Consolidated Discussion - Paying for Dates

[RedFemale]

Could you elaborate on that, please?

 

I don't think I need to. You must be a woman, so I won't even try. Any man here would agree with me, that is good enough for me.

 

It's like as a man, I would never take a dating advice from a woman, known fact it would be a massive error in judgment.

[Kamille]

I don't think I need to. You must be a woman, so I won't even try. Any man here would agree with me, that is good enough for me.

 

It's like as a man, I would never take a dating advice from a woman, known fact it would be a massive error in judgment.

 

Yes, because clearly, all the advice you've been given by men is doing you a world of good redfemale.

 

Are you now going to answer by posting a link to my profile and thanking me for being so kind to new posters?

[RedFemale]

I am being kind, just making a point. Meant no disrespect to the female gender, was just being a bit condescending....

[samsungxoxo]

Your father has no idea about common sense, I am sorry to say. He also has no respect for his male gender. I would not be his friend, that's for sure. He is teaching his little girl how to lie, use and manipulate people. What a dad!

 

He should get a cup with #1 Dad on it for sure.

Well in his words, he refers it to a guy having basic manners.

 

What I do agree is if I were being asked out on a date, why would I still have to pay half? If I'm asked out, I'm assuming it's an invitation.

[RedFemale]

Well in his words, he refers it to a guy having basic manners.

 

What I do agree is if I were being asked out on a date, why would I still have to pay half? If I'm asked out, I'm assuming it's an invitation.

 

Oh...well how convenient princes...let me ask you this, when was last time you asked a boy out? And when/IF you did, did you pay for the whole thing?

 

Since guys are expected to ALWAYS ask a girl out first, it is very convenient philosophy you have princes, no?

Edited June 14, 2012 by RedFemale

[Disenchantedly Yours]

I am being kind, just making a point. Meant no disrespect to the female gender, was just being a bit condescending....

 

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.

 

"Who's that tripping over my bridge?" roared the........... figure it out.

[RedFemale]

"Trip, trap, trip, trap! " went the bridge.

 

"Who's that tripping over my bridge?" roared the........... figure it out.

 

Wow, you are so clever! Maybe you should buy your self a medal....

[Disenchantedly Yours]

jakelongot

I'm literally telling you I think a lot of these issues are a "two way street" and you are saying I'm blaming women. I think that sums it up. I would continue the discussion, but what's the point?

 

Your two way street was placing the burden, either way, on women.

 

 

 

Are you reading what you are writing? You state that women are expected to work more and conceed that men play a larger role in the home now than ever before, but then just go to "I see more women out shopping after work" so women have an extra hardship?

 

Do you know condsending and ignorant it is to ask someone "are you reading what you are writing". If you are confused about a point I made, simply ask. No, I didn't "conceed" anything. There is nothing to "conceed". Lets at least get what I said right. What I said was that men today take on bigger house/family responsibilities then previous generations. However, the majority of women still have a bigger pressure in the home ontop of being expected to work and pop out babies while doing it. I see mostly women after work shopping for their families, not men. There are some men, but mostly it appears to be women. This point was made to illustrate one way that it appears to me, that women are still taking on most of hte stereotypical housechores ontop of also having to work. Does that further explain things?

 

We are obviously speaking in generalities here...the large majority of men and the large majority of women. You can't pick and choose. So to say a woman who might be the bread winner in a 2 parent family is also the one taking care of the kids, taking care of the house and doing the shopping is unrealistic.

 

Of course I am speaking in generalities! Icertainly can't speak about every possible case out there. That would be ludicris. The reality is that women work today and still have to burden a majority of the household work. It is true that men now do more in the home/kids department then previous generations. But it still appears that women not only have the extra pressure of having to work, but also still having to managing most of the household duties.

 

Yes there are single parent women who do all these things, but there is also single parent men who do this to

 

I am not talking about single parents. That is a different equation. Although I would be curious out of those type of situations, who had the kids more. It is not uncommon for men to more often skip out on their families for whatever reasons. Shouldering a lot of the responsibility on Mom. Personally, I would like to see this change and I think it is. But I think there are still a majority of kids with their Mom's vs their Dads.

 

But what you seem to discount is that men are expected to pay child support and alimony in the event of a breakup. If custody remains with the father, very very very few women are given that financial responsibility. We always have to be weary to women using us for our money, which is an economic hardship women will rarely ever have to consider. THERE ARE TRADEOFFS.[

 

Well first, child support is a seperate thing from alimony. But yes, there is unfair treatment toward men when it comes specifically to alimony. Everyman should have to pay child support, with the money going to the child, in such an event. Alimony should be taken on a case by case basis. It depends how long they have been together, what they built together and the likes of that. But I have heard of more situations where women are paying alimony to men.

[Disenchantedly Yours]

Wow, you are so clever! Maybe you should buy your self a medal....

 

I give medals a big "like". Thank you!

[RedFemale]

You call all you don't agree with, trolls.....oooooh so cute!

[Mme. Chaucer]

I did the so called 50/50 long ago and you know what it resulted in?

 

A failed relationship and he took me for granted to the point of not even trying at all.

 

 

I'm sorry things turned out this way, but I really doubt you can attribute all of this to "50/50." From your descriptions, it doesn't sound like 50/50 anyway; seems like he carried much less than 50% of the responsibility for the relationship, and I'm not just talking about paying for stuff.

 

He was probably a bad candidate for a relationship, and I think you can find plenty of guys who will pay for all dates without moaning about it who won't be good candidates either.

 

I think what really matters is that people who are dating each other are in harmony about this issue.

 

Guys carrying on and on about the injustice of paying for dates as well as women mounting an indignant outcry about the misery of having men NOT pay for dates are both, IMO, equally lame. I would not want to date a person who put such a lot of focus on such a thing.

[RedFemale]

Women seem to be in general, pretty lame IMHO.

[dasein]

Women seem to be in general, pretty lame IMHO.

 

The ones who rationalize all around this issue sure are. Saying, "If you don't want to pay then don't," is the equivalent of saying "If you don't want to go to war after getting that white feather, then don't."

 

This topic is very different than "basic generosity" because 1. It flows 99% towards one gender and away from the other, one group to the other, that's not "basic generosity" by any sane definition, closer to an organized charity. 2. If you fail to show basic generosity, say by not putting money in Santa Claus' GoodWill Pot at Christmas, Santa is not going to race to the phone and start telling everyone he knows how cheap you are. 3. There is a line between basic generosity and social convention and stereotype. Currently, we still live under the social convention "man pays for early dates." This suggests that women as a sex are weak and need to be provided for, ostensibly repulsive notions to a majority of women today, yet because it benefits women to the tune of thousands of dollars over their lives, crickets chirp. Women who seek equality in attitude from men should be furious about this, yet a majority continue to rationalize all around it as opposed to simply stating that it is archaic and needs to GO. Hypocrites.

[Kamille]

The ones who rationalize all around this issue sure are. Saying, "If you don't want to pay then don't," is the equivalent of saying "If you don't want to go to war after getting that white feather, then don't."

 

This topic is very different than "basic generosity" because 1. It flows 99% towards one gender and away from the other, one group to the other, that's not "basic generosity" by any sane definition, closer to an organized charity. 2. If you fail to show basic generosity, say by not putting money in Santa Claus' GoodWill Pot at Christmas, Santa is not going to race to the phone and start telling everyone he knows how cheap you are. 3. There is a line between basic generosity and social convention and stereotype. Currently, we still live under the social convention "man pays for early dates." This suggests that women as a sex are weak and need to be provided for, ostensibly repulsive notions to a majority of women today, yet because it benefits women to the tune of thousands of dollars over their lives, crickets chirp. Women who seek equality in attitude from men should be furious about this, yet a majority continue to rationalize all around it as opposed to simply stating that it is archaic and needs to GO. Hypocrites.

 

You still fail to understand it isn't women who need to be convinced to stop doing it. It's the men who want the competitive advantage. Stop thinking women are to blame for every single little thing in the universe, and you might actually understand your "struggles" in a way that will help you actually make the change you want to see happen.

[RedFemale]

If men would stop paying for dates, there will be no dates or sex for men. Asking this of a man is like telling a person to just stop breathing because when you do, you might get germs from air....

[Kamille]

If men would stop paying for dates, there will be no dates or sex for men. Asking this of a man is like telling a person to just stop breathing because when you do, you might get germs from air....

 

If men are such slaves to sex that they won't risk rocking the both, perhaps they should stop complaining that they have to pay for dates. Men who seek equality in attitude from women should realize there are other ways to get to know people, yet a vocal minority continue to rationalize all around sex as opposed to simply stating that it is archaic and needs to GO. They'd rather blame women than their base instincts. Hypocrites.

[Els]

You still fail to understand it isn't women who need to be convinced to stop doing it. It's the men who want the competitive advantage. Stop thinking women are to blame for every single little thing in the universe, and you might actually understand your "struggles" in a way that will help you actually make the change you want to see happen.

 

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:

 

Guys carrying on and on about the injustice of paying for dates as well as women mounting an indignant outcry about the misery of having men NOT pay for dates are both, IMO, equally lame. I would not want to date a person who put such a lot of focus on such a thing.

 

Precisely!

 

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.

 

There are plenty of men who go dutch and have not had any problems finding a gf - they have or have had at least a few LTRs before. On this board alone, I can think of kaylan and Sanman off the top of my head. People should really take a page out of those guys' books where it comes to this.

[Kamille]

If men are such slaves to sex that they won't risk rocking the both, perhaps they should stop complaining that they have to pay for dates. Men who seek equality in attitude from women should realize there are other ways to get to know people, yet a vocal minority continue to rationalize all around sex as opposed to simply stating that it is archaic and needs to GO. They'd rather blame women than their base instincts. Hypocrites.

 

*rocking the boat.

[Mme. Chaucer]

*rocking the boat.

 

I was kind of thinking, "rocking the booth."

[Kamille]

I was kind of thinking, "rocking the booth."

 

Perhaps I should have said: "If men are so desperate to be knocking the boots..."

[d'Arthez]

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.

And the kicker is that many men in the second category want many of the perks of a "traditional" relationship as well.

[Pyro]

If the small matter of who pays on a date is such an issue, just hire a prostitute. Yes you are still paying but at least it is guaranteed sex.

[Sanman]

If the small matter of who pays on a date is such an issue, just hire a prostitute. Yes you are still paying but at least it is guaranteed sex.

 

That only works if you looking for sex. It is not a solution for those that want to spend time getting to know someone and not be penalized with the bill when she turns out not to be someone you are interested in.

[Pyro]

That only works if you looking for sex. It is not a solution for those that want to spend time getting to know someone and not be penalized with the bill when she turns out not to be someone you are interested in.

 

I have never heard of such an issue about who foots the bill on a date before I came here to LS.

 

If it is such a problem then keep the dates simple. Another option is to be up front and tell her that you only go dutch on dates.

 

If those options are not good enough then don't date, simple as that. (Not speaking to you Sanman, just in general terms)

[dasein]

You still fail to understand it isn't women who need to be convinced to stop doing it. It's the men who want the competitive advantage. Stop thinking women are to blame for every single little thing in the universe, and you might actually understand your "struggles" in a way that will help you actually make the change you want to see happen.

 

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. The women who respond to this aren't blameless though, in accepting the "whore" role with glee, many make their romantic choices on precisely how gullibly profligate the "john" is. Always has been, likely always will be. No idea how to quantify what % of a given dating pool is seeking such a john/whore relationship, but it's -high-, and limits the pool considerably for both genders who seek "other than" a sales transaction in dating and relationships. Could say it's ~20-40% of ongoing dating pools and exclude those entirely from the analysis, because we are all more enlightened than that here, right?

 

Poor hyperbole btw on attempting to tar me with "blames women for everything." I freely acknowledge my fault in participating in the "john/whore" dynamic in the past, and it's on me. I own it.

 

This leaves supposedly self-sufficient women, and men seeking same. There is no way to rationalize around the fact that accepting money from strangers early in dating necessarily implies a dominant/subservient relationship. The closest parallel to putting myself in the typical "enlightened, independent, self-sufficient" woman's shoes is my experiences with wealthy friends. I have several male friends who attempt to pay for everything, they are wealthy and can afford it, but NO, not happening! I don't need to be "taken care of" in that respect in life. I simply can't conceive how women rationalize accepting money from strangers, maybe thousands of dollars over a lifetime, and maintain any shred of self-respect whatsoever.

 

My grandfather told me on several occasions, "If someone wants to give you money, let them." Usually, this was when I was balking at taking money from him. Once, I tried to take them out for dinner, grabbed the check and said "remember what you told me about taking money?" He was obviously pissed off, and every time we went to dinner after, it would be a race to get to the waiter to pay in advance while "going to the bathroom." Childish, yes. But not childishness among strangers, among close family. So sure, if a guy is bound and determined to pay, let him. But that's not really the thread topic, is it? Nor is "common generosity," "men want things too," but rather whether the continuing social institution, "men pay for early dates" is right or wrong. Some women agree instantly, "it's wrong." It's the rationalizers who are hypocrites.