to go on holiday without him because my dp can't afford it

Frankly, if DP earned way more than I did, I would expect us to pay a relative percentage of our wages towards joint things but I would hate for him to take me on holidays that I couldn't afford or constantly cover meals out, etc. Why should someone who earns a lot have to sacrifice things that they want for a lower earning partner? Just because you're together, it doesn't mean that you need to split your money to let him live above him means.

Maybe I'm really harsh but if there is as big a gap in earning as you say, things will always be unfair to one or the other.

Well I disagree Kew - there are many families heartily committed to one another who do not have their relationships recognised religously or legally.

So in this instance they live together but they are not committed? I dont think that is the case. They have chose to keep their finances separate as clearly stated by OP.

If this is what works for them and that includes OP having a holiday because DP is working then fine - I dont think there is anything wrong with this but it woudlnt suit DH and I - hence different choices. But OP seems to be questionning feelings of should she/shouldnt she...

Im still not clear what the issue is.

Seperate holidays are fine IMO no matter what the other aspects of relation ship are like (abuse and downright selfishness aside)

So, this inheritance that allows you to spend freely, did you have that when he met you? Or were you struggling along together until you came into money?

I am slightly amazed at all the judgement about anyone possibly wanting to spend one holiday in 20 years apart from your partner. Do you really only exist as a couple and wanting to do something on your own is really so far beyond the pale?

Makes me glad I'm not married. I love going on holiday once a year with one very old friend and can't imagine giving it up if I were to marry. But my sister who is regularly holidays with her friends (spending her husbands money) as her DH either doesn't want to go or can't get the time off work.

She would be hugely amused by the idea that this somehow makes her a deficient wife.

I think living together is a quite a commitment in in itself in my opinion it isn't. There is no commitment. Not one bit. You are living together because you want to and there is no commitment past that.

They have no children together, they don't own joint property and they aren't married.

They are together because they want to be together and its lasted a long time so it obviously suits them. But it is silly to suggest that somehow this commits either one of them to share assets.

If the partners business took off and was sold for £1m, OP would have no entitlement to it either legally or morally. And no I don't think as the house belongs to her that he would be expected to put one penny of capital costs for a refurb into it. If you want commitment then get married or have a civil partnership. Living together is not a commitment, its just a choice of living with a partner or seeing them regularly - both can walk away at either time with no repercussions at all.

Whats mines mine and what is yours is yours. - thats where they are up to.

I agree grocklebox - though Im still waiting for DP to book my Italian cookery holiday where it'll be all like the Godfather....and I'll come back all stylish...

ITs not an excellent posts because as repeatedly stated SHE DOES PAY FOR HIS BLOODY HOLIDAYS!

Jesus. And he isn't a SAHP, so you're not even comparing properly anyway.

Kew that is a very good point - true, but I dont see what the legal stance on assets has to do with it.

I maybe a bit silly here but I think living together is a quite a commitment in in itself. If you used the legally married argument it kind of undermines all the co-habitating couples and families up and down the land. We are not talking divorce or division of assets...

I think when you decided to live with someone or in a long term relationship yuo choose to share you lives together. I dont think there is anything wrong with having seperate holidays. But this situation is not as straight forward - there is a large disparity in income and therefore on the practical side lifestyle choices or doability. So I think the OP and her partner need to decided how to do deal with this as it's not really about going on holiday.

What if, for example, OP decided to re-furbish an area of the house - is the DP just constantly not a stakeholder as he is not paying in? But it's her house, not his so why should he pay...therein lies the crux of it all. Either together or not - at this stage where they are living together.

The point is that lots of husbands pay for their SAHM wives to go on holiday can you not see that your question is a tad odd?

Excellent post.

When I used to be a SAHM my husband didn't resent me going on holiday with him, even though I wasn't working and contributing monetary-wise.

I guess it depends how "d" your "dp" is to you.

I don't think I would want to stay in a relationship with someone who was happy to swan off on holiday and leave me behind because they had more money than me. It is one thing if he is actually just your boyfriend, but if he is actually your PARTNER then you should surely want to do these wonderful things with him more than you want to spend all your inherited wealth on yourself?

Op: AIBU?
MN: Yes!!
OP: drip drip drip....
..until story is nothing like OP, and
MN: YANBU

I'm kind of in the same situation OP, except I don't subsidise DPs living costs. He earns enough to pay 1/2 the lifestyle we live so that's not an issue.

But he won't take time off to go on holiday as his business is v busy and at a difficult point. Talking about holidays stresses him out. He took a week off at Christmas. A week off in the summer. And he plans to take a week at Christmas.

I get 5 weeks holiday at work. I've been away every week except Christmas. Only once with DP.

Of course I would much rather go away with DP than on my own or with friends. But I'd also rather go away on my own than sit at home in England for a week with nothing to do.

Go OP, but maybe try and pick places he has less interest in going to.

If he wants to go YABU. You are partners. If the reason he can't have time off is because he needs the money then YAstillBU, if he could have the time off otherwise.

If he really isn't bothered about going or the business would really suffer if he left it (rather than he would just lose a few days of earnings) then YANBU. You should not curtail your priorities just because he's not bothered.

You are a partnership. It is joint money. I can't stand this my money attitude where one can afford all sorts where the other struggles to pay the bills.

And believe it or not some women enjoy travel and holidays without a man to hang off. 'I couldn't go on holiday without my partner' Why ever not? I would want to have holidays with a partner as part of our relationship but would love to travel independently too.

I agree that the money is not the issue here, the days available for holiday is.

Is the OP supposed to sit around at home on her extra days leave?

Does it occur to some MN-ers that some people have pride in their independence and don't want to be paid for even when there is an imbalance?

It's different when there are kids and if one person's work becomes family and home focussed - but until that point there is no right or wrong in the way couples sort themselves out as long as no-one is being exploited, and it is a fully mutually agreed situation.

And I would certainly not merge finances with someone I wasn't married to. Not even after 20 years. No such thing as marital assets if you're not married.

andsmile you are married - you share all assets legally (pretty much). OP's partner is living in her house, she pays for holidays, pays for his debts which allows him to maintain an expensive hobby he wouldn;t otherwise afford. I'm not sure how you read into this that OP has some kind of bad attitude to him.

It isn;t lodger - he doesn't pay rent! They are unmarried partners and they live in her house and live predominantly off her income. She doesn;t say anywhere that she resents this. The bloody woman just wants to go on holiday without him once when he won;t go.

I run my own small business, don't have much spare money (business is still relatively new). I would only take a certain amount of time off - not because of the money but also because I have stuff to do and I can't just pass it on to anyone else - there isn't anyone else.

If a partner paid for me to go on holiday I would (and have) accept gratefully and go once or twice but more than that, no. I would be completely happy for them to go on their own or with friends especially if they are planning something that doesn't particularly appeal to me.

I genuinely don't understand people who would expect their partner to stay at home when you not in a position yourself. And I would be well pissed off with a partner that spent their spare money on an expensive (ish) hobby and then got all grumpy if I spent my money on going on a holiday.

They are both adults and if you are going to get precious about the financial disparity between you and your partner then what do you suggest? Give the money away or only allow your partner to do things that you want to do? When you already have a separate hobby yourself?

I did have a little laugh about how the relationship is doomed though - can't imagine how OP's partner has struggled on for 20 years with her!

Sounds like a lodger/companion to me.

DH and I did everything 50/50 when we moved in. After we married he also got a substantial increase in salary and mine reduced a little - all the money goes into the pot, bills paid then shared out equally.

Now I dont work and he earns even more - I am sure glad he doesnt view my living in the house or paying my way the same wasy as you do towards your partner. To be fair we have kids, but still...

OP - in an adult no kids context I can see no reason for the judginess around your relationship. No reason to turn all your assets into joint assets and one big melting pot when you have chosen to remain non-married etc. And you are clearly generous, he lies in your house, and no partner of mine ever paid for a holiday for me!

As he has his hobby as his independent rest and relaxation, why not plan ahead, have one short hol a year (or whatever suits his work pattern) as your together holiday and then you do what suits you the res of the year. Make a clear delineation between your holiday as a couple and you pursuing your travel interests at other times.

YANBU.

I did read the thread thanks.

If I had told Dh that I was financially stretched and couldn't afford to take the time to go on holidays with him and he had just gone off without me then I would have been made to feel the weight of our financial disparity.
That difference would have started to really worry me and I would have become very conscious of all the ways in which I was being subsidised. In short, I would have started to feel like a financial burden.

Why don't you read what I said? Ragwort

I didn't say she couldn't go, I didn't make any suggestion at all as to how this issue might be addressed as I have nowhere near enough insight into the machinations of their relationship to offer a valuable opinion. I was merely relaying how I would have felt having been in a similar situation.

The thing is OP, you say your dp is upset about this. Even if everyone on mn agrees YANBU, that isn't going to change his feelings. You do need to look at your whole relationship and talk about where you both see it going.

Tbh you sound like you resent him. You like having him there for some things and not for others. You come across as a 'fair weather' partner who is willing to ditch him when it suits you and pick up again with him when you want something.

When you use a phrase like 'wither on the vine' it doesn't sound as if you are getting much out of life from being with him. It's true that money doesn't make you happy. Spending it might give you 'moments' of happiness but true contentment needs much more than money can buy.

Read the thread Surf - where does it say that the Op makes her DP feel like a burden?

Her DP is self employed and chooses to work rather than take time off, he spends his 'spare' money on his expensive hobby.

Why should the Op sacrifice her holiday (or whatever she wants to do with her 'spare' money) ........ is she meant to take leave from work and sit at home doing nothing whilst her DP is working ?

When we were both working (bc) Dh was earning around 10x my salary. I don't think we'd still be together if he'd made me feel like a burden.

googoo, when I read the OP I absolutely did not pick up that OP was concerned about the money, quite the reverse in fact. It all seemed to be about the DP and him not wanting to take time off work, and the OP worrying that she would be disloyal to go on holiday by herself. Maybe that's because I'm self-employed and understand the precariousness of that state.

Incidentally those friends I mentioned have radically different hobbies and the husband's holidays away usually involve long-haul fishing trips (eg Russia or Newfoundland) for several weeks a year. It works for them to have separate holidays.

I used to have some separate fortnight long holidays pre Kids and while having long holidays while teaching. It added great balance to our lives as a bit of space made us appreciate each other more. Its healthy to do things separately sometimes and not live in each other's pockets. These days We only manage a couple of days away separately once or twice a year but it's very valuable for us.