3 ms·

Why not just leave it in the checking account and not spend it? Actually, who is so irresponsible with their money that it's a wise choice to let some random s

Why not just leave it in the checking account and not spend it? Actually, who is so irresponsible with their money that it's a wise choice to let some random shell company periodically suck out an indeterminate amount of money that they think you won't notice, and promise to give back if you ask them for it? Reminds me of those Wall Street executives that give women access to their bank accounts so they can boss them around with it. They'll give him an 'allowance' to pay their bills or a 'bonus' if he obeys her. I think the term is 'Financial Domination'.

a_imho 11y ago
complete bonkers. What is the added value? Sure, here is my bank account and my financial history, please go have your way with it.
- LukeB_UK 11y ago
  If you're responding to the part about the financial domination, those people usually submit to it because they find it sexually gratifying.
shostack 11y ago
Knowing someone in a relationship where they are a significantly higher earner than their gf, I've had an interesting conversation with them about what you refer to as "financial domination." From their standpoint, it makes sense to a degree. If they see their relationship moving forward to the point they get married, he realistically earns enough where she would not have to work and eventually be a stay at home mom. That's a huge luxury in and of itself these days for a young couple. However it would probably be more unfair if she was only given money when she asked permission for it. So agreeing on some sort of "salary" (or "allowance" as you called it) of money that she can spend on herself or save as she sees fit, no questions asked, can actually be freeing in many ways. I think many people, were they to have the option of not having to work and being given regular spending money would take it in a heartbeat. Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it isn't a black and white issue, and at least in this case, they both are having open discussions about it.
- c22 11y ago
  Of course if you're becoming a full-time mom it's not quite the same as not having to work. People who aren't moms charge in the neighborhood of 30k a year to full-time manage other people's kids.

a_imho 11y ago

complete bonkers. What is the added value? Sure, here is my bank account and my financial history, please go have your way with it.

LukeB_UK 11y ago
If you're responding to the part about the financial domination, those people usually submit to it because they find it sexually gratifying.

shostack 11y ago

Knowing someone in a relationship where they are a significantly higher earner than their gf, I've had an interesting conversation with them about what you refer to as "financial domination." From their standpoint, it makes sense to a degree. If they see their relationship moving forward to the point they get married, he realistically earns enough where she would not have to work and eventually be a stay at home mom. That's a huge luxury in and of itself these days for a young couple. However it would probably be more unfair if she was only given money when she asked permission for it. So agreeing on some sort of "salary" (or "allowance" as you called it) of money that she can spend on herself or save as she sees fit, no questions asked, can actually be freeing in many ways. I think many people, were they to have the option of not having to work and being given regular spending money would take it in a heartbeat. Not saying it is right or wrong, just that it isn't a black and white issue, and at least in this case, they both are having open discussions about it.

c22 11y ago
Of course if you're becoming a full-time mom it's not quite the same as not having to work. People who aren't moms charge in the neighborhood of 30k a year to full-time manage other people's kids.