My new bf

[sandybeaches74]

So I’ve had a new boyfriend since October last year. He’s good to me, kind to me, does lots of jobs around the house, cooks, cleans, is great with my kids etc… However, I am paying for everything, he is using my car, he is eating my food, he is basically living in my home rent free. He does pay when we go out for meals occasionally but tbh that’s not that often. When I asked for his share of the price of our summer holiday he was upset. He says that he doesn’t ask to eat my dinners and he wouldn’t have them unless I offered. It kind of leaves me with nowhere to go on the conversation. He doesn’t want to book any holidays so it’s always my idea and then I pay. I had a horrible husband before I met him and he is not that at all… but something isn’t sitting right here… everytime I raise it, I just don’t get anywhere so I have realised there is no point. Can you give me your views?

This has to be a windup. If it isn't, OP you need to carefully read what you have written and try to imagine what you would tell a friend if she were telling you this about her life. He had better be otherworldly in bed.

Don't blame or berate yourself,

You have become aware of it now, that is good
because then you can do something to change it
if you want to.
if you do nothing though things won't change and may get worse..
do you love him?
sometimes that can make a person do nothing in this situation
maybe that's how you ended up here.
or maybe you thought that's what'll make him stay with you.
I don't know.

Noone seems to have sided with him here
people are supporting your side of things standing up for you...

What you have there is a gigalo not a boyfriend. Yes, he's nice to you but you're paying for his services.

The problem with this situation is that once you realise he isn't paying anything you start being hyper-vigilant about it and resentful and it turns you into a non-generous person you don't want to be, to avoid feeling even more taken advantage of.
Hopefully someone has already suggested something useful to say to him to make him realise he needs to contribute to the household. Thank the Lord he's at least making himself useful, there's value in that.

i used to know someone like this
but she was totally ok with doing it and she wanted them to share the same lifestyle and he could not afford to by himself.
he could only afford 2/3 star hotels but with her they went to 5 star and lovely expensive restaurants regularly
she did not want to do those things alone
so paid for him too.
he drove her car aswell and she basically was the breadwinner. he lived in her nice home and they had a lavish lifestyle thanks to her.
she was ok with it as the relationship meant alot to her.

i think the problem here is you are NOT ok with it
and he won't listen to you or even entertain how you feel.
For me that is the upsetting part.

"At first he paid for the occasional food shop. A weekend away etc It’s all now stopped."

That is because he doesn't need to

does he?
and he realised that

Get rid now.

No good guy would use you like this. You've lived it before, don't live it again. Him not being as abusive as your ex doesn't make him a good person or a "nice guy". He's justa different, covert kind of bad.

In the bin he goes, he can live off the scraps in there.

Have to agree. Would you be happy if your DD was dating someone like this, OP?

Op why does he use your car, where does he go that he can't get to by public transport?

Also, did he ever give you his half of the holiday money?

I think at least he should be making a contribution towards utilities, food shopping and cost of holidays! You may want to work out a fair split so he doesn’t feel like he’s paying for your kids holidays etc, but he needs to at the very least be paying for himself!!!

yes

but i guess what people are wondering is what is he doing there if he doesn't really contribute?
and when he knows full well you have a problem with it.

I realise you have left the thread OP, but just wanted to say for anyone else in a similar situation, this man's type usually target single mothers, and like in this case, they usually get their free loading feet under the table before the woman realises she is paying for everything.

@sandybeaches74 I’m prepared to get flamed on here…

If I could afford it I’d happily support any person who was willing to give me that kind of help around the home and with children, who was also a great partner.

You’re right to expect more of a contribution, but if he’s the reasonable guy you say he is then you should be able to have this conversation and resolve things.

Cocklodger! 100%

only you know whether it was right to move him in after a year. what kind of man is around you/your kids.
seems like you have been playing happy families with this man and your kids.
you have integrated him into your life with your kids.

Just be bit careful if i was you
i would say.

If they have young children together and one of them stays at home, then yes. Two adults with a capacity to earn need to share the bills, though not necessarily 50/50.

He’s chosen well hasn’t he. How fortunate he didn’t fall in love with someone with no money…

Not at all. The norm is that the higher earner subsidises the life of the lower earner.

This guy isn't just being subsidised. OP is paying all of the bills. He should be contributing something.

I didn't say he should be subsidised.

I'm saying whoever is the higher earner (whether that's OP, or her partner) should be pulling the most weight financially and subsidising the lower earner. That is absolutely standard in every relationship.

He owns his house and doesn’t pay for utilities there because he’s using yours

He works but he won’t pay for his own food or holidays . He won’t get his own car, or pay for the fuel.

but he’s a good guy?

no he’s not 🤣 he’s absolutely vile taking advantage of you!!!

he is a fairly newish boyfriend 🤔

Somebody else said 'subsidised' then, sorry if I misquoted. I agree that higher earner pays more in a couple. Seems though that OP's chap is paying nothing at all, which isn't right, especially as OP as children to support.

I said "subsidised."

The reason why I said "I didn't say he should be subsidised" was because I don't know who the higher earner is. So who subsidises who depends on who has the stronger financial position.