The new, consolidated, Paying for Dates thread

[salparadise]

...but trying to extrapolate personal choices/preferences into personality generalizations is pretty pointless.

 

In addition to never sharing the cost of dates, this woman informed the OP that "she's a prize to be won," and "I will not stay at a Holiday Inn. I said, why? When I go on vacation, it's only the best of the best hotels."

 

I'd say it's no a stretch to draw a few conclusions as to her personality. I hope she keeps running into guys who don't think she's all that and a bag of chips.

 

As for those debutantes (and men living rent free) whose only justification is that it's the gentlemanly way, I'd contend that it's the entitled princess way... and by that definition, no gentlemanly aspirations whatsoever.

 

Equal partners is a beautiful thing.

[gaius]

I am not a perfect person. I know this thread made twists and turns. I also know, with a thread 13+ pages long, it is hard for anyone to read all my responses. However, again, it's not about the money as my good friend and regular all around macho man, gaius seems to think. It's about mutual respect. If someone tells me they are going to do something, I will hold them to what they said. If a person, man or woman, has no word, what good are they? If they blow up and leave over a few bucks, how would they react to something serious? That is what I am trying to explain in my posts.

If they valued anything else you had to offer Jimbo they wouldn't leave over a few bucks. Even if they were upset about it. So why exactly are all these women not valuing anything you have to offer besides your money?

(and men living rent free)

Equal partners is a beautiful thing.

You ever manage to mail your ex half of the tow bill from you getting the car towed?

[edgygirl]

No -- because he paid for everything when they were dating too And he has no problem with that whatsoever, some men are just generous. And no, I don't feel my sis used/uses him. It works very well for them.

 

But you're conflating being in an LTR and supporting a family with paying for things whilst dating. Completely different things.

[edgygirl]

Sorry for the delay only saw this now. As I said above, he's always been totally fine paying for everything -- including when they were dating. But maybe the difference is they met when my sis was 19 and he already finished university, so he simply had money where she didn't.

 

She did study later but he still didn't "force" her to work or do anything she didn't want to do. It works for them.

 

What did he get from it? I don't think he ever saw it this way. He probably liked her a lot and was fine with paying. Some men are, some men are not.

 

That is certainly fine for you, your sister and BIL. Relationships 30 + years ago are a bit different than now. However, if a guy dating a women and pays for everything, what's in it for him? What does she bring to the table? Is he paying for your time and company? Has society brought relationships down to where a man has to prove himself with spending $$$?

 

I highly doubt when your BIL and sister were dating, a date costed him $50 - $100 bucks. In addition, your BIL and sister are married. That's a bit different than the first three months of dating. I believe a few pages back I went into this as well. Marriage is different than dating. If two people are married and they jointly agree on certain roles, that's fine. However, I am talking about first dating, not LTRs or marriages yet. Completely different game. It's apples and oranges.

[edgygirl]

I don't think people like my bro in law see women as "stingy". That's the difference, which some of you don't want to accept. Some men think like that, some men don't

 

Do you really think if a man has enough money to pay for dates, he has to feel the woman is stingy or not? I get it if you're broke, obviously a couple should alternate. But men who are established are usually fine with paying.

 

You provided one possible reason yourself. Some men don't want to be with a stingy partner.

[edgygirl]

But do you realize some women prefer a more traditional relationship? It might be biological -- outdated -- and our body didn't catch up yet -- but some women do like feeling protected.

 

I think you guys need to understand some women's rationale better. If a guy can't even pay for dates, how exactly will a woman take time off work if she wants to be a full time mom for a couple of years? I don't think you can get pregnant without a woman hence roles are not likely to change that much.

 

Of course that's not how all women think, but a lot of us do. If it doesn't work for you, don't date women who think this way. Simple!

 

A perfect example of how solipsistic some women are these days.

 

With total respect to EdgyGirl she judges men on standards it seems she does not hold herself to. A man can be stingy for not paying for dates, but a woman can't? It amazes me that people can lack such self awareness.

 

It all comes down to demanding more from a partner than you bring to the table yourself and that is not a good look for either gender.

[jimbo]

If they valued anything else you had to offer Jimbo they wouldn't leave over a few bucks. Even if they were upset about it. So why exactly are all these women not valuing anything you have to offer besides your money?

 

First time this has happened bud. It's a woman (or girl) this experience, not women. An anomaly if you will; at least for me.

[Shining One]

Do you really think if a man has enough money to pay for dates, he has to feel the woman is stingy or not?

The amount of money the man has is not relevant when it comes to determining whether or not the woman is stingy.

stingy

adjective, stingier, stingiest.

 

1. reluctant to give or spend; not generous[/Quote]

Stingy seems to be the correct word for the women in question.

I get it if you're broke, obviously a couple should alternate. But men who are established are usually fine with paying.

Some are fine and some are not. You asked if it was "something else" that caused some men to not want to pay for all dates. I provided one reason: Some men don't want to be with stingy women.

 

Your mindset is rather curious to me. The way I see it, anyone unwilling to contribute to dating expenses or reciprocate in some other fashion is stingy. That applies to both men and women. In your view, a man who contributes less than 100% is stingy and a woman who contributes 0% is not stingy. Seems a bit unbalanced to me.

[jimbo]

I know the stingy comment was directed to the OP, so I will opine. I am not stingy; never have been. If I WANT to pay for the meal or experience, than fine. That is MY decision. It SHOULDN'T be expected.

 

Ironically, her birthday was in October. I surprised her with a nice dining experience, plus a gift card as a present. Do you see the difference? It was my CHOICE to do that, it wasn't expected. If I knew now what would happen in November and December, I prob. should had held off. Hind sight is 20/20.

 

I also took her on a date to a pottery class. We both made nice designs. The pottery class was normally 85 bucks for 2 people. However, it was on Groupon, so I got it for about half. She actually made a derogatory comment about that. I thought that was kind of strange. I guess I didn't yield to the red flags until my tolerance was spent. Again, my fault. The point being, I am not cheap on my dates. I always try to make sure my partner on the date has a good time and a nice experience. Dating afterall is about learning about the other person, not how much money he or she will spend on dinner or for your time.

[jimbo]

I feel the man should pay most of the time, yes. What if the women makes significantly less than the man? You think it's about earning?

 

I wouldn't date a woman like that. One who does that will just incur resentment from the significantly lesser earning partner.

[jay1983]

You're like a woman, Jimbo

[jimbo]

You're like a woman, Jimbo

 

Opinions vary, Jay1983.

[Els]

In addition to never sharing the cost of dates, this woman informed the OP that "she's a prize to be won," and "I will not stay at a Holiday Inn. I said, why? When I go on vacation, it's only the best of the best hotels."

 

I'd say it's no a stretch to draw a few conclusions as to her personality. I hope she keeps running into guys who don't think she's all that and a bag of chips.

 

I wasn't talking about the OP's girl. Frankly I haven't had the time to go through 13 pages about her, so it wouldn't be fair of me to say anything about her (or conversely to defend her).

 

I was responding to the poster who tried to claim that all men who pay are doormats and all men who don't are secure/confident. I don't think there is any correlation between the two whatsoever.

 

Equal partners is a beautiful thing.

Equality does not necessarily mean that both parties in a romantic relationship should do the exact same things or split literally everything 50/50. I mean, do both of you penetrate each other 50% of the time during sex, do both of you take exactly the same amount of time to get ready for dates, do both of you shave all of your body hair? Sure, you might think the above is somewhat ridiculous (and it probably is), but why do you think the line for "this difference is OK and the others are not" should arbitrarily be drawn between "paying for dates" and the above examples? If such a line should indeed be drawn for everyone, who decides where it is drawn?

 

What equality means in the context of romantic relationships is that both genders should have equal opportunity to choose their partners and the kind of relationship that works for them. A relationship between two compatible people who freely chose each other and whatever roles work for them - THAT's what's beautiful. Whether they choose to each do the exact same things or have different roles is irrelevant.

[Woggle]

I have no issue whatsoever with men being traditional as long as a woman is willing to hold that end of the bargain up. If you demand that a man do all the stuff that is part of his gender role while rejecting female gender roles and calling anybody who disagrees a misogynist then you are a hypocrite. The same would work with the genders in reverse. When there is a social contract then both parties need to hold up their end of the deal or make a new contract.

[some_username1]

I have no issue whatsoever with men being traditional as long as a woman is willing to hold that end of the bargain up. If you demand that a man do all the stuff that is part of his gender role while rejecting female gender roles and calling anybody who disagrees a misogynist then you are a hypocrite. The same would work with the genders in reverse. When there is a social contract then both parties need to hold up their end of the deal or make a new contract.

 

Good luck with that mate

[salparadise]

 

...but why do you think the line for "this difference is OK and the others are not" should arbitrarily be drawn between "paying for dates" and the above examples?

 

 

I don't necessarily think that way, but the subject of this thread is about an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender. Jimbo's ex-gf believes that she is "a prize to be won" and as such is focused entirely on the benefits and privileges to be derived from being born with a vagina. Basically, she believes that the world owes her a luxurious lifestyle just because of who she is, and judges men on their willingness and ability to deliver. Makes me want to puke, but hey, there are probably men out there who find that endearing.

[some_username1]

That's like saying "a woman who is willing to risk the wrath of her date by showing up with hairy legs sounds like a woman who is confident and secure in herself"... c'mon now . I don't think anyone should pay for someone else (OR shave their legs) if they don't want to, but trying to extrapolate personal choices/preferences into personality generalizations is pretty pointless. Lots of doormats go Dutch and lots of men with strong boundaries pay for their dates/partner because they want to. In fact, the very definition of boundaries is that you get to choose them.

 

Obviously, if a man doesn't WANT to pay, just don't do it and seek a compatible woman! I really don't see why there is such a big issue made out of it, when it's just an aspect of compatibility like so many others.

 

If that is the case then this forum may as well be shut down because that describes 90% of the content in here

[elaine567]

I don't necessarily think that way, but the subject of this thread is about an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender. .

 

OK, but there are no men like that of course.

Men who have an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender...

Never happens...

[alphamale]

OK, but there are no men like that of course.

Men who have an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender...

Never happens...

indeed....

[Timshel]

As for those debutantes (and men living rent free) whose only justification is that it's the gentlemanly way, I'd contend that it's the entitled princess way... and by that definition, no gentlemanly aspirations whatsoever.

 

Equal partners is a beautiful thing.

 

I can't find where Jimbo wrote he lived rent free?...or that his gf is a debutante.

However, if OP lives rent free, it would make sense he pays the majority of dates. Although, there are certainly many other household expenses beyond rent...such as utilities, groceries, insurance and home maintenance...etc. If he is contributing/sharing these expenses as my fiance does with myself, then it is understandable to be put off by paying every time for dates.

My fiance has a personal preference to pay for dates but this has never been a requirement as the OP has expressed about his gf.

Every couple finds their comfort zone or there is an incompatibility.

 

I know the stingy comment was directed to the OP, so I will opine. I am not stingy; never have been. If I WANT to pay for the meal or experience, than fine. That is MY decision. It SHOULDN'T be expected.

 

Dating afterall is about learning about the other person, not how much money he or she will spend on dinner or for your time.

 

Agree with this 100%.

[Els]

I don't necessarily think that way, but the subject of this thread is about an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender. Jimbo's ex-gf believes that she is "a prize to be won" and as such is focused entirely on the benefits and privileges to be derived from being born with a vagina. Basically, she believes that the world owes her a luxurious lifestyle just because of who she is, and judges men on their willingness and ability to deliver. Makes me want to puke, but hey, there are probably men out there who find that endearing.

 

As I said, I've not kept up with the thread, but if the quotes you mentioned are true (especially the "I don't DO Holiday Inn but I expect the man to pay for 5 star hotels every time" one), the OP's ex-gf certainly sounds like a bullet dodged.

 

Indeed, that was the initial point of the thread, but the title is more general, and plenty of people here have been lambasting men for the "crime" of simply preferring to pay for dates (or women for the "crime" of preferring men who pay for dates). I don't generally take well to people being attacked for their preferences in that manner.

 

If that is the case then this forum may as well be shut down because that describes 90% of the content in here

 

Well, yeah, but I don't have the time to read or post on 90% of the threads...

[jimbo]

I can't find where Jimbo wrote he lived rent free?...or that his gf is a debutante.

However, if OP lives rent free, it would make sense he pays the majority of dates. Although, there are certainly many other household expenses beyond rent...such as utilities, groceries, insurance and home maintenance...etc. If he is contributing/sharing these expenses as my fiance does with myself, then it is understandable to be put off by paying every time for dates.

My fiance has a personal preference to pay for dates but this has never been a requirement as the OP has expressed about his gf.

Every couple finds their comfort zone or there is an incompatibility.

 

 

 

Agree with this 100%.

 

She acts like a debutante, but I do not think she really is. The debutante's that I've known have their own place by this age. It's a reg. sized house she lives in with her parents.

 

No, I do not pay rent, I have my own place with my own mortgage (fun stuff). I pay all my own bills for the last 20+ years. Moving into adulthood is part of life for most people.

[some_username1]

 

Well, yeah, but I don't have the time to read or post on 90% of the threads...

 

Touché

[Shining One]

OK, but there are no men like that of course.

Men who have an extreme attitude of entitlement based entirely on gender...

Never happens...

I don't think anyone believes there are no entitled men. I was raised in a culture that encourages entitled men. However, more women tend to be entitled about the topic of this thread than men. Men tend to be entitled about other things.

[Shining One]

Equality does not necessarily mean that both parties in a romantic relationship should do the exact same things or split literally everything 50/50.

What equality means in the context of romantic relationships is that both genders should have equal opportunity to choose their partners and the kind of relationship that works for them. A relationship between two compatible people who freely chose each other and whatever roles work for them - THAT's what's beautiful. Whether they choose to each do the exact same things or have different roles is irrelevant.

Equality (to me) means that both parties are bringing something to the table. This doesn't necessarily mean that both are contributing financially. In the case of dating, one person paying for everything and the other person doing little more than just showing up is not equality (again, to me).

plenty of people here have been lambasting men for the "crime" of simply preferring to pay for dates

Can you point me to the post(s) you're referring to?