Skip to content 
Those concerns themselves were not unreasonable.
The problem was the method.
He could have asked.
After seven years, the couple had enough history to sit down and discuss their financial expectations honestly.
They could have talked about whether both partners planned to work.
They could have discussed how household expenses would be divided.
They could have discussed savings.
They could have compared attitudes toward debt.
They could have decided how large purchases would be handled.
They could have discussed whether personal accounts would remain separate or whether some income would become shared.
They could even have talked specifically about dating expenses.
Any of those conversations would have provided far more useful information about financial compatibility than a single restaurant bill.
A person’s response to an unexpected $190 expense reveals very little about how they would manage a mortgage for twenty years.
It says almost nothing about whether they would save responsibly.
It does not reveal how they would respond to unemployment.
It does not show whether they would hide debt.
It does not indicate whether they would contribute to retirement accounts.
And it certainly does not provide enough evidence to judge their entire approach to marriage.