Was called a mean bitch the other day just because I have high standards.

[Miah123456789]

Hi! Well I'm new at this so.. Ur not shallow! And yea everybody thinks becuz u like a man with money that u jus like them for that reason. But u shouldn't believe everybody because obviously they don't know wat they are talking about!! Thx for listening

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Feelsgoodman

No, I wouldn't complain. But I also wouldn't feel entitled to her nice gesture or think that it was owed to me.

 

You wouldn't complain. You would probably even feel good that a woman went to the trouble for you. As you should. It would be a nice gesture on her part.

 

The mistake you make is the idea that women feel "entitled". I don't feel entitled. But I like traditionalism. And I like when a man pays. And that doesn't make me entitled or a gold digger.

 

The guys on here are always talking about how biologically they are driven to seen attractive mates. How worthless a woman is after a certain age. Fine. Well I am biologically driven to seek a mate that wants to willingly share his resources with me and shows me that he is open to that. It doesn't beget me to be with a man that's counting his coins everytime he lets me in his front door.

 

What you obviously don't get is that it's the attitude of entitlement displayed by the likes of the OP that makes men resent paying for women. It's not necessarily about the money itself.

 

I didn't like her attitude either to be honest. And I told her that.

 

Attitude accounts for a lot doesn't it. It's frustrating to hear about how your gender is measured. I've read so many threads on here about how worthless women are after the reach a certain age. A lot of guys on here foster that opinon of women. Not much different then women that feel entitled to a man's wealth and determines his worth that way. It's time for some grace and compassion on both sides.

 

I wouldn't go that far

 

Yeah, well apparently I'm smarter then you since your arguments against me were pretty lame to begin with and your argument changed from the idea of having to pay to the idea of it being the attitude behind hind it. This entire thread was about men complaining about having to pay until I said some comments and then all the sudden it turned into it being about the attitude.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Disenchantedly Yours

[mesmerized]

You wouldn't complain. You would probably even feel good that a woman went to the trouble for you. As you should. It would be a nice gesture on her part.

 

The mistake you make is the idea that women feel "entitled". I don't feel entitled. But I like traditionalism. And I like when a man pays. And that doesn't make me entitled or a gold digger.

 

The guys on here are always talking about how biologically they are driven to seen attractive mates. How worthless a woman is after a certain age. Fine. Well I am biologically driven to seek a mate that wants to willingly share his resources with me and shows me that he is open to that. It doesn't beget me to be with a man that's counting his coins everytime he lets me in his front door.

 

 

 

I didn't like her attitude either to be honest. And I told her that.

 

Attitude accounts for a lot doesn't it. It's frustrating to hear about how your gender is measured. I've read so many threads on here about how worthless women are after the reach a certain age. A lot of guys on here foster that opinon of women. Not much different then women that feel entitled to a man's wealth and determines his worth that way. It's time for some grace and compassion on both sides.

 

SOOO TRUE! Each gender wants things in tradition that are still in their favor and they ignore the rest. Time to grow the eff up, find the frontal lobe of your brain, and realize you can't have it all. If you are a woman and want to be free and respected as an equal, you better understand that it comes with some financial responsibility and you can't expect men to tolerate your dumb ass. If you are a man and you don't want to be taken advantage of for money and have a woman that can only talk about different receipes she has tried in her life, you better realize that you can't probably get the youngest hottest thing that is also not crazy and expect her to be faithful to your undesirable self for the rest of her life.

[Woggle]

If more women want this they should learn how to inspire this in men without making them feel like it is demanded. It's like owning a business. You don't sit there and demand people buy from you and insult them if they don't. You offer people something of quality for their buck. If you want a man to spend on you do the same thing.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

TheBigQuestion

Just as in the thread I started a few weeks back, you once again prove that you either have an agenda or you just aren't very good at reading.

 

That's adorably very Pink and the Brain of you, saying I have an "agenda". I'm going to take over the world with my personal opinons on love and relationships. Maybe you're the one with an "agenda".

 

I didn't complain about "buying a movie ticket." All I've done is repeatedly ask why it is that society EXPECTS a man to buy that ticket for a complete stranger...

 

For the same reason society expects me as a woman to conform to the ideals of beauty men like in women. When was the last time you had to shave your legs for a date? Buy make up so you could pull off that "natural" look that isn't natural at all.

 

Did I miss the part where you apparently bought a movie ticket and then pulled a woman off the street and asked her if she wanted it? Because that would be a "complete stranger". If you liked a girl and didn't know her too well but asked her out, she isn't a "complete stranger". She's a girl you want to get to know. If you don't want to pay for her, don't. There are plenty of women happy to pay for themselves. Aren't you even dating a woman like that right now? Or am I mistaken?

 

... and then simultaneously allows him to be scorned for choosing not to do so. And further, why is the opposite scenario never in issue? Why is it that I don't get up in arms like many women in this thread have if a woman isn't taking me out to dinners or buying me trinkets early on?

 

Why don't men get up in arms about being used for sex? Infact, men dream about being used for just no string sex.

 

Because men and women are DIFFERENT.

 

 

 

And of course, when I presented an alternative to dating that worked for me (that also worked on women regardless of what kind of treatment they were previously accustomed to), I was mostly met with disbelief and anger from female posters. That wasn't surprising but it was disappointing that most of the responders failed to argue without making idiotic appeals to emotion.

 

You're "feelings" on this subject are just that "feelings" themselves. Emotions. It's what *you* want. Based on pure "feeling". So don't you dare sit there all high and mighty and say that everyone is having "idiotic emotions". You want a certain kind of women. No problem with that. A number of women also said they like to pay for themselves. find a woman like that. Don't condemn al lthe other women that don't fit into your criteria. I don't smoke and I'm not a smoker. I'm not going to date a smoker and then whine about how he smokes and try to get him to quit.

 

No one has provided an explanation to this overarching question that actually makes sense, and because I'm a tenacious bastard, I'm going to keep asking it anyway.

 

No you got many good answers. They just aren't the answers *you* want. They aren't the answers that *you* already formulated in your head. This has nothing to do with positive tenciousness. This is all about "you" marathon about wanting everyone to see dating your way.

 

Additionally, no one in this thread is talking about expensive first dates/early dates either. I (and other guys in this thread) are simply arguing against the idea that there is a valid justification for treating women preferentially in such a manner, regardless of cost.

 

Actually, a few said that it was the attitude that bothered them most. Although I suspect it's the money too.

 

If this is about inexpensive dates, then this entire converation seems petty.

 

There aren't very many social conventions in which paying for something for a total stranger is not only recommended, but also that if the person chooses not to pay, that person is subject to scorn.

 

Oh Goodness. You aren't going out with "total" strangers. You are going out with women you are potentially interested in.

 

My question is, why is the social convention of dating different? Saying "it's tradition" or "That's the way it's always been" is a stupid response, because upholding tradition for tradition's sake has rarely done humanity any good. Saying "it's just my preference" is also a stupid response, because having a "preference" doesn't necessarily make it permissible. I'm sure you can think of many preferences that one can have that are stupid or flat out wrong.

 

You're preference to complain about paying seems like both those things. And that's all your preference is..just a "preference". Just like women who like a man to pay have a "preference".

 

By the way, it's actually a biological imperitive that women are more receptitive to men that are more willing to share their resources with her. It bodes well for her survival and the survival of her children if her protector and provider happily offers and shares his resources with her. Is that a "stupid" response?

[phineas]

I honestly do feel sorry for women who feel their "giving" men sex.

A woman who thinks that is the most valuable thing they have to offer me is not someone I would not be interested in.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Contrary to what an old and outdated saying would have you believe, the way to a man's heart is not though his stomach. You know what men ultimately want from women, so why not selflessly give up right away?

 

 

I'm not cooking him a dinner because I think it's a way to his heart. We are talking about dating, dinning and costs and the ability for men and women to relate to each other. So answer my question. If a man takes me out on a date and I should pay my share, and I cook a man a meal, then I should also ask him to pay his share right? After all, I paid for those groceries AND made him that meal. Perhaps I should attach a tip to go with just so things are even in money and work given.

[carhill]

When I was dating decades ago and a woman invited me for dinner, I'd bring a bottle of wine, flowers from my garden for the table and a homemade dessert. Fail

[Disenchantedly Yours]

If you don't feel entitled, then you wouldn't hold it against a man if he didn't pay for you on dates and acted "traditionally". If that's the case, we are having an argument about nothing.

 

And by the way, I don't think you really mean it when you say that you like "traditionalism". I really doubt that you, for instance, like being physically disciplined with a trouser belt when you get out of line or if the dinner is not ready by the time your boyfriend gets home from work. I'm guessing you only like "traditionalism" to the extent that it benefits women. In that sense, you are just like the OP...you want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

I don't hold it againt a man if he doesn't pay for me on dates. He just isn't the man for me. It's no different then if I discovered that a man was a swinger. It's not a lifestyle I'm interested in. We just aren't suited for each other. Which is what I have been trying to tell Big Question. There are women out there for him. Many that said they like to pay for themselves. He needs to find one of those women instead of complaining about the women that aren't like that. they need a different kind of man and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I didn't realize traditionalism was tied into being women with trouser belts. In my world that's just called abuse. Traditionalism is about more stereotypical gender roles. If you are talking about me being the one to cook meals, do the grocery shopping and the laundry. And I'm fine with all those. But forgive me if I don't consider abuse a type of traditionalism like you seem to.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

When I was dating decades ago and a woman invited me for dinner, I'd bring a bottle of wine, flowers from my garden for the table and a homemade dessert. Fail

 

 

What do you mean "fail?". I've had men cook me dinner and I would always offer to make the desert and bring a bottle of wine myself.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

If more women want this they should learn how to inspire this in men without making them feel like it is demanded. It's like owning a business. You don't sit there and demand people buy from you and insult them if they don't. You offer people something of quality for their buck. If you want a man to spend on you do the same thing.

 

I agree with you Woggle! And you managed to get out some insightful stuff without mentioning the ills of womanhood in the process.

 

And I think we both agree that the same could be said for men.

[samsungxoxo]

I really doubt that you, for instance, like being physically disciplined with a trouser belt when you get out of line or if the dinner is not ready by the time your boyfriend gets home from work.

Hitting anyone with a belt is assault. He can do that only if he wants to become the ex bf and also find himself with battery charges that same day.

[SteveC80]

If more women want this they should learn how to inspire this in men without making them feel like it is demanded. It's like owning a business. You don't sit there and demand people buy from you and insult them if they don't. You offer people something of quality for their buck. If you want a man to spend on you do the same thing.

 

Amen..I spent some time in canada and the women there were so much more down to earth and approachable..

 

So many women here are entitled and have the princess syndrome..They think theyre entitled to things because they havea vagina and look halfway decent..when you ask them to bring somehtign other then that to the table theyre dumbfounded..

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I already explained the underlying dynamic to the best of my ability. Everyone seems to have understood what I was saying...except for you. I think the other poster is right. You either have an agenda or are extremely obtuse.

 

Who is "everyone"? No one said they agreed with your comparison.

 

I asked you to answer my question. You either can or you can't. The issue of this thread has been about why women can't pay their own way. If you want women to pay their own way on dates, fair enough. Then you would naturally also want a man to pay for the groceries he ate for when a woman made him a meal. Because that would be even. And that's what this is about isn't it.."even".

 

LOL. That's like saying I have nothing against arabs...I just wouldn't sit next to one on a plane.

 

If you wouldn't date a man who met all your other requirements because he wasn't paying for you, then yes, you are most definitely holding it against him. You can play with semantics all you want but you are not fooling anyone.

 

No, it's like saying "i have nothing agaisnt swingers, I just wouldn't want to be IN a relationship with a swinger since we have different expectations for our relationship." Don't try to dirty up the conversation with cheap anidotes of implied racism.

 

Holding it against a man that doesn't pay is when I get mad, angry or act bitch because he didn't agree with my own desire for style of dating. Realizing we aren't a match because of his style of dating or his expectations for our relationships is what dating is all about. And the only one playing with semantics here is you by pulling some nonsense about arabs when I clearly made a comparison to another type of relationships style (swingers) I also wouldn't be open to.

 

We all are allowed to have relatoinships in the manner we most enjoy. If you want a girl that pays her half, please seek that out. And when you encounter girls that expect you to pay, don't go out with her again. I think that's a GOOD idea. You need to find a girl that is in line with how you feel is a good way to conduct a relationship.And I would never think you were holding it against a girl just because you discovered your expectations about a relationship where different from each other.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Disenchantedly Yours

[Woggle]

I agree with you Woggle! And you managed to get out some insightful stuff without mentioning the ills of womanhood in the process.

 

And I think we both agree that the same could be said for men.

 

The same can be said for men as well. I think that sadly both genders these days tend to look at each other as the enemy that you have to get over on instead of an object of affection and that is a shame.

 

I am not condoning but I think that men have been getting so many conflicting messages while the rules for how a man should act and what women want seem to change weekly and there is a backlash against that. Men are looking at all the conflicting ways that society has tried to remake manhood and are saying the hell with this crap.

 

A bit off topic but are you a poster that used to post on here called Jersey Shortie? She loved Jon Stewart and was from Jersey as well.

[TheBigQuestion]

That's adorably very Pink and the Brain of you, saying I have an "agenda". I'm going to take over the world with my personal opinons on love and relationships. Maybe you're the one with an "agenda".

 

 

For the same reason society expects me as a woman to conform to the ideals of beauty men like in women. When was the last time you had to shave your legs for a date? Buy make up so you could pull off that "natural" look that isn't natural at all.

 

Did I miss the part where you apparently bought a movie ticket and then pulled a woman off the street and asked her if she wanted it? Because that would be a "complete stranger". If you liked a girl and didn't know her too well but asked her out, she isn't a "complete stranger". She's a girl you want to get to know. If you don't want to pay for her, don't. There are plenty of women happy to pay for themselves. Aren't you even dating a woman like that right now? Or am I mistaken?

 

 

 

Why don't men get up in arms about being used for sex? Infact, men dream about being used for just no string sex.

 

Because men and women are DIFFERENT.

 

 

You're "feelings" on this subject are just that "feelings" themselves. Emotions. It's what *you* want. Based on pure "feeling". So don't you dare sit there all high and mighty and say that everyone is having "idiotic emotions". You want a certain kind of women. No problem with that. A number of women also said they like to pay for themselves. find a woman like that. Don't condemn al lthe other women that don't fit into your criteria. I don't smoke and I'm not a smoker. I'm not going to date a smoker and then whine about how he smokes and try to get him to quit.

 

 

 

No you got many good answers. They just aren't the answers *you* want. They aren't the answers that *you* already formulated in your head. This has nothing to do with positive tenciousness. This is all about "you" marathon about wanting everyone to see dating your way.

 

 

 

Actually, a few said that it was the attitude that bothered them most. Although I suspect it's the money too.

 

If this is about inexpensive dates, then this entire converation seems petty.

 

 

 

Oh Goodness. You aren't going out with "total" strangers. You are going out with women you are potentially interested in.

 

 

You're preference to complain about paying seems like both those things. And that's all your preference is..just a "preference". Just like women who like a man to pay have a "preference".

 

By the way, it's actually a biological imperitive that women are more receptitive to men that are more willing to share their resources with her. It bodes well for her survival and the survival of her children if her protector and provider happily offers and shares his resources with her. Is that a "stupid" response?

 

As far as avoiding the "stranger" dilemma, my thread about this very subject addressed a way to avoid that. Save for a few women, I was basically raked over coals for even suggesting my alternative. Either way, there really isn't anything that separates a "total stranger" from a "girl I know a little bit." The bottom line is that I don't know much about the person in either situation, and I happen to think that getting to know the girl and building attraction without the constraints of traditional dating is mutually beneficial.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to prove here. Yes, I do have emotions. Emotions do not equal beliefs, and preferences do not equal either. When it comes to beliefs and preferences, however, I like to have some sort of rational basis for them. If you don't think your beliefs and preferences should be based on some degree of rationality, that's your prerogative, but don't expect anyone to take your beliefs or preferences seriously if that's the case.

 

 

Yes, I am dating someone. I've never discussed my beliefs about who pays for dates with my girlfriend because it is a non-issue in our relationship. What I do know is that, like most young women today, she was used to having guys take her out and insist on paying, and she had admitted that the guy paying ultimately had little bearing on whether they were compatible, and even after paying, that would be frequently the end of the road for their interactions anyway. I did nothing of the sort. I got to know her better by hanging out with her in a broader social context, where there was conversation, a romantic connection, and physicality well before either one of us spent a cent on each other. How much I spend on her now is an entirely different story. As you know from reading my thread, I encourage spending money on significant others. The caveat is that they need to actually be a significant other first, not "the girl I met at Starbucks that I'm now going out on a date with."

 

And I can't speak for everyone else, but the cost of dating is not and has not been an issue for me. It's the expectation and the undeserved sense of entitlement inherent in this issue that encourages me to talk about it. That and the fact that I've found ways to circumvent the issue even with women are used to being "taken care of."

 

I never denied that it was a biological imperative. I'm willing to share my resources with someone who demonstrates a commitment to me. Just because I fail to see the need to spend money on a woman who I barely know does not mean I'm contradicting some biological imperative.

[xxoo]

If you wouldn't date a man who met all your other requirements because he wasn't paying for you, then yes, you are most definitely holding it against him. You can play with semantics all you want but you are not fooling anyone.

 

If deciding that he is not a good match for me is "holding it against him", then sure, I'd hold it against him.

 

But I'd still talk him up to my hot best friend, if she were preferred to go dutch.

[OnyxSnowfall]

LOL. That's like saying I have nothing against arabs...I just wouldn't sit next to one on a plane.

 

If you wouldn't date a man who met all your other requirements because he wasn't paying for you, then yes, you are most definitely holding it against him. You can play with semantics all you want but you are not fooling anyone.

 

Your logic once again reeks of fail *pats*... it's not even close to an equivalent of your attempt at a simile.

 

Besides, it's really far-stretched that someone would know within the first few dates if their date met all of their other requirements

 

If someone doesn't pass someone's desired "screening" process, it simply is what it is.

Edited October 4, 2011 by OnyxSnowfall

[musemaj11]

And what if he's still cheap and is into just playing around.. then my guess is I wasted enery giving him pleasure... this would mean I was played for a fool.

And what if after I take a woman out and spends some money on her for two three dates she suddenly disappears? Then my guess is I wasted energy giving her pleasure. This would mean I was played for a fool. Its risky.

 

God you women seem to be so illogical. Its as if its impossible for you all to see things from the other point of view.

[musemaj11]

coming from a man with money, to be honest, it's easier if you're honest and that's what you want.

 

that's why men with money wind up with what other people call "gold diggers". it's easier. women who value their independence more than their relationships are not relationship material. they don't know what they want. women who want a man with money are pretty cut and dried in their wants and needs, and from the man's standpoint, you can reduce it to simple dollars and cents. i have x amount and you can spend y amount. simple.

 

keep at it, you'll find one.

Although I very much agree that its much easier to spend dollars into a woman's heart than trying to come up with something creative and thoughtful that requires effort and time, but somehow I cant brush off this feeling in the back of my mind that by spending money on her, Im buying the time that she spends with me.

[musemaj11]

Lets say I start dating a man. It's in the early stages of dating. He's working late one night in his office by himself.I call him up to see what he is doing. He is hungry and tired. I ask him if it's all right to stop by with a surprise and I come up with a beautiful dinner for him so he can eat. I guess I shouldn't do something like that. After all, he didn't do it for me. He's just a lazy cheap skate that wanted me to get him dinner! That's basically what you guys are saying.

What? It was you who offered to bring him dinner. He didnt expect it. Even if you didnt bring him dinner, he wouldnt mind. Thats totally different than you expecting a man to pay for you on dates otherwise you wont want to see them again. One is a bonus, while the other is a requirement.

[musemaj11]

Not like it is has gotten me anywhere....

 

Seeing how some men take letting them pay as a measure of interest.

 

Or don't feel manly unless they pay.

 

I really, really feel I'm just being consistent in my 'feminist' values... and that we all need to pitch in... work together to bail water out of this 'boat of life' we're all trying to sail through.

Many men always insist on paying because it has been so ingrained in them to do so. And many men also always insist on paying because they know most women expect the men to pay (as even shown in this very thread) so they just insist to pay for the sake of playing safe.

 

I for example hate having to pay on dates so much (it makes me feel like Im paying for the time she spends with me), but I always insisted on paying on dates because I was aware that chances are the woman I was dating was the kind that expected men to pay even if they pretended to offer because to be realistic, women who dont expect men to pay are very rare. At the moment, my personal belief is that if I have to pay for love then so be it even if I hate it.

[oaks]

Hate to ruin a fantasy, but James Bond isn't spending his own money...he's got a nice expense account courtesy of the MI6. It's easy to be generous when you're spending someone else's dough

 

As a British taxpayer myself, he's spending my money!

 

Oh, wait, it's fiction.

[denise_xo]

So automatically if I appreciate that a man can afford to pick up the tab, and I don't offer to pitch in, im a golddigger?

 

This will sound very bitter, but i'm sick of dating poor men who can't afford to take me out on one decent date. I don't know what it feels like to be taken care of, where a man can say "You know what, you spent so much time getting pretty, you look great, let me take you out and show you a good time".

 

I want to date a man with money because I want to know what that feels like to be the woman, to have a man take charge, take control, have everything figured out. I don't think thats shallow.

 

Are you serious?

[In A Rut]

My role in life is to support myself and family members if needed. If a woman wants me to financially support her then she'll receive a Chris Paterson styled kick out of my life with immediate effect.