Living with a man and not working...

[sonya]

it doesn't sit right with me that marriage should be the one thing that distinguishes between a sleazy "kept" situation, and an equal partnership.

"kept", to me, is a sexual-financial situation. where there's also an imbalance of power dynamic. as in the woman needs to stay pleasing to the man, acquiese to his demands, and basically exist for his sexual and social pleasure.
and the only compromises he'll have to make is financial, otherwise he can do what he chooses and not have to extend the usual consideration other men in relationships would (like spending time, being respectful and considerate, working on communication, etc etc).

but an unmarried couple may be equal partners in life:
where one works outside of their home for money, while the other maintains their home and other areas of their life, and contributes to their life and supports the other, in non-financial ways;
or where one chooses to study for example, and the other chooses to provide financial support of this decision.

a person' contribution to a partnership is more than just financial.

i object to the premise that finance is the only valuable contribution a partner makes to the relship, and that that working partner holds all the power, the other "living off him". it's so degrading and insulting.

why can't it be recognised that the working partner depends on and is supported by the other partner in many non-financial ways?

however if that contribution is sexual, and the relationship dynamic is not equal, then yes, she's a kept woman.

if her contribution is in other ways, then it's a partnership like any other.
and just because they're not married does not necessarily mean they have no long term commitment to their life partnership.
similarly, a lot of people get married with little to no commitment to a lifelong partnership too. the certificate itself means little. but society takes it as a justification without looking at the rest of the relship, which is annoying.

I think the main problem is that many men don't realize the nonfinancial utility the non working partner brings. So the relationship is not equal. You see this all the time in divorces where the man refuses to give his wife any money even though she was the emotional backbone during the entire marriage that allowed him to achieve his brilliant career.

In my first response, I assumed a non-serious, non-married relationship (like the types very attractive younger women have with older, more established men). In that case, I see it as a total kept woman situation.

 

[sonya]

The only difference between this scenario and a married couple where the woman stays at home is a piece of paper. That's a big difference for some people. For me? It's the couple's business, not mine. It's not my place to pass judgment on their private living arrangement.

There is a big legal difference. The unmarried woman gets nothing if the relationship sours (unless there is a prenup that explicitly states the woman gets nothing). Of course it depends on the man, but the unmarried woman is most likely to be much more vulnerable, which can lead to a very dependent, asymmetric relationship.

 

[IntlSet]

I think the main problem is that many men don't realize the nonfinancial utility the non working partner brings. So the relationship is not equal. You see this all the time in divorces where the man refuses to give his wife any money even though she was the emotional backbone during the entire marriage that allowed him to achieve his brilliant career.

In my first response, I assumed a non-serious, non-married relationship (like the types very attractive younger women have with older, more established men). In that case, I see it as a total kept woman situation.

Good points, sonya.

 

[hellooholly]

in case i sound overly vehement, i may just qualify that this has been a v personal issue for me over the last few years. so i'm not venting AT anyone, as much as just sharing some of the strong views i've formed for myself..

i am married, and have not have had a "proper career" yet as i've been studying, and now have decided to have a child.
and DH has been and is happy to support my choices in every way including financial, as long as i continue to support him and his dreams in every way needed.

i was raised to be an independent woman, so these life choices have taken some grappling with.
what i had to fight in myself when i first married, was the notion in my head that i was "living off" my husband, that in exchange for some of "his" money, i would clean his house and raise his children and cook his dinner. which was so degrading i felt sick at the concept. like being a paid sex worker/housekeeper/nanny.

i had to come to realise that i contributed to his life in a myriad of ways, and that being partners is all about enabling each other.
he enables my life goals, i enable his.
through financial, emotional, social, physical (maintaining the home environment) etc etc ways.

 

[sonya]

and sonya/stinkymonkey, this is your personal feeling and certainly very valid for your own relationships. but don't forget that there actually are women who don't want to be married yet. not all relships are the woman chasing the man for marriage.

and the sacrifices (eg of freedom) required by a relship are required, whether or not there is a marriage cert.

besides, partnership should be more about 2 people being more than the sum of their individual persons (ie being in a partnership adds to their life, a partner contributes to your well-being and goals, not just strips you of freedom. whether you're a man or woman).

I agree with what you are saying.

I'm just giving my opinion on the topic. I personally wouldn't do it, not even in a marriage. (In fact I do not want to get married.)

The problem is that so many people (men and women) do not use non-financial figures to calculate value in a relationship. (That's why it only pretty recent that economists even think about what this nonmonetary utility is, and their thinking is quite revolutionary.) These assumptions can cause HUGE problems in the symmetry of a relationship. If the man a particular woman is with does not (fully) admit (inplicitly or explicitly) to the value she brings to a relationship, irregardless if she finds her contribution valuable, then the relationship is imbalanced. (You see this assumption revealed a lot in divorce cases.)

 

[hellooholly]

I think the main problem is that many men don't realize the nonfinancial utility the non working partner brings. So the relationship is not equal. You see this all the time in divorces where the man refuses to give his wife any money even though she was the emotional backbone during the entire marriage that allowed him to achieve his brilliant career.

In my first response, I assumed a non-serious, non-married relationship (like the types very attractive younger women have with older, more established men). In that case, I see it as a total kept woman situation.

yeah i acknowledge that. i totally see the inequalities in both situations..

i think all i wanted to do in my mind, was separate the issues..

i think you're actually talking about the relship dynamic. their perception of the relship, and thus the inherent inequalities in their unspoken "arrangements", in both cases.

but it should be a separate thing from the issue of married/not married, working/not working, and how they affect equality

sonya, i think we're both saying the same thing here =)
these issues need to be discussed and negotiated in a partnership. no matter if both are working or not, whether there is a shared home/children. if it's not being discussed and negotiated, there's a problem, and in one person's mind at least there'll be a perceived inequality.

 

[sonya]

in case i sound overly vehement, i may just qualify that this has been a v personal issue for me over the last few years. so i'm not venting AT anyone, as much as just sharing some of the strong views i've formed for myself..

i am married, and have not have had a "proper career" yet as i've been studying, and now have decided to have a child.
and DH has been and is happy to support my choices in every way including financial, as long as i continue to support him and his dreams in every way needed.

i was raised to be an independent woman, so these life choices have taken some grappling with.
what i had to fight in myself when i first married, was the notion in my head that i was "living off" my husband, that in exchange for some of "his" money, i would clean his house and raise his children and cook his dinner. which was so degrading i felt sick at the concept. like being a paid sex worker/housekeeper/nanny.

i had to come to realise that i contributed to his life in a myriad of ways, and that being partners is all about enabling each other.
he enables my life goals, i enable his.
through financial, emotional, social, physical (maintaining the home environment) etc etc ways.

Then it sounds like a fine relationship. As long as both you and him know this, then it's great.

Anyway, the original topic was for non-married relationships. Irregardless of what I would do, I believe that for non-married women in these kinds of relationships (even committed ones), she is more vulnerable because the law does not provide protection for her (like those in marriages) in case the relationship ends. Knowing that, there can be room for abuse.

 

[Nishi621]

Well-no, not really. It's the same thing as a stay at home wife/stay at home mother. As long as it is a committed relationship (my husband and I lived together for 5 years before marriage), and the boyfriend is fine with it and the stay at home party pulls her weight in other ways (cooking, cleaning errands, whatnot)-I see no issue with it.

 

[eastern_jewel]

what makes someone a "kept woman"? is it because she lives with a boyfriend AND he supports for financially? or is it based only on the fact that she is financially supported by her bf?

i'm asking this because, i personally have friends that were not living with their boyfriends but their rent for their apartment, phone bills, school tuition, groceries, car payments, credit card bills and basically anything you can think of where paid by their boyfriends, plus their boyfriends gave them a weekly allowance for misc stuff too.

does that make them a "kept woman"?

 

[Swanky]

I did it for a while and ended up marryig him

He was my boyfriend at teh tiem and we were living in Houston. He was offered a fantastic job in San Diego/La Jolla but said he wouldn't go unless I moved w/ him.
His bargaining startegy was I wouldn't have to work.
I didn't have any bills so I had nothing to lose, and of we went!

It was only about 2 months into it and I couldn't stand it! LOL!
I got a part-time job @ The Bombay CO and about a month later was promoted to Asst Manager and was working full time again! LOL!

 

[hellooholly]

IMO "kept woman" = as i said in my first post.. what his and her main contribution is to the relship. if his is financial, and little to nothing else; and hers is sexual, and little to nothing else, that's a "kept woman". it's more a long term business transaction arrangement; they wouldn't have the same dynamic as a normal relship (she couldn't nag him to communicate more, for instance, or to be more sensitive etc. and he could fully demand sexual things and that she dressed tarty, for instance).

- (i assume. i've never been kept before lol)

 

[eff]

I really think relationships should be a partnership. If a woman is contributing to a relationship without working outside the home and it works for them, I see nothing wrong with it. Personally, I could never do it. Something in brain is like NO!! when I think about being financially dependent(even partially, even if I'm contributing in other ways) on a man. That's just me though... it really is a matter of what works for each couple, their own feelings, their situation, etc.

 

[IntlSet]

I did it for a while and ended up marryig him

He was my boyfriend at teh tiem and we were living in Houston. He was offered a fantastic job in San Diego/La Jolla but said he wouldn't go unless I moved w/ him.
His bargaining startegy was I wouldn't have to work.
I didn't have any bills so I had nothing to lose, and of we went!

It was only about 2 months into it and I couldn't stand it! LOL!
I got a part-time job @ The Bombay CO and about a month later was promoted to Asst Manager and was working full time again! LOL!

Actually, in this case, I would do it, too... besides, it's hard to uproot yourself and then immediately find a job (logistically, especially). I did know you were a Californian for a little while, Amanda! If you're going to be in California, I guess La Jolla is one of the best places to do it!

 

[Bag Fetish]

I'm just curious what you ladies think of this. Honestly, of course!

What do you think of the idea of a woman living with a man who is not her husband, and she chooses not to go to work because she's sort of just living off of him? We're assuming he makes a very decent salary, etc.

Personally, I kind of think of this as a "kept woman" kind of deal, however, I have a few respectable girlfriends who have done it.

Do you see anything wrong with it? Of course, none of us are to say what's right and wrong about an individual's life, but this is just a general survey about nobody in particular!

Thanks, I'm just nosy but you guys know that!

Is this something you talked about before moving in ?
Define living off him ?
Do you do his laundry and cook meals for him? Do you run errands for him?

 

[Lakritze]

Well, what other people do is none of my business, but I have an opinion on this topic . It's fine if it works out for other people, but it's just not for me .

For me, it doesn't matter if the two are married or not. It's just a piece of paper. I would not want to make myself dependent on a man (whether married or not). I could not live that way, and would lose my self-respect. I couldn't imagine asking for money to buy groceries, clothes, and all the other little things. I would try to earn my own money as long as I am able to. In case my partner lost his job or couldn't work for some reason, I would surely support him and would expect the same from him.