comment: >
  
  
  (a) they're failing to fully commit to a comprehensive, lifelong bond - so their prioritization of individuality is intrinsically at odds with the mindsets and strategies that are conducive to a healthy and fulfilling marriage.
  
  Perhaps others have a different interpretation of what needs to happen in order to maintain a lifelong bond. I think its foolhardy to claim that every lifelong bond is predicated on shared finances. I've had lifelong friends but we don't have joint bank accounts. I'd argue that not allowing individuality into a relationship is a recipe for failure. Couples need space to also be themselves. Having a secure attachment is predicated upon this. 
  
  (b) they're making it easier to divorce, which creates a psychological propensity and self-fulfilling prophecy that they actually will divorce.
  
  And likewise if I don't psychologically abuse my wife and gaslight her into thinking I'm all she has I'm making it easier for her to divorce. You really shouldn't focus your relationship on making it harder for your spouse to leave you. Makes it seem like you're not a good spouse.
  Edit: OP pwease wespond. Also ayy lmao someone in these comments has me blocked for some reason
  Edit 2: still awaiting OP, the light is fading
  Edit 3: alas, I have yet to be blessed with a response from OP. OP left me but a tease, I yearn for OP's attention.
context: /u/Mr-Homemaker (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  One nice thing about having separate finances is that a couple can still make meaningful financial gestures of caring to one another.
  Combine finances, and treating someone to a date or buying a gift seems less meaningful, because those gestures are made from shared resources.
  Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage.  If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
  every partnership is going to be different.  Having separate accounts can both head of some marital disagreements AND enable some loving gestures in some couples.  
  Maybe your partnership isn't one of those.  But, for some partners, this kind of approach is helpful >
  
  
  Different spending priorities can also be a source of conflict in a marriage.  If partners agree on shared expenses and shared saving plans, and both partners stick to that, then there can be less arguments or guilt over frivolous spending if the money is spent from a personal account.
  
  If there is that level of coordination, I think I would regard that as merged / joint finances. You're just proposing using multiple accounts for efficiency; but not for "individuality" - so that seems like Exception 2 in OP.
  Am I missing something ? >
  
  if one partner gets extra income or a raise, does that go to the joint account (with maybe a discussed increase to the individual account) or does that go to the individual account (with maybe a discussed increase in contribution to the shared account)?
  If the former, maybe that falls under (2).  if the latter, it sounds more like separate finances with shared expenses to me. >
  
  It seems a bit backward that one of your stipulations is about gambling addiction. You’re basically saying relationships involving an addiction get more freedom than other relationships. You’re functionally rewarding addiction.
  To take this a step further, if you’re saying it works for couples involving addiction, why can’t it work for others? Does addiction somehow give those couples more ability to be healthy without combining finances? >
  
  Your objection seems to be based on a misunderstanding of my stipulation.
  I'm not saying a gambling problem (etc) leads to a reward. Rather, I'm saying it's a valid reason to exclude the compromised spouse from having fully equal authority over shared assets
  Does that clarification help ? >
  
  Not quite. I’m saying that, if it can work for people in that situation, why can’t it work for others? >
  
  But I think we're inadvertently 180 degrees off.
  I'm advocating for joint assets and joint management.
  In the case of gambling problem (etc), I'm allowing for joint assets but UNEQUAL management (so you can't gamble your house at the poker table).
  You seem to be confusing that with two spouses having separate financial lives.
  So I think you misunderstood.
  TLDR: In my system, the gambler has a short leash of an allowance; otherwise, I'd promote joint management of finances. So a short leash (eg allowance) is not a reward foe gambling. It's a firewall. >
  
  So in your situation, finances would be combined but only the non gambler would make financial decisions? I just want to make sure I understand your point of view. >
  
  Combined = Yes
  Decisions = Ideally still joint, but in the eyes of the bank (etc) only the non-gambler can actually execute a decision.
  You don't want the gambler being able to drain the 401(k) or college fund or whatever while on a spree in Vegas ... so their cards and name can't access all the accounts ... but in the normal course of things I would still expect they'd collaborate and set their financial strategy together >
  
  So basically, you’ve pointed out a scenario that deviates from the norm. That’s the whole dispute to your argument. One relationship is so different from the next that we can’t really generalize. If you want to say that the average relationship is best off with combined finances, that may be right. But relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. I’m a couples therapist so I’ve seen tons of different types of relationships. There’s really no one size fits all approach. There are just so many variations of marriages that I think your overall view is too prescriptive and general even if it applies to a good amount of relationships. >
  
  
  relationships constantly deviate from the norm, as you’ve depicted with your gambling addict example. ... There’s really no one size fits all approach.
  
  So I don't know that it's called but this must be some kind of logical fallacy.  You're saying "there are exceptions to the rule" and "there's great diversity among relationships."
  Well there are exceptions and diversity among individuals' health and fitness. But we still say things like "you should drink water every day" and "don't smoke a pack of cigarettes" and "you should exercise 4 times each week" 
  ...
  Now, I'm sure we could think of exceptions to these rules and point to ranges on the spectrum of diverse biological situations such that one or more of these or a number of similar boilerplate pieces of health / fitness / lifestyle advice do NOT fit.
  ...
  But we still all recognize and accept that - on the whole - these are good pieces of advice to promulgate and follow.
  //
  So I have a hard time with the structure of your argument that I ought not or validly cannot promote a general principle about couples merging finances as part of married life just as I should promote a general principle about eating right and getting enough exercise. >
  
  But you said never aside from certain exceptions. By your own criteria, there shouldn’t be all these exceptions, yet tons of them exist. I suppose you’ve given yourself an out since you can chalk any counter example up to being an exception, but surely at some point, your point is just wrong.
  Where you see exceptions, I see relationships that don’t ascribe to a completely rigid and white, hetereonormative structure of relationships. Your view is extremely privileged and rigid, and instead of accepting that others may structure relationships in a different way, you just dismiss them as exceptions.
  Honestly, comparing people with separate finances (outside of gambling addictions or other exceptions) to people who think smoking is not unhealthy or that exercise doesn’t contribute to health is offensive. >
  
  Well thank you for your time and contribution.