How much money do you spend on your girlfriend

krudler

SLUSK wrote: »

How much money do you spend on your girlfriend on an annual basis? It looks like I might be getting a girlfriend but I'm worried that she will be a financial burden. How much should one expect to spend on a girlfriend?

If it looks like it will be to expensive for me like if I'm expected to spend €500 on her annually I do not want her! :mad:

I'm sure she wont want you once she learns your a tightarse who goes to hookers in Thailand for his jollies

I cant figure out if the op is deluded or a troll, either way this thread is genius

mood

krudler wrote: »

Cost of a girlfriend=€500 per year
Cost of a Thai hooker=€10 a session

finding out Thai hooker has a knob=priceless

The best comment yet!

dearg lady

There's a lot of people in here on their high horses with regards to prostitution.

The Corinthian

SLUSK wrote: »

To answer your questions, I am a Swedish man. I lived in Ireland roughly 2,5 years but moved back to Sweden.

I can see where you're coming from. My experience of most Scandinavian women (one of my ex's is Swedish) is that they really don't understand why men should be bankrolling them as it's simply not done in Scandinavian countries where sexual equality is the norm. So I do think people are being rather moralistic an unfair to you here.

I do think that being against shelling out for your girlfriend is not a good thing, however I also think that being against being the only one who is shelling out is quite justifiable. And that does happen and a lot more often that you would think.

There are very few women who will literally never put their hands in their pockets, however it is not all that uncommon to find token reciprocation on the part of a woman who having paid for a single drink for every ten they've received, think that somehow this means they're paying their way.

Relationships cost money, however the cost of a relationship is shared. If it is not and only one is realistically paying then TBH I do not see it any differently to prostitution, except that with prostitution you probably get better value for money.

After all, if a woman is expecting the guy to foot 95% or all of the bills and he refuses to, what do you think happens? She'll consider him 'stingy' and move on. How exactly does that differ from refusing to pay a prostitute?

SLUSK

The Corinthian wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from. My experience of most Scandinavian women (one of my ex's is Swedish) is that they really don't understand why men should be bankrolling them as it's simply not done in Scandinavian countries where sexual equality is the norm. So I do think people are being rather moralistic an unfair to you here.

I do think that being against shelling out for your girlfriend is not a good thing, however I also think that being against being the only one who is shelling out is quite justifiable. And that does happen and a lot more often that you would think.

There are very few women who will literally never put their hands in their pockets, however it is not all that uncommon to find token reciprocation on the part of a woman who having paid for a single drink for every ten they've received, think that somehow this means they're paying their way.

Relationships cost money, however the cost of a relationship is shared. If it is not and only one is realistically paying then TBH I do not see it any differently to prostitution, except that with prostitution you probably get better value for money.

After all, if a woman is expecting the guy to foot 95% or all of the bills and he refuses to, what do you think happens? She'll consider him 'stingy' and move on. How exactly does that differ from refusing to pay a prostitute?

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden. I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

dearg lady

SLUSK wrote: »

I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

I do hope you're kidding about this bit, ya can't judge all women by one woman.

SLUSK

dearg lady wrote: »

I do hope you're kidding about this bit, ya can't judge all women by one woman.

No I don't judge based on only one person but all my previous experiences did not work out at all. This is the last shot I am willing to give. After that I go back to something I know works for me.

mood

SLUSK wrote: »

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden. I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

Women loose money in divorces as well. I've seen it! I have also seen guys sponge off girls. But I don't automatically (and wrongly) assume all guys are like this. OP you really have very strange views.

Kya1976

SLUSK wrote: »

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden. I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: I''m Swedish and I would certainly pay my own way when I'm in a relationship. And I didn't leech any money of my ex husband when I got divorced....

Any statistics to back your statements up?

Have to say this is one of the most entertaining thread I've read in a long time.

SLUSK

SLUSK wrote: »

I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

As per my previous post. Don't bother. Go back to your protitutes. You know what they cost, you know what you're getting in return. That's what you want. So why bother stringing any girl along. Leave the poor unfortunate woman alone. Because if she goes by your logic (of judging everyone by one person) she will end up a nun after your date.

Gyalist

In the words of the famous philosopher and relationships expert, Chris Rock -
"Pussy costs money, dick is free."

The Corinthian

SLUSK wrote: »

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden.

Not in my experience, but maybe I've been lucky with them.

I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

Wow, that's harsh. I've had pretty bad experiences in the past, but even I wouldn't be so nihilistic.

opinion guy

SLUSK wrote: »

She looks pretty good and she seems nice so far. I want her but not if the price is too high.

I didn't ask you to descibe her. I said what do you FEEL ?? THats whats missing from your posts - any feeligns at all.

dearg lady wrote: »

OT, but the suggestion that the OP is more likely to have an STD cos he slept with prostitutes does not sit well with me. I can't be sure, I don't have figures to justify my opinion, but my guess is sex workers would be even more diligent than your average person when it comes to contraception.

They also have much higher exposure risk of getting something in the first place.

humberklog wrote: »

Ah sure it seems a while ago that the OP is talking about paying for hookers so the scratch and sniff test should suffice (if he's not scratching and there's no peculiar bang off the tackle by now then he's good to go).?

WRONG. Males can carry some STD's with no symptoms.

dearg lady wrote: »

There's a lot of people in here on their high horses with regards to prostitution.

Please do enlighten us.

SLUSK wrote: »

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden. I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

Do you know Tiger Woods ?:D

OldGoat

humberklog wrote: »

Ah sure it seems a while ago that the OP is talking about paying for hookers so the scratch and sniff test should suffice (if he's not scratching and there's no peculiar bang off the tackle by now then he's good to go).

Scratch & Sniff test? Only way to be sure that you are not carrying any STD's is a trip to the clinic.

krudler

Ah sure it seems a while ago that the OP is talking about paying for hookers so the scratch and sniff test should suffice (if he's not scratching and there's no peculiar bang off the tackle by now then he's good to go).

What about STD's with no symptoms? chlamydia and genial warts or the HPV virus to name two

rob_itb

SLUSK wrote: »

If it looks like it will be to expensive for me like if I'm expected to spend €500 on her annually I do not want her! :mad:

It's all relative to age/how active the two of you are but I can tell you that it's alot higher than €500 a year in 95% of cases.

Time Magazine

I dunno about you SLUSK but when I really like a young lady, I'm happy to splash the cash. Let's ignore the paying-her-own-way thing, which usually happens at least to some extent.

I think about these things in terms of pints of Guinness. A pint of Guinness is about €5 and suppose you've €50 in your pocket. Would you rather ten pints on yer own or five pints with a stunning and fascinating woman? No question that I'd go with the latter. Hey, I'd rather five pints with a mate than ten on my own. And as much as I like my buddies, once you're not watching football women are better company.

dolliemix

I'm also still enjoying this thread. But jeez there sure are some paranoid mysoginistic men out there :eek::eek::eek: It is very scary the way some of the posters have a blanket opinion on women and their expectations.

Khannie

Time Magazine wrote: »

Would you rather ten pints on yer own or five pints with a stunning and fascinating woman? No question that I'd go with the latter.

+1. You're talking about a guy who's willing to have bleeding feet so that he can have an extra few quid in the bank though.

The Corinthian

Time Magazine wrote: »

I think about these things in terms of pints of Guinness. A pint of Guinness is about €5 and suppose you've €50 in your pocket. Would you rather ten pints on yer own or five pints with a stunning and fascinating woman? No question that I'd go with the latter. Hey, I'd rather five pints with a mate than ten on my own. And as much as I like my buddies, once you're not watching football women are better company.

TBH, paying someone to keep you company is a bit sad.

Khannie

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, paying someone to keep you company is a bit sad.

Pfft. That's not what he was advocating.

The Corinthian

Khannie wrote: »

Pfft. That's not what he was advocating.

He is advocating sharing his resources (splitting his available funds for drink) with someone in return for their company. If he didn't presumably he would not have their company. What else can it be?

Khannie

Friends of mine have bought me pints when I've been broke rather than go to the pub on their own. Were they sad too?

The Corinthian

Khannie wrote: »

Friends of mine have bought me pints when I've been broke rather than go to the pub on their own. Were they sad too?

If you never repaid the favour, then yes they are sad.

I don't think anyone is discussing paying for a woman who will get you back at a later date, only those who have no intention of ever getting you back beyond, at best, a token effort.

Time Magazine

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, paying someone to keep you company is a bit sad.

Of course it is. I'm focusing entirely on someone who's looking to maximise their utility in the homo-economicus manner though, which I think is a reasonable approximation to SLUSK's preferences. I'm explaining how paying someone to keep you company can be perfectly rational relative to keeping it all for yourself.

Greyfox

Time Magazine wrote: »

Of course it is. I'm explaining how paying someone to keep you company can be perfectly rational relative to keeping it all for yourself.

Why would anybody be stupid enough to pay a women for her company when theirs loads of women out their that will go 50/50 or at least pay 40% of the time! If she doesn't find your company interesting enough to pay half then she's not worth more then 5 minutes of your time

What I spend on my girlfriend is almost exactly the same as what she spends on me...and that's the way it should be!

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, paying someone to keep you company is a bit sad.

I think it would be sadder to be drinking on your own.



I often think about this topic.

My Partner has never seen me short or begrudged giving me his last penny. If I was to give up work, he would support me and the children. He is a good provider to us.

I only work part time, but he has never complained about me contributing less financially.

Khannie

Greyfox wrote: »

What I spend on my girlfriend is almost exactly the same as what she spends on me...and that's the way it should be!

What if she hasn't got the money? I have met plenty of interesting people who had none. I spent nearly 8 hours talking to a homeless guy on the street once. I bought him hot drinks and food. He couldn't afford them and the conversation was amazing. Well worth the (very small) cost.

trout

humberklog wrote: »

Ah sure it seems a while ago that the OP is talking about paying for hookers so the scratch and sniff test should suffice (if he's not scratching and there's no peculiar bang off the tackle by now then he's good to go).

It should be pointed out that some STD's don't have obvious or immediate physical symptoms ... http://www.avert.org/stds.htm

Just reflecting on this one point, in isolation, saying nothing about the rest of this thread.

peckerhead

Can't believe noone's posted this yet...:pac:

Kid Curry

Greyfox wrote: »

What I spend on my girlfriend is almost exactly the same as what she spends on me...and that's the way it should be!

Yes and we should all live on cup cake lane and pick daffodils and have world peace but unfortunately that's not the case in the majority of circumstances and those women who say they pay their way because they buy a drink every 5 rounds or pay for the ice cream in the cinema once in a while is BS.

MoodeRator

Ok, I have just read this all again,and yet STILL can't see any mention of this "lucky woman" actually showing or declaring any interest in the OP. Jusy akin to his love of money this all seems VERY one way traffic.
I am now convinced the OP has not even spoken to the poor unsuspecting victim! Let alone had any kind of meaningful discussion.

Kinetic^

dolliemix wrote: »

So are you looking for a prostitute or a girlfriend?

Which will talk less?

Kimbot

I spend too much on my woman.... :P

Look if you want to be tight and miserable OP then leave the girl alone. If she gives a cr@p about you then money is irrelevant!

Kimbot

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Which will talk less?

Assuming they are both Female then.................. neither of them!!

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

I think it would be sadder to be drinking on your own.

Actually, paying for company because you don't want to look like a sad git drinking on your own is actually sadder when you think on it.

My Partner has never seen me short or begrudged giving me his last penny. If I was to give up work, he would support me and the children. He is a good provider to us.

I only work part time, but he has never complained about me contributing less financially.

Well that's kind of outside the remit of the discussion which is about dating or relationships that do not involve cohabitation or children.

Add those to the mix and it is unlikely for each party to match each other financially, however that does not mean that they do not provide equal input into the relationship. For example, you may contribute less financially, but my guess is you probably make up for this in child care and housework.

Khannie wrote: »

What if she hasn't got the money? I have met plenty of interesting people who had none. I spent nearly 8 hours talking to a homeless guy on the street once. I bought him hot drinks and food. He couldn't afford them and the conversation was amazing. Well worth the (very small) cost.

So it's really about charity work?

Time Magazine

Greyfox wrote: »

Why would anybody be stupid enough to pay a women for her company when theirs loads of women out their that will go 50/50 or at least pay 40% of the time!

Different strokes for different folks. With the utmost respect to SLUSK, it looks like he likes a different stroke.

If she doesn't find your company interesting enough to pay half then she's not worth more then 5 minutes of your time

I agree... to an extent. It's happened that I usually earn more than people I'm seeing. If they're a little tight for cash, I appreciate that €20 means a lot more to them than it does to me. Basically, I appreciate that not everybody has cash all the time, and I wouldn't dump somebody for that. The second they expect something though, they can join my 'previous experience' folder.

What I spend on my girlfriend is almost exactly the same as what she spends on me...and that's the way it should be!

I think you're focusing far too much on pure monetary equality here. If someone's a skint student and spends hours making me a birthday present instead of buying me a big voucher for HMV, I'm not going to complain. I'd probably way prefer something personal, anyway.

CDfm

dearg lady wrote: »

There's a lot of people in here on their high horses with regards to prostitution.

+++ 1 and the horses are very high

I imagine a prostitution thread will start sometime. But of course one would never do that would one;)

browner85

this thread is gas... "i might be getting a girlfriend"

theres no set price on love!!!!!!!!!111

The Corinthian

browner85 wrote: »

theres no set price on love!!!!!!!!!111

He's talking about a girlfriend, not love.

PrettyBoy

CDfm wrote: »

I imagine a prostitution thread will start sometime.

Here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055849191

donfers

Time Magazine wrote: »

I dunno about you SLUSK but when I really like a young lady, I'm happy to splash the cash. Let's ignore the paying-her-own-way thing, which usually happens at least to some extent.

I think about these things in terms of pints of Guinness. A pint of Guinness is about €5 and suppose you've €50 in your pocket. Would you rather ten pints on yer own or five pints with a stunning and fascinating woman? No question that I'd go with the latter. Hey, I'd rather five pints with a mate than ten on my own. And as much as I like my buddies, once you're not watching football women are better company.

The only reason she would be stunning and fascinating is if she did indeed knock back 5 pints of Guinness

Leeching off you, smiling and giggling where appropriate, using you as her drinks ticket for the night = utterly precitable but if it makes BOTH parties feel better, sure why not let the transaction take place

just be sure not to confuse it for anything else, because when the 50 euro is mere bronze coins in your pocket the smiling and giggling may stop sharpish

don't call me bitter

just call a bitter for me! You see I'm as bad as that Guinness woman:(


on a serious note, although it hasn't really happened to me, there is an element of women out there who set about, actually willingly engage themselves on a mission to get free drinks from guys on a night out and only talk to drinkbuyer for that purpose...they bring out no money with them and will succeed as naive guys think she's actually interested

As a guy I don't think I could do this, i'd hate the idea of talking to a woman I have no interest in/am not attacted to solely for the purpose of getting a free drink, smiling at her inane comments and flirting away when I don't feel a thing for her. It would just make me feel like such a fraud, it's almost psychopathic behaviour if you think about it.

On the key issue

I don't mind paying at all, especially if my partner earns less, has less money. There is nothing more distasteful than a couple arguing about money. If I really like the girl I don't value money so much for it to become an issue. Unless she is a leech of the worst kind (re. example above, me buying round after round all night, she goes to the bar and gets a drink for herself) and has money and continues to sponge again and again and again and doesn't even offer to pay, then I don't let it become an issue.

hunter164

TBH I spend loads on my gf. I don't even think about spending it on her, I love doing it. I prefer spending it on her than me.

humberklog

SLUSK wrote: »

You are dead wrong about Swedish women, most of them are leeches. I have seen good men lose lots of money in divorces and the like here in Sweden. I will take this woman on a date next week it looks like. If I don't get what I want from her I will shut the door on relationships forever and go back to the prostitutes.

Gotta agree here Slusk, Scandanavian women in my experience (3 short termers) are a fripping 'mare. Clingy and needy, of course this can't possibly go for all but it was just my experience...3 out 3 being an ever increasing pain in the butt.

I'm sorry for the way your thread has turned on you Slusk, you pop the head out of your shell to air a concern (indeed a peculiar enough one, but even still) and it gets walloped off you with big rods of moral indignation. From being told to get counselling to taking a trip to the the vd clinic. Jayzuz it was money you were looking to save not spend .

Y'know what Slusk, you ask a question "how much do you spend on the missus?". Hard to gauge for most I'd say as...well, it's not something most people keep tabs on. Then of course there's the swings and roundabouts form of economics that is pretty prevalent in most relationships.
I would love to try and answer your question but the maths of it is just so complicated with so many additions and bells in the formula that I find it impossible to calculate in any way that would do the truth justice.

On a by the by: 500 knickers would hardly get a round in in Sweden:pac:.

Quality

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, paying for company because you don't want to look like a sad git drinking on your own is actually sadder when you think on it.

He never said he didnt want to look like a sad git, he said he would prefer to have pints with a mate than on his own.

Well that's kind of outside the remit of the discussion which is about dating or relationships that do not involve cohabitation or children.

Add those to the mix and it is unlikely for each party to match each other financially, however that does not mean that they do not provide equal input into the relationship. For example, you may contribute less financially, but my guess is you probably make up for this in child care and housework.

So it's really about charity work?

Yes probably a bit outside the remit, but I am with my partner a long time now, We were not always cohabitating and did not always have kids, however back then he was always good natured and kind with his money.

Had he been a tight git, who didn't want to spend money on me, bring me out for a drink or a meal when I had no cash or insited I go dutch on every night out, then I dont think I would be with him now.

And also he was great for the gifts, not expensive but thoughtful. They definitely left an impression....

The Corinthian

Quality wrote: »

He never said he didnt want to look like a sad git, he said he would prefer to have pints with a mate than on his own.

Yes, which led to the accusation that paying for company was a bit sad.

Yes probably a bit outside the remit, but I am with my partner a long time now, We were not always cohabitating and did not always have kids, however back then he was always good natured and kind with his money.

Had he been a tight git, who didn't want to spend money on me, bring me out for a drink or a meal when I had no cash or insited I go dutch on every night out, then I dont think I would be with him now.

And also he was great for the gifts, not expensive but thoughtful. They definitely left an impression....

But this is the thing... did you never feel that his one-sided 'generosity' should be repaid? I don't mean with tokenism, but with a real effort for you not to be "a tight git"? Even if you did not have the same level of income, did you not think of finding a way to repay him, or did you - as regrettably happens all too often - feel that you were entitled to him spending money on you simply because you're a woman?

Kinetic^

jonny24ie wrote: »

Assuming they are both Female then.................. neither of them!!

No dice, I choose television.

OldGoat

Remember folk that we are here to argue the post and not to make judgements about the poster. Telling the OP to see a councillor simply because he has an attitude that does not conform with the norm (with regard to this topic) or querying him mental stability can be interperted as insulting.
Stick to the topic, argue the post.

The Corinthian

OldGoat wrote: »

Remember folk that we are here to argue the post and not to make judgements about the poster. Telling the OP to see a councillor simply because he has an attitude that does not conform with the norm (with regard to this topic) or querying him mental stability can be interperted as insulting.
Stick to the topic, argue the post.

Well, I've actually defended the OP in so far as he has (inadvertently) highlighted an attitude of entitlement that does exist with some women - as further evidenced, IMHO, by Quality's lack of response to my own query as to her attitudes - and certainly there have been some horrendously moralistic and unwarranted attacks on him.

Even so, I do think that he is taking a very extreme and nihilistic view which I don't believe is terribly healthy, and do think is fair to question - as long as it is not done so in a judgemental fashion.

OldGoat

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even so, I do think that he is taking a very extreme and nihilistic view which I don't believe is terribly healthy, and do think is fair to question - as long as it is not done so in a judgemental fashion.

The mental health of a poster is NOT the topic of discussion here.