400 deal. When he cut it to $350 then to nothing is unknown, but we can't quite say the LW accepted all this.

It's hard to get someone out of your home. I'm a landlord, and, believe me, it's not easy. Once he moved in under the initial promise, she was at a disadvantage, and has continued to be since she was romantically involved and likely kept hoping he would honor his word.

lovely soul says,

“Why? 26 yr olds can't make agreements? They can go to war, yet can't keep a promise to pay $400 towards the mortgage?”

I think you are missing my point. I never said that 26 year olds can’t make agreements. I am not discussing the boyfriends part in all this anymore because the vast majority of the posters here agree that he is not doing the right thing.

I am now discussing the LW’s contribution and culpability here. As a result it makes no sense for you to continue to harp on the boyfriend.

The LW is complaining about a lack of stability, reliability and responsibility on the part of her boyfriend.

My contention is that the validity of her complaint is undermined based upon how she vetted the stability, reliability and responsibility of her boyfriend in the first place.

Imagine this wasn’t a romantic situation for one moment. Instead imagine that the LW was a bank and the boyfriend was some dude applying for a loan.

Now imagine that the guy applying for the loan has a horrible credit score, is in debt up to his ears, and is unemployed. If the bank gives this guy a loan in spite of these details and someone points out that the bank might have make a critical error it is outright silliness to respond with “Why? Broke, unemployed people with terrible credit can’t make financial agreements? They can go to war, yet can’t keep a promise to pay off a loan?”

No one talks like that when discussing financial arrangements with a financial institution. The bank or credit lender is ALWAYS expected to do their due diligence in determining the financial reliability of the person they are entering into a financial agreement with. If they fail to do this they may have been wronged, but people aren’t going to have tons of sympathy for them.

Similarly with this case. If the LW knew she was dating a person who lacked financial stability, if she failed to ascertain his financial reliability, if she didn’t make responsibility one of her priorities when selecting him as a romantic partner she becomes less sympathetic when the financial arrangement she enters with this guy blows up in her face.

That is all I am saying and it has nothing to do with people going to war.

Ok, I get what you're saying now, Reality. But, even if she choose unwisely (which so many LW's do), I still have sympathy for her. We've all picked a lemon or two.

Plus, she doesn't say he got kicked out for not paying rent. His rent got raised, which presumably means he was paying it before - to his landlord - and twice as much! He just apparently believes he doesn't need to pay HER.

Speaking as a landlord, I've found the nicer I am to people, the less they feel obligated to pay me. Once I become a "friend", it changes the whole dynamic.

This guy may be very responsible when dealing with other entities - banks, landlords, etc - but since she's his girlfriend, he doesn't view his commitments to her the same way. And this is something she likely couldn't have known until she let him move in.

Lovelysoul says:

"And this is something she likely couldn't have known until she let him move in."

The evidence we do have does not support this contention.

You are basically contending that the LW had zero advanced notice that the guy she would have moving in with her might not be financially reliable. As a result you then conclude that no reasonable person in the LW's situation could have ascertained that he might not be financially reliable.

I disagree with this perspective based upon the details of the situation that we are aware of.

First of all, the LW admits that she permitted her boyfriend to dictate the terms of their financial arrangement. She says so here:

"He announced that he'd give me $400 a month"

She doesn't say she and he came to an arrangement, she says that he "announced" that this was what he was going to pay her.

She follows this up immediately with the following:

"then cut that to $350"

So from what we know, the LW allowed the guy to adjust his initial "announcement". Didn't this give her some warning of what she was dealing with?

Yet even with that information she didn't change anything about their arrangement. Then we jump to this statement:

"Now he's decided he shouldn't have to pay anything"

So my question is why should any of this come as a surprise?

This guy has been playing this game where he pays what he wants when he wants since the very beginning.

I find it difficult to believe that this behavior suddenly materialized out of nowhere the moment he moved in.

I find that difficult to believe because even when the behavior was quite obvious the LW did absolutely nothing about it.

This leads me to conclude that if there were warning signs prior to him moving in, she probably ignored those as well.

Someone who gets drunk, closes their eyes and runs across a highway during rush hour deserves less sympathy when they end up in the hospital than someone who is walking on the side walk and gets run over by someone who speeds through a stop sign.

The LW doesn't strike me as someone who properly vetted this relationship and could use some advice on how to avoid these situations in the future. Not only do I think she could have discovered in advance if this guy was going to be unreliable, I don't think she did much of anything to even try and find out how reliable he was.

I agree with you. At the very least, the guy sounds controlling, as you note by the way he "announces" what he's going to pay, and does the cutting on his own.

Where is her voice? She hasn't spoken up for over 3 years. Why?

Still, I maintain that she might not have known him to be financially irresponsible. My guess is that he is similar to my controlling ex in finances. He is meticulously responsible when payng his bills, mortagages to banks and "official" entities, but when it comes to personal or family loans, he often manages to find justificiations for reducing the amount or renegotiating the terms in his favor.

He did this with his own mother and friends, but NEVER with a bank because banks can report this to the credit bureaus. Banks can't be as easily charmed and manipulated.

This guy is manipulative and knows, since she is meek, that he can put forth these absurd arguments for not paying, and she'll just accept them, as she has for over 3 years.

Three years?! I hope she moves him out. "For the sake of our relationship, you need to get the hell out and pay for your own place. We can still date, but even if we can't, begone freeloader." I know relatives that take advantage like this (I've kicked out a couple for my mother) but I would have had his bags packed and sitting in storage if he hadn't come up with my rent after month two. He didn't get laid off, he got lazy, self serving and heartless. He thinks he has the right to withold rent because she gives her kids grocery money every month? Unless he comes up with three years worth of backpay, KICK HIM OUT.

And how is he paying you $350 (at first anyway) when your rent is $1,250?! You got bamboozled from jump. He's not your husband or your partner, he's just a bad tenant. "Begone freeloader."

He is not straightforward. He is financially abusive. He is intruding in transactions between this woman and her children, which are none of his business; behavior which indicates he is also controlling.

She is generous. She cares about her children. She needs to invest in a good vibrator and spend more time with non reptilian humanoids.

Just dump him, he's not the only ride in town.

There are always signs that show someone is financially irresponsible. I've been dating my boyfriend now for 6 years, and have a sense of his attitude towards money. He's not perfect, but I know what he will and won't do under most circumstances. All you can do is watch someone and take note of their patterns & habits, and then base your decision to live with them, lend them money, or anything else, even not finance related, based on a long and careful study.