Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[Sanman]

That's because there is no MAN there. Now do you get it?

 

Oh, so you are suggesting men and women are not equal? If you run, you might be able to catch that bus back to the 1950's.

[Sanman]

Question: would you be willing to be a stay at home dad while your wife/girlfriend was out being the provider?

 

Just curious.

 

 

Sure, why not. Though I would probably get board. It would pay better for me to see patients part-time while the kids are at school and farm out the laundry and such considering I make much more per hour than anyone doing my laundry.

[Leopard]

Oh, so you are suggesting men and women are not equal? If you run, you might be able to catch that bus back to the 1950's.

 

Men always think that it's about equality. Hahaha. That's why they don't understand what i'm trying to say.

 

Equality, and i've read on this forum other women also saying this, is not about SPLITTING everything absolutely in half. That might work in math, but not in relationships.

 

Equality means you both take equal amounts of responsibility. If a woman stays at home, watches the kids, cook and cleans while the man is out making the money, isn't that fair?

 

Making lots of money is hard work, and maintaining and entire house with kids in it is also hard. So isn't it fair that one person totally takes one responsibility and the other takes some others?

 

It complicates things when both partners do absolutely half of EVERYTHING. It's so difficult managing so many tasks, so splitting them up is easier.

 

This has nothing to do with equality and the fact that you're even mentioning means you don't understand the concept.

[Leopard]

Sure, why not. Though I would probably get board. It would pay better for me to see patients part-time while the kids are at school and farm out the laundry and such considering I make much more per hour than anyone doing my laundry.

 

So it's okay while YOU stay at home and your wife works, but its NOT okay when a woman expects the man to pay while she stays at home?

 

Funny how when it's a man it's okay, but when it's a woman it's not.

 

And you're telling ME about equality?

[Sanman]

Sure, why not. Though I would probably get board. It would pay better for me to see patients part-time while the kids are at school and farm out the laundry and such considering I make much more per hour than anyone doing my laundry.

 

 

bored* ....that really annoys me now

[musemaj11]

Don't you think that having sex with someone you dislike is kind of sick? Heck, going on a date and spending money on someone you dislike is really weak.

Well, you are not going to understand because you are not a man.

 

For a man, the heart and the penis are two separate individuals.

 

It would also turn off any woman who was willing to raise your children and cook for you instead of hiring a babysitter and barely every seeing her kids because she is working too much.

 

You shouldn't expect dinner on the table when you get home from work then, and I hope you can cook because you would be cooking your *half* of the meal just like she pays for her *half* of it.

Yeah, you must be really old because the newer generation of women dont even know how to cook. So whether I pay or not while dating, Im still going to come home to a plate of warmed up pizzas in the end anyway.

 

I remember back in college when my 60 year old female professor said, "We women like to domesticate our men. We like to clean for them and cook for them" and the female students were like, "WTF is she talking about?" because that is no longer true so they couldnt even relate to that. Its like some 40 year old guy rambling about how cool the 'Walkman' is to an 18 year old kid.

 

The funny thing is only straight women think this way. I have friends that are lesbian and have dated several bisexual women, they have all said that when two women are dating they generally split the check or take turns paying.

Well because if they dont do that then they cant leave the restaurant since someone has to pay. LOL

[sally4sara]

It would also turn off any woman who was willing to raise your children and cook for you instead of hiring a babysitter and barely every seeing her kids because she is working too much.

 

You shouldn't expect dinner on the table when you get home from work then, and I hope you can cook because you would be cooking your *half* of the meal just like she pays for her *half* of it.

 

Did you just fall out of 1954 or something? And if working means never seeing your kids then why isn't it some travesty for a father? How about both parents work so one of them doesn't have to work so much so that they never see the kids while the other only works in the home, saturated in rash ointment and baby talk?

Women don't raise children for men anymore. They raise children because children need raising. If they don't want to do it and they can't find a husband who will do it instead; some sort of trading off at different developmental stages, then the two of them might want to rethinking having kids in the first place.

And believe it or not, single men exist and they have to feed themselves too. Don't know why you think the concept of having to contribute to cooking is something to threaten men with if they idealize splitting the bill.

[Sanman]

Men always think that it's about equality. Hahaha. That's why they don't understand what i'm trying to say.

 

Equality, and i've read on this forum other women also saying this, is not about SPLITTING everything absolutely in half. That might work in math, but not in relationships.

 

Equality means you both take equal amounts of responsibility. If a woman stays at home, watches the kids, cook and cleans while the man is out making the money, isn't that fair?

 

Making lots of money is hard work, and maintaining and entire house with kids in it is also hard. So isn't it fair that one person totally takes one responsibility and the other takes some others?

 

It complicates things when both partners do absolutely half of EVERYTHING. It's so difficult managing so many tasks, so splitting them up is easier.

 

This has nothing to do with equality and the fact that you're even mentioning means you don't understand the concept.

 

So it's okay while YOU stay at home and your wife works, but its NOT okay when a woman expects the man to pay while she stays at home?

 

Funny how when it's a man it's okay, but when it's a woman it's not.

 

And you're telling ME about equality?

 

I never said that equality is about splitting everything in half. Nor have I said I have a problem buying dinner for my gf/fiancee/wife. I also don't have a problem with my wife working part-time either. However, that is an agreement WE would have to come to once we were in a relationship to equal out the burden. There is no WE in the first few dates, thus splitting the checks make sense. Anyone who believes you are going to sit there counting pennies 5 years into your marriage is just obtuse. However, two people getting to know each other on a first date are taking an equal chance the burden of responsibility should equal. That can mean splitting the check or you get dinner and I'll pay for the movies. Yet, so many women expect me to get dinner and the movies and she'll get me back later...maybe...if she still feels like seeing me. What if she is so horrible I don't want to see her again? Why should I be subjected to a horrible date and the check?

[Leopard]

.

Yeah, you must be really old because the newer generation of women dont even know how to cook. So whether I pay or not while dating, Im still going to come home to a plate of warmed up pizzas in the end anyway.

 

Are you serious? That's horrible!

 

I'm 24 and I know how to cook! This makes sense then. Men don't bother paying because they don't get warm meals. I guess I can sort of understand then. Why would you want to pay for dates when she doesn't even know how to cook you a meal??

 

Ouch. Sorry man. But I do promise that there are still women out there who know how to cook! Maybe you should try dating a chef lol

 

And believe it or not, single men exist and they have to feed themselves too. Don't know why you think the concept of having to contribute to cooking is something to threaten men with if they idealize splitting the bill.

 

You misunderstood me. The reason I am saying this is explaining why a man should pay for a date. I know many men know how to cook, but I am being asked why should they pay for a date?

 

What i'm trying to say is they should pay because a woman will (*should*) reciprocate in her own way, and I see that as cooking him a meal and treating him to dinner in her own way.

 

As musemaj11 mentioned though, most women of my generation don't even know how to cook (omg!) so that's how he is justifying not paying for a date. "Why pay if you come home to old warmed up pizza?"

 

I totally get it now.

 

Maybe I should rephrase. If a woman knows how to cook, and was willing to make meals for you, would you then agree to paying?

[Els]

Yeah, you must be really old because the newer generation of women dont even know how to cook.

 

I think a correction is in order here: The women whom musemaj tends to date do not know how to cook. Nor does musemaj himself know, I'm wagering.

[Leopard]

I never said that equality is about splitting everything in half. Nor have I said I have a problem buying dinner for my gf/fiancee/wife. I also don't have a problem with my wife working part-time either. However, that is an agreement WE would have to come to once we were in a relationship to equal out the burden. There is no WE in the first few dates, thus splitting the checks make sense. Anyone who believes you are going to sit there counting pennies 5 years into your marriage is just obtuse. However, two people getting to know each other on a first date are taking an equal chance the burden of responsibility should equal. That can mean splitting the check or you get dinner and I'll pay for the movies. Yet, so many women expect me to get dinner and the movies and she'll get me back later...maybe...if she still feels like seeing me. What if she is so horrible I don't want to see her again? Why should I be subjected to a horrible date and the check?

 

If the date is horrible then sure, make her pay for half. I totally understand that.

 

But if the date is going well, and you really like the girl, don't you want to impress her and be a gentleman and pick up the tab?

 

I just think it's such a kind and sexy thing to do. If you make her pay for half, she will assume you aren't interested and don't like her very much. Like you said, "Why should I be subjected to a horrible date and the tab?"

 

If the date is great, then you making her pay for half will make her assume the same, "Why should he be subjected to a horrible date AND the check?"

 

You said yourself you wouldn't pay for a horrible date, and if a woman knows this, you are giving the wrong impression by making her pay for half, even if you liked the date.

 

Do you understand what i'm trying to say? It would hurt to pay for a few dates.

[Sanman]

Maybe I should rephrase. If a woman knows how to cook, and was willing to make meals for you, would you then agree to paying?

 

Whether you cook and pay for groceries or pick up a bill at the restaurant is perfectly fine as long as there is some reciprocation.

[Leopard]

Whether you cook and pay for groceries or pick up a bill at the restaurant is perfectly fine as long as there is some reciprocation.

 

If a woman pays for half of the tab, what reciprocation is in order?

 

Is paying for half what is considered the reciprocation? Because if she pays for half, then the man shouldn't expects anything from her. You didn't do her a favor so she doesn't owe you. (Which is why I say that if a man makes her pay for half, he shouldn't complain when she doesn't want to have sex).

 

So i'm just trying to understand what you mean by reciprocation.

[sally4sara]

You misunderstood me. The reason I am saying this is explaining why a man should pay for a date. I know many men know how to cook, but I am being asked why should they pay for a date?

 

What i'm trying to say is they should pay because a woman will (*should*) reciprocate in her own way, and I see that as cooking him a meal and treating him to dinner in her own way.

 

Oh I don't think I misunderstood you.

 

The reason why there is no "should" when it comes to paying or cooking for that matter is BOTH are perfectly capable of doing either. If both know how to cook why on Earth would only HE have to buy her food?

If both know how to cook why would only SHE have to do the cooking?

 

Him having to pay for a meal out only works if she is the only one who can cook a home made meal.

 

And if neither of them know how to cook and they have to eat out - how, in your view, is she going to show reciprocity?

[Sanman]

I think a correction is in order here: The women whom musemaj tends to date do not know how to cook. Nor does musemaj himself know, I'm wagering.

 

Well, I do know how to cook, but the majority if women I date and friends (both male and female) do not know how to cook. It may be an upper middle class thing.

 

Actually, there is an old joke we used to tell around where I grew up:

 

Hey man, my mom is a great Jewish cook, she can order take-out like nobody's business!

[Algermas]

Are you serious? That's horrible!

 

I'm 24 and I know how to cook! This makes sense then. Men don't bother paying because they don't get warm meals. I guess I can sort of understand then. Why would you want to pay for dates when she doesn't even know how to cook you a meal??

 

Ouch. Sorry man. But I do promise that there are still women out there who know how to cook! Maybe you should try dating a chef lol

 

 

 

You misunderstood me. The reason I am saying this is explaining why a man should pay for a date. I know many men know how to cook, but I am being asked why should they pay for a date?

 

What i'm trying to say is they should pay because a woman will (*should*) reciprocate in her own way, and I see that as cooking him a meal and treating him to dinner in her own way.

 

As musemaj11 mentioned though, most women of my generation don't even know how to cook (omg!) so that's how he is justifying not paying for a date. "Why pay if you come home to old warmed up pizza?"

 

I totally get it now.

 

Maybe I should rephrase. If a woman knows how to cook, and was willing to make meals for you, would you then agree to paying?

 

 

I've been with girls where I ended up trying to figure out where the benefit was for me. I've come home after working all day to the girl sitting there, no housework, no food, barely a welcome home.

 

This isn't at all uncommon among women born after the 70's/80's. I might as well hire someone to cook and clean for me.

[Els]

Well, I do know how to cook, but the majority if women I date and friends (both male and female) do not know how to cook. It may be an upper middle class thing.

 

Actually, there is an old joke we used to tell around where I grew up:

 

Hey man, my mom is a great Jewish cook, she can order take-out like nobody's business!

 

 

Yeah, definitely in some cultures or economic classes, both men and women don't know how to cook.

 

My point was that both musemaj AND the women he dates do not know how to cook. In that case, it isn't a 'the new generation of women don't know how to cook' issue. It's a 'musemaj and the men/women he knows don't know how to cook' issue.

 

Speaking personally, in the egalitarian society I currently live in, both men and women are reasonably able to cook, and they seem to split the bill too. In the society I lived in previously, more women than men know how to cook, and more men than women tend to pay. So it usually balances out. I have a feeling that musemaj pays because he has nothing else to offer women, and the sort of women he usually encounters are skewed because it's imperative for him to get sex early and discard the woman later. The sort of women who are willing to put up with that crap usually do not tend to be representative of most other women.

[Leopard]

And if neither of them know how to cook and they have to eat out - how, in your view, is she going to show reciprocity?

 

Well first of all, if both know how to do it, who says each should take turns and not "one does one and the other does the other?" It's essentially the same as what you are saying. If both know how to do it, there can also be an arrangement that one pays, one cooks. I don't know why you think this is also wrong?

 

If neither know how to cook (what?!) then I suppose in that case, they should figure it out amongst themselves. But to me it's such a strange concept. How does a woman not know how to cook? What does she do for her man then? How does she take care of him?

 

Each to their own I guess.

[sally4sara]

Well first of all, if both know how to do it, who says each should take turns and not "one does one and the other does the other?" It's essentially the same as what you are saying. If both know how to do it, there can also be an arrangement that one pays, one cooks. I don't know why you think this is also wrong?

 

If neither know how to cook (what?!) then I suppose in that case, they should figure it out amongst themselves. But to me it's such a strange concept. How does a woman not know how to cook? What does she do for her man then? How does she take care of him?

 

Each to their own I guess.

 

Oh good grief!

 

If a guy wants to pay all the damn time and she wants to cook all the damn time then they should have at it. But in this thread we have been discussing attitudes of entitlement. Its pretty entitled to believe one should always pay the tab AND/OR one should always cook. Better hope the one who cooks never gets sick or dies. Better hope the one who works never gets sick or dies.

 

And pardon me but, I know how to cook and earn a living and raise a kid. Why would I want to be with someone who can't claim the same? I want to carry an inferior partner through life?

Seeing as I know how to do these things and would only want to be with someone who can do these things, it would stand to reason neither of us NEED someone to take care of us.

 

I guess people like me and my husband just have to settle for enjoying someone's company and doing for them what makes us happy to be doing for them huh? Wow what a sucky situation to be in right?!

[Els]

Oh good grief!

 

If a guy wants to pay all the damn time and she wants to cook all the damn time then they should have at it. But in this thread we have been discussing attitudes of entitlement.

 

I think the majority of us have agreed that entitlement is a ****ty attitude to have, from anyone, for anything. It's the other things that people disagree on.

[Sanman]

If neither know how to cook (what?!) then I suppose in that case, they should figure it out amongst themselves. But to me it's such a strange concept. How does a woman not know how to cook? What does she do for her man then? How does she take care of him?

Each to their own I guess.

 

Well, that is what some of the men here are asking. However, I find it somewhat alarming that taking care of someone seems to begin and end with cooking for you. There are many ways to take care of someone from providing emotional support, financial support, household work, company, sexual gratification, intellectual stimulation, etc.

[Leopard]

Oh good grief!

 

If a guy wants to pay all the damn time and she wants to cook all the damn time then they should have at it. But in this thread we have been discussing attitudes of entitlement. Its pretty entitled to believe one should always pay the tab AND/OR one should always cook. Better hope the one who cooks never gets sick or dies. Better hope the one who works never gets sick or dies.

 

And pardon me but, I know how to cook and earn a living and raise a kid. Why would I want to be with someone who can't claim the same? I want to carry an inferior partner through life?

Seeing as I know how to do these things and would only want to be with someone who can do these things, it would stand to reason neither of us NEED someone to take care of us.

 

I guess people like me and my husband just have to settle for enjoying someone's company and doing for them what makes us happy to be doing for them huh? Wow what a sucky situation to be in right?!

 

Who said anything about need?

 

The fact that you are thinking this way means that if I cook and a man pays, you think I NEED a man to pay, but I don't. I just prefer things this way.

 

So tell me. Since you and your husband always do everything for yourselves, how do you take care of him? If he can cook his own meals, make his own money, clean his own things, then what do YOU do for him? And I mean tasks, not emotions.

 

Just curious.

[Leopard]

Well, that is what some of the men here are asking. However, I find it somewhat alarming that taking care of someone seems to begin and end with cooking for you. There are many ways to take care of someone from providing emotional support, financial support, household work, company, sexual gratification, intellectual stimulation, etc.

 

Sexual gratification? But you just implied that I was wrong to think that a man should pay just to have sex with his date/girlfriend.

 

Financial support? Why take care of him if he can take care of himself?

 

That's what everyone else here is telling me. Why cook for him if he can cook for himself?

[maybealone]

I've been with girls where I ended up trying to figure out where the benefit was for me. I've come home after working all day to the girl sitting there, no housework, no food, barely a welcome home.

 

This isn't at all uncommon among women born after the 70's/80's. I might as well hire someone to cook and clean for me.

 

Or spend some serious time reflecting on why you are consistently attracted to this type of woman.

 

Well, that is what some of the men here are asking. However, I find it somewhat alarming that taking care of someone seems to begin and end with cooking for you. There are many ways to take care of someone from providing emotional support, financial support, household work, company, sexual gratification, intellectual stimulation, etc.

 

And equality doesn't have to begin and end with splitting finances 50%. None of the other things mentioned have to be split absolutely down the middle either.

[Sanman]

Sexual gratification? But you just implied that I was wrong to think that a man should pay just to have sex with his date/girlfriend.

 

Financial support? Why take care of him if he can take care of himself?

 

That's what everyone else here is telling me. Why cook for him if he can cook for himself?

 

Yes because there is a name for paying for something to simply gain access to sex.

 

You are either missing the point or playing coy. There are many ways in which one CHOOSES to support a partner and it is not just related to things the other partner has no skills in. Most people function just fine without a partner in this day and age. It does not mean that we do not enjoy knowing someone cares about us and seeing the evidence in their actions.