ertyu wrote:I'd only do it with the full awareness that it's very likely to explode the relationship. People enter into arrangements like that with all sorts of implicit contracts ("if I parent and I do the housework without complaining, she will finally fuck me as much as i want") and then get resentful when, surprise, the other partner wasn't aware they've been signed up for this contract at all. All parties entering an arrangement like this should be able to introspect like whoa, be brutally honest with themselves, and be brutally honest with each other, or the relationship will implode.
Absolutely true. Covert contracts are super dysfunctional. I know this because in my first marriage I was the higher-sex drive female "nice guy" who went to WAAAAAY too much trouble to get sex from my husband. For instance, I literally framed and built a wall and installed a door and lock to create a better privacy barrier between our bedroom area and the kid's area on the theory that might be the problem
This is why I hold a good deal of empathy for male "nice guys" who are stuck in similar situations/dysfunctional behavior. Recovery from being a female "nice guy" is simultaneously easier and more difficult than recovery from being a male "nice guy", because market reality is on your side, but social stereotypes are not. So, for instance, it was very helpful for me to join a therapy group that included other women with the same problem (Note: much higher proportion British or husband dropped out of Catholic seminary than general population.) Also, if you throw some kids into the mix, it becomes much more complex 3 or 4 body problem. There are a lot of unhappily married people who are not fully conscious of the fact that they are 99% likely to ask for a divorce the day after their youngest child graduates from high school.
AxelHeyst wrote:With postconsumer praxis, this is just a semiERE style.
I dug out my copy of "Radical Homemakers" last night. I now recall that the reason I tossed it aside was there is a juncture where the author is promoting feminist "romantic naturalist" research that suggests that there was some ideal pastoral past prior to industrialized capitalism where men and women had egalitarian relationships, because they both performed simple productive domestic work together at home. I do not like this line of argument, because my take is that it is not necessary to prove gender equality in the past in order to promote it for the future, and proceeding from a likely false premise is counter-productive. One of the reasons the hippie communes of the 60s/70s failed is that a low energy, pre-industrialized environment favors humans with more upper body strength. Break-even only happens when 12 year old Annie Oakley has access to a gun and a chainsaw. I currently live in a post-economic-collapse hard boundary between urban blight/rural decay environment, and the reason why I theoretically would send my thoroughly-imaginary-compliant-male-partner out to scavenge scrap metal rather than doing it myself is that I am afraid of the other scrappers. Totally different reality than dumpster diving for fun and profit in the affluent suburbs.
OTOH, I think Shannon Hayes makes some great points about how corporatism and consumerism are two sides of the same coin. Also, her commentary about how anything a modern human might fear regarding becoming financially dependent on a significant other is also what they should fear about becoming financially dependent on a corporate employer. For instance, it's absolutely as common to have an abusive, controlling employer as it is to have an abusive, controlling significant other. For mainly geographic reasons, I have been in signficant relationships with three different men who worked for the same mega-corporation at one juncture in their career, and they all absolutely came to loath this employer, so I now refer to it as The Gom. Although I was to some extent financially dependent (mooching house-space) on one of these men while he was unhappily indentured to The Gom, what I kept telling him over and over again, in Cool Feminine Energy Mixing a Martini mode was "You have enough money to retire. You should quit." and eventually he did, but he got another job and didn't retire, for reasons entirely incidental to whether or not he would appreciate token gesture of me throwing $300/month at him for "rent" , and much more in alignment with the fact that he is somebody who believes that something akin to two million invested
and $40,000 pension is necessary prior to retirement.
Ego wrote:I am fortunate to come from a long line of strong women.
Me too. It is rumored that my beautiful Rosie-the Riveter maternal grandmother divorced her second husband because he wouldn't let her bet on the ponies with her own money. She could also hold her own in very loud arguments while drinking beer with her brother who was a crew-cutted 1950s Detroit Cop who thought his baby sister shouldn't be living on her own at age 50.
Frita wrote:Even as women are more likely to be financially independent, they have also internalized needing partners to be okay. That is codependence.
Gotcha. The term is so overused, I felt compelled to look up the definition before continuing this discussion. Clearly, it has to do with emotional or psychological dependence, as opposed to financial dependence. Although, of course, there could be some overlap.
For some reason, this made me think of the rational romantic novels of INTJ Jane Austen, and the character of Charlotte in "Pride and Prejudice." Charlotte who is not very physically attractive is pretty much a spinster at 27, so she plots to gain the attention of Mr. Collins, who is pretty much a complete buffoon, but quite affluent. Within the social context given, Charlotte is, in my opinion (correct me if I am wrong), exhibiting almost the opposite of co-dependent behavior by sensibly deciding to secure a marriage of convenience, and then structuring the household in a manner that best allows her to avoid the company of her husband.
Co-dependence also is usually associated with one partner to the relationship being supported in an addiction. So, I guess if I was in a co-dependent relationship, I would either find myself being supported in cookie eating and/or recreational reading. I have found very little support for my cookie eating habits, in fact quite the opposite to the point of verbal abuse, even from my partners who claim to prefer the more voluptuous end of my weight cycle, and they seem to be too confused by my "addiction" to recreational reading to either offer support or censure. For instance, during the Covid lock-down, "Alec Baldwin" would sometimes emerge from the room where he was theoretically working from home, but actually playing some shooter video game, walk into the room where I was quietly reading, and turn on the television set to "find a show for me." So, it would have to be the case that I am in the enabler role, even if I am the partner who is financially dependent, OR co-dependence is not the proper term to describe the sort of dysfunction I most frequently experience in relationship. And, if I have been the enabler, it's pretty clear that what I have usually been enabling would best be described as "disagreeable behavior" with the occasional dollop of "idiotic shit-head behavior." But, it might just be the case that this is due to my eNTP (actually I've been testing more iNTP lately, likely due to seclusion and doing math related activities more than 25 hours/week) personality type generally rendering my Ti judgment function secondary, calm, and silent until/unless I can actually prove that SO is an idiot incapable of cognitive growth in adulthood and/or a complete azzhole lacking limbic integration beyond the crocodilian level, inclusive of diagrams, citations, and attachments for recommended therapy. In my defense, I would note that I straight-forwardly warn all comers that I have a VERY long fuse, but once it's blown you are pretty much toast in my rear-view mirror already.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugekx4o6oSg
okumurahata wrote:I might be concerned that it could lead to resentment in the couple in the form of: ‘I’m working my ass off at the brokerage firm, and you’re a lazy idealist. Please put your feet firmly on the ground and do something useful for society.’
Yeah, this has happened to me on a few occasions, but only in the sort of arguments where you're bringing up stuff that isn't even true, but could be justified. Definitely could be generational, but I've much more frequently experienced my male partners getting pissy about the fact that my work interferes with my availability or hot dinner, etc. Years after it occurred, I learned that during a brief period when I was working some evenings, my ex made my daughter serve the dinner I made in the morning to him and her brother
On the rarer occasions when they've made extreme tactical error of saying something like "Yeah, but who pays the bills around here, baby.", it's been like 3 micro-seconds before they retract.
guitarplayer wrote:I might be simplifying, but I think having 2-5 years of income saved up (I understand: enough resources to cover 2-5 years of life) is a sufficient condition to pursue freedom-to regardless of what partner does or says. More broadly, take freedom-to as a starting point of any pursuit at all.
Very good point. Will ponder.
chenda wrote:I might have misunderstood the situation but @7 if you are going to rely on a SO to provide for you as FI I think you will need to take out some financial guarantees like having him put money in a trust fund for you every month so if relationship fails you won't be cast into destitution. Kind of like Indecent Proposal but more of a long term arrangement.
I did have an extremely detailed contract along these lines with my second "husband." What I learned is that even though covert or blind-default contracts are inherently dysfunctional, super-detailed overt contracts are also unlikely to work, because people and situations change. However, I would note that he is less angry with me than any of his other ex-wives, because I didn't try to take him to the cleaners financially when I dumped him, although he is still kind of angry about my inability to stick to "love him forever."
ffj wrote:I haven't seen the movie so I don't understand the reference but "angry mom" sounds like a terrible time to me. There isn't enough money in the world to make it worth while to endure caustic people all of the time, especially marriage.
Good point. However, one of my many problems is that I find caustic people kind of amusing and attractive or stimulating in the short run.
daylen wrote:No hard feelings cause no sex or expectation of commitment.
I agree that concept could be extended with reframing as you suggested. However, I don't think that sex is inherently problematic except to the extent that it is likely to lead to romantic attachment and desire/expectation of commitment. For instance, it's definitely usually less of a big deal for somebody who is past child-bearing, family-formation age, although you wouldn't be able to grok this by observing the behavior of those participating in "The Golden Bachelor." That show makes me feel so happy to be me.
jacob wrote:"No responsibility without authority"?
AKA "You pay, you say." Yup, can be problematic. The conventional (or really conventional/modern) dating protocal reinforces this. Unfortunately, oftentimes when 3rd wave feminists, roughly RiotGrrl/Sex-in-City, attempt to deconstruct the dating paradigm, they just end up getting ripped off, like somebody putting a Free Tomatoes stand out by the highway. For instance, just hanging out as friends before becoming sexual can be more egalitatian, but it can also be that the male is simply making less effort. because he really isn't that interested, and many a hopeful female has been rendered delusional trying to decipher the difference. For better or worse, when I first started dating again after my divorce, an older INFP female friend and a younger male friend who was a player himself, both gave me strict advice about following the Rules of Dating to the letter, and I do believe that this has contributed to the frequency with which I have ended up dating men who are much more affluent and assertive than me. It's definitely not the case that I attract men who are much more affluent than me, because I am super hawt (see note above concerning how I experience the opposite of warm support for my cookie eating habit) as would be suggested by simple model.