I was feeling somewhat sympathetic toward Stiffed until I read this phrase, and now I think that some things in her letter just don't add up. If she's single, where is she getting the money to stay at home? (Note that she compares her stay at home status to him being employed, so it doesn't sound as if she works from home). Is she independently wealthy? Does she have a huge alimony settlement? Is she putting everything on credit? Spending $70-80 on a home-cooked dinner is not really characteristic of someone scrimping for every penny. I wouldn't be surprised if her boyfriend was not under the impression that she is quite rich.

That doesn't give him an excuse to be cheap, but if the genders were reversed, would not many people expect an independently rich boyfriend to contribute more money? Would they think twice about the man paying more? And the expense of the dinners seem like they're her choice instead of something that he's pressuring her to do. Perhaps he sees them as a gift that she can easily afford. She needs to be honest with him about the state of her finances.

*******
Regarding "Not a Believer", although there's no reason to be ungracious or to feel guilty over a white lie meant in kindness, I understand where the LW is coming from.I don't know that there's any other response the LW could have made (I'll send him positive vibes?) but it's sad that an affirmation of atheism is seen as so socially unacceptable or controversial that it can't just be expressed directly.

I think she may get alimony and checks for her children (for the life of me I cannot think of what that is called at the moment, too early).

Maybe she's a widow. Maybe she saved up to retire early. Maybe she inherited money. It could be that she has enough money to live on, but not enough to entertain 2-3x a week and also split the check at frequent meals out. The fact is, dating is expensive. As it is right now, her gentleman friend is living off her. If she doesn't say something to him, I'm not optimistic for the future of their relationship.

MistPanther:

I think she may get alimony and checks for her children (for the life of me I cannot think of what that is called at the moment, too early).

"child support"

rosie56:

MistPanther:

I think she may get alimony and checks for her children (for the life of me I cannot think of what that is called at the moment, too early).

"child support"

Thanks. :) I have no clue why I couldn't think of 'child support'. So silly of me.

I admit I had overlooked this phrase. So the $80 may include food for her kids, as well. If the kids (kid?) are young, she's probably out a babysitter, too, unless it's Dad's weekend. If they are teens and don't need babysitting, they are probably bottomless pits.

It sounds a bit less inequitable with this phrase in mind than it did at first.

If it's child support, I hope that's not the money that's going to the two bottles of wine with the new date!

i almost missed that phraseology and the answer to your question would make a world of difference.

about the prayer thing. I think the problem lies in the word prayer and how people define it. I don't see any reason that prayer is the sole property of Christianity. Sure people pray to a God, but isn't meditative thought a form of prayer? Isn't any focused thought a type of prayer? That's how I think of it, at least. I see the ladies wish for prayer as equal to "keeping him in his thoughts". If she chooses to believe that it must be a Christian God that he is praying to, then that is her mistake, he was clear about the fact that the person would be in his thoughts in the first place.

While I think Christians overreact at the idea of agnostics or atheists many times, it is evident that the opposite holds true as well. We all need to stop taking unnecessary umbrage at people who don't mean us ill. We are all more similar than dissimilar, after all.

deduction:

While I think Christians overreact at the idea of agnostics or atheists many times, it is evident that the opposite holds true as well. We all need to stop taking unnecessary umbrage at people who don't mean us ill. We are all more similar than dissimilar, after all.

Well said.

As an attorney who has dabbled a bit in family law I was also taken aback by the statement of a stay at home single parent.

In CA, how long you get alimony depends on how long you've been married and usually adds up to half the marriage years (20 years married, 10 years of alimony). If you are married less than 10, then you are expected to get your butt to work and darn quick because the alimony won't last long at all! And even in longer marriages, you are expected to get to work eventually. And all that does anyway is lower the amount of alimony you get.

So there are any number of scenarios that could explain this. Just child support would not be enough to live on unless she's got lots of kids and the ex makes lots of money to qualify to pay lots of child support.

I'm feeling a little suspicious, but without more information it's hard to come to a conclusion. "Single parent" could mean anything - widowed, divorced, never married. But NOT WORKING and single with children sounds a little strange to me. She has to be getting money from somewhere and all I can think of is lots of money saved on the side, independently wealthy, or she was married a good long time to a rich guy who's still paying her alimony (and child support) and she lives in a state where she's not required to be financially independent after divorce (which seems odd).

Regardless of her financial situation, many of the suggestions people have made for dealing with Mr. Frugal make sense. This is definitely a communication issue and she needs to communicate with him and then they negotiate the situation how it works best for them. That's the only real answer any of us can give and it's the best answer.

If my husband were to die tomorrow, the company for which he works would continue to pay his salary to his beneficiary (me) for one year after his death. Additionally, the private term life insurance policy that we have on him would provide, annually, approximately the salary that he was earning prior to his death, as per the advice of our financial planner, until our oldest child is about 18. This would allow me to continue to stay home with our children (currently there are two, with one on the way), in the event that we suffered the tragedy of losing my husband. Whether or not I would do this is something we hope never to find out.

The ability to stay home with my children in the event of my husband's death would not suddenly promote me into the category of "independently wealthy". While I would hopefully be able to support my family on the life insurance that we have on my husband, I would not be in a position to be entertaining, with fine wine and gourmet meals, several times per week.

However, I do think it behooves the letter writer to give her boyfriend the benefit of the doubt. If he is not a big grocery shopper/chef, he may not realize that a fine meal in can be an expensive affair. She could start by asking him to bring the alcohol, or by eliminating the alcohol altogether. She also should be clear with him about her own financial boundaries, and then stick to them, otherwise she will become gradually more resentful.

What difference does it make where she gets her money? Maybe her husband died when she was pregnant, maybe she's disabled, whatever. We could speculate all day about things that are beside the point.

And who cares what many people would think if the genders were switched? It's about what the individual thinks and how she should approach expressing her thoughts. And that would still be the case if the genders were reversed.

Clara,

How about this? It's none of your business where she get's her money from and should have no bearing on the situation.

I used to work as a lifeguard and everyday the same woman came to the beach, she was usually there when I arived and stayed untill after I left. This went on everyday for over a month when one day we started to talk. I wondered what she did to allow her to go to the beach every day. I asked if she was prehaps a teacher? Well...what I found out was that something truly horrible had happened to her at the hands of others. Because this happened at work and it was found her employers were at fault for continuing to ignore the situation, they had to continue to pay her salary and she was allowed to take an indeffinate leave.

To answer one of your questions, I do happen to know a couple where the gentleman is independly well off, the woman workes for a normal salery. And guess what? The DO split almost everything and its not a problem because they agree on both paying their own way.

So...before you jump to judge people, prehaps you could instead take a moment and worry about your own life instead of questioning others.

Oh..and by the way...I'm a stay at home mom, and my husband is a stay at home dad, and yah...we make a living. Its called work from home.

ding, ding, ding!

pandacat-

I think you're jumping to judge Clara pretty quickly.

Secondly...this lady may well be a parent working from home. Or perhaps her husband died in a tragic accident and she got millions of dollars in insurance money. Perhaps she filed a big lawsuit and won and is living off it. Maybe she has rich parents...whatever her story is about where she's getting her money is irrelevant.

If you're going to go out with someone as they've been doing you should discuss who pays for the meals. It isn't that hard to figure out a system of who pays. You pay one week and the next week the other person pays. You get tickets to a baseball game for your girlfriend and it'd be nice of her to pay for the food at the game (assuming that they are decent tickets).

If you have a money problem...tell your boy/girlfriend. That's something you should be able to discuss with a person you're making dinner for at your house a couple of nights a week...I mean you only can discuss the weather so much.

I think that this guy is clueless to what's going and and the female needs to speak up and inform her male counterpart that he needs to pay. The next time they're at dinner and the bills $42 she should be the one to say "I'll throw in $20."

~Nick