(no subject)

[suspectclass]

My boyfriend is set to receive a small inheritance within the next month or so. We're not sure of the exact amount since its coming from a house sale and closing costs, funeral expenses and taxes are all unknown factors, but it should be around $25,000-$30,000.

The bulk of this money is going to go towards paying off his credit card debt, which is a whopping $15,000. This was mostly accumulated a few years ago when the company he was working at went under and he was left jobless for a few months. But the debt has grown since then because, well, he has a tendancy to buy what he wants when he wants it. This is very different from my relationship with money-I tend to put off purchases and need to have a "rainy day" fund in the bank.

here's my conundrum: Is it my place to say anything about what he does with the rest of the money? On one hand, we've been living together for about 7-8 months and although we're not officially engaged, marriage is spoken of between us as an inevitability. But on the other, we _aren't_ married, so it is still just his money. He's not some completely irresponsible guy or anything, but he might spend the money without realizing it, and then its all gone. Right now I manage the bills in the house because he has a tendancy to forget about them.

What I want is for him to put some of the money away, either in investments or savings, where he won't be tempted to spend it. But I'm not sure how much of a right I have to an opinion here. Any thoughts?

I can't help it, I read the Smith Alumnae Forum. Someone posted today asking about advising her boyfriend to invest part of some windfall money he's getting. Two people have responded to this, both women married to men, who said that because the poster is not married to her boyfriend, she can't say anything to him about his money. Maybe if it comes up in casual conversation she can mention IRAs or something.

What? What is this? How do two people who live together in a committed relationship and share expenses not have any leeway to talk about finances and spending habits just because they don't have a legal contract? Is this that whole "I can't get married so I don't realize that people actually use it as an arbiter of commitment" thing?

Comments

[king-orbison.livejournal.com]

See, either way this woman certainly has a tricky situation on hand. This is a murky pool to navigate and honestly, more background info is needed to speak to her specific instance. But, yes, you've got a BIG SCREAMING FLAME OF A QUEEN POINT!!!

I think, in a way, that your questions shed a little bit of light on why the question of marriage is so hotly debated inside Homoville USA. Its interesting if you look at other Westernized nations and their treatment of marriage. Australia for one considers almost any two people who are sharing living quarters for more than several years legally married.

We (and I use the royal WE oh so loosely) as a disenfranchized lot of Uh-mericanz have a messy lot to untangle in constructing ourselves and living our lives. Because Christian morality codes are embedded within all popular imagery of cohabitation and romance (whether we reject them, embrace them, etc.) all symbolic paths lead to the end goal of a chaste contract with a spouse. Furthermore, to be redundant, spouse equals property rights and privileges. A big honking door prize for buying into the symbolic gesture of puritannical morality. Not to mention the other crappy privileged histories that the tradition of US legal marriage is tied to. You know, things like valuing and securing whiteness and nation, et. al.

So for the gay and not gay alike, all folks have deep seated entrenched positively valanced relationship to legally sanctioned relationships. And these are conversations that get really lost and silenced amongst all the screaming that is currently going on around marriage.

See, I am not of the camp that marriage is inherently evil and we must do away with all forms of matrimony. I do not favor the civil union over marriage, or vice versa. I am employed by the "marriage fight," and I do bust my ass for the hope that there will one day be equal access. But, personally, I sit somewhere in the middle of thses polarized opposites.

Equal access to marriage is a wonderful amazing key to undoing all sorts of interesting state sanctioned ties to heterosexism that feed many many other -isms. On big messy knot- pulled apart bit by bit.

But then again I see all the shouting coming from "our"/"my" side and I get really freaking nervous. I begin to think about all of the citizens of Homoville, USA who are just salivating at the chance to buy into the Kingdom of Heterosexington, because folks always want what they can't have, and Homovillians are great at pastiche and mockery. Yet (to continue with this string of cliches) mockery is flattery, and I for one am skeered.

So, yeah, I agree. And marriage equality makes me nervous and sweaty.

[masscooper.livejournal.com]

That comment makes me kind of nervous and sweaty.