Dear Eric >> My husband and I, both happily retired with good pensions and Social Security, make our weekly grocery trips together. We take turns paying with our flight-points credit cards. Once the bill arrives, we split the cost of our groceries down the middle, sharing the expenses equally for everything we purchase at our preferred grocery store.

Our grocery shopping typically includes a few low-cost personal favorites that not both of us enjoy eating, but for the sake of simplicity, we have agreed to split the grocery costs evenly, 50/50.

My husband sometimes indulges in a piece of costly, extra-smoked pork he orders online from a specialty shop. I dislike it (the smell alone is off-putting to me), so I don’t eat it. He insists that I should also share the cost of this, based on our agreement to split the cost of groceries. However, since it’s a special order for himself, I don’t believe I should be responsible for half the cost, which he thinks is unfair and disloyal to our agreement. I find it unreasonable to pay for something that’s ordered outside our normal grocery purchases, that is pricier than our usual groceries and that I won’t consume. Who is being unreasonable here?

— Grocery Grousing

Dear Grocery >> Probably both of you, and the shop that is pricing the pork. I think your husband is being more unreasonable than you, frankly, because you made an agreement. But this is so needlessly complicated, it’s amazing that it didn’t become an issue earlier.

Is all food groceries or is only food purchased inside the grocery store groceries? What if you buy Girl Scout cookies on the curb outside the store?

Most importantly, what is this really about?

Do you feel that you’re being more fiscally responsible and don’t have the same opportunity for indulgences? If so, it’s wise to carve out two separate lines in the budget for indulgences — one for you, one for him. If he blows all his budget on one or two pork purchases and you still have yours to do with whatever you want, thems the breaks.

But, again, think and talk about what is really going on here. Is this about feeling financial insecurity? Is this about an unequal share of household responsibilities? Is the pork a reflection of a pattern of cavalier behavior? All of these can be worked on and discussed. But to do so you have to get to the meat of the problem.

Dear Eric >> As a retired dental hygienist, I feel the need to add some critical information for the 74-year-old who wants to refuse dental treatment and feels railroaded into making appointments (“Dental Dilemma”).

What this individual needs is for the provider to explain and show them what is happening in their mouth. These days we have digital X-rays and intraoral cameras. Dental personnel can use these tools to magnify on the computer screen the problem areas so they can be pointed out to a layperson.

Many older people take multiple medications that have dry mouth as a side effect. Saliva is a natural cleansing agent and helps to keep the bad bacteria away. Add dry mouth to poor tooth brushing and flossing due to a loss of dexterity as we age, and one could wind up with a mouthful of decay, as well as periodontal disease.

Perhaps Dental Dilemma could get a second opinion from another dentist if they’re not comfortable asking for better explanations. Just like cancer left untreated grows, small dental issues have a way of becoming big dental issues.

— Veteran Hygienist

Dear Hygienist >> Thank you for this perspective. I agree — dental health is extremely important, and the letter writer should also strongly consider seeking another opinion or getting a more in-depth explanation of the problems that the first dentist is concerned about. It can often be hard to advocate for oneself in medical settings, but taking the time to ask questions until one understands will help patient and provider.

Send questions to R. Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com