I've been there, done that. Prudie's right, in asking him to step it up, but I think it's not going to work. He comes across as selfish, and let me go a little further. The unspoken here is that the writer is most likely sleeping with him as well. So, in his mind, why should he give more when he's getting it all for nothing?

There is a difference between being frugal and being cheap. My friend is married to a man who is quite frugal, but there's always a warmth that comes across, he doesn't split things down the middle, they happily share them.

We all want to be loved and belong, and I sense her hurt that she is so generous but he just doesn't meet her halfway. If he doesn't upon her urging, time to cut 'im loose.

I agree. I dated cheap boyfriends in the past too, and their cheapness speaks volumes. In dating 101, every guy is taught to pay for the meal. When people are a couple, they find ways to reciprocate without going dollar for dollar. If he doesn't have a helluva lot of money, why can't he invite her over to eat once a week? Or why can't he bring the wine?

iscandara:

He comes across as selfish, and let me go a little further.

Why? Because they go Dutch? So many women feel that dates should be Dutch because we're enlightened and don't need to be "paid" for. Or do you think he's cheap because he's not contributing to the dinners at home? That may simply be because he has no idea how much it is costing her. Before deciding he's a selfish cheapskate, she should talk to him. It really is amazing how many relationship problems go away when people have honest discussions about the things that bother them.

iscandara:

The unspoken here is that the writer is most likely sleeping with him as well. So, in his mind, why should he give more when he's getting it all for nothing?

I've never bought the, "Why would he buy the cow if he could get the milk for free." type arguement. If she wants to have sex with him, then she should. The idea that a woman shouldn't have sex with a man unless he compensates her in some fashion is as archiac as the idea that a man should pay for all dates.

PhysicsGirl:

Why? Because they go Dutch? So many women feel that dates should be Dutch because we're enlightened and don't need to be "paid" for. Or do you think he's cheap because he's not contributing to the dinners at home? That may simply be because he has no idea how much it is costing her. Before deciding he's a selfish cheapskate, she should talk to him. It really is amazing how many relationship problems go away when people have honest discussions about the things that bother them.

I'm totally with you there. I think Prudie's response to that letter was a knee-jerk reaction based on her own past experience, and that the boyfriend just doesn't realize that this is a problem.

As for the more general issue of communication in relationships, this whole dinner thing is a perfect example of where things often go wrong: women assume that men can and should pick up on subtle signals or situations that they aren't socially "trained" to perceive. We all know the steps after that: the guy doesn't pick up on what is blindingly obvious to the lady, she thinks he's insensitive and pretending not to understand what she's mad about, and things go south.

This assessment may come across as a little sexist, but it's backed up by anthropological research. I suggest reading the works of linguistic anthropologist Deborah Tannen, specifically You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation and That's Not What I Meant!: How Conversational Style Makes Or Breaks Relationships.

If this guy is this cheap during the "getting to know you phase", imagine how he'll be if they're relationship progresses to marrying or moving in together. The reason I think he's cheap is because he eats at her house 2 or 3 times a week and then he wants to go dutch at the restaurant. This woman is a true doormat.

My (fairly new) boyfriend eats at my house sometimes and sometimes I eat at his house. When he shows up at my house, he always brings somthing, such as beer or wine, a 50 lb bag of crawfish (which he cooked), a desert or an appy. So I started doing the same when I go to his place.

One thing about restaurants and bars. He never lets me pay for anything. If I tell him I'm treating, he still finds a way to pay before I can. It can be a bit annoying at times because I genuninely want to treat him. He deserves it. But I'd rather have my problem than the LW's problem.

ooops! they're relationship = their relationship

ElleBlue:

The reason I think he's cheap is because he eats at her house 2 or 3 times a week and then he wants to go dutch at the restaurant.

I agree this is unequal and should be discussed, but it's certainly possible that it never occurred to the man that meals at home can cost as much as meals out. I have a couple of engineer friends who do not cook and eat every meal out, and really have no concept of the cost of purchased food. They still think of it as "free" like it was for them when they were children living at home. We also don't know that he expects her to cook dinners those days that she does, either. It's possible that any time he comes over for nookie she feels obligated to go all out on the meal.

ElleBlue:

My (fairly new) boyfriend eats at my house sometimes and sometimes I eat at his house. When he shows up at my house, he always brings somthing,

That's certainly the polite thing to do. Maybe no one has ever explained that to the LW's boyfriend. It's one of those adult social niceties that it's entirely possible to be oblivious too if your parents didn't entertain much.

ElleBlue:

He never lets me pay for anything. If I tell him I'm treating, he still finds a way to pay before I can.

This would irritate me to no end. Personally I prefer to go back and forth on checks rather than go Dutch because I feel a discussion about the bill kills the romance. But if a man insisted that he always paid (whether it be by action or vocally) I would feel like a "kept" women. I'd rather go Dutch than have everything paid for.

ElleBlue:

But I'd rather have my problem than the LW's problem.

Well I suppose your problem is financially less costly.... Personally I think an honest discussion will allow her to quickly determine whether he is oblivious or cheap. If the former, she can enlighten him and things will be peachy. (Well except for the fact that she can't communicate in a constructive manner) If it's the latter, well she has to decide whether she wants to put up with it or leave.

No, because he paid less than half of the restaurant tab. He could have said, "I'll throw in $20 and get the tip," or he could have asked her to throw in $20. Instead, she's stuck with just over half ($22) PLUS the tip, which should have been roughly another $6. Also, it's been my experience that men eat more expensively than women, even in restaurants. She probably ate 40% of the food, but got nearly 60% of the tab. And that's not even considering her time and expenses when she hosts him.

Unless she's a professional and he's unskilled labor, that sounds cheap to me.

ElleBlue:

But I'd rather have my problem than the LW's problem.

Yeah, I was wondering if you guys could help me with something...I was wondering if you could tell me where the hell I went wrong in my life or to what alternate universe I have to move to be able to afford over one thousand dollars a month just to have my boyfriend over for dinner? Thanks.

I'm figuring $80 x 3/wk times 4 weeks is $960.00 alone. That's a 28 day month so add one more $80.00 at least for $1040.00 Just for dinner for two on three nights a week.

Wow. Plus she pays for half the check when they go out for lunch and dinner. That's one helluvu whatever kind of check she's getting, or trust fund, or payoff from the successful lawsuit against a major corporation, whatever.

You know if she can afford this and her only real complaint is the "inequity" of the situation, maybe she's really the cheap one. Maybe he's merely "employed" and she's rollin' in it. Maybe he "suggested" splitting the check for dinners because he can't really afford to pay the entire dinner bill for the kind of places she likes to go and be seen with her "successful" boyfriend. Maybe he buys dinner once in a while in an attempt to be chivalrous and accepts her offers of home-cooked meals in kind, not being aware that she chooses to "be generous with her loved ones" to the point that she resents them for it later.

"Explain to him that you're on a tight budget." WTF? Honey, you don't know tight budget, but it ain't having to choose between beer or wine or chocolate with your thrice weekly filet. Most people I know would have to make that $80.00 you spend in one night stretch to feed 4-6 for a week.

Oh to have such problems!

**Disclaimer: Okay, I don't know, maybe she's just mad that she hasn't gotten a return on her investment yet, maybe he really is a cheap b*stard, or maybe I've just about had it with hearing one more client whine that they can't make it on just $7,000.00 a month spousal and child support and what am I gonna do? Well, call the waaaaambulance, already willya? I got my own problems, including making $80.00 a week stretch to feed 3 dogs, 3 people, and help supplement an elderly mother-in-law.

Now pardon me while I go become even more jaded.

PhysicsGirl:

ElleBlue:

The reason I think he's cheap is because he eats at her house 2 or 3 times a week and then he wants to go dutch at the restaurant.

I agree this is unequal and should be discussed, but it's certainly possible that it never occurred to the man that meals at home can cost as much as meals out. I have a couple of engineer friends who do not cook and eat every meal out, and really have no concept of the cost of purchased food. They still think of it as "free" like it was for them when they were children living at home. We also don't know that he expects her to cook dinners those days that she does, either. It's possible that any time he comes over for nookie she feels obligated to go all out on the meal.

Yes, there are a lot of men, who think eating at home is “free”. My guy likes to cook and he’ll cook enough food to last a few days (so during the week he can pop leftovers in the nuker. She really needs to discuss with him, how unbalanced this really is. She doesn’t say whether or not he expects dinner. We always talk about it first, so we don’t eat dinner if the other person is planning to make something or wants to go out.

PhysicsGirl:

ElleBlue:

My (fairly new) boyfriend eats at my house sometimes and sometimes I eat at his house. When he shows up at my house, he always brings somthing,

That's certainly the polite thing to do. Maybe no one has ever explained that to the LW's boyfriend. It's one of those adult social niceties that it's entirely possible to be oblivious too if your parents didn't entertain much.

Yes, I’m sure the LW’s boyfriend doesn’t entertain much. Someone does need to sit that boy down and explain it to him.

PhysicsGirl:

ElleBlue:

He never lets me pay for anything. If I tell him I'm treating, he still finds a way to pay before I can.

This would irritate me to no end. Personally I prefer to go back and forth on checks rather than go Dutch because I feel a discussion about the bill kills the romance. But if a man insisted that he always paid (whether it be by action or vocally) I would feel like a "kept" women. I'd rather go Dutch than have everything paid for.

Yes, it is strange, but he’s a Southern gentleman and he says he just can’t eat a meal out and not pay (at least) his way. Then paying his way, becomes paying my way. I don’t know how he does this, but one time, I didn’t even see the bill coming. Then the waiter appeared with the bill and his credit card was sticking out. He signed the slip. He must have worked something out with the waiter.

PhysicsGirl:

ElleBlue:

But I'd rather have my problem than the LW's problem.

Well I suppose your problem is financially less costly.... Personally I think an honest discussion will allow her to quickly determine whether he is oblivious or cheap. If the former, she can enlighten him and things will be peachy. (Well except for the fact that she can't communicate in a constructive manner) If it's the latter, well she has to decide whether she wants to put up with it or leave.

Yes, her communication skills need to be worked on so she can enlighten him. If it turns out he is just cheap, then she may want to dump the chump. Very cheap people tend to be a bit selfish. That is my opinion, but that’s what my experience with cheap former boyfriends told me.

She says she can't afford it, that is the problem. Maybe she's charging all the groceries and liquor it takes to entertain the clod. I doubt she spends $80.00 everytime he comes over, but I've spent that kind of money making my man a special meal. I also don't buy the cheapest wine (usually two $20 bottles) and I keep beer on hand in case he wants beer instead.

IncogNeato:

No, because he paid less than half of the restaurant tab. He could have said, "I'll throw in $20 and get the tip," or he could have asked her to throw in $20. Instead, she's stuck with just over half ($22) PLUS the tip, which should have been roughly another $6. Also, it's been my experience that men eat more expensively than women, even in restaurants. She probably ate 40% of the food, but got nearly 60% of the tab. And that's not even considering her time and expenses when she hosts him.

Unless she's a professional and he's unskilled labor, that sounds cheap to me.

Yes I saw that too. The idea of tax and tip never occurs to some people. It's embarassing to go out with such people.

Mermaid33:

I hate letting myself become bitter about money, especially since I'm better off than many of my 'peer' friends and former classmates, but it's still really nice to see that your take on the gourmet situation here and what 'normal' is rings true with mine.

Either she's got one hell of a trust-fund/alimony-check/settl­ement, or she's got to be lying about food costs.

Also, in my limited experience, people in a lower income bracket tend to be better at frank financial discussion, because it's a nessecity.

Oh, this is her own damn fault. It's a no-brainer to invite the guy over and say, "Hey I have the beer, why don't you pick up the take-out?" It's her choice to put out the husband-bait every time. Whatever happened to chili dogs?

My point was, she has been affording it, she just says "this can't really go on" with the disclaimer ahead that he's employed and she's a single, stay-at-home mom. I know that we're supposed to infer that she can't afford it, but my sense is that her idea of equality and propriety end at her wallet and because he's employed and she's not (because she obviously doesn't need to be) then he should be paying more.

Anyway, even if it's only the low end of her scale which is $70.00 each time, that's still a damn lot of money just to spend time with someone.

Haven't you ever known someone wealthy that's also very very tight that also has the idea that because they don't work and you do (that their income is static and yours is ongoing) that somehow you can afford it more than they can? I have! That's how they stay wealthy, by saying "I'm on a fixed income" as if "fixed" means "less than yours".

I wasn't trying to start an argument with you (Elle), really, I just am missing the delicious irony here of a woman who can obviously afford these things (she's a fool if she's actually going into hock for this), nickel and diming a guy and then complaining that he's nickel and diming her.

Don't you find the tone of her letter to be very "keeping score" right from the beginning? Not good!

I dated a spoiled rich kid who never worked, but whose father sent him more than $500.00 per week, who did the same thing to me as this lady described...

I would have to say, maybe you should check and see if he's really cheap, or if he's just truly selfish. Get out while you can in either case. There is a REAL difference between cheapness/selfishness and frugality/thriftiness...