Women: would you marry a man who insisted on completely separate finances?

Question

To make sure you both keep your independence. No access the other's accounts.

Answer 1

your other question uses one of two words that irritate me when it comes to relationships. REFUSE and INSIST. Anyone who refuses or insists on anything in a relationship isn't someone I want to be with. I want someone that will compromise or logically discuss something. As for separate finances, if my husband and I agreed to this prior to marriage, I would have no problem with it. However we have been married for 6 years and all of our finances are together. I don't feel that I need to keep my finances separate to maintain my independence and neither does he. The key is that neither of us are king or queen of the checkbook and the bills and saving for our children's education as well as our retirement come first. We call it the need vs. want system. We let our needs come before our wants.

Answer 2

You're assuming women want to marry. I don't. If I did-I would not share finances-did that-lost the farm-not doing it again.

Answer 3

yes. that's the way i would want it.

Answer 4

No.  A person who is unable to share would make a lousy life partner.   If you aren't willing to share finances, what else are you not willing to share?   I'd always wonder whether he was sharing his whole heart with me.  

Of course, this issue would come up early in dating....long before any discussion of marriage.    I'd have moved on  already.

Answer 5

No I wouldn't marry a man who insisted on separate finances.

Marriage itself means togetherness otherwise the two of you could be roommates. A man who doesn't either trust me enough for us to share finances or is so selfish that he doesn't want anyone in control of his income except himself is not the type of man I would marry.

I don't recall getting two electric bills once married. One for my half and one for his. Nor do I recall two separate lines in the stores, one for the husband to pay his share and one for the wife.  If he wants to keep his independence then he shouldn't get married.

I would start to wonder if he doesn't want to share in this what else is he unwilling to share.

Answer 6

Oh yeah, I'd definitely marry a man who insisted on separate finances.  As a matter of fact, I would insist on it before he would.  

I was in a relationship for 7 years and we kept our finances separate.  In all of those years we only fought about money twice.  It helps if both people are the same in their saving and spending habits though.  That's what makes it work if you are the same as your partner.

Answer 7

Yes, I would.  It is more prevalant that men leach off women than the other way around.  Most often it is the man  who is unemployed and yet still refuses to do house chores.

Nuts fall on both sides of the fence.  I prefer to maintain independence with an agreement to assist financially up to a certain point and for a certain time.  I'm sick of users who think that artificial "love" constitutes a free bank account.

Answer 8

If she respects herself and loves you she will agree without you having to insist.   If she's clingy and dependent she will start making up reasons why she needs access to your money.

Answer 9

Yes, that's the way we keep ours. I maintain the household budget out of my checking account, he gives me his part of the bills via a check when he gets paid.

Answer 10

think you marry for love first but I also think that it would bother me.  I would feel like he didn't trust me with money.  If we each had a separate account and one joint account for mutual bill like the house that would be OK. But I wouldn't want separate finances all together.

Answer 11

Having your own money is great and it's important....

we have three accounts one for each of us and a joint the bills are paid out of.

but when you get married it's a partnership...think I'm going to kick my husband out of the house if he looses his job? and cant pay his half of the mortgage?  he isnt my room mate...he is my husband.

Answer 12

That just seems silly.

If two people are forming a family, it makes no sense to keep all finances seperate.

Are they eating all meals alone? Are they living in different homes? Are they never going to have either pets or kids? Are they going to have to keep track of every dime either spends on things for the family unit?

Keeping financial independence is silly in this situation. That's one of the things forming a new family unit is about.

Answer 13

If He don't insist I would do...

Answer 14

Yes, I would like that but you have to remember that once you get married, the law sees it as joint finances anyway - that's why I prefer not to marry, and then they really are separate finances :-)

Answer 15

Many women would agree with this as long as SHE makes more money than he does.  And, unfortunately, she will probably want HIM to fit the bill for everything.

Answer 16

No I would not.  

Primarily because marriage is not for independence.  It is for interdependence.  If you want to keep your independence, don't bother getting married.  It won't last long anyway.

Secondarily because in most states, regardless of how the individual couples have arranged things, the state views them as one unit, and there must be full disclosure so both parties know what is going on before one ruins the others credit.

Answer 17

You would have to have some kind of prenup contract where you couldn't legally give her any money.  Otherwise, she will find a way to get it out of you, whining about being pregnant or wanting to stay home with the kids for a while.

Answer 18

Are you kidding? I'd be the one doing the insisting, not him. (Although an account for joint expenses is always a good idea.)

Answer 19

Sure. I wouldn't marry someone for their money. It's not so simple, though. If they were mean in other areas, or only wary about always being the one to bail out the other, there's a difference, right? It's the whole partnership I'd look at. Would we invest together, with any extra money? How would we each spend any surplus on our children's needs? I'd be thinking we would have to be capable of discussing that together.  Wouldn't you need to open another joint account for projects you share?

Answer 20

If this was my first marriage? Absolutely not. Marriage should be a merging of lives. That includes bank accounts. At the very least each should contribute the same percentage into a joint account for bills, household expenses, vacations. Note I said percentage, not amount.

If this was a marriage between middle-aged people who have their own bills, their own lives,  children, then separate accounts are probably the best way to do things, less complicated anyway.

Answer 21

We have one account, and it's in my husbands name.