SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
Find a Conversation
SAH/WOH--extramarital affairs
| Tue, 02-15-2005 - 12:54pm |
I was just at the gym this morning and overheard a conversation between two women on treadmills who were discussing/debating as to whether married sahms were any more or less likely to have affairs than married wohms.
I thought it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on this.

Pages
Edited 2/28/2005 5:33 pm ET ET by texigan
They are both financialy dependent on that income. The SAHP no more so than the WOHP. I have never debated that point, as a SAHM I was financially dependent on DH paychecks, just like I am now as a WOHM and just like he is dependent on my paycheck.
I was only debating whether something only counted as a service if someone would have to hire someone else to do it. It doesn't. Time can be just as much a commody as money.
Edited 2/28/2005 8:46 am ET ET by texigan
If we do spend more on utilities, it hasn't been significant enough to notice.
Yes, I do continue to eat lunch, but whereas I was spending a minimum of $10.00 per day (that's really a cheap lunch - $15 is probably closer to average). Now that I am ah, dh often comes home for lunch (when he is in town) - more savings - way more since his luncheons are in high end resteraunts and a $20 - $30 bill is common. When I woh, we often ate out for dinner too. I'd venture to guess we are saving a net well in excess of $200 on lunch and dinners.
Yes, I still spend frivilously, but not as much as I did. I worked downtown. Easy access every day. And as I pointed out, I collect the $1400 we are definately saving on daycare and housekeeper. I would have kept the housekeeper, but she was not up to my standards and I have plenty of time to do it myself. My son is in school full time, my daughter half time. I have 2 to 3 days per week home with no children.
Nick
Well, I could go to work, any day of the week. No problem. And he would continue to pay out that amount. THAT is my point. I didn't say he doesn't feed me. I don't NEED him to feed me though. He is farther ahead financially, physically and emotionally to pay me rather than the daycare and the housekeeper. That is coming from HIS mouth. HE prefers that I care for his children.
Certainly his income provides the entire finacial support for our family. So what? That makes me less of a provider? That makes my services LESS valuable than his income. Maybe in your house, but most definately not in mine.
Nick
"Um, no, I don't care how indivisible the marital union is, only the WOHP in fact went to work and only the WOHP gets paid. If he or she considers all of his or her money the family's money, fine, no issue. But in point of fact, it's not." Um, no, in point of fact, it is, and you have it exactly backward. No matter who earns it, if it's earned by either partner in a marriage, it's a MARITAL asset. It doesn't matter one whit who "considers" it what.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Pages