Restaurant Checks

[Anonymous]

Her love language is being wined and dined. Mine used to be being taken to and picked up from the airport (I now travel monthly for a week so that’s unsustainable with kids but DH still does it when possible and I love it).

Set a budget and treat her with that budget. And have a very frank discussion about how much you feel is fiscally responsible. Don’t have that conversation in the context of taking her out though! Do it much beforehand, once and then you’ll feel like you have budgeted and she will feel like she’s being treated to a nice meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t marry this prima Donna.

I don't think the partner is a prima Donna if they're paying OP's way through vacations and other expenses. They just want some fair play.

OP admits their lifestyle is significantly nicer because of this person's income. Are they willing to give that up?

He’s taking her using her travel points as granted. As if there is no monetary value while in fact some points are worth a lot. I’m a long term member of homeexchange - each point can be $1.5-2.5 if you convert into nightly cost at comparable properties.
His partner can take her kids and friends to enjoy the lifestyle on these points.

I personally see no value in such a man when she arranges free accommodations he can’t even organize a travel program and restaurants ? WTF

Go get a side gig, dude . Or date nurses or teachers not heiress from Martha Vinyard

Can you leave your children points? If not, no, it’s on the same playing field as cash. I wonder if she’s like the restaurant poster and has some serious gender expectations here that she won’t say flat out. That she must be courted. Yes, yes you haven’t revealed the genders but it’s clear the higher earning partner is a woman.

So if he thinks that dating someone at his level income is going to leave him better off financially and this is his main factor to be in relationship then he should date a teacher or a flower girl with cheaper taste

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

In your definition, cheap means wants to spend an equal amount of cash as her? Sorry, no. You sound like another woman with gendered expectations, frankly. (And I say this as a woman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t marry this prima Donna.

I don't think the partner is a prima Donna if they're paying OP's way through vacations and other expenses. They just want some fair play.

OP admits their lifestyle is significantly nicer because of this person's income. Are they willing to give that up?

He’s taking her using her travel points as granted. As if there is no monetary value while in fact some points are worth a lot. I’m a long term member of homeexchange - each point can be $1.5-2.5 if you convert into nightly cost at comparable properties.
His partner can take her kids and friends to enjoy the lifestyle on these points.

I personally see no value in such a man when she arranges free accommodations he can’t even organize a travel program and restaurants ? WTF

Go get a side gig, dude . Or date nurses or teachers not heiress from Martha Vinyard

Can you leave your children points? If not, no, it’s on the same playing field as cash. I wonder if she’s like the restaurant poster and has some serious gender expectations here that she won’t say flat out. That she must be courted. Yes, yes you haven’t revealed the genders but it’s clear the higher earning partner is a woman.

OP is saving big time on his travel budget thanks to her points. It just irks him that she’s able to live off interest and he has to spend the current income on his expenses (which he would have done in higher rate anyways, if he wasn’t with her and dated a less fortunate woman). He keeps counting her estate as it bothers his kids have lower lifestyle, and he wants a woman nearly fully fund his lifestyle. That won’t “fly” with most women
No decent man cares for restaurant checks. He can offer her travel camping though if he thinks that would help achieving parity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t marry this prima Donna.

I don't think the partner is a prima Donna if they're paying OP's way through vacations and other expenses. They just want some fair play.

OP admits their lifestyle is significantly nicer because of this person's income. Are they willing to give that up?

He’s taking her using her travel points as granted. As if there is no monetary value while in fact some points are worth a lot. I’m a long term member of homeexchange - each point can be $1.5-2.5 if you convert into nightly cost at comparable properties.
His partner can take her kids and friends to enjoy the lifestyle on these points.

I personally see no value in such a man when she arranges free accommodations he can’t even organize a travel program and restaurants ? WTF

Go get a side gig, dude . Or date nurses or teachers not heiress from Martha Vinyard

Can you leave your children points? If not, no, it’s on the same playing field as cash. I wonder if she’s like the restaurant poster and has some serious gender expectations here that she won’t say flat out. That she must be courted. Yes, yes you haven’t revealed the genders but it’s clear the higher earning partner is a woman.

So if he thinks that dating someone at his level income is going to leave him better off financially and this is his main factor to be in relationship then he should date a teacher or a flower girl with cheaper taste

You seem to be working hard to make it OP’s fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

In your definition, cheap means wants to spend an equal amount of cash as her? Sorry, no. You sound like another woman with gendered expectations, frankly. (And I say this as a woman).

Cheap means he’s counting spending on good restaurants. I make 350k and can go out to a nice restaurant 2-3 times a month. OP is not saying how often they go out and the level of spending. It could be like me, or it could be every day (would be problematic). And is he making $1m a year vs her $3m interest or it’s $300k him vs $3m interest ? The detail are very important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t marry this prima Donna.

I don't think the partner is a prima Donna if they're paying OP's way through vacations and other expenses. They just want some fair play.

OP admits their lifestyle is significantly nicer because of this person's income. Are they willing to give that up?

He’s taking her using her travel points as granted. As if there is no monetary value while in fact some points are worth a lot. I’m a long term member of homeexchange - each point can be $1.5-2.5 if you convert into nightly cost at comparable properties.
His partner can take her kids and friends to enjoy the lifestyle on these points.

I personally see no value in such a man when she arranges free accommodations he can’t even organize a travel program and restaurants ? WTF

Go get a side gig, dude . Or date nurses or teachers not heiress from Martha Vinyard

Can you leave your children points? If not, no, it’s on the same playing field as cash. I wonder if she’s like the restaurant poster and has some serious gender expectations here that she won’t say flat out. That she must be courted. Yes, yes you haven’t revealed the genders but it’s clear the higher earning partner is a woman.

So if he thinks that dating someone at his level income is going to leave him better off financially and this is his main factor to be in relationship then he should date a teacher or a flower girl with cheaper taste

You seem to be working hard to make it OP’s fault.

No he’s just focused on different things than what he should be thinking of. What are his chances of meeting a woman which wouldn’t expect majority of living and travel expenses funded by him ? I doubt it’s very high in middle age. He had to go 5 years up in age even to get a woman.
If he’s that confident he’s shortchanged he can find a different partner with smaller income disparity. In fact that was my decision in a similar situation. I was dating a much wealthier man who didn’t think of how much it cost me to visit him, etc. I just moved on

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

In your definition, cheap means wants to spend an equal amount of cash as her? Sorry, no. You sound like another woman with gendered expectations, frankly. (And I say this as a woman).

There are a lot of women out there with those kinds of gendered expectations--anecdotally it seems to have increased again with the younger (late teens/early 20s) women than it was in my dating days (GenX).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

In your definition, cheap means wants to spend an equal amount of cash as her? Sorry, no. You sound like another woman with gendered expectations, frankly. (And I say this as a woman).

There are a lot of women out there with those kinds of gendered expectations--anecdotally it seems to have increased again with the younger (late teens/early 20s) women than it was in my dating days (GenX).

And rightfully so . It allows these women to meet men who value non-monetary contributions to relationship just as monetary. And would value her unpaid labor organizing vacations, kids etc.
OP is taking her for granted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: my partner was raised on perhaps the largest estate on the most prominent point of the richest island in the USA. But they say they are by no means to the manor born. Go figure.

oh fun, riddles!

Aquidneck Island?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since you know it's an issue, on her bday, anniversary, Valentine's Day, whenever you should offer to pay. You are not married and she wants to be romanced. There is nothing wrong with that. You could ask her what the root of her concern is. It might be worth the convo. I expect she is over the limitation of your income and doesn't want to finance you any more.

I always pay 100% for these except once when there were two VD meals and I put one on the joint card. VD day is for both partners, amirite? And where did I reveal our sexes?

LOL you didn’t reveal your sexes but any man who earned more than his partner and expected to be treated all the time would be kicked to the curb immediately, so it was obvious. I’m a woman and I’d kick her to the curb too but I’ve always believed in equality

To be fair, my partner certainly doesn’t want/expect to be treated all the time; they just are clearly not loving/respecting the 50/50 imposed by the joint card. BTW, my partner is half a decade older than me and has inherited a lot of money, something that will happen to me too but on a different schedule because of the age difference.

5 years is peanuts.

You already are treating them since it’s such a larger % of your after tax earnings, than there’s, going into the joint account.

Are they just cheap or have lots of kids and grandkids to fund still??

As stated their kids have no financial worries. And they’re not cheap as a rule. Much more spendy than I am. That doesn’t mean they want to split expenses in proportion to their relative wealth/income. I think they believe I should rearrange my finances to free up cash to spend on us, and that I should spend more freely because it’s quite unlikely that I will literally tun out of money. But that’s easy for them to say, making it a point to never dip into their capital.

This sounds very unkind and ungenerous. I would not think well of someone who expected me to care less about my children’s financial future than they cared about their own children.

Not really - we don’t know the numbers. I can’t say from what Op wrote if he’s just cheap or actually stretched. It shouldn’t be his concern how she funds her kids, her interest on capital etc, and how much remains for her and and her kids.
If he was dating a poorer woman HE would be the one finding housing, travel etc. But he doesn’t want it.

In your definition, cheap means wants to spend an equal amount of cash as her? Sorry, no. You sound like another woman with gendered expectations, frankly. (And I say this as a woman).

There are a lot of women out there with those kinds of gendered expectations--anecdotally it seems to have increased again with the younger (late teens/early 20s) women than it was in my dating days (GenX).

And rightfully so . It allows these women to meet men who value non-monetary contributions to relationship just as monetary. And would value her unpaid labor organizing vacations, kids etc.
OP is taking her for granted

This is quite a leap. The comments were about dating expectations and splitting checks, not childcare, vacations, or unpaid domestic labor. You’re arguing with a situation no one described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: my partner was raised on perhaps the largest estate on the most prominent point of the richest island in the USA. But they say they are by no means to the manor born. Go figure.

Like I said prima donna. If the man was the higher income one he would not care one bit. Women keep score like this.

Not because women are cheap but because we were raised with gender roles : it’s shameful for a woman to pick up a tab at a restaurant for a man. It’s a sexual turn off for me. I can get expensive show tickets but he must pay for the meal at the show period

You can't be serious about this. What century are you from?