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

[In A Rut]

You see?

 

Double standard.

 

A man is allowed to want a beautiful woman, and thats okay.

 

But the moment a woman wants a successful man, she's a golddigger.

 

That's so off-putting. This is the reason Russians are considered golddiggers, cuz the men of this country don't get it. Russian men never complain.

 

That's why Russian women always dress up and try to look nice, and Russian men work hard and try to make money. They get it.

 

Yes yes, why don't you find a Russian man then? I'm working on it. I just don't understand why women are threatened and feel "taken control over" if a an pays, and men are threatened if a woman wants a successful man who has money.

 

A woman can want whatever she wants, but she won't get a single thing from me, I only care about myself, my close friends and immediate family - not some girl who has agreed to go on a single, solidatry "date" with me.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I always love it when people promote their personal dating preferences and call it 'biological' imperitive.... as if they have no choice in the matter.

 

Ok, ladies... if you prefer to be paid for and call that 'biological imperitive', then don't complain when your gent dumps you for a hot young thing while you are pregnant and he calls that 'biological imperitive' too.

 

It's all one big lame excuse. We have social conditioning based on a variety of dynamics... economic, physical, etc.

 

We are seeing relationships change these days because the social conditions that created earlier ones don't exist anymore.

 

And if one prefers to be submissive or wants someone who is submissive in a relationship... just say so. Keep your Neanderthal notions of 'home and hearth' and feminine duty out of it.

[FrustratedStandards]

I always love it when people promote their personal dating preferences and call it 'biological' imperitive.... as if they have no choice in the matter.

 

Ok, ladies... if you prefer to be paid for and call that 'biological imperitive', then don't complain when your gent dumps you for a hot young thing.

 

Exactly!!

 

That's why we gotta keep in shape, eat healthy, always look good. I completely agree with this.

 

I don't want children so the pregnancy part doesn't scare me. Good point TAL!

[ThsAmericanLife]

You see?

 

Double standard.

 

A man is allowed to want a beautiful woman, and thats okay.

 

But the moment a woman wants a successful man, she's a golddigger.

 

That's so off-putting. This is the reason Russians are considered golddiggers, cuz the men of this country don't get it. Russian men never complain.

 

That's why Russian women always dress up and try to look nice, and Russian men work hard and try to make money. They get it.

 

Yes yes, why don't you find a Russian man then? I'm working on it. I just don't understand why women are threatened and feel "taken control over" if a an pays, and men are threatened if a woman wants a successful man who has money.

 

There is no double standard.

 

Find a man willing to pay for your looks. No problem. But don't complain when he dumps you for a hotter model... since you aren't screening for other values. Just $$.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Exactly!!

 

That's why we gotta keep in shape, eat healthy, always look good. I completely agree with this.

 

I don't want children so the pregnancy part doesn't scare me. Good point TAL!

 

Except, there will always be someone around who is hotter than you.

 

Your grasp on said money-bags will last as long as your looks do, unless you screen for values first.

 

This is why the guy got upset. because you basically stated (in so many words) that nothing else he had going for him mattered to you.

 

That's ok. Your choice...

[LittleTiger]

I always love it when people promote their personal dating preferences and call it 'biological' imperitive.... as if they have no choice in the matter.

 

Of course we have choices - you're completely twisting my point. Our brains are wired a certain way and we can't deny that because it happens to be a scientific fact! I didn't 'design' humans - nature designed us - we are what we are.

 

We're talking here about dating not LTRs. In a LTR both men and women begin to value other things about their partner besides whatever it was that attracted them in the first place. That's why they stay together - it's usually called 'love' and 'emotional attachment'. Neither of these apply in the initial stages of dating.

 

We all overide our biological urges all the time, otherwise we'd be living in an entirely permissive society - but there is no denying that those urges exist.

 

All I'm saying is that men are turned on by attractive looking women and women are turned on by confident men (in general - there are always exceptions!). A man can't stop himself getting an erection when he's sexually excited (as far as I'm aware) and a woman can't stop herself from getting 'wet' when she's sexually excited. Nor can we control what gets us excited in the first place - that is innate - like it or not.

 

Of course we all have different preferences and not every woman wants a confident, 'take charge' man - but in my experience and, judging by many threads posted by men on LS asking 'how do I get confident?' or 'why do women like bad boys', most women do.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Of course we have choices - you're completely twisting my point. Our brains are wired a certain way and we can't deny that because it happens to be a scientific fact! I didn't 'design' humans - nature designed us - we are what we are.

 

We're talking here about dating not LTRs. In a LTR both men and women begin to value other things about their partner besides whatever it was that attracted them in the first place. That's why they stay together - it's usually called 'love' and 'emotional attachment'. Neither of these apply in the initial stages of dating.

 

We all overide our biological urges all the time, otherwise we'd be living in an entirely permissive society - but there is no denying that those urges exist.

 

All I'm saying is that men are turned on by attractive looking women and women are turned on by confident men (in general - there are always exceptions!). A man can't stop himself getting an erection when he's sexually excited (as far as I'm aware) and a woman can't stop herself from getting 'wet' when she's sexually excited. Nor can we control what gets us excited in the first place - that is innate - like it or not.

 

Of course we all have different preferences and not every woman wants a confident, 'take charge' man - but in my experience and, judging by many threads posted by men on LS asking 'how do I get confident?' or 'why do women like bad boys', most women do.

 

I'm not twisting anyone's point.

 

You have your preferences, and they are your's alone. You don't speak for me or anyone else.

 

Ever heard of Kinsey? He did a very nice study of men's and women's sexual preferences. Rated them on a scale from 1-10. One being 100% homosexual. 10 being 100% heterosexual.

 

The fact that there are 9 numbers between there shows there is more variation in a single gender than there are between genders in terms of sexual tastes.

 

Again, your version of what makes someone hot or not is just yours. And the LS forum certainly is not a valid 'snapshot' of humanity either.

[blueskyday]

Being a single mother, it's not tough for a guy to best me on the income scale. I've never been called a gold-digger. No one who knows me would ever think that of me. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

TheBigQuestion

Explain to me what the functional difference is between a total stranger on the street and someone I've spoken to for about an hour tops.

 

I already have explained it to you. Total strangers are just that, total strangers. People you pass in public but don't talk to. Maybe even a cashier you exchange money and "hellos" with but not much more. When you meet someone knew that you are interested in getting to know, the interaction is different. You act differently. And not just "you" but all of us do. I'm not telling you to go out and buy the woman a house on the first date. But a movie ticket? Sheesh.

 

In the early stages of dating, both participants do things to make themselves appear more attractive. Women make sure they look nice and show their best qualities and men do the same. A man won't ask you out if you look awful. And if a man displays signs of being selfish and stingy on first dates, it's not going to bode well for him either. If I walk into a date with a man I don't know that well with the attitude of "well he's *just* a stranger so until he proves he has some worth to me I'm not going to put much work into this!" I'm pretty much starting off with a crappy attitude from the get go.

 

Is that how most of your relationships start Big Question? You see a woman on the street and start talking to her for about an hour before you ask her out? What happens when a man and woman have known each other for months or years and then he asks her out, do your rules of who pays for what changes then?

 

 

How much do I REALLY know about what either person expects out of a relationship, their core values, their sexual habits, and the myriad other qualities that are important in a relationship? The answer is, not much, if anything at all. You haven't provided an argument otherwise.

 

That's why you date! To learn what each other is about. And sometimes it works out and sometimes it doesn't. This is the exact point I've proved to you time and time again. And wrapping up your paragraph with a snotty little comment about what I haven't "proved" to you has nothing to do with "fact" but some petty little comment you put to make it seem like you're arguments are "better" when they are just different. How many times do I have to say it to you? If you don't want to date women that like more traditionalism, then don't. There are women out there for you obviously since you have a girlfriend that is in line with your own beliefs. I'm not begetting your right to pick women that have a certain attitude about who pays and who doesn't. I'm just pointing out to you that different people like to conduct their relationships differently and I'm not going to let you lamb blast women that perfer a different kind of dating and man then the kind of man you might be. Which isn't "bad" or "worse"..just different. But this isn't about realizing people have different styles of dating. This is about bitterment you feel as a man over imagined slights and that's really all you care about.

 

I never denied that there are "feelings" behind how I think. The difference is that I am still subjecting those feelings to a test of rationality. Your "feelings" on the matter don't hold water because what you advocate is essentially a double standard.

 

Yeah, keep telling yourself that after the lame shots you took that had nothing to do with logical fact and everythind to do with your own personal emotions on the subject. You keep arguing about how my comments are basied in logic but you don't actually say anything about the comments I'm making in a good debate. You think by saying "you're not being rational" alone proves your point. It doesn't. And it makes you look angry and petty.

 

You justify a woman's condemnation of a man for not feeling like it's proper to pay for her dinners early on, yet you refuse to condemn women in the opposite scenario.

 

Excuse me but as I already pointed out I actually pointed out to FrustratedStandards several times that her attitude on the subject wasn't kosher.

 

And I don't know where you got this idea that a woman is "comdemning a man" if he doesn't want to pay when what I said is that man needs to find a different kind of woman that WILL be okay with how he sees a relationship progressing. NO different then when one person enjoys a Swingers lifestyle and the other doesn't. Or one person wants to raise their kids Jewish while the other might be Hindu. These are points of compatiblity. You wouldn't tell a woman that rejected a man because his religion was different from hers that she was "condeming" him. She just wouldn't see a future together if she wanted to raise her kids a certain way. The fact that I've said this several times now and you either missed it or purposely ignored it points to your own emotionalness on this subject.

 

You then argue that "men and women are different." Women on this board will argue until they are blue in the face against the promiscuity double-standard, and here you sit advocating essentially the same thing.

 

You're trying to draw a connection to hypcroscy that isn't there. If a man perfers a woman with less partners, that's his right. I'm infact a woman that perfers a man with less partners. It's when we get into name calling that's the issue. Calling women four letter names for having sexuality. That's always been my issue. The name calling. Not the perference in having whatever type of partner you may want. I never once called men that don't like to pay names.

 

If you remember that thread, I stated that I never consciously embarked on any mission to not spend money. It simply ended up happening that way with my girlfriend. However, you're correct in that I advocate others to consciously act in the way I did, because it's a more equal way of going about things.

 

You just contradicted yourself. YOu never consciously embarked on a mission to not spend money but you "circumvent" for a way of dealing with a relationship, especially with your current girlfriend, that best benefits you...contradiction. Just be hoenst with yourself.

 

 

If my girlfriend had really strong feelings about needing to be paid for, I'm sure it wouldn't have worked out. It doesn't change the fact that her (and most women) got used to being paid for just by virtue of being women.

 

We wominnns are evil!

 

Yes, I advocate that old-fashioned courtship can and should be circumvented, because what I did worked, and worked repeatedly. Breaking out the cash is not a necessary condition for a woman to become very attracted to you, even if she is consciously or subconsciously trained to believe it.

 

It worked for *you*. And that's great. But it's not going to work for everyone. Neither should it. People have different ways of living their life.

 

No one said breaking out the cash was necessary for a woman to become attracted to a man. Again, that's never been my argument. I've had rich men interested in me and their wealth didn't make me intersted in them. However, when a man asks me out on a date, yeah I'm sorry but he should pay. It's all about the style of relationship you want. You can use a pretty world like "circumvented", which really just means "force", for how you manipulate a situation that is really all about you all you want. But that's all it is. A pretty word about forcing an issue because of your bitterment over "women" and their own set of expecations that might be placed on you that you don't like. Well guess what, I don't like that I'm judged for my body and age, but 8 times out of 10, that's exactly how a man is judging me. But I don't expect you to much care about that.We both know you don't.

 

I think a lot of the women on LS will take issue with your suggestion that by not feeling happy to accept being paid for by men early on, they're somehow demeaning themselves or don't think they respect themselves.

 

Where did I ever say that? How many times have I said to you that every one is allowed to choose the kind of partner they like? I've said many times that there are women out there for you that are okay with your personal style of dating.

 

The amount of things you make up to make your case "stronger" baffles me. I'm pretty disgusted by a few of your comments through this thread and this last one takes the cake. This isn't about a good debate about relationships. This is about your anger over women who don't want to date like you want to. Get over it. There are women for you. Be happy with that instead of "forcing" women to adopt the line of dating that you most want just because *you* want it.

[Woggle]

The fact of the matter is that myself and many other men better things to do with our time and money than working ourselves into an early grave to support an entitled princess. In many cases these end up cheating on these providers with some loser and blaming it on the fact that he works too much.

 

I hope ThisAmericanLife finds a good man because she truly gets the meaning of the word equality.

[FrustratedStandards]

You can't possibly be serious??? I was sure those movies were all based on true stories

 

 

So now you are a neuroscientist? Where exactly are you getting this nonsense? You brain is not built to be attracted to men who pay for dates (there was no such thing as "dating" until about 100 years ago).

 

No but there was success, only back then it was measured by strength in men and whether or not they were good hunters. Today, its strength and monetary success.

 

So all the men that you've dated were much wealthier than you? You don't sound like a gold-digger at all...I'm sure it's just a coincidence

 

Good for her. Why dont u go date some ugly women and get back to me, just cuz ur a man doesnt mean ur entitled to get a beautiful woman, just like how women arent entitled to successful men. After all, thats shallow. Lets just care about personality, who cares about sexual attractiveness, success in life or lifestyle. Im sure u lead a very happy life FGM

[FrustratedStandards]

The fact of the matter is that myself and many other men better things to do with our time and money than working ourselves into an early grave to support an entitled princess. In many cases these end up cheating on these providers with some loser and blaming it on the fact that he works too much.

 

I hope ThisAmericanLife finds a good man because she truly gets the meaning of the word equality.

 

I think thats the problem with you men. Youre just stupid.

 

Equality doesnt mean u split up everything half and half, it means u split up the responsibilities so each carries half the weight. For many people that means the man works and brings home the bacon, and the women take care of the place and cook it, and kids if thats a lifestyle they want.

[In A Rut]

I think thats the problem with you men. Youre just stupid.

 

Equality doesnt mean u split up everything half and half, it means u split up the responsibilities so each carries half the weight. For many people that means the man works and brings home the bacon, and the women take care of the place and cook it, and kids if thats a lifestyle they want.

 

That maybe the case in Russia or Poland, but that's not the case in the Western World. Tradtional gender roles have changed and women have bigger ambitions than to just take care of the house. They want to earn their own money to support themselves and they want highly paid jobs. Good for them.

[FrustratedStandards]

That maybe the case in Russia or Poland, but that's not the case in the Western World. Tradtional gender roles have changed and women have bigger ambitions than to just take care of the house. They want to earn their own money to support themselves and they want highly paid jobs. Good for them.

 

Yes youre right. Im just surprised there are SO little traditional gentlemen in the West. Its the only part of the world, ask anyone from the outside.

[xxoo]

If you are specifically looking for a man who can support your 10k a month lifestyle, then you kind of are a gold digger by US standards....

 

Would you be willing to compromise on lifestyle for love? Do you think a man who is financially sound, on a lower budget, is less appealing?

[ThsAmericanLife]

I understand this, but why does it bother you if a man picks up the cheque? Why does your "feminism" feel threatened? Wouldn't you enjoy being treated by a man who cares enough to WANT to do these nice things for you?you ask me.

 

I'm suspect of anyone who feels the need to push for one-way all of the time.

 

Men who MUST pay all the time is as obnoxious as women who MUST have their way paid for every time. I'm quite able to 'let' a man pay for me... if he doesn't follow that behavior with some condescending little girl treatment like I need some big he-man to 'protect' me. Give me a break. I'm 47, not 7. Odds are pretty good that if someone broke into our house (me and chosen man)... I'm going to pull out the shot gun or baseball bat to protect "my man" and I expect he'd do the same for me. No weak sisters cowering in a corner on my 'frontier'.

 

Anyway, the 'man who pays for everything' seems to leave no room for individuals here... and it smacks of something 'else' that has nothing to do with sharing, caring, and getting to know each other.

 

As for me, I like establishing from the beginning that I'm here to pull my weight in all things... physically, emotionally, and mentally possible and that I don't use my gender as an excuse for anything.

 

Yes, everyone has things they look for that make them feel wanted and needed. My observation is that we are all better off if we treat each other as individuals... unique in our own ways... rather than some cartoon cut-out stereotype.

[ThsAmericanLife]

I hope ThisAmericanLife finds a good man because she truly gets the meaning of the word equality.

 

I have good men in my life... they are trusted friends, mentors, and colleagues. And students too! I get to be 'mom' to some promising young men in my classes too.

 

And my dad too. Didn't start out being the best dad, but he is wonderful now.

 

Life is full of surprises

 

I've had good men as partners. I'll find one again eventually. Thanks for the encouragement. Hope all is well with you. Your posts have sounded alot more positive lately... Good to see...

[Woggle]

I am sounding more positive because I realize hatred achieves nothing. If I hate how am I any better than the misandrists who hijacked feminism?

[phineas]

I only tend to give financial support to strippers. So technically I am still supporting a woman or women.

 

If someone as obtuse as the OP is making 10k a month (like she claims), she may be one of your clients.

 

The majority of strippers in Toronto are from foreign parts after all.

[FrustratedStandards]

If you are specifically looking for a man who can support your 10k a month lifestyle, then you kind of are a gold digger by US standards....

 

Would you be willing to compromise on lifestyle for love? Do you think a man who is financially sound, on a lower budget, is less appealing?

 

I dont believe in love, nor have i ever been in love. So that kind of discounts your first question. As for the second, yes, i find him less appealing.

[Woggle]

If you don't believe why do you want a man? Do you just want to use a man as a walking wallet?

[veggirl]

Frustrated, did I miss where you explained what, exactly, the man gets from you in this "arrangement"?

 

You don't believe in love, so he's not getting a loving partner (I guess you could fake this though )

You cook and clean, but...why does he need you to do that? It would be more economical for him to hire a maid (a maid doesn't require 10k per month).

 

I guess you would have sex with him?

 

Still, it'd be cheaper to get a maid and a prostitute.

 

What do you have to offer in exchange for a man supporting your 10k per month lifestyle?

[wheream_i]

I was on a date last night with this guy. We began talking about relationships and what we look for in a mate. Since we were being open and honest, I told him I wanted a man without kids, and one who can support me financially.

 

He called me a mean bitch and said that I am shallow for not considering a man who perhaps isn't wealthy, but has "lots of love". He said I only want a man for money. His best argument was "Men with money don't know how to love women. They just buy them diamonds and expensive things and think that's enough". He said that men without money are the better kind, because they aren't shallow.

 

I'm beginning to think that the only reason I ever questioned my standards was because every man I have ever met didn't meet them.

 

Why does every guy think that if a woman wants a man with money, that she ONLY wants the money and nothing else?

 

You mentioned nothing about wanting love, trust or committment in a marriage. You are the reason half of all marriages end in divorce. I don't know who I'd feel more sorry for. You or your future schmuck of a husband. Either way, you'll deserve each other.

[TheBigQuestion]

 

 

And I don't know where you got this idea that a woman is "comdemning a man" if he doesn't want to pay when what I said is that man needs to find a different kind of woman that WILL be okay with how he sees a relationship progressing. NO different then when one person enjoys a Swingers lifestyle and the other doesn't. Or one person wants to raise their kids Jewish while the other might be Hindu. These are points of compatiblity. You wouldn't tell a woman that rejected a man because his religion was different from hers that she was "condeming" him. She just wouldn't see a future together if she wanted to raise her kids a certain way. The fact that I've said this several times now and you either missed it or purposely ignored it points to your own emotionalness on this subject.

 

 

 

You're trying to draw a connection to hypcroscy that isn't there. If a man perfers a woman with less partners, that's his right. I'm infact a woman that perfers a man with less partners. It's when we get into name calling that's the issue. Calling women four letter names for having sexuality. That's always been my issue. The name calling. Not the perference in having whatever type of partner you may want. I never once called men that don't like to pay names.

 

 

 

You just contradicted yourself. YOu never consciously embarked on a mission to not spend money but you "circumvent" for a way of dealing with a relationship, especially with your current girlfriend, that best benefits you...contradiction. Just be hoenst with yourself.

 

 

 

 

We wominnns are evil!

 

 

 

It worked for *you*. And that's great. But it's not going to work for everyone. Neither should it. People have different ways of living their life.

 

No one said breaking out the cash was necessary for a woman to become attracted to a man. Again, that's never been my argument. I've had rich men interested in me and their wealth didn't make me intersted in them. However, when a man asks me out on a date, yeah I'm sorry but he should pay. It's all about the style of relationship you want. You can use a pretty world like "circumvented", which really just means "force", for how you manipulate a situation that is really all about you all you want. But that's all it is. A pretty word about forcing an issue because of your bitterment over "women" and their own set of expecations that might be placed on you that you don't like. Well guess what, I don't like that I'm judged for my body and age, but 8 times out of 10, that's exactly how a man is judging me. But I don't expect you to much care about that.We both know you don't.

 

 

 

Where did I ever say that? How many times have I said to you that every one is allowed to choose the kind of partner they like? I've said many times that there are women out there for you that are okay with your personal style of dating.

 

The amount of things you make up to make your case "stronger" baffles me. I'm pretty disgusted by a few of your comments through this thread and this last one takes the cake. This isn't about a good debate about relationships. This is about your anger over women who don't want to date like you want to. Get over it. There are women for you. Be happy with that instead of "forcing" women to adopt the line of dating that you most want just because *you* want it.

 

Forgive me if I don't answer all your statements tit for tat. It's been a long day.

 

There are plenty of women who have posted in this thread and others about how they think a guy who expects that a bill should be split is "cheap." Not so much in this thread, but in other threads and in real life, there has also been plenty of name-calling as well. Just because you haven't heard it happen doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

You'll have to explain exactly how I contradicted myself. I said that, in the course of our "courtship" about a year ago, I did not pay for anything for my soon-to-be-girlfriend, but rather we just hung out with each other and with mutual friends. At the time, I did not realize that I was actually not spending money, and it wasn't part of some grand scheme or anything. It was after realizing that, not only was I able to still get with my girlfriend, but also maintain interest from numerous other women without paying for anything so long as certain other factors were in place, that I thought it would be a good idea to tell others to try out the same thing. This doesn't come up in our relationship because everything I've discussed is about the pre-official relationship stage. I fail to see how this is a contradiction.

 

No, you're not evil. But the more traditional among you hold the false belief that you're entitled to having men pay for things even if you've displayed no level of commitment whatsoever and even if you barely know each other. Now, I obviously have no control over whether another man will insist on paying for everything. All I've ever advocated is that a man needs to understand that he is NOT required to offer/insist on paying in order to get into a relationship and that if he goes about things the right way, he can obtain a happy relationship even with a woman who is used to getting things paid for them by men. I'm living proof, and I'm not superhuman, so I cant be the only one for whom this would work. That's what I mean by "circumvent." You make it sound evil. However, if a relationship forms from it, how bad can it really be? It's just one variable that changed.

 

It looked to me that you implied with that statement that women who just "hang out" with guys or don't expect them to pay tend to be accustomed to bad treatment from guys and don't have much respect for themselves. If you did not mean that, please tell me what you meant by it, and I will gladly retract the inference that I made.

[ThsAmericanLife]

Forgive me if I don't answer all your statements tit for tat. It's been a long day.

 

There are plenty of women who have posted in this thread and others about how they think a guy who expects that a bill should be split is "cheap." Not so much in this thread, but in other threads and in real life, there has also been plenty of name-calling as well. Just because you haven't heard it happen doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

You'll have to explain exactly how I contradicted myself. I said that, in the course of our "courtship" about a year ago, I did not pay for anything for my soon-to-be-girlfriend, but rather we just hung out with each other and with mutual friends. At the time, I did not realize that I was actually not spending money, and it wasn't part of some grand scheme or anything. It was after realizing that, not only was I able to still get with my girlfriend, but also maintain interest from numerous other women without paying for anything so long as certain other factors were in place, that I thought it would be a good idea to tell others to try out the same thing. This doesn't come up in our relationship because everything I've discussed is about the pre-official relationship stage. I fail to see how this is a contradiction.

 

No, you're not evil. But the more traditional among you hold the false belief that you're entitled to having men pay for things even if you've displayed no level of commitment whatsoever and even if you barely know each other. Now, I obviously have no control over whether another man will insist on paying for everything. All I've ever advocated is that a man needs to understand that he is NOT required to offer/insist on paying in order to get into a relationship and that if he goes about things the right way, he can obtain a happy relationship even with a woman who is used to getting things paid for them by men. I'm living proof, and I'm not superhuman, so I cant be the only one for whom this would work. That's what I mean by "circumvent." You make it sound evil. However, if a relationship forms from it, how bad can it really be? It's just one variable that changed.

 

It looked to me that you implied with that statement that women who just "hang out" with guys or don't expect them to pay tend to be accustomed to bad treatment from guys and don't have much respect for themselves. If you did not mean that, please tell me what you meant by it, and I will gladly retract the inference that I made.

 

I never expect a man to pay. I don't base his ability to 'care' for me on financial things. So the idea of good treatment/bad treatment is completely LOST on me when it comes to financial matters.

 

I expect the man will want and NEED to be self-sufficient. Anything more than that is not necessary.