If I dated a man close to my age, I did not mind paying my share or taking turns.
If a man was more than five years my senior, I would not pay for anything. He would likely be making more than double what I do, so why should I have paid?
Why shouldn't you pay, at least some times, regardless of income? This is an honest question, as many have made the point that a woman does not need a man and should be his equal. Why should he be required to take care of her? Why can't she contribute as well. It seems contrary, so any explanation would be helpful.
Quote:
This mindset came from dating guys who only wanted to use me for sex, with no courting or romance. I was such a nice and sweet young woman until these men crossed me; I didn't care that they didn't think I was worth the cash. After that, I became much more mercenary.
A guy paying for things has little to do with courting or romance. As far as the mercenary comment, I will leave that alone.
Quote:
My husband swept me off my feet and gallantly paid for most of our dates, until I started to offer. Even then, he would ask me to put away my wallet. A real man knows how to treat a lady.
I am trying hard not to find this insulting. When I was barely scraping by, going to school at night, my wife paid, as she made more. Yet I had insisted on "treating her as a lady," we rarely would have gone anywhere. Had I been threatened by her being successful and making more than I did, we would have broken up pretty quickly. Had she insisted that I treat her like a lady and pay all the time, we would have broken up pretty quickly, as I did not have the means to take her out very often. I treated her like a lady in my actions. Her paying for some of our dates had nothing to do with it.
Do people still pay for a woman's company on a date by default?
We still have idiots like this out there?
Courtship goes both ways... Both sexes on a date should be trying to do as much as they can for each other... The man and the woman should be arguing each trying to pay. THAT's courtship...
When I ask a woman out on a date, I expect to pick up the tab... I'm happy to do it.
If she asks to go out for drink, I do somewhat expect her to at least pay for a round- only fair. If she doesn't, I'll pay for it because I don't want to look like a complete douche, but I'll be hesitant to go out for a drink with her again.
As for jewelry... I make it a point not to buy women I'm not interested in any jewelry. Woman tend to associate exclusivity when a man buys her jewelry. At least, that's my take on it.
I believe that the partner who makes more money, should have more financial responsibility. It is only fair and this applies to dating.
TAG, since you were poor student, it was perfectly acceptable for your wife to pay if she was in a better position. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed.
When I was single, if I dated a man that treated me well I was prepared to cook lovely meals for him and help with chores. I was also very sexually available and passionate. This was my version of courtship and it worked very well.
I believe that the partner who makes more money, should have more financial responsibility. It is only fair and this applies to dating.
TAG, since you were poor student, it was perfectly acceptable for your wife to pay if she was in a better position. I would say the same thing if the situation was reversed.
When I was single, if I dated a man that treated me well I was prepared to cook lovely meals for him and help with chores. I was also very sexually available and passionate. This was my version of courtship and it worked very well.
I agree on the financial ability. While in school, I got a better job and was able to pay. I then paid more, but she still did on occasion, just as I paid when I made less. As I think back about it, for my wife and I, the person who suggested the date activity (movie, dinner, etc.) generally paid. I suspect we don't have a lot of disagreement.
My issue is where a woman judges a man who never pays, regardless of income. Again, if woman are economically self-sufficient and equal (a very good thing), why is paying on a date expected (by some) to be only by the man.
I see all this "treat like a lady" and "act like a man" stuff, which is pretty much begging the question.
With feminism, we overturned a lot of old fashioned stuff - that women were unable to do the same jobs as men, that women shouldn't make the same sorts of decisions as men, etc.
What if I just said "I wil continue to assume that women can't do the same sort of mental or physical labor as a man. I will do that because I want to treat her like a lady." ?
It's so bizarre - "I want to be treated as an equal, but I also want to be treated like a lady (ie, have people buy me stuff)."
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
A woman can state she is not a feminist, but she must still live in a post-feminist world.
Now, if a woman told her employer, "Please start paying me 50% less money because I am not a feminist and do not wish to reap any successes from the women's rights movement," then such a woman's dates should all be paid for by any man she dates, by all means.
Look, we can discuss dumb examples that don't really justify the argument, clouding it instead, which I'm not naive enough to not catch on as being the objective after all. Let's leave out the rich partner with the poor partner examples for a moment.
Simply speaking, take a couple where the boy really likes the girl and the girl really likes the boy. They both make $30k a year, both have bills, and both share the same struggles. There are women out there today WHO STILL in this case feel the girl should be treated "like a lady," the ultimate phrase today usually meaning that women are not objects when it comes to opportunity, freedom, and rights but ARE objects when it comes to being maintained like one. Women like this claim to dislike being objectified but then wish to be paid for and supported like an object, like an exensive car or motorcycle needing maintenance and expensive parts.
Women that believe this will appeal to their ladiness and then I'm forced to conclude:
If this is what the word "lady" means, then I can only treat my wife/date like a lady -OR- like an equal, but not both. They are obviously mutually exclusive.
I treat my wife only like an equal, and she wouldn't be with me if I didn't... Enjoying the perks of equality, but then wanting to hold on to the perks, the few that there are, of the lesser group, is the supreme duping today's men fall for out there.
How do I know there are women out there like this? The majority of all my dates ended with a "lady" not even offering to pay her own half... I learned quickly that ladies were not for me. I wanted a woman instead.
EDIT: Oooooh... And the women were always WAY better in bed than the ladies...
I essentially think that whomever schedules the date should pay, make arrangements, etc. If either the man or the woman makes substantially less than the other and cannot afford much, then it's perfectly appropriate to schedule a less-expensive outing (lunch instead of dinner, picnic in the park, cook dinner at home).
I don't have a problem paying more often as long as I have the resources (and I do). That being said, I would not stay with a woman who refused to pay, or paid reluctantly, etc. IMO, that behavior comes from an attitude that her time and attention is worth more than that of her date. I've BTDT and know that attitude will permeate the relationship.
My attitude is that I'm just as much the prize as any lady I may date in the future (I don't date now - too busy). Anyone who thinks they are more deserving than me or "out of my league" can step off. If I spend an evening with a charming lady then I am indeed lucky to have her cut an evening out of her schedule for me, but then again she is equally lucky that I did the same for her. That's really all there is to it, and I feel it's important to carry myself in accordance with that value system.
A woman can state she is not a feminist, but she must still live in a post-feminist world.
Now, if a woman told her employer, "Please start paying me 50% less money because I am not a feminist and do not wish to reap any successes from the women's rights movement," then such a woman's dates should all be paid for by any man she dates, by all means.
Look, we can discuss dumb examples that don't really justify the argument, clouding it instead, which I'm not naive enough to not catch on as being the objective after all. Let's leave out the rich partner with the poor partner examples for a moment.
Simply speaking, take a couple where the boy really likes the girl and the girl really likes the boy. They both make $30k a year, both have bills, and both share the same struggles. There are women out there today WHO STILL in this case feel the girl should be treated "like a lady," the ultimate phrase today usually meaning that women are not objects when it comes to opportunity, freedom, and rights but ARE objects when it comes to being maintained like one. Women like this claim to dislike being objectified but then wish to be paid for and supported like an object, like an exensive car or motorcycle needing maintenance and expensive parts.
Women that believe this will appeal to their ladiness and then I'm forced to conclude:
If this is what the word "lady" means, then I can only treat my wife/date like a lady -OR- like an equal, but not both. They are obviously mutually exclusive.
I treat my wife only like an equal, and she wouldn't be with me if I didn't... Enjoying the perks of equality, but then wanting to hold on to the perks, the few that there are, of the lesser group, is the supreme duping today's men fall for out there.
How do I know there are women out there like this? The majority of all my dates ended with a "lady" not even offering to pay her own half... I learned quickly that ladies were not for me. I wanted a woman instead.
EDIT: Oooooh... And the women were always WAY better in bed than the ladies...
I used to offer to pay my share, to suss out how generous the men were. If they allowed it, they never got a second date. If they refused, that was a point in their favor. Devious? Perhaps. However, it is no different than the countless men who tell lies to get women into bed or misrepresent themselves.
I had the unfortunate experience of dating men that were cheap. Complaining about the gas money it took to pick me up, as well as taking me to Mcdonald's and griping about the cost was uncouth and miserly behavior. I should add that these men all brought home more than double what I did. Let's not forget the men that were such penny pinchers that they couldn't be bothered to buy clothing or cut their hair. Yuck!
How successful was the feminist movement if women still take home twenty percent less than a man in the same career?
I think we can figure that out, to some degree, by looking at the % you cited in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1950s, the 1970s, etc. How much has it changed?
Even comparing the "entrapment" of offering to pay and then cutting off the man to "countless men who tell lies to get women into bed..." sort of tells the whole story; both are out for me-first self gratification.
My point was that women still do not make the same, even though the feminist movement was all about equality.
If men can be all about their own pleasures, why can't women do the same?
More than one man took advantage of my previously sweet and caring nature. That was when I became more devious and self serving. It was the best choice I ever made. I stopped wasting time with losers.
When we were dating, I showed my husband more love than he showed me. After I levelled the playing field by being less available and rethinking exclusivity, our feelings became much more even. He saw that I was a woman who could easily move on; I wasn't going to sit at home an pine for him like he expected.
I used to offer to pay my share, to suss out how generous the men were. If they allowed it, they never got a second date. If they refused, that was a point in their favor. Devious? Perhaps. However, it is no different than the countless men who tell lies to get women into bed or misrepresent themselves.
Sounds like a game or a test... Oh wait! It is!
Personally, I found dialogue shared activity while being myself the best way to get to know a woman, and many women get to know men they're interested in the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstYearDown
I had the unfortunate experience of dating men that were cheap. Complaining about the gas money it took to pick me up, as well as taking me to Mcdonald's and griping about the cost was uncouth and miserly behavior. I should add that these men all brought home more than double what I did. Let's not forget the men that were such penny pinchers that they couldn't be bothered to buy clothing or cut their hair. Yuck!
So you went to McDonald's and they complained about the cost... The cost of what? Their meal? Yours? Theirs and yours?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstYearDown
How successful was the feminist movement if women still take home twenty percent less than a man in the same career?
Funny about all those averages that get thrown around in books and the internet... EVERY single guy I know, firefighters, business owners, teachers (like me), cops, etc. all don't make a SINGLE PENNY over their female colleagues.
More than one man took advantage of my previously sweet and caring nature. That was when I became more devious and self serving. It was the best choice I ever made. I stopped wasting time with losers.
When we were dating, I showed my husband more love than he showed me. After I levelled the playing field by being less available and rethinking exclusivity, our feelings became much more even. He saw that I was a woman who could easily move on; I wasn't going to sit at home an pine for him like he expected.
Your approach to level the field is the same used by men to level their field with women they spend energy on incommensurately. Of course that's what you should have done...
However, the conclusion is that for the MOST part, there has occurred a great shift in gender roles in that they are BY AVERAGE close to equal, but in many mens' realities the woman they are interested in might be making what they make or more. Then, even in these cases, sadly, when it comes to courting each other, courting is still HEAVILY financially based (courting = $$$ or there is no 2nd date, similar to your test) and is still often always the sole effort of the male, as if he made twice the woman's salary like in the fifties...
The ultimate have your cake and eat it too... This is the case for many guys...
The whole point YOU'RE trying to make about men misrepresenting themselves to bed women or take advantage of them, well, that still happens with men AND women... However, there is quite the discrepancy between materialistic women being courted by financially equal men (common, EXPECTED sometimes) and materialistic men being courted by financially equal women (very rare).
My husband is an engineer. One of his female colleagues has the same experience level and education, yet she makes less than my hubby.
Same goes for the female lawyers my brother works with.
What is so wrong with testing someone? Since people often tell others lies about themselves, it is better to read actions.
Please do not try to tell me that men mind being used for sex!
I cannot be that materialistic if I stayed with my husband when he lost his job RIGHT AFTER HE PROPOSED. We had a very small elopement because that was what we could afford; I just wanted to be his wife.
Hell, I could have had a baby for a rich old man when I was single and I turned down his offer. Even though I expected men to pay my way when I was single, I still realized that some things are priceless.
I'm sorry that you are so angry with women who expect to be treated a certain way. The obvious solution is to find someone who doesn't mind paying her share.
Re: Chivalry, diamonds, and economics. 
We had a very small elopement because that was what we could afford; I just wanted to be his wife. 
