What you so maturely call "pussy whipped", others call "respect for one's SO". I can't recall the last time my wife said "no" to a large purchase. I also can't recall the last time that I had so little respect for her that a discussion of the allocation of finite resources wasn't on the table.

> What you so maturely call "pussy whipped"

See now there you go. I say "back in the day this would be called..." and automatically I get downvoted as if that is what I call it (either now or back in the day). And yes I purposely said it in a way knowing that this might be the reaction (as an experiment).

In typical fashion, pitchforks for free speech. Walking on HN eggshells.

See now there you go. Being offensive on purpose, even claiming the guise of an experiment, and still claiming 'pitchforks for free speech'.

Phrases like 'pussy whipped' have absolutely no place in a civilized society or on a civilized message board. They never have and they never will.

> Being offensive on purpose, even claiming the guise of an experiment

Once again wrong. Not what I meant. By not padding it in an apologetic way, [1] I knew it would get a certain reaction. In my book, nothing wrong with that. I am tired of people always having to apologize when no apology is necessary. Also consider that people of different age groups who were raised differently might see things differently as well and that is ok.

[1] Meaning "I apologize deeply if anyone finds this offensive but.."

> In my book, nothing wrong with that.

Your book applies to what you do alone on your property.

When you act in a social context, other people's books also matter. That your philosophy treats other people's opinions as somehow irrelevant to your interactions with them is definitely of a piece with your "pussy whipped" framing.

Note also that you're creating a false choice between a disingenuous "apology" and speaking the truth. A fake apology isn't actually respectful of other people; it's just a way to camouflage your disrespect. The choice you're eliding is for you to actually understand why people object to that phrase and respect their views, whether or not you agree with them.

The reason you don't, of course, is because you'd sound ridiculous if you actually expanded your implicit views. E.g.: "I understand that most people today see men and women as equals, and I respect their right to believe it. But personally I disagree, and I think their mistake is not seeing that things were better back in the day when men had both legal and social dominance such that wives had neither control over family assets nor even the expectation that they might have a voice in the decision. I hope everyone comes to see the merit in my views, and that we together return to the legal and social structures that held prior to the adoption of the 19th amendment."

No, it is not okay. The phrase 'pussy whipped' has no place in civilized discourse. It is wrong and it has always been wrong. Even if you pad it in an apologetic way, it is wrong.

In a civilized society, we have respect for our significant others and run all major decisions by them. Basic human respect does not deserve to be disparaged.

Ah, the ol' "I was just trolling" defense. Didn't work at Nuremberg...oh, sorry, wrong analogy. Now quit whining and take your down votes like the bastion of free speech that you are.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.

I don't feel that that's an unsubstantive comment. Because it seems to me that if people value karma points, and some people certainly do, then there would be a market whereby someone would pay a dollar amount to purchase a HN account of somebody with high karma.

$560 seems like a large enough amount of money to talk over.

Well then that depends on the relationship that you have as well as who you are married to, doesn't it? I didn't need my wife's permission to buy real estate or an expensive car for example. And she has no problem with that. Nor does she ask me permission to spend her money either.

And do you really think that $560 is "a large amount of money" and needs to be talked over?

> Nor does she ask me permission to spend her money either

This indicates you have your family's assets set up so you separate categories of money that you can exclusively spend from. Many people don't do that and, if you don't do that, it makes sense to ask before spending a significant amount of money from the join category.

> Do you really think that $560 is a "large amount of money"

That is more than half what we pay for rent, so yes.

   "Well then that depends on the relationship that you have as well as who you are married to, doesn't it? "

Absolutely true. But it doesn't make other peoples choices in this wrong or inferior.

I don't need to ask either, but I find the idea that someone would be considered "pussy whipped" if they have a different arrangement to be, well, moronic.

Yeah, at least mention it and give the other person a chance to raise objections even if it doesn't happen often. Someone told me about a $100 rule, and that seems like a good cutoff to me. And you're right, it would be different if we had "her money" and "his money".

> at least mention it and give the other person a chance to raise objections

You are not considering the downside of all of this. (Since I get paid for negotiation let me give you my thoughts.) By "giving the other person a chance" you are giving them power over you. Which they could use to extract something from you in exchange for your agreement. Now this may or may not matter depending on the person you are with, but I will point it out so you know that in some cases there could be a downside by "running something by the other party". And yes, there is negotiation in relationships as there is in business.

I'm really happy to say that I don't see my marriage in such adversarial terms. One of the tenets of marriage is that you share and cooperate. I don't spend my time trying to get the upper hand and maintain power, and nor does my wife. That's certainly not something I'm ashamed of. On the contrary. You don't need to be Donald Trump all day.

People and relationships change over time. Keep that in mind. Don't know your age (maybe you have been married for 40 years for all I know) but it's quite possible that your attitude might change later on.

You didn't make that distinction in your "pussy-whipped" comment. Perhaps rather than pussy-whipped, he just hasn't had his marriage degenerate into a state where he feels the need to cling onto every bit of power he can get. I've not been with my wife for 40 years, just ten, but I hope I never reach the stage where I feel the need to avoid discussing things with her in case it means I have to cede some power.

After 20 years together ... I gotta say, our relationship just isn't wired that way. There's negotiation when it's needed, but it's from a position of mutual respect and not adversity. That is, we both recognize each other's needs/wants in the discussion as legitimate and go from there - there's no assumption that one of us is trying to gain power or the upper hand.

It's largely been this way from the start, and has only become more so with time. I couldn't fathom wanting to spend my life with someone I was in a constant power struggle against, or who felt she was in such a struggle against me.

Presumably that power is reciprocal. My wife and I have shared assets/cash flow; there is no way we could have made our budget balance earlier in our marriage without it.

Yes, if you're in a terrible marriage then asking one's spouse about a big purchase could lead to trouble. So what?

Well if such a situation comes up I just won't ask :p The only point of this thread is that it's not unusual to talk about large purchases when it might affect another person, especially when the other person is your spouse.

Even though you are being down voted, I agree with the sentiment, perhaps it could have been put more diplomatically.

I really don't understand why someone would publicly admit that they don't have control of their own money. I see people admitting to it regularly as if it's something that can't be helped, but it just makes them look weak. Like they are lowering their social standing on purpose.

In my marriage, all accounts are shared. The only money that I could call "mine and not hers" is the cash in my wallet.

This arrangement seems extremely sensible to me. I know it's not for everybody, but in our case we trust each other completely and share a similar outlook on financial things, so it makes perfect sense to just share.

Since we're in it together, we run big purchases by each other just as an additional check. This helps soften irrational impulses, lets us suggest alternatives to each other, and just keeps us up to date with what's going on.

Please tell me, how does this mean that I "don't have control of [my] own money"? In what way does it make me "look weak"? Why should I keep this a secret? And why should I care about my "social standing" in the eyes of people who think this means anything important?

Both things can be true. That is, your arrangement sounds reasonable enough, but it remains the case that you have to get permission from somebody else to spend your money.

Sure. But the person I'm replying to thinks this means I don't have control over my own money, that it makes me look weak, and that it's the sort of thing I should be so ashamed of that I should keep it a secret. That's what I'm asking about.

Many married couples have joint accounts, into which all/most funds go and from which all/most funds come. For them, there's no "my money vs your money"... it's "our money". The idea is that their marriage joins them into a unit, and the money is spent on the unit. For many people $500-600 is a lot, and such a couple would want the decision to be a joint decision.

The crux is to understand that other people don't think exactly the same as you do. Many people will not actually see this as a sign of weakness. I am frequently able to understand why people do things that I would not do, and I'm no kind of genius.

> perhaps it could have been put more diplomatically

As mentioned in my other comment I was relating a phrase that was quite common "back in the day" for editorial purposes. This is what I don't like about the current world. There is no difference between saying someone yourself and relating either history or what someone else might say.

You didn't call out any difference, and you strongly implied that you agreed with this old-fashioned term. And I'm quite confident you did this on purpose, just so that you could come back and whine about how oppressed you are afterwards.

THat's one way of looking at it.

The other way of looking at it (and the way your comment came across) is that you're using 'back in the day' as a means to say what you feel, under the veneer of not actually saying it yourself. After all, if it didn't reflect what you thought, why would the phrase come to mind - and why take the trouble to call it out?

Underscoring this is that it's not actually "back in the day" at all. It's still a term that's commonly used.