(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm 46 years old and have been divorced a little over a year. I'm paying $950 a month in child support, and I'm still paying half the mortgage on the house my ex-wife and kids live in, plus the rent on my own apartment. I'm fortunate to have a decent job, but I have very little discretionary income at this point. I've met a few women through an online dating site, but every date I've gone on has been expensive and has lead to nothing. I hate to look cheap, but I can't afford to drop a hundred dollars or more on a first date with someone I may never see again. Is it OK to go Dutch on a date, or would it be the kiss of death to suggest it? ("Ron" in Connecticut)
DEAR RON: Before I answer your question, let me suggest an alternative. You don't have to spend a hundred dollars on a first date, regardless of who pays. In fact, even aside from the money involved, it's crazy to go to dinner at a nice restaurant with someone you barely know. If the chemistry isn't there, you'll both realize it before you've finished your first drink, and for the next hour or two you'll be making uncomfortable small talk while at the same time running up a substantial bill.
First dates should be in places that are inexpensive and where there is no automatic expectation of a lengthy time commitment. A coffee shop is an ideal venue for first dates; you'd have to buy a lot of lattes and pastries to drop $20 or $25, and you can make a graceful exit after thirty minutes if things aren't going well. On the other hand, if things are going well, you can usually linger as long as you'd like, or just leave together and take a nice stroll.
Another reason not to spend big bucks on first dates is that the woman may feel you're trying to buy her. This is one of those issues that cause a great deal of mutual misunderstanding and mutual resentment. The man feels that the woman is happy to let him lavish his money on her, and the woman feels that the guy is acting like he owns her. It's a common problem in the dating world.
Getting back to your question about going Dutch, I personally don't like the idea, unless the woman insists on it (there's nothing to be gained in arguing with a woman). If you're keeping your costs to a minimum and not obviously hinting at a "quid pro quo", you're more likely to come across as a man of sophistication if you pick up the tab. I may be old-fashioned in this regard, but I think that, when it comes to women, a little treat is never a bad idea. But keep the treats little, especially on first dates. You don't want to miss a child support payment because of too many fancy restaurant meals.
Good luck, Ron, and let me know how your next date goes.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Friday, October 30, 2009
The Brother-in-Law from Hell
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: Thanksgiving is coming up and I'm dreading it. Last Thanksgiving, at my mother-in-law's house, my husband's brother, Rich, came on to me when no one else was in the kitchen. He tried to kiss me and he reached around and touched my buttocks. I let him know how shocked and upset I was, but he laughed it off and said was that it's not his fault that I'm so attractive. The rest of the day, he kept smiling at me in a weird way. I never liked Rich even before that. He would always drink too much and verbally abuse his wife (now his ex-wife) in front of everyone. But now I don't even want to be in the same room with him. He lives on the West Coast, and the only time we see him is when he comes back East at Thanksgiving. We've always had Thanksgiving dinner at my mother-in-law's (my parents are both deceased), so there's no easy alternative. I haven't told my husband anything. Should I? Or should I just "get sick" Thanksgiving morning and stay home? ("J" in New Jersey)
DEAR "J": You're right: you have no easy alternative. Whatever you do is going to be upsetting either to you or to other people, and if other people get involved you can't be sure what the long-term repercussions might be. That said, I recommend confronting the problem rather than avoiding it.
If you make up an excuse not to go, you're just postponing the inevitable. What happens next year, and the year after that? And between now and Thanksgiving you'll be torturing yourself about how to come up with convincing details about your sudden illness. It would have to be serious enough to keep you home, but not so serious that your husband has to take you to the emergency room.
Tell your husband. Explain to him that you held off because you hoped that the memory of what happened would have faded by now, but unfortunately it's coming back stronger than ever. Emphasize that unless Rich makes a sincere apology, and assures both you and your husband that nothing like that will ever happen again, you don't want to be present with him at the dinner.
By taking this approach, you're leaving it up to your husband to find a solution. And I think that's appropriate, because it's his family and his brother. Trust me: he knows his brother, probably a lot better than you might think. It's possible that, for reasons you may not even know about, he might be as fed up with Rich as you are, and might welcome the chance to call him up and hash things out.
Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer silently for someone else's bad behavior. Trust your husband to protect you and to figure out the best way to deal with the problem.
Good luck, "J", and let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: Thanksgiving is coming up and I'm dreading it. Last Thanksgiving, at my mother-in-law's house, my husband's brother, Rich, came on to me when no one else was in the kitchen. He tried to kiss me and he reached around and touched my buttocks. I let him know how shocked and upset I was, but he laughed it off and said was that it's not his fault that I'm so attractive. The rest of the day, he kept smiling at me in a weird way. I never liked Rich even before that. He would always drink too much and verbally abuse his wife (now his ex-wife) in front of everyone. But now I don't even want to be in the same room with him. He lives on the West Coast, and the only time we see him is when he comes back East at Thanksgiving. We've always had Thanksgiving dinner at my mother-in-law's (my parents are both deceased), so there's no easy alternative. I haven't told my husband anything. Should I? Or should I just "get sick" Thanksgiving morning and stay home? ("J" in New Jersey)
DEAR "J": You're right: you have no easy alternative. Whatever you do is going to be upsetting either to you or to other people, and if other people get involved you can't be sure what the long-term repercussions might be. That said, I recommend confronting the problem rather than avoiding it.
If you make up an excuse not to go, you're just postponing the inevitable. What happens next year, and the year after that? And between now and Thanksgiving you'll be torturing yourself about how to come up with convincing details about your sudden illness. It would have to be serious enough to keep you home, but not so serious that your husband has to take you to the emergency room.
Tell your husband. Explain to him that you held off because you hoped that the memory of what happened would have faded by now, but unfortunately it's coming back stronger than ever. Emphasize that unless Rich makes a sincere apology, and assures both you and your husband that nothing like that will ever happen again, you don't want to be present with him at the dinner.
By taking this approach, you're leaving it up to your husband to find a solution. And I think that's appropriate, because it's his family and his brother. Trust me: he knows his brother, probably a lot better than you might think. It's possible that, for reasons you may not even know about, he might be as fed up with Rich as you are, and might welcome the chance to call him up and hash things out.
Innocent people shouldn't have to suffer silently for someone else's bad behavior. Trust your husband to protect you and to figure out the best way to deal with the problem.
Good luck, "J", and let me know what happens.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Full Disclosure About Being Full-Figured?
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: After being divorced for four years and getting my kids settled in college, I've gotten back into dating. Or at least I'm trying to. I'm not sure how to deal with the fact that I'm overweight. I put on nearly fifty pounds during my marriage and another twenty since then. I'm doing my best to lose weight---I joined a gym and work out five times a week---but it's really slow-going. If I join an online dating site, should I say up-front that I'm overweight or should I try to establish a relationship with someone first so that, hopefully, my weight won't be as much of an issue when we meet? ("Liz" in Atlanta)
DEAR LIZ: This is one of those situations where it feels that whatever you do will be wrong. If you tell the whole truth, some men will (presumably) write you off. If you don't tell the whole truth, someone who eventually meets you in person might feel deceived. But I think that, with online dating, it's possible to be both honest and successful.
First of all, not every man is looking for a Barbie doll. In fact, a lot of men actually prefer plus-sized women. If you do a google search for "BBW Dating Sites" ("BBW" meaning Big Beautiful Women), you'll see literally dozens of sites targeting full-figured women and the men who are attracted to them. And, if you decide to join one of those sites, it might please you to see that you'd be one of the slimmer members; there are some pretty big gals on those sites!
But even on the "mainstream" sites, there are men who are seeking plus-sized women. And there are even more men who are at least open to meeting such women, especially if they seem to have the intangible qualities that every man loves. I'm talking about femininity, playfulness, a sense of humor, and a passion for living.
The key to all of this is to feel positive about yourself. It's great that you're going to the gym regularly, but don't get down on yourself if the weight doesn't melt off as quickly as you'd like. Enjoy exercising for its own sake. Enjoy moving your body, stretching it, and feeling it do things that it hasn't done in a long time. Before long, you'll develop a toned look that---visually at least---will take pounds, and years, off your appearance.
And make sure those positive feelings come through in your profile. Post a picture that shows you smiling and looking confident. Emphasize how physically active you are. If you enjoy participating in or watching sports, be sure to say so. If you love to dance, be sure to say so. If you love to travel, and can explore cities for hours on foot, be sure to say so.
Honesty does not have to mean full disclosure. As long as you don't out-and-out lie about your weight or body type, or post a picture from when you were a size 6, there's nothing wrong with stressing the positives and de-emphasizing the (perceived) negatives. It's actually the essence of good salesmanship. And, like it or not, an online profile is a form of salesmanship. What you're selling is yourself, or, more accurately, your best self.
Good luck, Liz, and let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: After being divorced for four years and getting my kids settled in college, I've gotten back into dating. Or at least I'm trying to. I'm not sure how to deal with the fact that I'm overweight. I put on nearly fifty pounds during my marriage and another twenty since then. I'm doing my best to lose weight---I joined a gym and work out five times a week---but it's really slow-going. If I join an online dating site, should I say up-front that I'm overweight or should I try to establish a relationship with someone first so that, hopefully, my weight won't be as much of an issue when we meet? ("Liz" in Atlanta)
DEAR LIZ: This is one of those situations where it feels that whatever you do will be wrong. If you tell the whole truth, some men will (presumably) write you off. If you don't tell the whole truth, someone who eventually meets you in person might feel deceived. But I think that, with online dating, it's possible to be both honest and successful.
First of all, not every man is looking for a Barbie doll. In fact, a lot of men actually prefer plus-sized women. If you do a google search for "BBW Dating Sites" ("BBW" meaning Big Beautiful Women), you'll see literally dozens of sites targeting full-figured women and the men who are attracted to them. And, if you decide to join one of those sites, it might please you to see that you'd be one of the slimmer members; there are some pretty big gals on those sites!
But even on the "mainstream" sites, there are men who are seeking plus-sized women. And there are even more men who are at least open to meeting such women, especially if they seem to have the intangible qualities that every man loves. I'm talking about femininity, playfulness, a sense of humor, and a passion for living.
The key to all of this is to feel positive about yourself. It's great that you're going to the gym regularly, but don't get down on yourself if the weight doesn't melt off as quickly as you'd like. Enjoy exercising for its own sake. Enjoy moving your body, stretching it, and feeling it do things that it hasn't done in a long time. Before long, you'll develop a toned look that---visually at least---will take pounds, and years, off your appearance.
And make sure those positive feelings come through in your profile. Post a picture that shows you smiling and looking confident. Emphasize how physically active you are. If you enjoy participating in or watching sports, be sure to say so. If you love to dance, be sure to say so. If you love to travel, and can explore cities for hours on foot, be sure to say so.
Honesty does not have to mean full disclosure. As long as you don't out-and-out lie about your weight or body type, or post a picture from when you were a size 6, there's nothing wrong with stressing the positives and de-emphasizing the (perceived) negatives. It's actually the essence of good salesmanship. And, like it or not, an online profile is a form of salesmanship. What you're selling is yourself, or, more accurately, your best self.
Good luck, Liz, and let me know what happens.
Friday, October 16, 2009
The Cohabitation Blues
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm a 34 year old woman. I've been going with my boyfriend for about four years, and living with him for two years. When he moved in with me, I thought it would be the next step in our relationship, and that we'd soon be making plans to get married. Instead, it seems like we're farther from marriage now than we were before. Whenever I bring up the subject, my boyfriend says "Why should we rock the boat?" He feels we've got a nice thing going right now, and that marriage is just asking for trouble (he likes to cite the 50% divorce rate). My friends say he's stringing me along, but I'd like a man's perspective, which is why I'm writing to you. Thanks. ("Frustrated" in Portland, Oregon)
DEAR "FRUSTRATED": I agree with your friends: your boyfriend is stringing you along.
He may not be doing it intentionally, but he's perfectly happy with the current set-up and he has no motivation to change it. My guess is he has a nice place to live in and a nice woman to sleep with, cook for him, and keep him company. If you're not going to press him for a commitment, why should he offer one on his own?
The problem with cohabitation arrangements is that most women go into it with your attitude (that it's a step closer to marriage), and most guys go into it with your boyfriend's attitude (that's it's a great way to eat well, live in a clean house, and have sex regularly). Unless the woman gives the guy an ultimatum, things just drift along until one of the other of them takes up with someone new or finds some other reason to end the relationship.
And that's my advice to you: give him an ultimatum. But an ultimatum doesn't have to mean a threat, nor does it have to be delivered in an angry tone. In fact, it's a positive message. You'd be telling your boyfriend you love him enough to want to spend the rest of your life with him. You're willing to make a lifelong commitment to him, but only if he's willing to make one to you, and by "lifelong commitment" you mean marriage.
As for a timetable, I think it's reasonable to give him thirty days to make a decision, but I wouldn't give him more than that. And I wouldn't accept an answer that says he'll marry you "someday" or in "a couple of years." Unless he's willing to set a wedding date within a year, move on with your life.
By the way, the argument about the 50% divorce rate is, at best, very misleading. We know the divorce rates because every state keeps statistics on the number of marriages and the number of divorces each year. But there are no official statistics on the break-up of non-marriage cohabitations. My guess is, though, that 95% of such cohabitations fail within ten years, and probably only 25% of them last as long as five years. So, if you're looking for permanence, don't look at cohabitation.
Good luck, "Frustrated", and let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: I'm a 34 year old woman. I've been going with my boyfriend for about four years, and living with him for two years. When he moved in with me, I thought it would be the next step in our relationship, and that we'd soon be making plans to get married. Instead, it seems like we're farther from marriage now than we were before. Whenever I bring up the subject, my boyfriend says "Why should we rock the boat?" He feels we've got a nice thing going right now, and that marriage is just asking for trouble (he likes to cite the 50% divorce rate). My friends say he's stringing me along, but I'd like a man's perspective, which is why I'm writing to you. Thanks. ("Frustrated" in Portland, Oregon)
DEAR "FRUSTRATED": I agree with your friends: your boyfriend is stringing you along.
He may not be doing it intentionally, but he's perfectly happy with the current set-up and he has no motivation to change it. My guess is he has a nice place to live in and a nice woman to sleep with, cook for him, and keep him company. If you're not going to press him for a commitment, why should he offer one on his own?
The problem with cohabitation arrangements is that most women go into it with your attitude (that it's a step closer to marriage), and most guys go into it with your boyfriend's attitude (that's it's a great way to eat well, live in a clean house, and have sex regularly). Unless the woman gives the guy an ultimatum, things just drift along until one of the other of them takes up with someone new or finds some other reason to end the relationship.
And that's my advice to you: give him an ultimatum. But an ultimatum doesn't have to mean a threat, nor does it have to be delivered in an angry tone. In fact, it's a positive message. You'd be telling your boyfriend you love him enough to want to spend the rest of your life with him. You're willing to make a lifelong commitment to him, but only if he's willing to make one to you, and by "lifelong commitment" you mean marriage.
As for a timetable, I think it's reasonable to give him thirty days to make a decision, but I wouldn't give him more than that. And I wouldn't accept an answer that says he'll marry you "someday" or in "a couple of years." Unless he's willing to set a wedding date within a year, move on with your life.
By the way, the argument about the 50% divorce rate is, at best, very misleading. We know the divorce rates because every state keeps statistics on the number of marriages and the number of divorces each year. But there are no official statistics on the break-up of non-marriage cohabitations. My guess is, though, that 95% of such cohabitations fail within ten years, and probably only 25% of them last as long as five years. So, if you're looking for permanence, don't look at cohabitation.
Good luck, "Frustrated", and let me know what happens.
Monday, October 12, 2009
A Disaster Waiting to Happen
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I heard you on a radio show talking about online dating, and I remember you said that long-distance relationships are not necessarily a waste of time, especially when one person is seriously thinking of moving close to where the other person lives. I live in the Tampa Bay area, and I met a great guy from Chicago through match.com. He says he's fed up with Midwestern winters, and wants to move to Florida before Thanksgiving. The only thing is, he won't have the money to buy a place here until he can sell his condo in Chicago. He says that if I let him move in with me temporarily, he'll pay me $1,000 a month rent. I do have an extra bedroom, and I could certainly use the money, but I feel a little funny about having someone move in that I don't really know (we've talked on the phone many times, but have never met in person). Any thoughts? ("Jennifer" from Clearwater)
DEAR JENNIFER: You're right to "feel funny" about all of this. In both a legal and a personal sense, this could turn into a disaster for you.
Legally, if your online friend moves in with you, you'd be creating a landlord-tenant relationship. I don't know the details of Florida law, but in general once a tenancy is created, a tenant has all sorts of protections. If he pays you the first month's rent and then suddenly stops paying, it may take you up to three months to evict him, during which time you'd be paying court costs and legal fees. Unless you're in the business of owning rental properties, you shouldn't become a landlord these days unless it's an absolute last resort.
In a personal sense, the situation could still be a disaster even if he pays the rent each month. What if, after you finally meet in person, it turns out that you really don't think of him as a romantic partner, but he thinks of you that way? It would be extremely uncomfortable, to say the least, to have to share a house with someone under those circumstances. You'd be spending all your time trying to avoid him, and you probably wouldn't feel comfortable bringing some new boyfriend over. There's even the possibility of a sexual assault. I just don't see any good coming of this.
If the guy really does have a sincere desire to move to Florida, and the money to do it, let him find his own place, or let someone else take him on as a roommate. That way, you can still see each other if you want, but without the legal complications, the financial risk, and the interpersonal and sexual tensions.
Good luck, Jennifer, and let me know how it turns out.
DEAR JIM: I heard you on a radio show talking about online dating, and I remember you said that long-distance relationships are not necessarily a waste of time, especially when one person is seriously thinking of moving close to where the other person lives. I live in the Tampa Bay area, and I met a great guy from Chicago through match.com. He says he's fed up with Midwestern winters, and wants to move to Florida before Thanksgiving. The only thing is, he won't have the money to buy a place here until he can sell his condo in Chicago. He says that if I let him move in with me temporarily, he'll pay me $1,000 a month rent. I do have an extra bedroom, and I could certainly use the money, but I feel a little funny about having someone move in that I don't really know (we've talked on the phone many times, but have never met in person). Any thoughts? ("Jennifer" from Clearwater)
DEAR JENNIFER: You're right to "feel funny" about all of this. In both a legal and a personal sense, this could turn into a disaster for you.
Legally, if your online friend moves in with you, you'd be creating a landlord-tenant relationship. I don't know the details of Florida law, but in general once a tenancy is created, a tenant has all sorts of protections. If he pays you the first month's rent and then suddenly stops paying, it may take you up to three months to evict him, during which time you'd be paying court costs and legal fees. Unless you're in the business of owning rental properties, you shouldn't become a landlord these days unless it's an absolute last resort.
In a personal sense, the situation could still be a disaster even if he pays the rent each month. What if, after you finally meet in person, it turns out that you really don't think of him as a romantic partner, but he thinks of you that way? It would be extremely uncomfortable, to say the least, to have to share a house with someone under those circumstances. You'd be spending all your time trying to avoid him, and you probably wouldn't feel comfortable bringing some new boyfriend over. There's even the possibility of a sexual assault. I just don't see any good coming of this.
If the guy really does have a sincere desire to move to Florida, and the money to do it, let him find his own place, or let someone else take him on as a roommate. That way, you can still see each other if you want, but without the legal complications, the financial risk, and the interpersonal and sexual tensions.
Good luck, Jennifer, and let me know how it turns out.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Married, But Living Separately?
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please submit your questions to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: I'm 64 and have been a widow for ten years. About nine months ago, I met a wonderful man, "Carl", at a lunch club for widows and widowers. Carl is 66 and lost his wife three years ago. We fell in love almost immediately, and we're already talking marriage. The only thing that concerns me is that Carl doesn't want us to live together after we're married. We're both homeowners---in fact, we live only a mile from each other---and either one of our homes is big enough for two people to share. But Carl is perfectly happy with continuing the kind of relationship we have now after we're married: seeing each other for lunch and dinner almost every day, staying overnight together two or three times a week at one place or the other, going away on weekend trips every so often, etc. In some ways it sounds appealing; I've been living alone for so long I'm not sure how easy it would be to share a home again. But it also sounds a little crazy, like it wouldn't be a "real" marriage. And isn't it a waste of money to have two houses when one will do? What do you think? ("Karen" in South Florida)
DEAR KAREN: Financially speaking, it probably is a waste of money to have two houses when one will suffice. You would have twice the taxes, twice the insurance, twice the maintenance and utilities, and---if you don't own your homes outright---twice the mortgage payments.
But you would also have twice the space. And space, literally or figuratively, is what Carl seems to want. Like you, he's evidently comfortable with the daily routine he's developed since being on his own. It sounds as if he's successfully adapted that routine to allow for a significant amount of time with you, and it also sounds as if there is no other woman in his life or any other troubling reason for his not wanting to live with you full-time.
My personal feeling is that what Carl wants is unusual but not "crazy." In fact, it may be perfectly rational. He may fear that sharing a house full-time would destroy the romance you have now, or cause one or both of you to grow irritated with the other person's habits. He may like the idea of staying up late several nights a week to read or watch TV without keeping you up, or lingering over the morning paper without having to make conversation.
In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. In essence, I say that if a particular arrangement works for the two people involved, and there are no child-rearing issues to complicate things, it doesn't matter how strange it may appear to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world may be jealous of a married couple who respect each other's need for alone-time, and see each other only when they really want to.
Of course, if you're truly uncomfortable with Carl's idea, you shouldn't get married to him. But if your main concern is how the arrangement would look to others, I wouldn't let that influence your decision. As for the money, it sounds like the two of you are doing pretty well right now, so your standard of living shouldn't be compromised if you were to get married.
Good luck, Karen, and please let me know what happens.
DEAR JIM: I'm 64 and have been a widow for ten years. About nine months ago, I met a wonderful man, "Carl", at a lunch club for widows and widowers. Carl is 66 and lost his wife three years ago. We fell in love almost immediately, and we're already talking marriage. The only thing that concerns me is that Carl doesn't want us to live together after we're married. We're both homeowners---in fact, we live only a mile from each other---and either one of our homes is big enough for two people to share. But Carl is perfectly happy with continuing the kind of relationship we have now after we're married: seeing each other for lunch and dinner almost every day, staying overnight together two or three times a week at one place or the other, going away on weekend trips every so often, etc. In some ways it sounds appealing; I've been living alone for so long I'm not sure how easy it would be to share a home again. But it also sounds a little crazy, like it wouldn't be a "real" marriage. And isn't it a waste of money to have two houses when one will do? What do you think? ("Karen" in South Florida)
DEAR KAREN: Financially speaking, it probably is a waste of money to have two houses when one will suffice. You would have twice the taxes, twice the insurance, twice the maintenance and utilities, and---if you don't own your homes outright---twice the mortgage payments.
But you would also have twice the space. And space, literally or figuratively, is what Carl seems to want. Like you, he's evidently comfortable with the daily routine he's developed since being on his own. It sounds as if he's successfully adapted that routine to allow for a significant amount of time with you, and it also sounds as if there is no other woman in his life or any other troubling reason for his not wanting to live with you full-time.
My personal feeling is that what Carl wants is unusual but not "crazy." In fact, it may be perfectly rational. He may fear that sharing a house full-time would destroy the romance you have now, or cause one or both of you to grow irritated with the other person's habits. He may like the idea of staying up late several nights a week to read or watch TV without keeping you up, or lingering over the morning paper without having to make conversation.
In my book, I discuss what I call "unconventional" marriages. In essence, I say that if a particular arrangement works for the two people involved, and there are no child-rearing issues to complicate things, it doesn't matter how strange it may appear to the rest of the world. In fact, the rest of the world may be jealous of a married couple who respect each other's need for alone-time, and see each other only when they really want to.
Of course, if you're truly uncomfortable with Carl's idea, you shouldn't get married to him. But if your main concern is how the arrangement would look to others, I wouldn't let that influence your decision. As for the money, it sounds like the two of you are doing pretty well right now, so your standard of living shouldn't be compromised if you were to get married.
Good luck, Karen, and please let me know what happens.
Monday, September 28, 2009
His Driving is Driving Her Crazy!
(NOTE: Jim's blog is now devoted to answering relationship questions submitted by readers. Please send any questions you may have to jim@attorneyatlove.com).
DEAR JIM: My husband has always been a pretty aggressive driver, but over the past couple of years he's gotten worse. He can't drive across town without at least once leaning on the horn, giving someone the finger, following too closely, etc. I cringe when I'm with him, and I'm afraid that one of these days there will be a road rage incident like you read about in the newspaper. He knows I'm terrified of getting into an accident or some other incident, but if I say something he just gets angrier, accusing me of siding with the other driver over him. I try not to drive with him unless it's necessary, but we do go a lot of places together (restaurants, weekend trips, etc.), and he won't even consider letting me drive "his" truck. What can I do? ("Lynda" in Tennessee)
DEAR LYNDA: I'm hoping you have another vehicle you can drive, because I don't think you should even get in your husband's truck until he's gotten some psychological help. He's got major anger-management issues, and it's just a matter of time before---as you said---you'll be reading about him in the newspaper.
It may feel strange at first, but you're going to have to start going places in two separate vehicles. When he demands to know why, you'll want to stay calm and stay in control. Explain that it's been obvious for a long time that you're uncomfortable being in the truck with him, and that it's best for both of you that you go in separate vehicles for the time being.
If he asks what "the time being" means, tell him that it's entirely up to him; once he gets help and changes his driving habits for the better, you'll be happy to start going places together again. To give him some practical information, you might want to do a google search of defensive-driving programs in your area, most of which at least touch on road rage prevention. You might also want to find out if there are psychologists nearby who deal with anger-management issues regularly. Because judges will often require anger-management sessions for people convicted of aggressive driving offenses, your local traffic court may be an excellent source of information.
With guys like your husband, I would be careful not to provoke him even more by implying that he is totally at fault. Tell him that you know that there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but that there's nothing he can do about them except keep his distance from them. Tell him you don't want to see him do something crazy, even if in theory he's in the right, nor do you want to see him wind up in jail, or in the hospital, or in the morgue.
But don't be so supportive that you back down; your safety and your sanity are at stake. And don't think about the monetary costs. Whatever extra money you'll have to spend on gas by taking two vehicles, or whatever the anger-management treatment will cost, is a pittance compared to the cost of car repairs, hospital bills, lawyer fees, insurance surcharges, and God-knows-what else.
Good luck, Lynda, and let me know how it turns out.
DEAR JIM: My husband has always been a pretty aggressive driver, but over the past couple of years he's gotten worse. He can't drive across town without at least once leaning on the horn, giving someone the finger, following too closely, etc. I cringe when I'm with him, and I'm afraid that one of these days there will be a road rage incident like you read about in the newspaper. He knows I'm terrified of getting into an accident or some other incident, but if I say something he just gets angrier, accusing me of siding with the other driver over him. I try not to drive with him unless it's necessary, but we do go a lot of places together (restaurants, weekend trips, etc.), and he won't even consider letting me drive "his" truck. What can I do? ("Lynda" in Tennessee)
DEAR LYNDA: I'm hoping you have another vehicle you can drive, because I don't think you should even get in your husband's truck until he's gotten some psychological help. He's got major anger-management issues, and it's just a matter of time before---as you said---you'll be reading about him in the newspaper.
It may feel strange at first, but you're going to have to start going places in two separate vehicles. When he demands to know why, you'll want to stay calm and stay in control. Explain that it's been obvious for a long time that you're uncomfortable being in the truck with him, and that it's best for both of you that you go in separate vehicles for the time being.
If he asks what "the time being" means, tell him that it's entirely up to him; once he gets help and changes his driving habits for the better, you'll be happy to start going places together again. To give him some practical information, you might want to do a google search of defensive-driving programs in your area, most of which at least touch on road rage prevention. You might also want to find out if there are psychologists nearby who deal with anger-management issues regularly. Because judges will often require anger-management sessions for people convicted of aggressive driving offenses, your local traffic court may be an excellent source of information.
With guys like your husband, I would be careful not to provoke him even more by implying that he is totally at fault. Tell him that you know that there are a lot of idiots out there on the road, but that there's nothing he can do about them except keep his distance from them. Tell him you don't want to see him do something crazy, even if in theory he's in the right, nor do you want to see him wind up in jail, or in the hospital, or in the morgue.
But don't be so supportive that you back down; your safety and your sanity are at stake. And don't think about the monetary costs. Whatever extra money you'll have to spend on gas by taking two vehicles, or whatever the anger-management treatment will cost, is a pittance compared to the cost of car repairs, hospital bills, lawyer fees, insurance surcharges, and God-knows-what else.
Good luck, Lynda, and let me know how it turns out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
