Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[d'Arthez]

Interestingly, out of everyone I have ever interacted with, both online and offline, the person who comes closest to the stereotypical image of an extreme radical 'feminist' is... dasein. Except with the genders flipped.

What would he be burning? Boxer shorts?

 

I hope he realizes that if every minute of posting on LS would cost him $1, that his dates who "used him for his money" were actually quite cheap on him.

[dasein]

I hope he realizes that if every minute of posting on LS would cost him $1, that his dates who "used him for his money" were actually quite cheap on him.

 

The king of logic has spoken.

[zengirl]

If kids in the sandbox could endlessly rationalize not having a free toy taken away in terms of basic generosity and other mealy mouthed, indirect excuses when they have no rational grounds for keeping the toy, I'm sure they would. The result is all the same though.

 

Nothing is "taken away," though. No one is forced to offer to cover dinner, nor should they be.

 

Ignores the social standard that by and large, men ARE expected to pay for early dates, and in so doing, assume 100% of the risk of early dates

 

First: You believe that 100% of the risk of early dates is financial? Really?

 

Second: Honestly, I'd say as many men expect themselves to pay for early dates as women expect them to, which is far from all. At any rate, most of us have to face at one point in time a societal expectation which we fail to meet, based on our individuality and principles. How is this one any different? There are societal expectations for men, women, white people, black people, Asian people, etc, and no amount of social/legal equality has done away with them. Most of them, like this one, have been sufficiently muted to the point where it is easy enough to not follow it without your life suffering many consequences.

 

Third: Men like Sanman and kaylan clearly show us that there are not dire social consequences simply for not paying for dates. That is not to say it won't turn a single woman off, but how is that any difference than the societal expectations for women to shave their legs, wear heels, wear makeup, etc? And those expectations DO exist and are societal. Just like the paying-for-dates expectation, they are propagated by men and women alike.

 

At any rate, I didn't expect men to pay on early dates, but I also didn't expect them not to. I expected them to sincerely mean it if they offer, though. I never asked a man to cover a check in my life. I certainly hope no man ever considered it a risk/reward proposition. I don't think I've ever accepted a 2nd date with the kind of man who would, though.

 

If he refuses to comply with the standard, he will be slandered more likely than not in his dating pool. That's the world you and I both live in.

 

I've never seen anyone "slandered in their dating pool" and certainly not for that. Sure, if someone knows a guy is a cheater or whatever, word may get around, but I've honestly never heard a woman tell me if a man paid for dates or not. Truly, truly never come up in real life, not in my world. Clearly, we live in different worlds.

[maybealone]

I'm more than happy to admit that many men expect silly, unreasonable things from women, provided you admit that the "man pays for early dates" social convention is equally archaic and silly.

 

It's not social convention, it's nature. The male of the species works to impress the female of the species.

 

I think people will get out of dating what they put into dating. When dating is treated as a financial burden and/or you go on a first date assuming it won't work out, don't expect much.

 

P.S. I am more than happy to admit that some women have unreasonable expectations of men and are looking to become a kept woman, but I'd ballpark the number as a very small percentage whereas you seem to think it's more like 100%.

 

Imagine a world where each individual man could choose whether or not he wanted to offer to pay on early dates and each individual woman could choose to accept graciously or decline, and it wasn't all some grand game or scheme or even any kind of complication. THAT is the world I, and many others, live in.

 

Hey, I live there too. We're neighbors!

[Sanman]

Sweetest gesture ever! Could melt my heart...

 

As for the paying for dates issue...

I admire guys who doesn't know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Men, just pay for early dates and stop whining about it.

Women can be generous in return... eventually!

 

Giving a woman a jacket, holding a door, or pulling out a chair do not cost a thing and some of those are common courtesy.

 

As for paying...women can be generous in return... eventually... maybe... if they feel like it

 

and that really is the gist of the problem some of the men are speaking about here. There nothing stopping a woman from being generous on the first date (picking up movie tickets after dinner, dessert, whatever) other than the fact that falling back on social convention is her choice and can be to her benefit.

[dasein]

Nothing is "taken away," though. No one is forced to offer to cover dinner, nor should they be.

 

"Men pay for early dates" = a dating -standard- from the past burdening men, that without commensurate female standards in place, amounts to social extortion whereby something -is- taken away. You are quite willing to talk about force and voluntary action, when the topic isn't about force, per se, but social pressure. The "you aren't forced to do it so it doesn't matter" excuse is BS. I would gladly accept "you don't have to do it" rationalizations were they accompanied by statements that the social convention is outmoded and discriminatory in practice, but people are free to follow it if they wish.

 

Getting women to admit that any social convention that benefits them is outmoded or archaic, even -demeaning- is like pulling teeth, and shouldn't be. A woman who considers women equal should have no problem whatsoever stating, "people can do as they wish, but the social standard that men should pay for early dates is undesirable for both men and women" without loads of rationalizing about "generosity" and other nonsense.

 

This is just another clue of the type constantly arising in these types of discussions, that women aren't interested in real equality, only unearned benefit. Equality to many women is a cafeteria plan where they assume the privilege of picking a little of this and a little of that. BS. It's amazing to hear women distort and exaggerate social conventions that don't give women something for free or disadvantage women in some nebulous, miniscule way as pure evil ("you should all be forced to pay for our birth control"), and then in the very next breath, facilely rationalize away the exact same kinds of discriminatory social standards that operate to men's detriment as "no big deal."

 

First: You believe that 100% of the risk of early dates is financial? Really?

 

Yes, because it is. Someone could argue that bad dates waste time, but that's not real, quantifiable risk. $$ on the table spent for food, drinks and tickets are, and the standard expects men to shoulder - all- that early on, whereas unlike in the past, she may just stop picking up her phone after a few dates with no social recriminations in the community at all.

 

Second: Honestly, I'd say as many men expect themselves to pay for early dates as women expect them to, which is far from all. At any rate, most of us have to face at one point in time a societal expectation which we fail to meet, based on our individuality and principles. How is this one any different?

 

OK, irrelevant, but fine, what people -choose- to do is a matter of their reasonable choice. That doesn't address the social standard at all though, the right, wrong or fairness of it, just how people react to it, an entirely different issue.

 

Third: Men like Sanman and kaylan clearly show us that there are not dire social consequences simply for not paying for dates.

 

Since when do two guys' experiences speak to whether a discriminatory policy is right or wrong or not? It doesn't at all. Since when do the consequences of a discriminatory practice need to be dire to make it wrong? But even so, Sanman has very clearly stated in the thread how past experiences with this social standard have cost him.

 

That is not to say it won't turn a single woman off, but how is that any difference than the societal expectations for women to shave their legs, wear heels, wear makeup, etc? And those expectations DO exist and are societal. Just like the paying-for-dates expectation, they are propagated by men and women alike.

 

Men are expected to look good too, and not parallel because it doesn't involve the raw transfer of money from one gender to the other.

 

I've never seen anyone "slandered in their dating pool"

 

Then you haven't read many "cheap" threads here and elsewhere, and it speaks to the narrowness of your life experience. Men are very regularly cheap-called, and refusing to acknowledge that is indicative of lacking a large social network and much dating and relationship experience.

 

Check out these two fine examples of "female quality" describing exactly the conventional attitude:

 

[Sanman]

It's not social convention, it's nature. The male of the species works to impress the female of the species.

 

I think people will get out of dating what they put into dating. When dating is treated as a financial burden and/or you go on a first date assuming it won't work out, don't expect much.

 

Not really, I have very nice, but socially awkward friends that end up paying for everything and do not get so much as a kiss. As Zengirl pointed out prior, there are attractive men who continues to attempt to act or get a record deal on the backs of women because they are attractive and women will put up with it to be with them. Dating is many things, but fair is generally not one of them. Attractiveness will give you options and skew things in your favor, innocence and unattractive qualities will skew things against you. That is life in general though.

[dasein]

It's not social convention, it's nature. The male of the species works to impress the female of the species.

 

There's a term describing most of the sex that goes on in nature, sure you want to go there? Dating does not occur in nature, and in nature, if a female accepts resources from a man without quid pro quo, there's going to be an immediate problem.

[Sanman]

I didnt pay for a date some months ago. She looked fatter than her picture. I ordered drinks and then disapeared. Serves her right for lying. It was almost 100 dollars.

 

That really makes you no better than women who take advantage of dating for free dinners because they didn't like the person. Taking advantage of others in any form is nothing to be proud of.

[maybealone]

There nothing stopping a woman from being generous on the first date (picking up movie tickets after dinner, dessert, whatever)

 

You're right.

 

There's also nothing stopping a man from saying, "I'd like to go out with you on Saturday night. How about I take you to dinner and you take me to the movies?" rather than making her pass or fail some secret financial test.

[maybealone]

Dating does not occur in nature

 

There are mating rituals, and in most species, males compete for females and females are picky. And in some species, it is similar to human dating (only with a heck of a lot less whining).

[d'Arthez]

Dating does not occur in nature

Neither does whining.

[Sanman]

You're right.

 

There's also nothing stopping a man from saying, "I'd like to go out with you on Saturday night. How about I take you to dinner and you take me to the movies?" rather than making her pass or fail some secret financial test.

 

And there is nothing wrong with the woman offering without having to be asked by the man. That dance can keep going round and round. As I said, from an ideal perspective I would assume all adults should believe in paying for and taking care of themselves.

[dasein]

There are mating rituals, and in most species, males compete for females and females are picky. And in some species, it is similar to human dating (only with a heck of a lot less whining).

 

So it seems you are indeed advocating rape then?

[Sanman]

My husband was a 50-50 date splitter, and a 50-50 expense splitter when we lived together. Over the course of the marriage, he slacked off to the point of not working at all. So maybe when some men insist on a woman that pays equally, it's an indication that he isn't the type of person to take care of someone else. And I don't mean in the "My wife expects to never work" sense, I mean in the "If I'm unemployed for months and I have to work some crap job to put food on the table, I will do that because my family needs me to" sense.

 

 

That may be true, but it could also be that a man does not want to be put in the same position that you were with your husband or worse. That is not about 50-50 or not, but rather someone not holding up their end of the agreement.

 

As for working 'some crap job', without an equal partner that would not matter. No $10/hr job will help pay bills/purchased assumed based on the on $100+/hr income I currently make. Unless you have a partner and you are both smart enough to live below your means, you will be in serious trouble.

[zengirl]

Then you haven't read many "cheap" threads here and elsewhere, and it speaks to the narrowness of your life experience. Men are very regularly cheap-called, and refusing to acknowledge that is indicative of lacking a large social network and much dating and relationship experience.

 

Check out these two fine examples of "female quality" describing exactly the conventional attitude:

 

 

How are those people in my social circle and dating pool? If you choose a social circle filled with quality people, life is so much more simple! My life experience is hardly narrow and my social network hardly small. I simply don't have people in it, excepting work colleagues perhaps who don't discuss such things with me per polite custom, who I don't value and who aren't people of quality.

 

If you lie down with dogs, you do get fleas, so I have no problem believing the anecdotes you give from your life, as you say.

[maybealone]

So it seems you are indeed advocating rape then?

 

Please do some reading on how females choose their mates. And yes, in most species, females choose who they want to mate with.

 

No $10/hr job will help pay bills/purchased assumed based on the on $100+/hr income I currently make. Unless you have a partner and you are both smart enough to live below your means, you will be in serious trouble.

 

"Means" are quite subjective. But I'm willing to guess that many people would have a hard time making ends meet when one spouse in unemployed for over a year.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Men showed deference to women partially as a matter of valuing the immense difficulties of childbirth and the necessity of hard female work at home to keep the family going.

 

Interesting! Was there some kind of focus group of men dispatched to make some concessions to repay women for their childbirthing traumas? Who appointed this council? God?

 

Anyway, the times, they are a-changing. Women now do actually work and if you were willing to acknowledge it, I'm sure even you know quite a few who make a significant financial contribution in their families; probably at least some who contribute more financially than their husband.

 

Women are fighting in wars now. Women have crucial roles in governments, too. We're helping you guys out a lot with all this tough stuff! Where's the gratitude?

 

And, hey! When are you men going to assume your just portion of the pain of childbearing? We're doing our part.

 

NO FAIR!!!

 

The outrage!

 

 

Now all those burdens are long gone, have been for decades, all the reasons men honored women with demonstrating support and resources.

 

What gives you the impression that women's worthiness of honor, support and resources has anything to do with men? Women are and always have been worthy, just like men, whether we have babies, make money, or not. It's not up to men to confer this upon us.

 

The women who rationalize and recoil at this issue are simply the social equivalent of children howling in a sandbox when a toy is denied them. No difference whatsoever.

 

Does this include all women who have "allowed" a man to pay for a date, too?

 

And, yes, there are differences. I'm not surprised that you aren't able to discern them, though. You just like to impotently try to dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as "rationalizing," "screeching," "illogical," "ad hominem attackers," etc.

 

That's a very weak of yours, and to it, I say:

 

Vescere bracis meis

[dasein]

If you lie down with dogs, you do get fleas, so I have no problem believing the anecdotes you give from your life, as you say.

 

And of course you ignore the linked video of a woman who owns a dating service describing very clearly that what I have posted is indeed the cultural norm. Notice the insincere, cutesy wink-wink ways she deals with the questions from the other tart, demonstrating quite clearly the typical low quality (vast majority) female attitude on this issue. Note also no reasoning or actual discussion takes place, just typical self-absorbed fem-antilogic as to -why- men should pay... because she wants him to, "be a leader, be a gentleman, just gimme the money" teeheehee.

 

You have 0 experience of a man dating women in all your 20 someodd years, that's a sure bet I'd imagine, so spare further "different worlds" analysis.

 

BTW the closest thing in my life to "laying down with dogs and getting fleas" occurs on this forum.

[Mme. Chaucer]

And of course you ignore the linked video of a woman who owns a dating service describing very clearly that what I have posted is indeed the cultural norm. Notice the insincere, cutesy wink-wink ways she deals with the questions from the other tart, demonstrating quite clearly the typical low quality (vast majority) female attitude on this issue.

 

Why do you call them "tarts"?

 

And why does this video represent the "typical low quality (vast majority) female attitude?" to you?

 

Who appointed these pretty ladies as spokeswomen for all of us? I guess they are sort of gurus of yours, but not for me.

 

Do they inform you in every aspect of your life?

[dasein]

Interesting! Was there some kind of focus group of men dispatched to make some concessions to repay women for their childbirthing traumas? Who appointed this council? God?

 

No, they just gave their lives protecting them. Ingrates.

 

Anyway, the times, they are a-changing. Women now do actually work and if you were willing to acknowledge it, I'm sure even you know quite a few who make a significant financial contribution in their families; probably at least some who contribute more financially than their husband.

 

Irrelevant to my claim that women have no duties of the past, yet cling to the advantages of the past like remoras.

 

Women are fighting in wars now. Women have crucial roles in governments, too. We're helping you guys out a lot with all this tough stuff! Where's the gratitude?

 

It's draining away down a twisting sewer of "never enough" demands of women and dishonestly vilifying men in the process.

 

And, hey! When are you men going to assume your just portion of the pain of childbearing? We're doing our part.

 

We are about a generation and a half away from the primary means of pregnancy being a sperm clinic...

 

What gives you the impression that women's worthiness of honor, support and resources has anything to do with men? Women are and always have been worthy, just like men, whether we have babies, make money, or not. It's not up to men to confer this upon us.

 

... and attitudes like the above are why.

 

Women are of course exempt from the unfortunate condition applying to men of being required to actually -earn- anything in life, just getgetget, right? How silly of me to think otherwise.

[Mme. Chaucer]

Hey, I'm nothing like a remora. Cool that you had a chance to use that word, though. I bet you don't have many opportunities in your everyday conversations.

[dasein]

And why does this video represent the "typical low quality (vast majority) female attitude?" to you?

 

It's just the first vid that came up on youtube. I posted it because the woman purports to run a dating service and so is presumably in touch with her clients' attitudes. Post a contrary one suggesting that "man pays for early dates" is not in fact the social standard, or don't.

[dasein]

Please do some reading on how females choose their mates. And yes, in most species, females choose who they want to mate with.

 

The point is that references to the animal kingdom in discussing human social structure and dating conventions are inane, regardless of the topic.

[Mme. Chaucer]

The point is that references to the animal kingdom in discussing human social structure and dating conventions are inane, regardless of the topic.

 

That's inane, but using the first video you find on a search (launched to find one which would support your POV, of course) as PROOF of anything is … smart?

 

Why not stop using insulting language to dismiss the posts of a person with a different opinion from yours? It makes taking you seriously impossible.