Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[d'Arthez]

There are indeed some, many even, men who perceive a competitive advantage from flashing a roll of $$, no argument there. That's simply institutionalized, socially condoned de facto prostitution between a john and a whore.

I have a simple solution if paying for a date bothers you that much: let the women you want to date read this statement. Problem solved. You might be out of dates though.

[zengirl]

I think we should start a betting pool as to what dasein would say to a woman who said, "Ugh, it sucks being a woman! I HAVE to put on makeup, shave my legs, and wear heels to get men. Men have it so easy and are never expected to do all that. Such unfairness and hypocrisy."

 

My bet's on: "Stop complaining and levying your feminist accusations at men. Accept personal accountability for your own decisions instead of blaming men. But none of you women are able to do that anyway.":laugh:

 

We could probably dig up an old quote to that effect.

 

In fact, I imagine he's said that women buy and wear heels for themselves. To some degree, I'd agree they do, and men pay for dates for themselves as well. There are many men who like paying for dates and like the feeling they get from doing so and do it FOR that reason. There are men on LS, like Pierre and Art come to mind, who will say this, and I know some in life. There are also men who do it purely to compete and for the way it may boost a woman's opinion of them or not, sure, but isn't it their right just as it is anyone's right to do something like that in dating?

 

I think there's a huge difference between a man saying, "I want to enforce gender equality in my relationships and thus I will go dutch for dates" and a man saying, "Ugh, women MAKE me pay for dates! I hate it!". The first man makes his own rules, makes no apologies for them, and simply carries through with them. Very admirable. The second man... is just a whiner with no (wait for it) personal accountability. Incredibly unattractive.

 

Absolutely. Sanman was arguing against men paying, but he is a great example of how a man can decide, "I'm going dutch" and enforce that and meet someone and have a GF, as he does. A man who has plenty going for him and things to offer and has a sincere personal objection to paying for dates WITHOUT a poor attitude in general will have no problems with enforcing it and finding some women who are just fine with it. I really believe that. True, a man who has nothing to offer and thinks to selfishly get as good as he can with giving as little as he can (monetarily or otherwise) will probably do poorly. But that's not really about paying for the date.

 

At any rate, I've never asked a man to pick up a check, but I have accepted when some men did and thanked them. I have to assume any offer is sincere or else never see that man again, under principle. I know many lovely men who are sincere in their offers of generosity. It's sad others feel the need to be insincere, though --- but that's on them, not women.

[dasein]

I think we should start a betting pool as to what dasein would say to a woman who said, "Ugh, it sucks being a woman! I HAVE to put on makeup, shave my legs, and wear heels to get men. Men have it so easy and are never expected to do all that. Such unfairness and hypocrisy."

 

My bet's on: "Stop complaining and levying your feminist accusations at men. Accept personal accountability for your own decisions instead of blaming men. But none of you women are able to do that anyway.":laugh:

 

Off topic, strawman, care to actually -address- any of the points I made? I numbered them so they would be real clear for the LS audience. No? Didn't think so.

 

I think there's a huge difference between a man saying, "I want to enforce gender equality in my relationships and thus I will go dutch for dates" and a man saying, "Ugh, women MAKE me pay for dates! I hate it!". The first man makes his own rules, makes no apologies for them, and simply carries through with them. Very admirable. The second man... is just a whiner with no (wait for it) personal accountability. Incredibly unattractive.

 

Doesn't acknowledge the social extortion of cheap-calling at all. Women who expect to be taken seriously in expecting equality, yet hypocritically rationalize around archaic standards that imply a dominant/subservient relationship because it benefits them are the ones with no accountability. No one calls them on their BS, so they repeat it over and over ad infinitum. If someone does call them on it, they start in with the "whiner, real men don't make this an issue, this never comes up in real life" line of unargument. Oh and with your two different guys above, both will be cheap-called regardless of noble motive or self-interested one, and no one will know which type is which after one or two dates, so it's down the list we go telling all our GFs how "cheap" so and so is. LOL that women care about a guy's motives for not paying, if he doesn't pay, lots will slander him with the white feather.

[Els]

We could probably dig up an old quote to that effect.

 

In fact, I imagine he's said that women buy and wear heels for themselves. To some degree, I'd agree they do, and men pay for dates for themselves as well. There are many men who like paying for dates and like the feeling they get from doing so and do it FOR that reason. There are men on LS, like Pierre and Art come to mind, who will say this, and I know some in life. There are also men who do it purely to compete and for the way it may boost a woman's opinion of them or not, sure, but isn't it their right just as it is anyone's right to do something like that in dating?

 

Precisely.

 

 

Absolutely. Sanman was arguing against men paying, but he is a great example of how a man can decide, "I'm going dutch" and enforce that and meet someone and have a GF, as he does. A man who has plenty going for him and things to offer and has a sincere personal objection to paying for dates WITHOUT a poor attitude in general will have no problems with enforcing it and finding some women who are just fine with it. I really believe that. True, a man who has nothing to offer and thinks to selfishly get as good as he can with giving as little as he can (monetarily or otherwise) will probably do poorly. But that's not really about paying for the date.

 

Agreed. I think part of the reason Sanman and kaylan are so successful, also, is that they apply standards both ways. They have both said that they don't mind girls not doing traditional girl-stuff as well, and I don't think I've ever seen them argue for anything that is a disparity between men and women. They are eager to contribute 50% to housework and childcare, they don't believe that older women are of any 'less value' than older men, etc. So they are likely to attract and keep women who are of the same mindset, and hey presto, those women don't mind guys going dutch.

[Els]

Off topic, strawman, care to actually -address- any of the points I made? I numbered them so they would be real clear for the LS audience. No? Didn't think so.

 

 

The answer to your points is exactly what you would say to a woman who said "Ugh, it sucks being a woman! I HAVE to put on makeup, shave my legs, and wear heels to get men. Men have it so easy and are never expected to do all that. Such unfairness and hypocrisy."

 

Go.

[dasein]

I have a simple solution if paying for a date bothers you that much: let the women you want to date read this statement. Problem solved. You might be out of dates though.

 

Makes one of my points nicely, in dealing with hypocritical women, the truth will not set you free. Women love being told the truth, so long as it's a fortuneteller or such blowing gushy, favorable smoke up their ass. The real truth? Not so much. The convention of men paying for early dates = de facto dominant/subservience, purchase and sale, consideration and property. No two ways around it. If that's one's cup of tea, fine, just want to hear women admit that they seek the implication of being subservient, weak property from men they date.

 

They say everything has a price, what's yours ladies?

[Els]

So apparently accepting a drink from your male friend makes you a subservient, weak property of his. Gotcha.

[d'Arthez]

The convention of men paying for early dates = de facto dominant/subservience, purchase and sale, consideration and property. No two ways around it. If that's one's cup of tea, fine, just want to hear women admit that they seek the implication of being subservient, weak property from men they date.

What I do works better for me. And for the women involved. Win-win.

 

I am not interested in 3-4 month relationships with whores (your words not mine), because that is what you are aiming for. If that gives you satisfaction, keep on going like that.

[dasein]

We could probably dig up an old quote to that effect.

 

In fact, I imagine he's said that women buy and wear heels for themselves.

 

Save the digging, just recall hundreds and hundreds of posts here where women say one minute, "I dress sexy for myself, not for men. I like to look good for myself, not for men. It's presumptuous to think that just because I dress sexy that I am looking for sex or to be approached." All over the board.

 

Then when money is an issue, such as this thread, "Oh woe is women, all the money we spend looking nice for men, they simply can't imagine." Or in the "beauty standards" threads, "Oh woe is women, all the standards of beauty men inflict on us, why just last week I had to go buy a Coach bag and a pair of Jimmy Choos just to keep up! Damn those male standards!"

[RedFemale]

Save the digging, just recall hundreds and hundreds of posts here where women say one minute, "I dress sexy for myself, not for men. I like to look good for myself, not for men. It's presumptuous to think that just because I dress sexy that I am looking for sex or to be approached." All over the board.

 

Then when money is an issue, such as this thread, "Oh woe is women, all the money we spend looking nice for men, they simply can't imagine." Or in the "beauty standards" threads, "Oh woe is women, all the standards of beauty men inflict on us, why just last week I had to go buy a Coach bag and a pair of Jimmy Choos just to keep up! Damn those male standards!"

 

Spread the word of truth brother man!

[Els]

Save the digging, just recall hundreds and hundreds of posts here where women say one minute, "I dress sexy for myself, not for men. I like to look good for myself, not for men. It's presumptuous to think that just because I dress sexy that I am looking for sex or to be approached." All over the board.

 

And posters like johan, Art Critic and Pierre who say they pay because they want to? Why are you discounting their input? Is it because they're men?

[dasein]

So apparently accepting a drink from your male friend makes you a subservient, weak property of his. Gotcha.

 

Wrong, but accepting him to pay the whole $3000 weekly fee on a beach house does.

 

I was invited to a very expensive well-known event by a woman I was dating. She was paying about $3000 per day for the event over a week. She had already made the arrangements and paid for that part. So I paid for all the food and drink. I spent about 1k over the week on food and drink. She was acting very cool and wouldn't get physical the entire time despite being very horny other times. I wondered about this until one of her friends at the event said, "hope you didn't get suckered." It was apparently her practice to book the event in advance every year, invite a man, then rely on him to PAY FOR THE WHOLE THING. She had been doing it for years. It was a joke among her friends and acquaintances. As Chris Rock says paraphrased, when a woman pulls out the wallet, the p-ssy dries right up!

 

I got 100 anecdotes like this, if people want to sling potshots as opposed to actually addressing points I make, will just keep posting them.

[d'Arthez]

And posters like johan, Art Critic and Pierre who say they pay because they want to? Why are you discounting their input? Is it because they're men?

They are not men. They are women pretending to be men. Naturally.

[dasein]

And posters like johan, Art Critic and Pierre who say they pay because they want to? Why are you discounting their input? Is it because they're men?

 

This thread isn't about paying because you want to, but about feeling you have to in a world where female privileges remain somehow, yet all obligations have faded away. Either pay or face slander. I'm sure the woman who took me to the fancy event and I didn't pay for it all slandered me up and down the entire state.

[Els]

Mmhmm, and recently there was a guy who was seducing women online and getting them to give him thousands for his 'ailing mother's medical bills'.

 

Congratulations for being one of the men who got suckered in, you may join the women who were suckered into actually giving that fellow cash. Let's trade anecdotes, it'll be fun!

[Els]

This thread isn't about paying because you want to, but about feeling you have to in a world where female privileges remain somehow, yet all obligations have faded away. Either pay or face slander. I'm sure the woman who took me to the fancy event and I didn't pay for it all slandered me up and down the entire state.

 

And the women who feel like they have to shave their legs, put on makeup and wear heels in a world where there is supposed equality? If their perceptions are nullified by the 'hundreds of women who want to do it for themselves', then I'm certain johan et al nullify the men who feel they have to.

[Els]

They are not men. They are women pretending to be men. Naturally.

 

You must be one of those pretenders too, right?

[zengirl]

Save the digging, just recall hundreds and hundreds of posts here where women say one minute, "I dress sexy for myself, not for men. I like to look good for myself, not for men. It's presumptuous to think that just because I dress sexy that I am looking for sex or to be approached." All over the board.

 

As Elswyth said, so are quotes of men who say they pay for dates because they want to or who don't pay for dates but get dates.

 

This thread isn't about paying because you want to

 

Why isn't it about that, too? It's the master thread, and in this case, my most recent posts in it came originally from a thread asking why women accepted when men paid for meals. So, why wouldn't it be about those instances too? After all "master" means encompasses every aspect.

 

but about feeling you have to in a world where female privileges remain somehow, yet all obligations have faded away. Either pay or face slander. I'm sure the woman who took me to the fancy event and I didn't pay for it all slandered me up and down the entire state.

 

So, that's YOUR agenda in this thread, but as it's a Master Thread, I don't think you get to say what it's about in general. It's about EVERY aspect of paying for dates, including men who want to.

 

I'm not into shaming men or slandering if they don't want to pay for dates. I've actually said men shouldn't pay if they don't want to and that I don't think we should shame them for not doing so. But we also shouldn't shame men who DO want to pay or women who DO want to accept or be treated in that manner. There's a difference between shaming or slandering a man and simply passing up on him because he doesn't treat you the way you'd personally like.

Edited June 14, 2012 by zengirl

[dasein]

Mmhmm, and recently there was a guy who was seducing women online and getting them to give him thousands for his 'ailing mother's medical bills'.

 

Difference is, my anecdote is on topic, yours not so much.

 

Here's another one. Dating for two months, I had paid for everything ($1000 or so over holidays during two months) because her financial situation was tight due to her running up CCs on clothes, etc. I preferred her without any clothing on, but hey, women don't seem to be able to grasp that fact about men.

 

We go to brunch with her friends I was meeting for the first time. Started to pay our check at the end. She made a show of giving me money for her part. I figured, "well she wants to look independent in front of her friends," so took the money. She is pouting noticeably after we leave, "What's wrong?" I say. "So we are going dutch now!?" Apparently I was supposed to turn down her money as a sign to the friends, "here's a good catch (chump) who pays and pays and pays." We didn't last long after that. Just another episode in the mercenary reality of dating the average American woman. That one was great on paper too, just like all of them, so don't start with the "people picker" BS. My people picker worked just fine in dumping that one after I got to know her past the facade.

 

Which brings up another point to the topic, dating today, especially OLD, is a totally unknown quantity. Men are expected to shoulder all the financial risk of dealing with that, in an environment where a woman is as likely to run back to an ex or just simply ignore contacts after a few dates a man paid for. Often involves a case where the woman makes as much as the man. BS and hypocrisy.

[d'Arthez]

Which brings up another point to the topic, dating today, especially OLD, is a totally unknown quantity. Men are expected to shoulder all the financial risk of dealing with that, in an environment where a woman is as likely to run back to an ex or just simply ignore contacts after a few dates a man paid for. Often involves a case where the woman makes as much as the man. BS and hypocrisy.

Do you go bankrupt on a $10 coffee date?

[Els]

What's the difference? Yours was a conniving bitch. Mine was a conniving jerk. Decent men and women don't expect their partners to pay for $3000 cruises. I'm not surprised you're meeting women like that constantly, though, to be perfectly honest.You're right - it isn't your people-picker that's off either. Birds of a feather simply flock together.

[dasein]

As Elswyth said, so are quotes of men who say they pay for dates because they want to or who don't pay for dates but get dates.

 

Sure, men can certainly say they like to pay, that's their prerogative. Women who seize on that as opposed to simply admitting "I'm willing to toss all my high-minded ideals about independence and self-sufficiency out the window the minute I get free stuff and $$$ from a man!!" are hypocrites. Most of this thread is rationalization.

 

The simple question for women is, "do you or do you not believe that a social institution that implies dominant/subservient social roles should continue or not?" I applaud the women who answer the question in an honest, straighforward way, and there are significant numbers of those here. Cheers to you enlightened ones. As for the rest of you? You rationalizations equate to hypocrisy.

[Mme. Chaucer]

I think we should start a betting pool as to what dasein would say to a woman who said, "Ugh, it sucks being a woman! I HAVE to put on makeup, shave my legs, and wear heels to get men. Men have it so easy and are never expected to do all that. Such unfairness and hypocrisy."

 

My bet's on: "Stop complaining and levying your feminist accusations at men. Accept personal accountability for your own decisions instead of blaming men. But none of you women are able to do that anyway.":laugh:

 

Is this a hypothetical exchange? Because I could swear I've read at least one or two just like that right here on this very LoveShack …

[dasein]

Do you go bankrupt on a $10 coffee date?

 

Typically disingenuous. Try taking OLD dates to Starbucks, McDs or Dennys and you -will- be slandered by women. Not all of them, but enough to damage your dating reputation in your pool. I've spent about $50k over 20 yrs of dating and relationships on both the "early dates" and "continuing he pays imbalance" aspects of the gentleman tax. So we aren't talking a single $10 cup of coffee. Not even a good try.

[zengirl]

Sure, men can certainly say they like to pay, that's their prerogative. Women who seize on that as opposed to simply admitting "I'm willing to toss all my high-minded ideals about independence and self-sufficiency out the window the minute I get free stuff and $$$ from a man!!" are hypocrites. Most of this thread is rationalization.

 

I'm independent and self-sufficient but I still accept generosity (on dates - well, only from Hubby now, obviously - and elsewhere) without feeling guilty or less self-sufficient. I also accept help and so forth when I need help from a friend. Just because I *could* do it alone or pay for everything doesn't mean I'm hell bent on it. I also like helping other people out. Whenever I take my 18 year old cousin who goes to college in my town now out for lunch, I pay AND slip her some money or grocery certs or something because I know she's paying her own way through college. Hell, I often pay for lunch or drinks for friends who are doing just fine, and they often do the same for me. I don't calculate to see if it's the SAME friends paying for me as it is me paying (it isn't always and often is not, in fact) and I don't feel less self-sufficient.

 

Actually, insisting on doing everything ALONE and yourself seems like a bad attitude to me. I think it's actually a bad sign if someone can't generously give OR graciously receive. But that's just my value system, not everyone's. I don't think it makes me any less legally or socially equal to anyone if they buy me some pasta, though. That idea is just silly.

 

The simple question for women is, "do you or do you not believe that a social institution that implies dominant/subservient social roles should continue or not?"

 

That's not the question really. I don't think ANYTHING in dating should be institutionalized (paying or going dutch, as an institution, would BOTH be wrong, in my eyes), but rather individuals should act under their own free will, as individuals, and do what they wish. I'm ardently against institutionalizing ANYTHING or saying individual couples or daters should do this or that or whatever.