Ken and Sam just recently got married after dating for 3 years. Sam is a corporate executive and makes over $200,000 a year. Ken was working at a warehouse making $38,000 a year but due to an on the job injury, he is no longer working and receiving disability benefits of around $20,000 a year. This all transpired while the two were dating and before they got married.
Sam paid for a two week honeymoon to Cancun and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Sam also bought Ken a newer Lexus to replace his old 1995 Honda Accord. After the honeymoon, Ken moves into Sam’s house. Ken is not working but is currently enrolled in a technical college as he wants to create and design video games.
Sam pays all the bills and only asks that Ken periodically contribute to groceries for their household. Ken and Sam are deeply in love but all of Sam’s friends say he is crazy for marrying Ken. They say the couple is not “equally yoked” and Ken is living and mooching off of Sam’s success.
- Do you agree?
- If they’re in love, do finances make a difference?
- Do men living together in relationships need to equally contribute financially to the household and living expenses?
- What if one individual is heavily in debt and struggling financially?
- Or let’s say one individual came on hard times during the relationship but before marriage, should they still get married?
- As a man, are you comfortable with another man financially supporting you?
My personal opinion is that people should be equally yoked it just makes things smoother especially with the power dynamic of two men being together. I use to think money was not that big of an issue and love was all one needed. Then I grew up and realized how important money is in this cruel world. Unfortunately, if you have become "accustom to a current life style" you're use to being able to do things and make current moves with your life that someone on a lower level just cant do. But if you marry someone knowing they have less money and resources than you don't be surprised if your always having to pay for things; you knew that before you got married. As long as the less financial stable partner is setting goals, making an effort to contribute someway, has a plan in Ken's case going to school, making a decent effort to get better in life then no problem.
I would like to say love will work and all, but the differences in income are just huge. I think they are in for major issues down the road. The power imbalance because of the income difference being so large would be a huge issue or me . Maybe Ken can get through his schooling and all and lower the imbalance, but If I were Ken, I would not be comfortable in such a situation and would hold off until I had a more stable situation. Same thing for being in debt and struggling.
I am in debt and struggling now and that is just one of several reasons why I would not look for a relationship now. If this happened during dating and I was Ken, I would have held of on the plans and not have gotten married. I don't know if I would marry Sam even if I was making the 38,000. The difference is just so great.
I would take a better car though lol. Not a brand new Lexus but a decent newer model used car as yeah, I actually have a 1995 Honda Accord myself(still runs great though and reliable which is exactly why I bought it). That could be like a birthday gift or something. You just don't 'get married' if you are in a difficult situation and if I were Ken I would have held off at least until I was in a better situation.
I can't speak for Sam since I have never been in a situation where I had anywhere near that kind of income.
* I also do not like the use of the term 'lower level' in the previous post. Maybe 'lower financial level' but being lower income or even poor does not make someone 'lower level' in and of itself. We all have the same human worth, there is dignity in all honest work and everyone is just one catastrophe away from financial ruin and hardship-you never know what life has in store for you.
Ken could be a wonderful loving and giving person, and Sam could be an evil asshole who lied, connived, and stabbed backs left and right on his way to his $200,000 a year executive job. Having much more money does not make you a much better person.
This story is strikingly familer to mine and a few others that I know…wow.
I have to agree with the above posts-espcially with @ColumbusGuy and Ken. I also am temproraily out of work due to a medical issue. I don't make much which is why I am going back to school.
I like Ken was in a long term relationship of 5yrs. My ex did and currently benefits from a extremely high income. I am of a average working class as 80% of the guys on here. I was jealous of him. Very jealous!
It may be able to work if my wealthier half lived a fairly modest lifestyle, but that's not the case here. If he felt the need to buy me a newer Lexus, I'd feel like he wants to "upgrade" me and that would feel weird. I'd understand but be annoyed by his friends thinking I'm some kind of mooch. I'd probably become overly analytical of any comments regarding our conspicuously wealthy habits or possessions, and any side eyes or strange looks might make me wonder about the sincerity of anything they say–assuming they don't make their judgmental comments in a straightforward manner, which would make me wonder why he keeps the company of people who regularly criticize our relationship in this way.
I don't think contributions have to be equal, but a difference of 5x (and then 10x, temporarily) will introduce undesirable conflicts. At the very least, I will likely begin to resent his friends and loved ones for their judgment, and possibly my own if they "joke" about my smart choice of partner. I might sometimes question his motives. Is the Lexus just your way of being nice or did you dislike the idea of your man driving a plain, old 1995 Accord, like I was representing you in an undesirable fashion?
And I usually become a more critical of people's actions when I've lent friends money, like "If you have money to buy new stuff, why haven't you paid me back?" and sometimes just distance myself from people who seem chronically in need of financial help. A partner living off of me might be the same unless it's absolutely clear that they're working hard to make progress.
I hit post reply reply by mistake. Sorry.
Also, I am going to agree with @ColumbusGuy that I am not "lower class" Although, @mojoreece I believe you didn't mean it in that context.
I was jealous of my partner and snapped at him whenever he tried to pay for something. I didn't want to feel obligated to him. He offered to take care of the bills as Sam did. I refused and we continued our life but that issue never left. I drove a Toyota corolla mine was 1995 as well.
Anyway to answer the questions:
No. The two have to be equally yolked. It will cause jealousy for one and frustration from the other. After awhile the working partner will feel as if you are mooching off them. Oh, it will show up soon.
Love and finance don't go hand in hand. I am alone for that reason. Why would you marry a person and you are not able to contribute? That doesn't make any damn sense. You both are setting yourself for a quick divorce.
No, I am not comfortable with a relationship like that on either side of the spectrum. Now, there are some rare examples where it can work They are far and few between.
i know people going through this right now. when both are not "equally yoked" as far as income goes, the person making much less begins to form resentment.
at the end of the day if one is making much less, he has to be secure in himself to let another man provide.
If Sam is happy and feels fulfilled and it works for them, then it's all good.
I know the heteronormative stuff will be brought up but being financially compatible does not guarantee a successful or happy future together.
What they lack in $$$$$$, they need to make up for in other compatible areas that are equally as important.
That depends on a lot of different factors.
That of course depends on why and how the debt was incurred.
If something like hard times is going to dissrupt marriage plans and based on what marriage is supposed to entail, the joining of two as one
for better or worse, through sickness and in health. I'd say ultimately it wasn't going to be a marriage that was going to last anyway because a true marriage is going to see all kinds of ups and downs.
I absolutely had no problem with it for the time it existed in my life.
Older, I live differently and enjoy doing for self but I'm like a church and never refuse donations. On that same note, I give what I have from the heart and never expect any kind of repayment in return.
"I know the heteronormative stuff will be brought up but being financially compatible does not guarantee a successful or happy future together.
What they lack in $$$$$$, they need to make up for in other compatible areas that are equally as important."
I will ponder on this going forward
Do you agree?
I think it's fine that they got married. I think "equally yoked" is more about ideals and goals than finances. I take it to be on common ground. Like if you are used to being in rural areas, you probably are not going to like big city life much. Or if you are a pay check to pay check type, a frugal saver probably isn't going to be your best match.
If they’re in love, do finances make a difference?
Yes. I do think it makes a difference though but it's how it's approached. Making 10x what the other partner is making is a big jump. I'm guessing for Ken, he'd want to feel like he was contributing to the bills and not being "saved" from Sam. Not knowing what their lifestyle is if Sam though makes it harder for me to advise because Sam could make 200k but live like it's $60k which is still decent and puts their household at 80k. Not bad at all. I could do that and still have 120k stacked a year and plan on retiering early.
Do men living together in relationships need to equally contribute financially to the household and living expenses?
As we talked about This @Ockydub I definitely think that the proportion of bills to income = contribution amount would be ideal here. Or as was said, Ken could pay the household bills while Sam paid for the mortgage and car loans.
What if one individual is heavily in debt and struggling financially?
Hetero normative thinking (which isn't always bad) would suggest that Sam takes on Ken's debt. But I think Sam should pay on his own debt. Considering that Ken makes so much more, Sam could use all of his money towards his bills while Ken took care of the household/common bills and then Sam could contribute as proportional once he's paid his bills off.
Or let’s say one individual came on hard times during the relationship but before marriage, should they still get married?
Why not? As long as a plan is put in place on how to work it out or around the hardship so that it is manageable got both if them. If it were a medical issue marriage could help as the other party could be added as a dependent on a health plan.
As a man, are you comfortable with another man financially supporting you?
I don't want to be supported. I want to be able to do everything on my own. A partner/husband should enhance your life imo by having the ability to eliminate some things that could be common like cell phone plans, mortgages if you decide to live together, meals, etc.
Let me also add that if I had debt and someone bought me a new car id rather them just pay off my debt or apply the cost of the car towards the debt, if I had to choose.
I have always said if if I was debt free, I could really be balling out on the money I make now.
I agree with you 100% on this point.
As always you make the most mature and well thought out responses.
You should be member of the year!
They had the financial gap before getting married. If Sam had any issue I'm sure it would've manifested within those previous 3yrs. He needs to tell his booszhee ass, hatin' ass, bitter bytch ass friends to mind they own nuts. smh LOL As I've mentioned in previous posts, I don't care about income, as long as the other person puts forth an effort, I'm cool.
I am going to ponder on this going forward.
I am sensitive on this matter because as my income has dropped I have been treated much differently and I have realized how much perceived 'class' as in wealth or social status means in the gay community especially. The responses to this thread are very thoughtful and I wish more people thought the way many of the members here appear to think.
Good point about the car- the hell with a Lexus help me pay off my debt or help with school payments or something…I think the fact that a Lexus was bought sort of prejudiced me against Sam or maybe both of them in this story. I think that also kind of made me think maybe Sam was trying to 'upgrade' Ken. But maybe that is what Ken asked for? I don't know. I would want a Honda Accord since mine has been so great and I do not like flashy materialistic stuff anyway-especially flashy materialistic expensive stuff that immediately starts to depreciate in value as soon as you buy it.
In most cases gay men do not have the responsibility of raising children so one would think we'd be rolling in dough. I wonder how some people make it either kids because I don't know how I'd be making it. I have student loans, old debts that's I'm trying to pay off. If I had kids I don't think I'd ever be able to get out of the hole comfortably.
I don't go on lavish international vacations every six months, I drive a beater truck, I have a roommate. It's not ideal but I have pretty decent credit and if I wanted a car in could get one today. But since I want a mortgage I have to put the car wishes off until I get the mortgage so my house/townhouse/condo will be what I want. Luckily the car I want, used BTW, won't cost much fully loaded and my truck despite the miles, has good private sale and trade in value for its age. I just have to be patient.
I could run my credit card up and ball out but I am tired of paying for things I can't see like old debt but I don't want those things presenting me from my future.
I'm definitely a suffer now reap the benefits later person.
Realistically, you can't/shouldn't expect that you and your partner/boyfriend/boo/bae/husband are both going to have the same income level (hourly or salary)/economic status. So when it comes to the terminology "equally yoked", it's not about finances, it's about compatability that doesn't pertain to finances.
There's a difference between Joshua, employed-Inventory Management Clerk, age-29, annual income-$35,492, no car vs. Dayquantavious, unemployed-Don't want to work at all/ever, 32, annual income-whatever money he gets, a car. You are entitled to want someone in your life with the same income level/economic status as you. Just know that when you do find that person who meets that individual criteria, don't assume the relationship will be finalized and "Solid As a Rock" (in my Ashford and Simpson voice).
Exactly! I have been humbled soooo bad over the last couple of years. My and my sister were recently riding in the car a couple of weeks ago. I saw a guy at the bus stop- a fine ass dude on top of this. I told her that one time I would have looked down my nose at him. Now, I can relate since I am without a vehicle. Lol. I have to laugh bout it now. I have done enough crying and pushing people away.
I got a whole of things that I need to handle. First of all, my attitude towards myself and life.
:bronbad::pachah1::deadmanny:
And I thought I was coming up with these crazy hypothetical situation character's names.
well damn, I'm a little embarrassed that I needed to google this to figure out what it was.
ha-ha-ha-ha-HA- HAT
Interesting discussion. I remember reading an article in NYMag entitled "Alpha Women, Beta Men" a while back. Yes, it was about straight couples, but for the most part I think it can be generalized. This is an exerpt from one part of it,
"
Indeed, there’s little evidence to show that as women acquire financial muscle, relations between the sexes have evolved successfully to accommodate the new balance of power. Neither the newly liberated alpha women nor their shell-shocked beta spouses seem comfortable with the role reversal.
For women, the shift in economic power gives them new choices, not least among them the ability to reappraise their partner. And husbands, for their part, may find to their chagrin that being financially dependent isn’t exactly a turn-on. According to psychologists (and divorce lawyers) who see couples struggling with such changes, many relationships follow the same pattern. First, the wife starts to lose respect for her husband, then he begins to feel emasculated, and then sex dwindles to a full stop.
Anna, a public-relations executive, saw her relationship with her Web-designer husband collapse as she became more and more successful and he floundered. In the last year of their marriage, she earned $270,000 while he brought in $16,000.
“He never spent money that wasn’t his in an extravagant way,” she says while taking therapeutic sips of a Sea Breeze at Tribeca Grill on a recent evening. “But by not helping, he was freeloading.”
She felt unable to confront him. “We were really dysfunctional,” she admits. “We acted as if we were a two-income family. He was in denial, and I was sort of protecting him. He’d pay for groceries. He was running up credit-card debt to make it appear he had more money.”
While they may have been able to avoid the truth while she was off at work during the day, it came back to haunt them at night. “Sexuality is based on respect and admiration and desire,” says Anna. “If you’ve lost respect for somebody, it’s very hard to have it work. And our relationship initially had been very sexual, at the expense of other things.
“Sex was not a problem for him,” she goes on. “It was a problem for me. When someone seems like a child, it’s not that attractive. In the end, it felt like I had three children.”
“The minute it becomes parental, it becomes asexual,” agrees Betsy. “A friend of mine who works and makes money and whose husband doesn’t told me one day that he was taking $100-an-hour tennis lessons,” she recalls. “She said to him, ‘You are not in the $100-an-hour category.’ She had to spell it out for him. It was totally parental.”
There are, of course, happy exceptions: couples evolved enough to feel perfectly comfortable acknowledging that the wife is more driven to be the breadwinner, so it makes sense for everyone if he’s giving junior his first feeding while she’s off covering the presidential campaign."
Overall, for these straight couples, since there were traditional, societal expectations, I think the disparity in income really made a difference. True, there isn't really a traditional expectation for gay dudes in relationships, but it still comes down to how secure people feel together. Generally, the larger the gap in income, the more difficult it is to relate to one another. It's not impossible, it's just a bit harder. There's a reason people marry other who most resemble themselves- it's more comfortable, you look the same, act the same, share interests, have common goals and are going in the same direction. At risk of sounding like an elitist snob, I'm actually gonna say, yes to assortative mating/equal yoking.
If he means anything to you, pay the bills and shut up. If he does not mean enough for you to carry the cost because you can, then kick him to the curb. Keep it real simple… and keep it moving.
Let's keep this as simple as possible. If you love Dude then you will do what you have to do. If you and Dude are happy… EFF what other people think. If you can't handle supporting Dude, both of you should go your separate ways. Pros and cons. How much does the relationship mean to you? (the one that is supporting his dude) The bottom line is, do you feel in your heart that Dude is worth it?
"Overall, for these straight couples, since there were traditional, societal expectations, I think the disparity in income really made a difference. True, there isn't really a traditional expectation for gay dudes in relationships, but it still comes down to how secure people feel together. Generally, the larger the gap in income, the more difficult it is to relate to one another. It's not impossible, it's just a bit harder. There's a reason people marry other who most resemble themselves- it's more comfortable, you look the same, act the same, share interests, have common goals and are going in the same direction. At risk of sounding like an elitist snob, I'm actually gonna say, yes to assortative mating/equal yoking."
Unsure of this term 'equally yoked' as I've heard of its use within a religious context. But I think you've touched on something here.
Its not the money that's the issue, at least, from what I've gathered. Not that we're using heterosexual relationships as benchmarks, but there are numerous relationships where one partner is the breadwinner, hence the term 'stay-at-home'. In fact, in certain circles it's looked at as being a status symbol to be able to be in a position where your significant other doesn't have to work and can either focus more on the home or pursue more leisurely activities.
The issue, or potential issue, in this situation, comes from a difference in socialization. If the exec is an 'up from bootstraps' type of guy, still lives in an urban community, still hangs out with the boys type guy, I don't really see the issue because there really isn't much of a class difference here, he just commands a higher income.
However, if the exec does exec things, like holding private club memberships, his socialization is quite different. He has interaction with a peer group, that of which, is highly educated, cultured, and accomplished. This could create very uncomfortable situations for the couple, if, say for instance, exec brings his spouse to a charity benefit. The spouse would hardly be able to relate, develop rapport, establish relationships with his spouse's peers. which is important for the spouse of an exec operating at that level. If the spouse spends his time playing golf while not working or volunteers for said charity, I hardly see an issue with the couples dynamic.
Outside of the large gap in income, I don't really see the issue if their socialization is the same. Culturally, it may be hard for most blacks to understand because most grow up in households where if you were old enough to contribute you did so. If you were blessed to be in a two parent household, both parents probably contributed as our wealth is much smaller than other communities. However, this type of dynamic of one spouse being the breadwinner is hardly irregular and works for many people.
My short answer is each should pay what they can without killing them self and making the other feel like he paying to much or not helping enough, this is a convo they have to have together. I myself when I was first starting out I was making less money then my boyfriend at the time, and so he paid the rent for the place, and I paid the bills (cable, internet, power, …) so even though I was not paying the biggest bill I was paying a lot of small bills which at the time was still a little snuggle, but because he was paying the rent, and we had a nice place I felt we was both invested in the relationship and our home. it also was the same for vacations, he got me hooked on traveling and so I was always up for going on trips, but then I couldn't pay for my fair share so he would get the hotel room or whatever, and then I would just have to pay for my flight and my get my spending money together. So even though he was paying a bigger chuck i was doing my part of what I could do and we could travel together, and I didn't feel like I was just being paid for, and he didn't feel like he was always paying for me. So now that it's been years since then and I make a lot more then I did back then, I feel sometimes when I meet guys I know I make more then they do, and I feel if they had the same "we are a Team" and working together I wouldn't mind paying more.
1. > ITHER IN A HETRO OR HOMO RELATIONSHIP, NEVER LET THE OTHER PERSON BRING YOU DOWN FINANICALLY. 2. > EVERY MAN IS SUPPOSE TO HAVE HIS OWN OR WORKING TOWARDS IT. 3. > EVEN IF THE LOVE IS REAL , THEN THE STRONGER ONE CONTINUES TO MOTIVATE THE WEAKER-FINANICAL-ONE [ IN THIS CASE ' KEN ' NEEDS TO TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN WITH HIS TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING IF HE HAS THE SKILLS ]. 4. > WE MEN ARE CONDITIONED TO TAKE CARE OF THE WOMAN , IN TODAY'S WORLD IF A MAN SEES A FREE RIDE HE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT [ INCLUDING A TEMPORARY-GAY-MARRIAGE ] AND WHEN HE IS TIRED OF IT HE LEAVES. 5. > THE SAME GETTING-TO-KNOW-YOU-RULES THAT APPLY TO HETROS ALSO APPLY TO HOMOS. 6. > ONCE THE 2 OF YOU MAKE THAT COMMITTMENT ' IN SICKNESS & HEALTH ' THEN BE-ABOUT-IT, BUT > NEVER LET HIM OR HER BRING YOU DOWN FINANICALLY <.
Man, this is all relative! If dude made u want to marry him, and he's not an intentional bum, then u know the kinda dude ur working w. I recently had a guy I was getting to know, try to drunkenly drag me for being a bartender, eventho I make waaay more money than him. Im 33, and old enough to know that a lot of guys will put me 'over there' becus i dont do 9-5 w a set salary. But, I say, come talk to me when/if I don't pull my weight.
If they fuk w each other, thats the bottom line. I have been the breadwinner in a committed relationship, n im completely open minded when it comes to the realities of what a good guy brings to the table…regardless of salary.
This is exactly why I'm abt to steal @Ockydub side man @ControlledXaos.
People seem to have the idea that (especially white) gays are all rolling in dough. Part of that is the high income group is who the 'gay business community' markets too (the straight business community as well actually). Actually your average gay man makes less money than your average straight man. Part of this may be that there are more difficulties being gay and that there are more 'issues'. It is just a fact that substance abuse, mental health issues, 'bad living'-cigarette smoking way higher, much higher rate of drinking etc. etc. are higher in the gay community. Add in being a minority facing entrenched systemic racism and it is worse of course for black gays. But white gays come in all varieties too, blue collar workers, service industry,etc, not everyone has at least a master's degree and is corporate or is a tech wiz reeling in the money. Those gays (the ones who do not fit the narrative) are just not visible-both by their lack of being open and the lack of attention given to them by the Gay media/Elite.
Also some gays are estranged from family and family members and may have less resources to turn to when things go bad. Family has traditionally been there to help each other out during hard times, and to also pass down/help accumulate wealth. This is not as strong as it was, but still exists to an extent, but not if you are estranged from family and former 'good friends' and all.
Gays also have had more problems maintaining relationships and households(JMHO). Sharing a household together is a way to save money and earn wealth-maintaining one household is infinitely less expensive than maintaining two separate ones. Plus having two incomes can save you if something bad happens with one person-the other can keep you both above water until things get back to normal-again it is about having more resources available. How many gays in their 30's and 40's are living in relationships together vs straights of the same age? Yeah there are differences among different groups, but some things just are facts(that children in two parent or two income households are far less likely to be in poverty is just one example)-when it comes to money, family makes a difference.
If this just comes across as my own biased and outdated POV, my apologies, but I can only comment on what I have seen and known-which may be less relevant for others.
I do think that one thing on our side is that as gays, SGL, whatever, we are not so automatically caught up in the hetero-normative thing. I have seen marriages break apart as one person advances in some way, career wise, financially, and then the marriage goes to hell. We at least do not have to follow that example and are blessed in a way to not be so bound by those expectations and roles that straights have-unless we choose to follow the same straightish path of course.
Having a certain amount of money doesn't equate to being more hard-working or more successful. Different fields have different financial outcomes. To me, it's more so about the passion one puts into their work. From this hypothetical scenario, it seems that Ken is passionate about something. He's going back to school to do something he enjoys. It may not yield six figures, but it's something. It would be a different story if Ken wasn't striving towards anything. If he was simply lazy, then this conversation would yield more merit. This doesn't seem to be the case. For some, money isn't really the end goal. People shouldn't "mooch" off others. But in a healthy relationship, that's not what you're doing. You help each other out and if both parties are okay with one footing the bill a little bit more, then there's nothing wrong with that. It's only an issue if you make it an issue. Another thing is, why are they worried about what others think? Who cares? You're in a relationship with each other, not other people. If you make decisions based on what others outside the relationship think, you need to get over it.
I came to this thread too late to read all the previous comments…but I get both sides. Personally it doesn't matter to me. Shyt, I'm not the most broke dude but I'm also not a baller…so I could easily fall into one of these categories at some point. Ideally I would want a dude who I fux with, no matter his income. I don't date to meet a business partners, I date for friendship and intimacy. Over the years I've met baller dudes who bored the shyt outta me, while the broke dudes were fun and interesting.
I guess it would depend on the mindset of the individuals who are in a relationship. At the end, money should not dictate who's in love and why. Hence, the mindset of the individuals also plays a huge role when establishing a relationship; not to mention, having some type of awareness about the person before confirming a healthy and monogamous relationship. You see, Sam had to have known long before Marriage, and before moving forward with a relationship after dating for a few weeks where Ken was economically, but despite Ken economic status, and society's social-pressure, Sam still saw Ken for who and what "he" was, a beautiful man that fulfilled Sam internally. In addition, I am hoping that Sam empowers and sets a positive foundation for Ken to want to thrive for higher goals. Case in point, Ken is now starting to attend a Trade school. Yes, to enjoy the finer things in life is the so called "American Dream." But, what good are those experiences if deep inside you are unfulfilled! Love comes in the most unique places, and in people!
As for me both we must contribute. we are MEN and we are providers in nature. Just because am Married to a man and he loves me that does not take away my responsibility as a MAN. Being supported financially for me I don't agree. Am a man I got balls and am able to earn what I get what I want, I can only agree to support me financially when I don't have work but I must find it. I have dated a manager who runs a tour company. I stopped him from spoiling me and our relationship ended because he wanted to be buying me stuff which I don't like a man to for me all the time,And he took that I was difficult. Few years later I meet another man who doesn't work. I tried to find a job for this guy but he turned it off. Then I called the relationship off cause I believe a MAN must work to live. So my point is BOTH MUST CONTRIBUTE, besides you cannot eat love and I refuse to be blinded by love from reality.
I'm not saying Ken is getting a free ride but View attachment 2529
I would probably agree with his friends for the most part. I don't really want anybody that I have to take care of. It should be equal on both parts. Me and my dude have been dating for almost two years and we still go dutch on everything (besides random gifts and shyt like that). Love or not, finances definitely make a difference. A lot of relationships fail because of finances. If my dude fell on hard times before marriage, I'm not saying that I would never marry him but I would be marrying him until he got himself together. I very conscious about money so I try and make pretty good money decisions.
The real question is does money really matter in a real relationship. I've been in both Ken and Sam position financially. If you're in relationship based on money it will never work. I try to meet people who have the same intellect as me not money. Intelligent people find money and are able to build a secure savings that both can use to better a relationship. Being mental yolk is far more important to me than being financially yolk. It's about building money not spending money in a real relationship. Prime example would be Oprah and Stedman.
I have a friend who is hell bent, and relentless abt being a part of a gay power couple. He isnt even into a solid salary, he's totally into titles n the status quo. Would never even give a good, blue collar dude a shot (as is plumbers n garbage men don't cash solid checks). Smh
We dont talk so much anymore….
But yea, I'd honestly date a dude who was working _____ if he had a plan that he was actively working toward. Im not gonna just foot the bill, but if u meet me at ur level (as I'd do if I was dating a dr/accountant/youth counselor/security guatd), n ur a good dude, Im not running.