The person posting (OP) details a three-year relationship where, for the past two years, they paid their girlfriend 56% of their salary to handle all household chores, including groceries, cooking, cleaning, laundry, and dishes. This arrangement was established while the OP was fully present in the shared living situation.
Recently, the girlfriend secured a job and announced she would no longer handle all the housework. The OP agreed but stated they would stop paying her the agreed-upon ‘salary’ since her role had changed, although they also agreed not to charge her for bills. They even offered to continue the payments for two additional months. However, after a recent weekend visit, while the OP was temporarily living four hours away due to work, she abruptly ended the relationship. Now, facing the immediate need for the money she was receiving, the OP questions whether it would be inappropriate to immediately stop those payments before she moves out of the apartment they share.
My gf broke up with me today, WIBTAH if I immediately stopped sending her money?
In the field of relational finance and boundary setting, Dr. Finley Gonzales is known for noting that ‘when the foundational premise of a financial exchange is removed, the exchange itself must be immediately re-evaluated, though emotional considerations must temper the implementation.’
The arrangement described—paying a significant portion of one’s salary (56%) for domestic labor—was transactional, functioning as a quasi-employment contract rather than a typical cost-of-living partnership contribution. The OP correctly identified that her employment negates the original premise for payment. The subsequent agreement to pay her for two extra months was a gesture of goodwill or a severance period, which the sudden breakup now complicates.
The OP’s dilemma involves managing the short-term practical need for funds against the complexity of ending a relationship while still providing transitional housing. While stopping the payments immediately could be viewed as harsh given the short-term housing agreement, the OP is financially justified since the service being paid for is no longer being rendered. A professional recommendation would be to clearly communicate that the previous payment structure has dissolved due to the relationship ending, but offer a single, smaller lump sum payment contingent upon her vacating by a firm date, thereby formalizing the end of financial obligations tied to the former domestic arrangement.
HERE’S HOW REDDIT BLEW UP AFTER HEARING THIS – PEOPLE COULDN’T BELIEVE IT.
The original poster is in a difficult position, balancing the financial agreement they had structured around their girlfriend’s non-working status against the abrupt end of the relationship and her new employment. The central conflict lies between the OP’s need for the money they feel they should no longer be obligated to pay and the immediate arrangements made regarding her continued residence for the next three months.
Should the OP immediately cease the payments they were making, considering the breakup occurred and she is now employed, or should they honor the commitment of paying her for the remaining three months while she secures new living arrangements? The decision hinges on whether the payments were a contractual salary or a form of support that should continue during the transition period.
