Boyfriend Uses Joint Savings to Purchase Pricey Item, Leaving Partner Questioning Their Relationship

An anonymous poster turned to Reddit aft their fellow made a astonishment acquisition utilizing their associated savings, leaving them questioning their financial dynamics and spot successful their relationship. 

In nan post, nan personification explained that their partner bought a PlayStation 5 without discussing it pinch them first. When they confronted him astir this, he justified nan acquisition by saying it was "not conscionable for him” and they could some usage it.

However, nan poster pointed retired that they don’t moreover play video games. “I told him that spending our shared money connected thing only he wants was selfish," they wrote.

The fellow past became defensive, claiming nan gaming instrumentality was “for nan house" earlier trying to guilt-trip them. He suggested that they had nary correct to beryllium upset, insisting that he would person allowed them to bargain thing if they really wanted it.

Regardless, nan Reddit personification said they would ne'er walk their savings connected thing without consulting their partner first. “I said that’s not nan aforesaid because I’d ne'er driblet our savings connected thing without asking," they emphasized.

Still, nan fellow dismissed their concerns, insisting they were overreacting and should beryllium happy for him since nan PS5 brings him joy. He besides told his friends astir nan situation, and they took his side.

“He besides said astir of his friends deliberation ‘it’s not that serious,’ but I consciousness for illustration it’s a immense breach of trust,” nan poster wrote. Given their vexation and disappointment, nan personification is reasoning astir not contributing to their shared savings anymore.

Never miss a communicative — motion up for PEOPLE's free regular newsletter to enactment up-to-date connected nan champion of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from personage news to compelling quality liking stories.

“I told him I would reconsider if I would put money successful nan savings again,” they wrote, noting that they had antecedently agreed to adhd money monthly for their “future life," which seems to nary longer beryllium nan case.

Many Reddit users supported nan poster’s stance, agreeing that nan fellow was retired of line.

“At nan very least, OP shouldn’t beryllium putting costs into this associated relationship until he’s made up what nan PS5 costs," 1 commenter pointed out." OP, if he tried to propulsion nan ‘It’s for nan house’ bs again, you person to beryllium firm.” 

Another personification suggested an replacement approach: “Either he reimburses you what you contributed to nan fund, aliases arsenic co-owner, you person nan correct to onsell it to recoup funds. It’s not for nan location if you besides don’t person a opportunity successful what happens to it.” 

Whether nan poster and their fellow tin resoluteness this rumor whitethorn dangle connected whether he acknowledges nan effect of his actions and takes steps to rebuild that trust.