Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[Sanman]

Oh, definitely. I have never agreed with people mocking others for not conforming to their preferences, be it denigration towards overweight people, or older people, or men who don't wish to pay. However, to be fair, I think women who say they prefer a man to pay (and say this without calling the men who don't pay names) receive a lot of flak on this board simply for their preference. Men who pay also receive a lot of flak on this board - I've seen them called chumps, doormats, pussies, compensating for lack in other areas, etc. I'm all for preventing negative judgement and mocking of people, but that goes many ways here.

 

 

My personal view is that I do not mock anyone that has a preference and states it as such. However, faulty logic and hypocritical justifications annoy me. Tell me it is simply what you prefer, but do not sit there and say I want equality in all areas but one. If you prefer a traditional role, that is fine. However, many people here tend to pick and choose their positions without any sort of fluency of thought. It would be the same if I said that I want to split dating costs, we both work, but she does all the housework/ child rearing and I can sit on the couch and have a beer because it make me feel like a man (actually my gf's dad feels that way and it annoys me too. I like to help out when I can).

[Els]

Ah, but SOME women like wearing heels --- honestly. I know it sounds mad, but it's true. And SOME men like paying for dinner. Really, they do. I know some. Not ONLY to put themselves over the edge, but because it makes them feel good about themselves, the same way some women feel sexier when they wear heels. So assuming it's a pain or problem for the other person is not necessarily correct.

 

Precisely. Compatible Rs are ones in which people are able to 'give' in ways that they feel good about AND their partner enjoys, IMO.

[Els]

My personal view is that I do not mock anyone that has a preference and states it as such. However, faulty logic and hypocritical justifications annoy me. Tell me it is simply what you prefer, but do not sit there and say I want equality in all areas but one. If you prefer a traditional role, that is fine. However, many people here tend to pick and choose their positions without any sort of fluency of thought. It would be the same if I said that I want to split dating costs, we both work, but she does all the housework/ child rearing and I can sit on the couch and have a beer because it make me feel like a man (actually my gf's dad feels that way and it annoys me too. I like to help out when I can).

 

Nod, I agree. However, I think the women who want 'equality in all ways but one' are exactly like the men I talked about in my previous example who want much but offer little. They aren't likely to find success, and perhaps one day they'll wake up and realize that. Essentially, they are harming no one but themselves.

[Art_Critic]

Money is obviously a burden when it comes to dating (if you're actively dating), so what are YOUR ground rules and beliefs on who pays for what?

 

Money in dating a burden.. really ?

I have never felt that..

When I was single and dating I paid for the dates..

It is and was the gentlemanly thing to do, and if they had kids I also paid for the babysitter when it was appropriate.

 

I feel dating is about putting your good foot forward and as a man one of my good feet is removing the "money burden" from the girl and making sure the date is fun.

 

Of course.. as always on LS we could post for miles on this subject but I'll just let it go for now

[zengirl]

My personal view is that I do not mock anyone that has a preference and states it as such. However, faulty logic and hypocritical justifications annoy me. Tell me it is simply what you prefer, but do not sit there and say I want equality in all areas but one. If you prefer a traditional role, that is fine. However, many people here tend to pick and choose their positions without any sort of fluency of thought. It would be the same if I said that I want to split dating costs, we both work, but she does all the housework/ child rearing and I can sit on the couch and have a beer because it make me feel like a man (actually my gf's dad feels that way and it annoys me too. I like to help out when I can).

 

But isn't the point of feminism and egalitarianism to eradicate gender roles not create new, set ones? There is no set "equality role" either.

 

People get to choose what they bring and what they want. Why can't individuals make their own roles and relationships without being mocked as well? Why is it "traditional" or "equal" and no sort of ability to put your own life together, which would truly be the point of equality and feminism.

 

Of course, everyone generally has to bring SOMETHING to the table or they won't do well. Truly. And we have a right to decide what we want our individual partners to bring to the table, but why should we dictate what someone else's R should be just because it doesn't fit your molds of "traditional" or "equal"?

[Sanman]

But isn't the point of feminism and egalitarianism to eradicate gender roles not create new, set ones? There is no set "equality role" either.

 

People get to choose what they bring and what they want. Why can't individuals make their own roles and relationships without being mocked as well? Why is it "traditional" or "equal" and no sort of ability to put your own life together, which would truly be the point of equality and feminism.

 

Of course, everyone generally has to bring SOMETHING to the table or they won't do well. Truly. And we have a right to decide what we want our individual partners to bring to the table, but why should we dictate what someone else's R should be just because it doesn't fit your molds of "traditional" or "equal"?

 

 

Ah, but when we pick and choose, the majority tend to pick in their personal favor. It is the same way in which people politically want many social programs and government aid, but also want their taxes lowered. Of course we all want something for nothing, but that is not the way the world works. For every person that gets something for nothing, another person is being abused/oppressed in some way. We, in the western world, live as we do because of a lack of human rights and worker pay in other countries. In the same way, would it have been right to tell women that they needed to compete with each other for the few jobs available to them rather than change the minds of those that held the power (men) at the time? Until the expectation of the large majority of women changes (and it may do so over the generations), men are not truly free to decide what they would like to do for themselves. I do think that women are more free to choose their footwear. Oddly, most of the women I date rock converse all-stars and that is awesome!

[Els]

Ah, but when we pick and choose, the majority tend to pick in their personal favor. It is the same way in which people politically want many social programs and government aid, but also want their taxes lowered. Of course we all want something for nothing, but that is not the way the world works. For every person that gets something for nothing, another person is being abused/oppressed in some way. We, in the western world, live as we do because of a lack of human rights and worker pay in other countries. In the same way, would it have been right to tell women that they needed to compete with each other for the few jobs available to them rather than change the minds of those that held the power (men) at the time? Until the expectation of the large majority of women changes (and it may do so over the generations), men are not truly free to decide what they would like to do for themselves. I do think that women are more free to choose their footwear. Oddly, most of the women I date rock converse all-stars and that is awesome!

 

But if we are to function as an advocate for the masses, to what extent should we advocate 'equality'? Where do we draw the line between 'equality' and 'making the sexes identical'? Okay, so men should do 50% of the housework and women should pay 50% of the bills, sounds good. How about shaving? Should we say that if a man wants a woman with shaved legs and armpits, in the interests of equality he should ensure that his own legs and armpits are hairless as well, otherwise he is 'picking and choosing'? How about a man who prefers women with long hair - must he keep his own long as well so that he knows the maintenance involved in keeping such? And what about things that we cannot truly change, such as the fact that the woman is the one who bears children?

 

It's a slippery slope that has too many grey areas for people to reach a general consensus on, once we broach the boundaries of 'I like what I like and you're free to like what you like'. If people are the sort who want 'something for nothing', you just have to trust that things will sort themselves out and they will eventually learn from their lack of success.

[Sanman]

But if we are to function as an advocate for the masses, to what extent should we advocate 'equality'? Where do we draw the line between 'equality' and 'making the sexes identical'? Okay, so men should do 50% of the housework and women should pay 50% of the bills, sounds good. How about shaving? Should we say that if a man wants a woman with shaved legs and armpits, in the interests of equality he should ensure that his own legs and armpits are hairless as well, otherwise he is 'picking and choosing'? How about a man who prefers women with long hair - must he keep his own long as well so that he knows the maintenance involved in keeping such? And what about things that we cannot truly change, such as the fact that the woman is the one who bears children?

 

It's a slippery slope that has too many grey areas for people to reach a general consensus on, once we broach the boundaries of 'I like what I like and you're free to like what you like'. If people are the sort who want 'something for nothing', you just have to trust that things will sort themselves out and they will eventually learn from their lack of success.

 

No, but I do think that today a large majority of people and families are able to find flexible solutions to these issues that should be the way it is. There should not be the expectation that men pay for dates, men need to be the primary breadwinner, that women do the majority of housework or be the SAH parent for children. There should be flexibility to do what you want based on the circumstances without judgement or expectation from others. However, we as a society have a ways to go before reaching such an egalitarian standard.

[Els]

But see, that's the thing - there IS flexibility. It is going to alienate some potential partners, but essentially you have ultimate control as to what you wish to do. It isn't the same as the situation of women back in, say, the 15th century. Back then in most countries women HAD no control - they could not own property, could not make their own way in the world and were essentially at the mercy of the men in their lives if they even wanted to survive. Men (and women) nowadays DO have control; if a woman leaves in a hissy fit because a man didn't pay, he isn't going to starve to death, he has the option to just laugh her off.

 

Judgements and expectations go both ways in dating - I would go so far as to say that women are generally expected to shave their legs, for one thing. But I don't push for 'more egalitarian standards' just because I don't want to shave MINE. I just... don't, if I don't want to.

[zengirl]

Ah, but when we pick and choose, the majority tend to pick in their personal favor. It is the same way in which people politically want many social programs and government aid, but also want their taxes lowered.

 

Well, not quite the same. Taxes are something we need to "discuss on and agree" (well, we rent that procedure out to someone else, but basically) as a society, whereas dating is something that happens between 2 individuals, with their own unique preferences and expectations.

 

As I say, many men expect and prefer to pay on early dates, without necessarily wanting a wife who is jobless and housebound. Many women are happy to wear heels. Whatever. A man who doesn't want to pay on dates - early or otherwise - is free to not do so. You are right that some women may not date him then. So be it. Just as ANY of the behaviors and qualities we have or exhibit on a date may make someone decide not to date you. It is NOT true that men need to pay for dates to get dates, as you yourself have seen, in all cases. There is certainly no legal mandate for it, like there are taxation, and no regulations, as there are for services. So the analogy falls apart for me.

 

You are right that people act in their best interest, as well they should. They should ideally act from enlightened self interest, where they realize that bad behavior and screwing over others is not REALLY in their best interest (might be good for a moment, but not the longer run). But I see nothing wrong with that --- people should be able to want what they want. If they cannot get it, they'll need to offer more or want less. Such is life.

 

For every person that gets something for nothing, another person is being abused/oppressed in some way.

 

I fail to see how a man choosing to pay for a woman's dinner, and a woman liking that, leads to someone else being abused.

 

Until the expectation of the large majority of women changes (and it may do so over the generations), men are not truly free to decide what they would like to do for themselves. I do think that women are more free to choose their footwear. Oddly, most of the women I date rock converse all-stars and that is awesome!

 

See, people have a legal right to employment because it's required to function in society. Dates are not. No one has a legal right to dates, sex, companionship, marriage, anything like that -- male or female -- so it's not an apt comparison to employment. A dateless man or woman is not a social problem; a hungry, unemployed (unless wealthy etc), or unhoused one it.

 

I think women are certainly free to choose their footwear and men are free not to pay for dates. Your relationship proves that! You brought something else to the table, so dated someone without going dutch on those early dates hindering you.

[Sanman]

But see, that's the thing - there IS flexibility. It is going to alienate some potential partners, but essentially you have ultimate control as to what you wish to do. It isn't the same as the situation of women back in, say, the 15th century. Back then in most countries women HAD no control - they could not own property, could not make their own way in the world and were essentially at the mercy of the men in their lives if they even wanted to survive. Men (and women) nowadays DO have control; if a woman leaves in a hissy fit because a man didn't pay, he isn't going to starve to death, he has the option to just laugh her off.

 

Judgements and expectations go both ways in dating - I would go so far as to say that women are generally expected to shave their legs, for one thing. But I don't push for 'more egalitarian standards' just because I don't want to shave MINE. I just... don't, if I don't want to.

 

 

Agreed that things are better than they were. No, the man is not going to starve to death, but he may have to pick up that check. Having a preference is fine if it were not for the lack of transparency. If dating sites had a category for date pay preferences, I would have used that to filter my choices, but they do not.

 

Men and women have some control. That is like saying that black and white people had equal rights in the 1950-70s. Just because they had the right to do certain things does not mean that a black person living in Jackson, Mississippi had all the choices in the world. Stay at home dads are often mocked by men and women alike. It may be your choice, but good luck finding a woman that agrees to it (it is likely harder than for those that want to be SAHM to find a man to agree to it, though that is tough as well).

 

For example,

 

If 30% of women and 60% percent of men want to split hte check on all dates:

 

I am not worried about the 30% of men who can score dates with those women or the 40% that prefer to pay. However, I do believe someone should say something for the 30% of men who are stuck dating women who want them to pay or not dating at all. Of course, there are other ways that gender roles are more unfair to women and I encourage women to bring that up. I am simply trying to advocate for men. As I mentioned earlier, I already have my dream woman.

[Els]

What do you think we should do about the leg-shaving discrepancy, then? I'm certain that there are every bit as many women who find shaving/waxing a bother but still do it because it's expected of women, as there are men who don't wish to pay but do it because it's expected of men. How do you feel this should be sorted out?

[d'Arthez]

These are things you cannot sort out, by merely stating a preference, in OLD. After all, how many men and women blatantly lie? Some men conveniently forget that they are married, some women conveniently forget about 30 pounds ... Honesty is often in short supply.

 

Paying preference will be yet another meaningless search criterion. As long as people insist on dating on a superficial / stupid basis, they are not going efficient about matters. This applies to both men and women.

[Leopard]

Very typical.

 

This line of thinking that plays down the other side's concern while playing up your own really irritates me.

 

If you wanna play that game, then men could say losing money is much worse because not only you lose something tangible that you earned through hard work, you also suffer emotional pain due to rejection. On the other hand, SEX IS FREE. The loss is imaginative.

 

Are you serious? This has got to be the most disgusting thing I have ever heard.

 

You're basically saying it's worse to lose something tangible than to give up your body.

 

Wow.

 

And for the record, if sex is free, THEN STOP EXPECTING SEX WHEN YOU PAY FOR A DATE. And if you still expect it, then when you make her pay her half, DONT COMPLAIN WHEN SHE DOESN'T SLEEP WITH YOU.

 

Problem solved

[zengirl]

Agreed that things are better than they were. No, the man is not going to starve to death, but he may have to pick up that check.

 

No, he won't. He can choose to state at the beginning of the date or then or whenever that it's dutch. His choice, absolutely. And it's her choice not to see him again, and if that impacts it, so be it. But he HAS a choice. You're creating a false paradigm where there is no choice, but the choice still exists. Nothing terrible happens to him if she declines another date because they are incompatible on that issue, just as nothing terrible happens if someone declines a date with a woman who doesn't shave body hair or wear heels or whatever.

 

Having a preference is fine if it were not for the lack of transparency.

 

Well, that's true about ALL dating, really. And total transparency would just be crass to most people -- that's social norms for you -- as we do like to live in a world with some privacy as well.

 

Stay at home dads are often mocked by men and women alike. It may be your choice, but good luck finding a woman that agrees to it (it is likely harder than for those that want to be SAHM to find a man to agree to it, though that is tough as well).

 

Well, true. Just as it's harder to find a man who wants to be a SAHD if you want one! This example works both ways, really. Many do. We could certainly do better with socialization, to allow men and women to grow up without set gender expectations, but I don't think our society forces anyone into them these days.

 

However, I do believe someone should say something for the 30% of men who are stuck dating women who want them to pay or not dating at all. Of course, there are other ways that gender roles are more unfair to women and I encourage women to bring that up. I am simply trying to advocate for men. As I mentioned earlier, I already have my dream woman.

 

Why? What about women who want men to date them regardless of what they look like, if they shave, if they wear heels, if they gain weight, etc? There are any number of intricate reasons why someone might not date you --- usually it's a combination of factors (I seriously doubt if someone was a totally great guy and a total catch that he'd never be able to find dates, whether he paid or not). Why is anyone entitled to a date? Just as no one is entitled to a free meal if the other person doesn't want to pay, no one is entitled to a 'yes' on that next date. Truly.

[Sanman]

I fail to see how a man choosing to pay for a woman's dinner, and a woman liking that, leads to someone else being abused.

 

See, people have a legal right to employment because it's required to function in society. Dates are not. No one has a legal right to dates, sex, companionship, marriage, anything like that -- male or female -- so it's not an apt comparison to employment. A dateless man or woman is not a social problem; a hungry, unemployed (unless wealthy etc), or unhoused one it.

 

It is not being abused, but if you are holding someone to the expectation of dinner, then you are not really giving them a choice. That is a type of oppression. Transparency is key here. If most women shared these opinions with men prior to going on the date and let a man choose, I think you would be a real choice. The problem becomes that it is normally an awkward dance at the end of the date.

 

No one has a right to employment , just a fair shot at competing for a job if you live in the western world (and even that is not always the case). Hungry, unemployed, and unhoused is only defined as a social problem in the western world. Many other countries do not consider their problem. A problem is only a problem if you frame it as such. Many countries use the poor and homeless for cheap labor and allow it to happen without referring to it as a problem. The right to a minimum wage is largely a western concept, but most companies skirt the issue anyway. However, that is a topic for another day.

 

Truly, no one is entitled to anything. However, we as a society decide what is fair and what the limits should be. Otherwise the Rockerfellers and Carnegies of the world would own more than they already do and many more would be poor. Without discourse or debate or socialization and social norms none of that would ever change. As I said, I am an advocate for this issue and others. If people do not speak out such ideas never spread and norms never change.

Edited June 11, 2012 by Sanman

[zengirl]

It is not being abused, but if you are holding someone to the expectation of dinner, then you are not really giving them a choice. That is a type of oppression. Transparency is key here. If most women shared these opinions with men prior to going on the date and let a man choose, I think you would be a real choice. The problem becomes that it is normally an awkward dance at the end of the date.

 

I imagine it's only awkward if the man (and/or woman) doesn't have a firm feeling as to what he wants and will do. If he knows he wants to pay or knows he wants to go dutch, he would feel confident in his choice. If he is basing his choice on wanting another date, but truly not wanting to pay, and hedging his bets one way or the other, then it would become awkward, but he isn't really being honest then either, is he? At any rate: Transparency goes both ways. A man could easily express at the beginning of the date that he always goes dutch, if it's important to him.

 

I know I was always happy to pay for my meal, but often accepted a man's offer to pay. I did not accept the offer if I knew I was not seeing him again, due to my choice. I cannot say for sure whether a man paying impacted my decision to see him much -- perhaps it sometimes did. Perhaps my perfume or a choice of words or a pair of sexy shoes impacted a man's decision to ask me out again. What does it matter?

 

I think it's best we all put forth the self that we intend to be and see how someone reacts to that. If you suspect the reaction is no 2nd date, it's not coercing you to be different; it's merely cause and effect.

 

No one has a right to employment , just a fair shot at competing for a job (and even that is not always the case). Hungry, unemployed, and unhoused is only defined as a social problem in the western world.

 

True enough, but a right to fair competition for employment. There is no such right to dating, really. And even employment is not really "fair" competition --- who you're born as impacts a lot. At any rate, I see no correlation to dating since dateless people are not a social problem in any country.

[Sanman]

At any rate, I see no correlation to dating since dateless people are not a social problem in any country.

.

 

While I am no expert, I have heard it is a social problem in some Asian countries (Japan I believe)

[zengirl]

.

 

While I am no expert, I have heard it is a social problem in some Asian countries (Japan I believe)

 

No, I mean you'd be more shunned in many Asian countries without a family, but it doesn't lead to government intervention or welfare programs and isn't treated as a social problem. Certainly not in Japan.

[Sanman]

No, I mean you'd be more shunned in many Asian countries without a family, but it doesn't lead to government intervention or welfare programs and isn't treated as a social problem. Certainly not in Japan.

 

 

I believe this is what I was thinking about:

 

Japanese teens not interested in sex | CNNGo.com

[zengirl]

I believe this is what I was thinking about:

 

Japanese teens not interested in sex | CNNGo.com

 

Certainly a cultural phenomenon, but I've yet to see government step in or really any sense of urgency towards it in Japan.

[ATrainofAngels]

I'll never understand it, it's just such a bizarre concept to me

 

 

A couple years ago, I became best friends with this friend of mine. His whole family is loaded and I often times go out with his very very wealthy older brothers. Well, these guys literally pay for me every time I go out. Basically, they treat me like women get treated all the time

 

 

Here's the thing, the only reason I feel okay about it is because I go out of my way to return the favor to them. I drive us every time we go out (I'm designated driver), I'll drive them wherever the hell they want, I'll help them with moving anything, I've watched their dogs for 2 or 3 weeks in a row without asking for a dime of course and I just do everything I possibly can to show them how much I appreciate it. If I couldn't return them the favor, I would never accept any of these gifts and would always insist on paying for myself everywhere we went. Keep in mind, I don't make that much money and these guys are millionaires and I still don't feel okay with receiving undeserved free stuff.

 

 

Yet, women are not only okay with men paying for dates for no reason at all, but many of them actually demand that men pay for all their dates. In what universe is this an acceptable mindset? I HATE the idea that I'm mooching off somebody else and getting things I don't deserve and women are not only perfectly okay with this, but they often times demand it?

 

 

I mean do you feel that men should pay for you because you're spending time with them/having sex with them? Isn't that what prostitution is all about? I just don't understand how anybody can justify this mindset of "I have a vagina so I'm entitled to free things, even though I make the same money as my male counterparts"

 

 

Keep in mind, I don't have any problem with a man paying for his girlfriend. My goal is to actually make a lot of money and be able to spoil my future wife/girlfriend like crazy. The thing is that's a choice made by me. That shouldn't be a requirement. The entitlement attitude is what turns off a lot of men, myself included.

Edited June 11, 2012 by ATrainofAngels

[zanesfan]

I dont think men should have to pay for every single date. I will let the man pay for the date or two and then I will start chipping in.

 

Nowadays, men are really struggling with the whole who pays on dates. So now I will either tip or I will pay for the lesser date. Some men will tell me to keep my money and some will appreciate it.

 

Then you have the guys that we have to deal with that doesnt want to take you anywhere. And we agree to it.. so the next guy gets no mercy.

[Badsingularity]

 

 

Yet, women are not only okay with men paying for dates for no reason at all, but many of them actually demand that men pay for all their dates.

 

SOME women.

 

My wife has always tried to help with date expenses, even though she made a lot less money than I did.

 

Also, I have had more women buy me drinks than I have for them.

 

Find women like this. They are out there.

 

It helps though to a have a good attitude and an attractive personality so that they will enjoy your company enough to want to pay for things.

 

If you ask a girl out on a date and she says yes. Pay for it. You asked her out. After the next few dates a good woman will usually start offering to help pick up the bill.

[ATrainofAngels]

I dont think men should have to pay for every single date. I will let the man pay for the date or two and then I will start chipping in.

 

Nowadays, men are really struggling with the whole who pays on dates. So now I will either tip or I will pay for the lesser date. Some men will tell me to keep my money and some will appreciate it.

 

Then you have the guys that we have to deal with that doesnt want to take you anywhere. And we agree to it.. so the next guy gets no mercy.

 

 

 

It's more about the principle than anything else

 

 

 

I don't make a huge amount of money now, but I will likely do well in a few years (my family is well off and they're gonna set me up with a good job) so I will definitely spoil my future girlfriend. I just hate the entitlement attitude

 

 

Me spoiling a girl and paying for everything is my own choice. It should never be a requirement or taken for granted