Originally Posted by dingedheart
In fact wouldnt a strict feminist argue there should be no gender bias?
Which is my point exactly. We are all adults engaging in adult relationships. We are each individually responsible for our own mental/physical/emotional/financial/etc. health. We can try to help
others maintain their health in these arenas - but it is the ultimate responsibility of the individual to make sure their needs are getting met.
When we are involved with someone we come to agreements as to how stuff gets paid for. When you are dating someone - the restaurant bill gets paid - who pays it (one person, the other person, both people - do they split the bill evenly or just pay for what they got)? This applies on a larger scale to relationships past the dating stage. Where the money comes from and how stuff gets paid for are things that are negotiated within
When/if the relationship ends - why would anyone expect that the financial set up agreed to inside
the relationship would persist? UNLESS there was a prior agreement (pre-nup-esque) that all parties had agreed to. There are, of course, legal statutes dictating exactly this...if any of the people involved happen to be legally married (and it would behoove married people to be somewhat familiar with what they are wherever they are living). (Another case IMO where the government is meddling in things that could be easily covered by civil contracts...but that is another tangent.)
The gender of the involved parties is irrelevant. Which is why I posted my situation as a counter-weight to the original scenario. If someone feels that I wouldn't/shouldn't be on the hook for Dude's expenses if he breaks up with me/I break up with him/ we amicable go our separate ways - then why would they feel that the "other wife" in the first scenario is entitled to compensation?
Now I'm not saying that someone can't
just decide to be nice and pay for "other wife" to fly back to her family - just that I don't think it is REQUIRED and she shouldn't count on it.