wandererlust Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I have heard and read many times that in order for a man to be in a relationship he must feel among other things, financially stable. I can totally appreciate that. Have you ever bucked that notion though? Have you ever been in love or in a relationship where maybe you don't have that stability? Do you think you ever could let that notion go if the woman you were with never expected that from you and accepted you just as you are? I am with a man now that defines "being in a relationship" as being able to be the "sole breadwinner". I am an independednt single mother who takes care of things on my own and has never depended on a man - maybe this is why it was "safer" for him to get involved with me? So what are your thoughts? Or are most men just wired this way and won't let emotions overcome thier need of being financially stable? Link to comment
EQD Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 i think its more to do with insecurity. most men and women want to feel needed whether its sexually, financially, or emotionally, or all three. when you take away that feeling, some get uneasy. he may be looking to feel more valid. Link to comment
annie24 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 i think that's a really bizarre definition of a relationship. Link to comment
BeStrongBeHappy Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Oh, in today's world i know just as many women who have men who want the woman to be the breadwinner while they stay home and watch ESPN and hang out with their buddies. And many men who freak out at the thought their wives want to stay home and not work because they can't afford a decent standard of living without being a two earner couple. Some men will use the need to be 'financially stable' as a way to avoid marriage... they keep saying, when we get to X place with money or owning a home or whatever, then we'll consider getting married. When what it really is is a stall because they don't want to get married. It is wise to try to be financially stable when in a relationship with kids, but being totally financially stable is not a reason to avoid a relationship or marriage either. Sole breadwinner is kind of anachronistic in today's world with things as expensive as they are. Some people can afford it, but most can't. Link to comment
Ac143 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I think its more of a feeling of security as opposed to insecurity. I have a great career that pays well, so I can take care of myself & a family of 4...alone, if I needed to. My SO told me many times that he will not get married until he is stable in his life, meaning owns a home, has a promising career etc so he can take care of his future wife/family. He has accomplished that & feels secure enough now to take care of us, if he needed to & we are getting married! I watched him for 3yrs become more & more successful so I knew he was working towards his goals, I wouldnt suggest staying with someone that said they needed to be stable before getting married but then not doing anything to move forward. Link to comment
wandererlust Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 i think that's a really bizarre definition of a relationship. Ya Annie tell me about it...I know you responded to my other recent post with this man yesterday, he's been interesting lately that's for sure.... He says most of his relationships fail because of this insecurity so somehow he equates the two. Apparently he did not feel like he was able to provide for his ex-wife and after she left him she got involved with a "more successful" man so it did a number on him I guess.... Link to comment
wayoverit Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 Do you mean he's not marrying you because he feels he can't take care of you and your kid? If that's the case, I think it's understandable that he feels a huge burden on his shoulder, regardless you can take care of yourself and your kid without his help. In fact, your earning capabilities only add to insecurity and to his doubts about both your future together. What you need to do is let him know that a prenub will be signed and that in case anything happens in the future that he will still be a free man. Link to comment
melrich Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 So what are your thoughts? Or are most men just wired this way and won't let emotions overcome thier need of being financially stable? I am not sure that men are wired exactly this way but I do think men are hard wired to be a provider. Most men in my experience feel the need to protect and provide for their family. Now not all men will define "provide" in financial terms but many will. Link to comment
ghost69 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 i don't want a girl that needs to depend on me....emotionally or financially. Link to comment
melrich Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 i don't want a girl that needs to depend on me....emotionally or financially. That is a fallacious statement. You are boxing at shadows. Link to comment
melrich Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 My therapist just today revealed something important to me, that my greater financial success compared to my husband, my greater intelligence, my greater independence , my greater ability to handle stress, etc. is what probably bothered him the most about our marriage. And the reason that he is with the person he is with right now is because she is less of all those things and therefore makes him feel like a "man" instead of feeling inferior to me. Yes, I have often seen this scenario. In my experience, men often "marry down" second time around. Link to comment
Scorpion Fury Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I think being a housewife would make me feel trapped, no matter how much I loved my husband. I would feel like if something happened I couldn't leave because I would have no money. I don't think the man needs to be the sole breadwinner, but two people should be on the same page with what standard of living they want and will either have or be able to aim for. Link to comment
ghost69 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 i don't want a girl that needs to depend on me....emotionally or financially. That is a fallacious statement. You are boxing at shadows. ....solely. there. Link to comment
wandererlust Posted March 11, 2009 Author Share Posted March 11, 2009 I'm more curious if it's a general notion that men have regarding being the provider or if it's just my guy's bs answer for not taking a risk and diving in with both feet so to speak- sadly, it's probably the latter :sad: Link to comment
melrich Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 it's a general notion that men have regarding being the provider I think that is a general notion but I think also some men use it as an excuse. People are very complex. He will have is own drivers and they will inform is attitudes. Whilst I think men generally have a need to provide, it will manifest in different ways with different people. Link to comment
EQD Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 diving in with both feet can get your legs broke. chillax. Link to comment
ghost69 Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 well, i refuse to date women that don't drive/have a car, or don't have a job (unless a full time student or something), or generally seem like they aren't going anywhere. Link to comment
madmarten Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I have heard and read many times that in order for a man to be in a relationship he must feel among other things, financially stable. I can totally appreciate that. Have you ever bucked that notion though? I am with a man now that defines "being in a relationship" as being able to be the "sole breadwinner". So what are your thoughts? Or are most men just wired this way and won't let emotions overcome their need of being financially stable? The question in the title is extreme, but generally men do feel a strong desire to financially stable when/before entering into a serious relationship. I don't think I have to be the sole breadwinner, but I should be able to be if necessary. A little personal perspective - I am grad school, and I don't even want to think about proposing to my gf until I am very close to graduating. But one of my friends is like "if you are going marry her anyway, why not just propose?" Well, that is a point. But, what can I say there is this man-pride thing about not wanting my gf to marry a bum. A tad irrational, but I don't want my gf marrying a bum, even if that bum is me. Hope that makes a little sense.. Link to comment
thejigsup Posted March 11, 2009 Share Posted March 11, 2009 I totally agree with ghost69. In order for me to settle down, the man and myself have to be totally independent financially and in a good career. This isn't as important for some people and that is fine. But there are people it matters greatly to and they are not looking for excuses to avoid committment. Link to comment
SayWhen Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 I have been with my BF for about a year and I have been the sole breadwinner (we live together). He's pre-med and I want him to focus completely on school/volunteering/hospital shadowing instead of work. Just recently he decided to take on a weekend job for a few hours each day to take some of the strain off of me...which is nice, though I never pushed him in that direction. I think it all depends on what works for the couple...I would never expect my partner to fully support me unless under extreme circumstances. I will say that it does give the breadwinner a sense of security because if something happened and there was a break-up, the breadwinner has less of a difficult situation on his/her hands since they are most likely financially stable...while their partner probably would not be. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.