Limits

[fast]

Hypothetical for the most part:

I truly don't mind helping her out, and if she shares what I give her with others, I'm even okay with that to a certain extent, but if she is excessive with her sharing, then although I still don't mind helping her out, and although I can be tolerant of minimal sharing, I don't want to fit the bill for another's excessive philanthropy, giving, or sharing.

I'm not (or at least I don't want to be) a control freak, and although some people may be of the opinion that it's an all or none proposition, others find the idea of limits or stipulations acceptable. Perhaps people are of mixed opinion depending on what we're talking about, or maybe they deal with it entirely different.

Just to expound on that last paragraph, there are those that firmly believe that if you give someone something, then they ought to be able to do with what they are given as they please, and they may say that if I don't like what they are doing with it, then I can refrain from giving at all--hence the all or none proposition. On the other hand, stipulations on gifts isn't unheard of, and some are quite content on directed giving.

What's the right way to handle such things, and if it depends, or contingent on something in some way, please elaborate. If it's not a matter of right or wrong, then let us know. Any thoughts on the subject (or something somewhat close to the subject) is welcome.

 

[gmbteach]

There have been sit-com episodes that show this scenario is a humorous light. A BBT episode comes to mind in terms of money, anyway.

Unfortunately, you are right in that once you have given something away, you don't have any say in it.

My suggestion would be to limit how much you give away. I wouldn't say how it should be used, but limit it to how much SHE can use, no more, no less.

 

[fast]

There have been sit-com episodes that show this scenario is a humorous light. A BBT episode comes to mind in terms of money, anyway.

Unfortunately, you are right in that once you have given something away, you don't have any say in it.

My suggestion would be to limit how much you give away. I wouldn't say how it should be used, but limit it to how much SHE can use, no more, no less.

I wasn't espousing the view that I have no say in how a gift may be used. I wasn't espousing a view either way. I don't necessarily believe it's wrong, but I think there are a large number of people that do share the opinion you hold.

 

[Petrel]

There are many ways to handle the situation; no single right one.
A gift ought to be unencumbered: the giver hands it over and severs all connection - no requisites, no questions, no reminders, no visitation rights, not even asking where it is or whether the recipient is enjoying it.
Bailout from financial difficulty may come with any number of [relevant] stipulations the giver wishes to attach, and if any stipulations are not met, the giver might request the money back. (Good luck collecting!)
A donation is usually for a stated purpose, and though there are no refunds, the donor would be justified in refusing any further largesse if the funds are misused.

The trick is to be clear, between giver and receiver, how the gift is intended. Communication is difficult, fraught with emotional pitfalls - but essential.

 

[arkirk]

You see somebody who needs help. You give it. And then the recipient of your giving turns around and "pays it forward" to someone else...whose story and character and about everything else is a deep mystery to you. It amounts to negating your goal of helping the original recipient. We are living in a time when there are a lot of people in need of a lot of help. Sometimes however you want to see some benefit gained by the person you gave to in the first place. I understand what fast is talking about.

It is a question of wanting your actions to aid specific people, not to own them, but to be sure they are being helped.

 

[fast]

There are many ways to handle the situation; no single right one.
A gift ought to be unencumbered: the giver hands it over and severs all connection - no requisites, no questions, no reminders, no visitation rights, not even asking where it is or whether the recipient is enjoying it.
Bailout from financial difficulty may come with any number of [relevant] stipulations the giver wishes to attach, and if any stipulations are not met, the giver might request the money back. (Good luck collecting!)
A donation is usually for a stated purpose, and though there are no refunds, the donor would be justified in refusing any further largesse if the funds are misused.

The trick is to be clear, between giver and receiver, how the gift is intended. Communication is difficult, fraught with emotional pitfalls - but essential.

I appreciate your attention to distinctions ... Gift, bailout, donation. It seems I have mis-associated the idea of stipulations of donations with that of gifts. In perhaps words you might use, donations need not be unencumbered.

 

[fast]

You see somebody who needs help. You give it. And then the recipient of your giving turns around and "pays it forward" to someone else...whose story and character and about everything else is a deep mystery to you. It amounts to negating your goal of helping the original recipient. We are living in a time when there are a lot of people in need of a lot of help. Sometimes however you want to see some benefit gained by the person you gave to in the first place. I understand what fast is talking about.

It is a question of wanting your actions to aid specific people, not to own them, but to be sure they are being helped.

Yes, thank you. The only quibble might be that it's not an instance of 'paying it forward' when it's not on their own dime.

 

[Petrel]

It's sound policy to give only what you can afford (both financially and emotionally) to write off.
The only thing you can count on people for is to let you down.

When you expect nothing, any positive outcome is a pleasant surprise.

 

[Under the Rose]

The following example may not quite be on target, but it came to mind.

Years ago, my youngest brother had a Volkswagon and the brake system needed some attention. He lamented the expense of taking it to a shop because he was broke and my first husband helped him make repairs on a cold rainy day, crawling under the vehicle and skinning knuckles etc. in the process.

The next next morning, the little bugger goes and buys an expensive stereo system yet he had 'no money' to fix the critical operating component of the vehicle.

We seriously felt used and abused. (I cooked a nice meal for the mechanical team.)

 

[fromderinside]

Its a fuck your buddy world. The best way to set things up is to assume everybody will cooperate, trust, others. If they disappoint, lump it and go on if it isn't meaningfully critical to you. Otherwise it always ends in disaster. So, as Pinker suggests, Under the Rose should just lump it and go on with life since there will be a point where she will need support form the little fart. Besides grudges are hard on hearts.

 

[rousseau]

A thing a person can also do is act outside of their own interests on purpose just to confuse others. It can be fun, and people usually end up feeling guilty and doing things for you back.

 

[fromderinside]

A thing a person can also do is act outside of their own interests on purpose just to confuse others. It can be fun, and people usually end up feeling guilty and doing things for you back.

Or, by climbing out of their holes get eaten. Come see come saw.

 

[fast]

You see somebody who needs help. You give it. And then the recipient of your giving turns around and "pays it forward" to someone else...whose story and character and about everything else is a deep mystery to you. It amounts to negating your goal of helping the original recipient. We are living in a time when there are a lot of people in need of a lot of help. Sometimes however you want to see some benefit gained by the person you gave to in the first place. I understand what fast is talking about.

It is a question of wanting your actions to aid specific people, not to own them, but to be sure they are being helped.

Yeah, but when they're very compassionate and sharing comes as natural as the day is bright, ...

 

[arkirk]

There have been sit-com episodes that show this scenario is a humorous light. A BBT episode comes to mind in terms of money, anyway.

Unfortunately, you are right in that once you have given something away, you don't have any say in it.

My suggestion would be to limit how much you give away. I wouldn't say how it should be used, but limit it to how much SHE can use, no more, no less.

I wasn't espousing the view that I have no say in how a gift may be used. I wasn't espousing a view either way. I don't necessarily believe it's wrong, but I think there are a large number of people that do share the opinion you hold.

Earlier this year, I had a lady friend who found herself on the street. I had known her for a lot of years and gave her a little shelter on my couch as we were good friends. This was offered and indeed given without any sexual favors being asked or given. My reason was simply that I did not want to see her trying to sleep on the mean streets hereabouts...it was simply a humanitarian giving of shelter to a friend who needed shelter.

This situation lasted for her for several months. Unfortunately, she was a person who sympathized with stray cats and she started bringing them with her into my home. We had some very uncomfortable conflicts over these cats. It was more a matter of learning after the fact, that her sympathies were more with the cats than me...even in my home. This ended up with her having to find other locations to shelter herself because I simply could not have a cat tearing up my belongings in my home.

To her, it seemed like a matter of merely paying it forward to these animals. She lost track of any sense of my needs and it developed into a situation where I had to cause her to leave. This little scenario seems to fit this thread. I had known this woman for years and thought and indeed still think of her a person I would want to help in time of need, but I did find that I did not know everything about her. When the cat rescue aspect of her preferences came to the fore, my own charitable nature became taxed to the point where I had to withdraw my help. Somehow, she and I are still friends, but there are certain things that cannot be.

Giving shelter to someone in need can balloon into giving shelter to every cat or dog when you do not have the means to support that effort. It simply was a bridge I could not cross. Fast's remarks seem to point to the fact that he has empathy to the degree that sometimes it bites him in the ass. It really is just a matter of not knowing everything in advance...we are not perfect beings, even if we are charitable. Despite this liability, I doubt I will ever give up on helping my friends...but perhaps add a few conditions earlier.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Not, I think, the same situation but maybe relevant.

A friend, who is better off financially than I am, wanted to build an outdoor pizza oven but said she didn't have the cash for materials. The bricks I had lying around doing nothing happened to be handcrafted, very old bricks. I made a few trips in the ute and delivered them to her door. Noticed that the pizza oven wasn't getting built and suspect that the bricks were sold.

I gave her stuff, and did the work to get it to her, because I wanted my friend to benefit. If they were going to be sold for cash I would have been just as happy to do it myself.

In your situation, fast, I bet you have social areas where you have an interest and would be happy to support. One of them seems to be your friend and it feels a bit like betrayal? when you help her and she doesn't seem to need what she asked for, judging by her actions.

If it is genuinely her generous spirit, I think the thing you have to consider is not what limits you place on her, but where you hit your own limits.

It's hard to tell someone else how to view and interact with the world.

 

[fast]

Thoughtful posts...thank you