I think your advice to "Witholding Information" was a little off.

What is the crime of living off a trust fund? I wish I had one! Without knowing the exact details, it is tough to criticize this point. If it is something modest, and is not enough to substitute for real income, then yes...he needs to cowboy up and get a job. But if he has more than enough money to live on, I don't see why he should get a job just so his girlfriend can feel great about his ambition. She mentioned that she has a job...if she is working because they need money, then so should he. If she is working because she loves her career...good for her.

What the boyfriend shouldn't be doing is holding back his girlfriend. If she needs to move somewhere else, particularly for her job, he should be willing to move, since his life of idle luxury can be led anywhere, while her job might be more geographically sensitive.

As for the other guy. If they really and truly were broken up at the time, she is under no obligation to inform him. If she does want to tell him for the sake of honesty, She isn't obligated to give him all the gory details. I think saying "While we were broken up, I dated some other guys" Details like occupation, sports team, whether he was good in bed, etc are none of his business.

When you are on a break so to speak and you hook up with another, I generally agree there is no obligation there if you get back with the first SO to give details. But she brings particular details to this letter for a reason. Being that the guy was a member of the SO's favorite sports team makes it complicated. Because if the LW wants to have a long relationship with SO, this is going to be a lack of disclosure that is a bit different than it she just hooked up with some random dude. I think he has a right to know that some dude he worships in some way has been there done that. Otherwise, its not really an open and trusting relationship, is it? Imagine if on a sort of break the SO slept with the LW's boss or a good friend of the LW....she would have the right to know that, wouldn't she? Not the same as some random dude. It doesn't make the hook up itself less kosher, it just seems to me it begs for a bit more disclosure from the other party so that they two of them are not living on a lie going forward that is going to manifest itself if their everyday life.

If the boyfriend doesn't want to move, why should he? She can move without him. They are not married, and they're young (just out of college? Sheesh). If she says she is moving, he'll decide whether he is "into" her enough to move... or not. She certainly shouldn't put her life on hold for a boyfriend if moving is what she really wants to do.

You got that right, Parker. My boyfriend at the time wanted to move to a remote area and I cannot persue my career too far outside a major city. I chose not to move. This chick needs to worry about her career. Guys come and go, but your career is something you need to carry you through life.

"Guys come and go, but your career is something you need to carry you through life." That sad logic only applies to those with pretty bad taste in men.

Usually, I agree with you, but... the guy can be wonderful, but that doesn't neccessarily mean the relationship will go on forever. Us females need to have our careers and our financial lives in order. I have seen too many women put careers on hold or change careers to accomodate their significant others, only to be left in the dust and on the balls of their ars.

And besides, just as most women have standards for everything else in their "ideal man", they need to include whether the guy would be an asset or a liability in their chosen career. If he'd be a liability, cut your losses before you get too attached. An equally wonerful guy who won't make you change careers is out there somewhere, if you are patient.

My guy was definitely a liability to my career. It was the toughest decision I ever had to make. Looking back, I'm glad I decided to stick with my career and apt in the city.

That's one of the most depressing things I have ever read. Either you were not that into him, or you chose cash over love and are talking yourself into it now. Or maybe some combination. But career and money shouldn't be more important than love and family. You sound awfully jaded. I'm afraid to know what made you so.

Boyfriends != love and family.

Boyfriends do come and go, and it's not jaded to put your career above a dating relationship. If a guy were the man who I wanted to spend the rest of my life with, yes, he'd be more important than my job, but he'd also be my fiance or husband and we'd have talked about career goals before getting engaged, so we'd know our plans and expectations. Of course an emergency could come up, but that's not the situation here.

I'm with you, ElleBlue, and I suppose that makes me as depressing and jaded as you are, according to thebin . . .

But I'd take a job over a man any day, and have. And haven't regretted it one second since I did it.

Love's nice and pretty and all, but it doesn't keep you warm, fed, and sheltered. I might find a great guy, and I might love him, but he's only as great as the cardboard box in which we live.

Jobs pay your bills, keep a roof over your head, and feed and clothe you. Men don't.

Well, that's not true. Some of them do, and more power to them. But expecting them to, or going without or exchanging comfort (not luxury--big difference) for love is a dangerous prospect.

I've never had a man who takes care of me, and I never will. And that's not sour grapes: Oh, poor me, no one's ever paid my bills or supported me, wah. That's a statement of fact: I've never been dependent on a man for my livelihood, or for anything else. And I never will be. I'm not a workaholic, far from it; I'm simply someone who can and will fend for myself. I need a career. I don't need a man.

(And no: I don't hate men. And yes: I have a fiance, whom I love very much. But the day that I find myself giving up my career in the hopes that our wuv will keep us warm is the day I check myself into the mental hospital.)

11 years ago, I was dating a guy. We'd been together for 2.5 years, and I thought that we were going to get engaged. I was also in the midst of applying for graduate school; I couldn't go to our school for my intended program, because it didn't exist, so I applied to other schools. He had no intention of leaving the city in which we were living. I sat him down and had "the talk" with him: where are we going? What are we doing? I asked him, point-blank, "Are we EVER going to get engaged?" He said yes, of course. I asked when. He said after I got my doctorate.

At that point, we would have been dating for 8 years.

I got the hint.

I loved him. He was a great guy. But there was no point in my staying in that town just to be with him because we were in love. And he had no intention of leaving to be with me, wherever I went. I needed to go on and do my own thing and stop sitting around thinking we were going anywhere, because we weren't.

Should I have stayed so that we could be together and in love? No. I have never once regretted my decision. Ever.

He ended up marrying someone I knew. They stayed in that town, she finished her Master's degree there. She wanted to move to her home state, as she had lived in his town with him for 8 years. She got into a fantastic doctoral program in her home state, a huge advantage for her, a definite plus for her career. He refused to leave. She gave up the program and stayed with him. They had two kids, she's staying home to raise them, they're scraping by on his salary as a high-school teacher.

Love won, career lost. There are those who would think that's sweet and beautiful. But I think her decision is . . . well, sad. She could have been Dr. Susie Smith. Instead, she's Mrs. John Jones.

But then again, I'm jaded too.

sara_goldfarb:

I've never been dependent on a man for my livelihood, or for anything else. And I never will be.

I learned this the hard way with hubby #1. After 7 years and 2.8 children, he found a younger model without kids to keep her from being spontaneous. I was alone, in a foreign country, with no real marketable skills, and 2.8 preschool-aged children.

When I returned, I looked up an old friend/former boyfriend. We eventually dated again. Even though I loved him dearly, I let him know I wouldn't marry him until I could afford not to.

I've been the primary wage-earner our entire marriage, and we're both happy with that.

I'm with you Elle. You have to be your own person first and a partner second. Otherwise you never really are a partner, just a leech living your life through somebody else.

Bravo, sara_goldfarb. I couldn't possibly have said it better.

If there were a compelling reason for the man to stay, such as an ill family member he felt he needed to stay close to, something like that can be taken into account. But it sounds like he was just a homebody, and the only woman who would work for him is one who would be willing to sacrifice any existence elsewhere to be with him.

thebin:

But career and money shouldn't be more important than love and family.

You make it sound like she had to choose between her "one true love" and her career. Life simply isn't like that. There isn't just "one" person for everyone. If a career is important to her, than she needs to find love and family with a man who supports that. There is nothing wrong with that.

Lack of money can make a loving relationship deteriorate. Also, a person who is not happy with his or her career will not be as pleasing a mate. So I think that she made a wise decision in the end.