I went dutch at the end. If you were her would you date me again?

[KathyM]

You would sit there & allow the guy to pick up the full bill, without offering to pay for your half knowing you had zero intentions of seeing him again?

 

So much for "generosity of spirit"

A lot of men still want to be chivalrous, believe it or not. Some even feel emasculated if a woman tries to split the bill. You said yourself that you prefer to pay the bill and consider the enjoyment you get from a man's company at dinner to be worth your while. Why do feel that men should not or do not feel the same way?

[soserious1]

Would you consider dating a man who felt the same, and was more than happy to pay for the same reasons?

 

No I would not. My relationships are strictly casual with sex being the end goal, there's no "dating" involved really.

[soserious1]

A lot of men still want to be chivalrous, believe it or not. Some even feel emasculated if a woman tries to split the bill. You said yourself that you prefer to pay the bill and consider the enjoyment you get from a man's company at dinner to be worth your while. Why do feel that men should not or do not feel the same way?

 

I don't make scenes in restaurants wrestling anybody for the bill, I excuse myself to go to the restroom & slip the waiter my credit card & pay the bill.At meal's end, if the man requests the check he's graciously told by the waiter that there is no bill & we return to our conversation.

 

 

I haven't been with a guy yet who didn't enjoy it...

[D-Lish]

No I would not. My relationships are strictly casual with sex being the end goal, there's no "dating" involved really.

 

If that's the case, then your insight, although valuable to a certain extent, is an opinion unique to a different outcome than a lot of people are seeking to find in this post.

 

I have to note, that since your end-goal is sex, and not dating or a relationship- you're not going to be able to give solid advice for men on how to handle paying at the end of the date.

 

Since you always insist on paying and are just looking for sex as a woman with more money in her pocket than most... It is more about control in your situation. You can pay for the date, have sex with the man if you choose to (or don't), and since you paid, you negate any obligation or responsibility for whatever you choose to do.

 

No one can come back and say "YOU USED ME".... Because you paid for the date.

[soserious1]

If that's the case, then your insight, although valuable to a certain extent, is an opinion unique to a different outcome than a lot of people are seeking to find in this post.

 

I have to note, that since your end-goal is sex, and not dating or a relationship- you're not going to be able to give solid advice for men on how to handle paying at the end of the date.

 

Since you always insist on paying and are just looking for sex as a woman with more money in her pocket than most... It is more about control in your situation. You can pay for the date, have sex with the man if you choose to (or don't), and since you paid, you negate any obligation or responsibility for whatever you choose to do.

 

No one can come back and say "YOU USED ME".... Because you paid for the date.

 

D-lish, my main point is that the world has changed, gentlewomen acknowledge that man have been unfairly burdened with the cultural expectation of being the ones to do all the asking for dates & all of the paying.

 

How freaking hard is it really, for a woman to take the lead here and quietly indicate to the waiter that she'd like separate checks brought to the table? Many places now have the waiter ask as soon as a couple is seated, if they don't the rest room trick works quite well.

 

 

I don't understand why there needs to be so much angst & drama over such a simple thing?

[johan]

D-lish, my main point is that the world has changed, gentlewomen ...

 

I think what you seem to be saying is that you wish the world had changed. Because women are still acting like women, and men are still expected to be men, and that's a problem for you.

 

But I personally wouldn't have it any other way. I like my women feminine and particular and I don't mind one bit being a man.

 

And what the hell is a "gentlewoman"? Whatever it is, keep them away from me.

[D-Lish]

D-lish, my main point is that the world has changed, gentlewomen acknowledge that man have been unfairly burdened with the cultural expectation of being the ones to do all the asking for dates & all of the paying.

 

How freaking hard is it really, for a woman to take the lead here and quietly indicate to the waiter that she'd like separate checks brought to the table? Many places now have the waiter ask as soon as a couple is seated, if they don't the rest room trick works quite well.

 

 

I don't understand why there needs to be so much angst & drama over such a simple thing?

 

You're talking to a woman that makes a pretty decent living, and I always offer to pay half. I still think it's generous if a guy insists on picking up the cheque. I'll usually pick up the next one if that's the case.

 

You're indicating you'll insist on paying, and your outcome is sex... That's different than "dating"....

[Imajerk17]

A lot of men still want to be chivalrous, believe it or not. Some even feel emasculated if a woman tries to split the bill. You said yourself that you prefer to pay the bill and consider the enjoyment you get from a man's company at dinner to be worth your while. Why do feel that men should not or do not feel the same way?

 

I agree w soserious. If she isnt interested, I'd prefer the woman offer to pay her share. Most men would. I mean, if you're not interested show us some respect and offer to pay your share. We can't treat everyone w a vagina you know.

 

Kathy, this isnt what a lot of men want, its what you want.

Just because you're a woman doesn't entitle you to free nights out though, you know.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Imajerk17

[soserious1]

You're talking to a woman that makes a pretty decent living, and I always offer to pay half. I still think it's generous if a guy insists on picking up the cheque. I'll usually pick up the next one if that's the case.

 

You're indicating you'll insist on paying, and your outcome is sex... That's different than "dating"....

 

My practices on paying have been the same for many,many years even when I dated hoping for a LTR. I hated that uncomfortable moment when the check arrived & understood the internal conflict the guy was facing. Grabbing the waiter on my way to the restroom & either paying the entire bill or having separate checks just brought to the table eliminated that conflict.

 

It's simple, gracious & painless, it takes away that uncomfortable moment for both parties & establishes quickly that the woman is a class act.

[soserious1]

I think what you seem to be saying is that you wish the world had changed. Because women are still acting like women, and men are still expected to be men, and that's a problem for you.

 

But I personally wouldn't have it any other way. I like my women feminine and particular and I don't mind one bit being a man.

 

And what the hell is a "gentlewoman"? Whatever it is, keep them away from me.

 

Increasing numbers of men don't feel as you do as evidenced by many,many posts here decrying the "man pays on the first date rule"

 

A gentlewoman is a person of class,in this situation, a woman who is proactive in eliminating that uncomfortable moment when the check is placed on the table & both parties stare at it before beginning the awkward dance of deciding how to handle the bill.

 

 

A gentlewoman quietly ensures that separate checks will be brought to the table without drama out of consideration of the fact that the man has already been burdened by the cultural tradition of having to risk rejection by asking her out first.

 

I work, I pay out more in alimony than many people earn a month, why the hell should any guy have to buy me dinner?

Edited January 14, 2012 by soserious1

[joystickd]

A scenario to think about:

Let's say we have this nice, polite, well-mannered gentleman named "Leonard." Leonard was brought up by his parents, and particular his mother, to always be chivalrous toward women, and to be as pleasantly accommodating toward women as possible. Leonard connects with women every week for breakfast, lunch, or dinner.

Okay, let's say we have Leonard down for 75 dates over the course of a year with about 20-25 different women. Each date cost him an average of $30-$40 worth of food, beverages and/or movie tickets. After twelve months, Leonard's minimum expenditure would be $2,250.00; at a maximum, his expense tally for both himself and his female companions would amount to $3,000.00. Now obviously, if Leonard is earning a salary of say, $90,000 or more per year, $3,000.00 for lunch, dinner, and movie dates is not much. A drop in the bucket.

On the other hand, if Leonard is only earning a modest salary of approximately $25,000 - $40,000 per year, $3,000.00 over the course of a year suddenly becomes a significant chunk of change.

Here is the deal: In the same way that many women want to do everything possible to avoid being perceived as a 'ho,' a 'slut,' or an 'easy lay' as a result of agreeing to have sex with too many men too quickly, similarly, most men do not like being perceived as a 'chump' (i.e., an easy-to-manipulate 'nice guy' who frequently gets taken advantage of by women) or a 'trick' (this is a pimp's term for a man who is more than willing to exchange financial favors for sexual companionship).

For those women who might say, "I am not expecting a man to spend $50-$100 on me per date ... but surely, he can spend $10, $15, or $20 on me ... is that asking too much?" Let me ask you a question. What if men were to say, "I am not expecting a woman to give me a blowjob, a handjob and engage in intercourse on each and every date ... but surely, she can give up at least a handjob OR a blowjob ... is that asking too much?"

[Els]

It's a good point. I always think back to all the agism threads that pop up around here about how much more worthless women are as they get older, or fat "women" threads (very few women here ever post about being angry about fat men), or all the dozen pieces of advice I see men around here 'offer" about a woman making sure to work out and keep in shape.

 

I know that when I go out in public and I just go out in old clothes to run errands vs when I take time with my clothes and make up, there is a significant difference in how men specifically treat me.

 

What annoys me the most is that women are consistently told, here and elsewhere, that they must absolutely look a certain way in order to attract men, and otherwise they are 'worthless'. There were some threads where women said they did not enjoy shopping and beauty routines, and were told that if they were 'so lazy as to not be bothered to do those', they could not expect men to be attracted to them. So much for dismantling gender-based socialization, eh?

 

I do think it's also wrong to tell men that if they are 'so cheap as to not be bothered to pay', they cannot expect women to be attracted to them. But I don't see that as much, and I think that's considered more faux-pas in today's culture than saying the abovementioned statement to women. Also interesting how the very same few men on here who attempted to give me a hard time for stating that I don't do some of the 'female beauty routines' on principle, are the primary ones complaining about how unfair life is to men and how they should be able to go 50% on everything... except where it favours them.

 

OTOH, I suppose it is only a phenomenon here - I've not seen this sort of hypocrisy practiced so blatantly IRL, so meh, whatever. At the very least, reading these forums makes me more grateful for the men I know IRL and the bf.

[xxoo]

What annoys me the most is that women are consistently told, here and elsewhere, that they must absolutely look a certain way in order to attract men, and otherwise they are 'worthless'. There were some threads where women said they did not enjoy shopping and beauty routines, and were told that if they were 'so lazy as to not be bothered to do those', they could not expect men to be attracted to them. So much for dismantling gender-based socialization, eh?

 

I do think it's also wrong to tell men that if they are 'so cheap as to not be bothered to pay', they cannot expect women to be attracted to them. But I don't see that as much, and I think that's considered more faux-pas in today's culture than saying the abovementioned statement to women. Also interesting how the very same few men on here who attempted to give me a hard time for stating that I don't do some of the 'female beauty routines' on principle, are the primary ones complaining about how unfair life is to men and how they should be able to go 50% on everything... except where it favours them.

 

OTOH, I suppose it is only a phenomenon here - I've not seen this sort of hypocrisy practiced so blatantly IRL, so meh, whatever. At the very least, reading these forums makes me more grateful for the men I know IRL and the bf.

 

I dislike Dr. Phil, but he does have some good catch phrases. One I like is "How is that working for you?"

 

It is one thing if a woman comes onto LS lamenting that she can not attract a man, but rejects any advice to wear makeup, shave, wax, etc. She's struggling, and might want to consider compromising in order to attract a wider pool of men.

 

It is another if a woman eschews the mainstream grooming, but is successful dating. It is working fine for her, so no need to change.

 

Similarly, for people with strong opinions on who pays for the first date, how's that working for you?

 

Both a man who expects to go dutch, and a woman who expects the man to pay, may struggle--if for no reason other than their inflexibility on the issue.

 

But if it is working for you....then it's working!

[KathyM]

My perspective worked fine for me. I'm happily married since 19 years old--several years. It was never a problem for us, but then, I was never high maintenance either--never expected to have a lot of money spent, and most of our dates were to inexpensive or free venues, such as going for a drive, parking and listening to music, going ice skating, playing tennis, going dancing, etc. Works for me, and I've never had any complaints from men. Worked for my sister who has the same attitude as me--she's getting married next month to a very chivalrous guy. Worked for my other sister--she's in a LTR with a guy.

[Els]

I dislike Dr. Phil, but he does have some good catch phrases. One I like is "How is that working for you?"

 

It is one thing if a woman comes onto LS lamenting that she can not attract a man, but rejects any advice to wear makeup, shave, wax, etc. She's struggling, and might want to consider compromising in order to attract a wider pool of men.

 

It is another if a woman eschews the mainstream grooming, but is successful dating. It is working fine for her, so no need to change.

 

Similarly, for people with strong opinions on who pays for the first date, how's that working for you?

 

Both a man who expects to go dutch, and a woman who expects the man to pay, may struggle--if for no reason other than their inflexibility on the issue.

 

But if it is working for you....then it's working!

 

Oh, I do agree. Basically, I'm fine with any way of looking at this, as long as there is no hypocrisy. However, I think the major argument of some of the 'equal pay' proponents here is that it's not okay for a man to have a smaller dating pool or for a woman to reject a man for not paying, period. I think that sort of viewpoint is only fair if one believes that nobody should be rejected for anything superficial at all.

 

Speaking personally, I do think my own dating pool is reduced significantly due to my principle of not doing what I don't want to do - ie some of the beauty stuff. But I don't mind that, because IMO it narrows my pool down to what I actually want - the sort of man that isn't all expect expect expect and 'what can SHE do for me?'. There is very little expectation or entitlement in my current R, except for core relationship values (spending time together, no cheating, etc). Everything else that we do for a partner, we do because we want to, not because they demand it. He pays for me because he wants to. I cook for him and help him with various errands because I want to. And so on and so forth.

[zengirl]

I suppose I'm of the exact opposite opinion of Elswyth, yet agree with her at the same time.

 

She applies the standards, saying it's wrong for anyone to value appearance or particular manners. I say: Want whatever you want.

 

It is wrong to say men MUST pay on first dates or women MUST shave their legs, but neither of those are "musts." They are "musts" to some people, in terms of who they choose to date, as are a myriad of other things, ranging from shallow to profound.

 

Frankly, it doesn't matter. Just be true to your own values and see how successful you are. If there's no success, adjustment may need to be made. But "fair" remains a relative term. As long as no one is being forced to do any particular thing via economic or political coercion, I say it's fine. No one "deserves" a particular kind of partner, but they're free to want whatever they want.

 

I tend to be very generous by nature. I like to help out people who are close to me. I've never regretted helping friends and family. I have a friend who I just loaned $2,000 to buy a car. Maybe she will pay me back, maybe she won't. I don't expect it. I'm happy to help her out of a jam.

 

When I'm dating someone it's always just felt like give, give, give and not getting much back in return. Frankly its because of the women I was dating. I don't know why, but in my area there is just a severe lack of quality human beings. Maybe it's a generation of kids from broken homes... maybe my female picker is too random.

 

The woman I'm with right now... is so drastically different. I am consistently in a state of awe.

 

Well, I come from a "broken home," as does my husband, and neither of us suffer from it. There are all kinds of families! But that's not the topic at hand.

 

At any rate, I'm glad your fiance is different. There are bad people out there --- plenty of users. But my point was they are going to be above and beyond the basics of socialization. It's all about the person you choose to be generous to, as you say.

 

I realise you compared men paying and leg shaving as socialized ideas, but exactly since socialization is pervasive, I don't really see the point of putting one up against the other.

 

I don't think those who react to socialization are simply 'failures' of socialization. If no one reacted to socialized behaviours, societies would come to a stand still. Human societies evolve all the time, and part of the reason for that is that the ideas we take for granted get questioned or abandoned. Questioning how we live and how we are socialized is a quite important part of life, I think.

 

Whether paying for men is a 'problem' or not - what I read on these threads is that some men are bothered by the expectation, and others aren't. Personally, I think it's a weird and outdated practice in this day and age (just as I think the expectation to shave body hairs is weird, too).

 

As far as the socialization goes, I think we have bigger battles than these. And, at any rate, it's not going away within our generation. I don't have any problem questioning socialization; I do have a problem with fixating specifically on socialization that is most convenient to your particular group.

 

The basic point I was making Elswyth made: the same men who generally rail against paying would not usually be okay with their wife/girlfriend/date having hairy legs and armpits.

 

No I do not expect women to shave their legs. I actually went to a college with a lot of hippie girls who didnt. Some didnt shave their armpits...and no they werent all feminists.

 

Gender socialization exists, but im smart enough to look past it and not pigeonholed people to outdated gender norms. I expect a woman to be able to do everything a man can do in life, with the exception of physical feats. I tend to date women who are smart enough not to let society dictate how she should behave. Society constantly changes anyways. Masculinity and femininity seem to get molded differently over time and when you go to different regions.

 

That's true. As to selfishness, I do think there's a distinction between the way someone was socialized -- especially when you can observe it across large groups -- and being selfish. I think it's particularly selfish to primarily criticize socialization which negatively effects you but not care about other kinds, for instance.

[Els]

I suppose I'm of the exact opposite opinion of Elswyth, yet agree with her at the same time.

 

She applies the standards, saying it's wrong for anyone to value appearance or particular manners. I say: Want whatever you want.

 

It is wrong to say men MUST pay on first dates or women MUST shave their legs, but neither of those are "musts." They are "musts" to some people, in terms of who they choose to date, as are a myriad of other things, ranging from shallow to profound.

 

Aww, thanks for getting my point. I think I did not make my stand on what I think is 'wrong' clear, though - I think it's wrong for people to judge others negatively for not adhering to social norms. ie calling men cheap because they don't pay, or calling women disgusting because they don't shave. However, I don't think it's wrong to value either of the above, or to prefer it in a partner, assuming one is willing to hold up one's end of the social norms as well. I promote and support the attitude 'your type is not my type but your type is okay' (modified from the alt-sex version of it <_<).

 

 

As far as the socialization goes, I think we have bigger battles than these. And, at any rate, it's not going away within our generation. I don't have any problem questioning socialization; I do have a problem with fixating specifically on socialization that is most convenient to your particular group.

 

Yes! That's a more elegant way of putting it.

[PlumPrincess]

The thread is too long to read through all post.

 

So, did she go out with you again and what's the result?

[musemaj11]

The logic of typical American women:

Traditional practice of men asking women out, drive them around and pay for the dates? HELL YEAH KEEP IT!

 

Traditional practice of women waiting on their men hand and foot and do all the household chores? HELL NO GET RID OF IT!

Selfish leeches.

 

Even in countries where women have limited career opportunity, they are still a lot more generous and considerate.

 

American women are atrocious human beings. They are selfish cheapskates.

[colliejoanie]

It is truly shocking to see how bitter the men on this board seem to be. Also, how so many of you lump all women together based on your bad experiences. It's depressing. And very closed minded.

[musemaj11]

It is truly shocking to see how bitter the men on this board seem to be. Also, how so many of you lump all women together based on your bad experiences. It's depressing. And very closed minded.

I have met American women who were generous and considerate. Shocking that they exist but they are like needles in a haystack and most of them were not very attractive to begin with which I suspect is the reason why they were that way. They were trying to compensate.

Edited January 15, 2012 by musemaj11

[donnamaybe]

I have met American women who were generous and considerate. Shocking that they exist but they are like needles in a haystack and most of them were not very attractive to begin with which I suspect is the reason why they were that way. They were trying to compensate.

 

Hi. I must be the proverbial needle then. As for looks, I get hit on by guys 20 years younger than me - and not at closing time.