Flexibility and Etiquette in Dating

[littleblackheart]

Reading LS, I am seeing that people have quite entrenched views as far as early dating etiquettes, ie 'feminists', 'traditionalists', 'egalitarian', etc.

 

I'm more of a 'play it by ear' kind of person and, although I can't claim to have a lot of experience, I have done everything from initiating (ONS) to inviting (and paying!) on early dates with my exH, to accepting invites and splitting the bill to letting the guy pay (actually quite rare for the guy to let you pay, in my experience), so I've never really followed a pattern. I guess the kind of person I'd be compatible with, at least early doors, would also be  flexible enough to go with the flow.

 

My only rule is that I always go ready to pay for everything, my share at the very least, and expect nothing at all from the guy. If it makes any difference to the replies, I don't date strangers from OLD. I don't really date at all tbh. I sometimes meet people randomly and get to know them organically, though nothing premeditated.

 

So I guess my question is: does it help to have a clear mindset on that? Am I missing something? 

[SumGuy]

I think it helps to have a flexible mind set on it.    I don't pay or offer to pay because of gender expectations, in fact a woman having an entrenched expectation of that and other gender roles would be a yellow flag to me, maybe even red flag depending.   I'm easy going if someone is running late, I love when a woman initiates, OK if she wants to split it or pay, etc., etc.

It has nothing to do with avoiding gold digging, more it denotes a world view that judges others worth or character based on purportedly "obvious" gender roles. 

It is an attitude I do try to filter out for as I naturally tend to hit those traditional masculine expectations in dating and in a relationship now that I think of it, but again for other reasons not because I too am a believer that's what a man does or that is what a woman expects. 

I'm looking for a decent, open minded, charitable, insightful, self aware human being, adherence to some etiquette is not even on my list.

[alphamale]

to each her own

[preraph]

I think one of the big mistakes I've seen people make on here and that I have made myself when young is being too tolerant and not having a bar that people must meet that's a little higher. Don't get me wrong I was very particular in some ways, and I guess the way I was doesn't really matter because I was not looking for a man to have a family with. but for anyone who is looking for a long-term relationship and someone to really partner with, they should have some basic standards and require some basic ethics and not just go where the wind blows them. It's a lot of time wasted. 

 

Being flexible within a set of standards and ethics is a good way to be for finding partners. 

[littleblackheart]

7 hours ago, SumGuy said:

it denotes a world view that judges others worth or character based on purportedly "obvious" gender roles

Agreed. It says nothing about the type of person you are in terms of character or value system. I see it as entirely artificial, but I wonder whether there are advantages to this that I can't see (as is often the case!) since a lot of people appear to have set views on this.

 

 

6 hours ago, preraph said:

Being flexible within a set of standards and ethics is a good way to be for finding partners

Agreed! You do get a bit sweeped up in the moment sometimes, but it always helps to keep your standards high and your expectations low (that's what works for me).

[gaius]

I think it helps more to know yourself and what you like. For example, I like to be the man and take my wife out on a hot date and pay for it. She likes to be the woman and let me take her out. We turn each other on in that way which leads to intimacy and bonding.

Even in gay couples you usually see a masculine and a feminine. One who's more in the traditional male role and the other female. If you eschew that while dating it might impress liberal friends but you'll probably be denying yourself and your partner a certain level of primal intimacy.

[Ellener]

People can be similar ages but at different life stages. I don't have any debts or responsibilities now. I help my son some, but out of choice and it doesn't affect my daily finances. The man I'm seeing has two under 18 year olds he is paying maintenance on following a divorce. I'm aware that's not cheap and his priority so I request/suggest we do lots of inexpensive things right now, easy in this city and kind-of fits my values anyway: I don't eat much processed food and like to live simply/non-materialistically.

For Valentine's Day we went out for simple food with a giftcard I've had for ages, he wrote me a poem. It was only date 4 so not appropriate to make too big a deal anyway. We've had hot tea twice, once I fetched it and paid once he did.

I like how he takes my arm when the path is uneven ( I've a disability in my feet ) and opens doors for me ( was pleased to notice my son doing same yesterday! ) and that when I got lost and we missed our light show event he was good-humoured and only concerned about me being safe and not stressed. 

Etiquette is the authentic big picture not a rigid code for me!

 

 

 

[littleblackheart]

4 hours ago, gaius said:

For example, I like to be the man and take my wife out on a hot date and pay for it. She likes to be the woman and let me take her out.

That's quite sweet.

 

I mean I like to be 'the woman' anytime since I am one all the time, but I see how that can work 'on a primal level' as you say; maybe in a 'role playing' capacity with someone who likes that kind of thing, but I can't see myself adopting this as a matter of course. I like men to be themselves rather than 'the man', but it's not a 'liberal' thing :).

3 hours ago, Ellener said:

People can be similar ages but at different life stages

Very true. So cool of you to be thoughtful and considerate of your guy's circumstances.

 

Yes, I agree about etiquettes. I have huge trouble conforming to the expected social rules (I don't understand them, most of the time and when I do, I don't agree) so I do my best to find a loop hole.

 

It's reassuring to know there are plenty of like minded people after all.

Edited February 27, 2020 by littleblackheart

[Kitty Tantrum]

I see flexibility in roles and dynamics early on as a good thing if you actually want to go on a lot of dates and have a lot of relationships, potentially with people you have no chance of any sort of real future with.

I mean, hypothetically (please, dear sweet baby jesus, I hope I never have to date again) I would always go into a date ready to pay my own way - but I'm only going to "flex" that ability in the event that I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no outstanding "social debt" of any kind. In other words, if I don't want to see him again, I'll make darn good and sure he can't be like "omg I paid for her dinner and then she wouldn't [blow me/go out with me again]." That principle extends beyond dating, too: if there's one thing I CANNOT abide, it's walking away from a situation where someone feels like I still owe them something. I've been known to go above and beyond covering "my share" in various situations - to make sure that anyone who might voice such a complaint has no legs to stand on.

But the whole idea behind feminism and women having their own money is that women don't need men anymore. If I want to be a strong independent woman paying for my own meals and activities, I can do that without a man sucking up my time and attention. I can do that alone, in blissful solitude.

This whole idea that I should have all of my own ducks in a row, not NEED a man to provide me with anything - but still seek out men to fulfill my genital impulses (on my own dime, of course) is utterly absurd.

Any man who wants to horn in on my solitude has to offer me something better than that - and he has to offer it right out the gate or I'm not going to give him a chance, straight up. Why should I?

I know what kind of relationship I want, I know what kind of relationship is good for me, and "going with the flow" is a great way to end up going in the exact opposite direction of that - because there are an awful lot of men who would line up to take me on a date or three, but whose worldviews and values and principles are so drastically different from mine that we could NEVER be a good fit.

In a hypothetical dating scenario, being "flexible" would mean, essentially, going on a second date (or third, or fourth - where do you even draw the line??) with a guy who shows no particular indication of being interested in the same kind of relationship I am - and just hoping that either 1) his initial presentation was not a reflection of his relationship goals and we are more or less on the same page after all, or 2) he'll eventually come around to wanting the same things I want.

But how realistic is that??? It's NOT.

[littleblackheart]

Yikes. Can't say I relate or agree with much of what you said here @Kitty Tantrum, but thank you all the same for explaining your point of view so clearly.

 

To me, being flexible just means getting to know someone on their level; I see it means something completely different for you - which is ok.

 

 

 

[SumGuy]

9 hours ago, gaius said:

...For example, I like to be the man and take my wife out on a hot date and pay for it. She likes to be the woman and let me take her out. We turn each other on in that way which leads to intimacy and bonding.

.....If you eschew that while dating it might impress liberal friends but you'll probably be denying yourself and your partner a certain level of primal intimacy.

I think I'm misunderstood, we (girlfriend and I) enjoy that as well it's just not something we expect or as part of our definition of being a man or woman.  It's weird but I find I do more "traditional" male things than a lot of "traditional" men I know, and with zero complaining about it.  I believe there is a lot of value in these traditional behaviors, I just don't believe they are gender specific or gender defining.  

Well let's just say on primal intimacy there are many ways to achieve that :)  Also, since their is such a poor history around men expecting women to put out if men pay for dinner, I don't think it's necessarily that which triggers intimacy on a date...it's other things that also share an overlap with being a gentleman, but not too gentle.   Like I said, I don't eschew paying on dates, very much the opposite, but also it doesn't dampen the fire if she wants to pay.   

Even in gay couples you usually see a masculine and a feminine. One who's more in the traditional male role and the other female.

Not sure if you get this from observation or talking to gay couples.  A lot of gay couples I have know are perplexed and often amused why heteros have to shoe horn everything into male-female.  There are certainly such  couples, the ones who don't fit the stereotype are often just not even recognized as being gay.  Like a lot of couples though there is often a can do one and a more can't do one; alas that doesn't seem to be gender specific as have heard of many men and women in hetero relationships who sit on their a$$ while the other does most of the work.

[Timshel]

22 hours ago, littleblackheart said:

That's quite sweet.

 

I mean I like to be 'the woman' anytime since I am one all the time, but I see how that can work 'on a primal level' as you say; maybe in a 'role playing' capacity with someone who likes that kind of thing, but I can't see myself adopting this as a matter of course. I like men to be themselves rather than 'the man', but it's not a 'liberal' thing :).

 

It is sweet, sincerely.  Of course a woman is a woman at all times, whether mowing the yard or on a date, no role playing necessary...how dismissive.  You prefer to have dates with men and split costs or pay and there is nothing wrong with this.  You are not in a long term relationship or married, this is a different dynamic and perhaps not applicable to the op.

To directly answer, I don't see any reason to leave for a date not prepared to pay your share.  You have been clear that you aren't seeking a romantic relationship and in that mindset it seems fair to have a more platonic approach.  If it develops to more then the question of who pays for what on dates will dissipate organically over time, you'll both gravitate to a level of mutual comfort.  In fact, that money spent will not be a source of contention will be a strong indicator that the person is a good match.  You will both always be 'yourselves,' as you said and as lots of couples who have become comfortable with each other, perhaps different from others but certainly working for the two of you. That's what matters. : )

Edited February 28, 2020 by Timshel

[littleblackheart]

53 minutes ago, Timshel said:

how dismissive

You need to take a step back. Sincerely. I wasn't making a judgement call about what you and your husband (I think?) do or don't do. Not sure why you read it as a passive aggressive dig...Miscommunication issues, hopefully.

 

1 hour ago, Timshel said:

You prefer to have dates with men and split costs or pay and there is nothing wrong with this.

You are not in a long term relationship or married, this is a different dynamic and perhaps not applicable to the op.

To directly answer, I don't see any reason to leave for a date not prepared to pay your share.  You have been clear that you aren't seeking a romantic relationship and in that mindset it seems fair to have a more platonic approach

I don't prefer anything - that's the entire point of the OP... Clearly the OP is geared towards early dating etiquette so, what you do as part of a married couple doesn't apply. 

Paying or not paying on a date is irrelevant to having a platonic mindset. I don't even know where that comes from. 

 

I guess I don't associate money with attraction in any way, primal or otherwise. 

 

 

 

[Timshel]

2 hours ago, Timshel said:

 this is a different dynamic and perhaps not applicable to the op.

If it develops to more then the question of who pays for what on dates will dissipate organically over time, you'll both gravitate to a level of mutual comfort.  In fact, that money spent will not be a source of contention will be a strong indicator that the person is a good match.  You will both always be 'yourselves,' as you said and as lots of couples who have become comfortable with each other, perhaps different from others but certainly working for the two of you. That's what matters. : )

We seem to agree.

1 hour ago, littleblackheart said:

I don't prefer anything - that's the entire point of the OP... Clearly the OP is geared towards early dating etiquette so, what you do as part of a married couple doesn't apply.

I guess I don't associate money with attraction in any way, primal or otherwise. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, littleblackheart said:

 

 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by Timshel