The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Sorry but this really isn't supporting your argument. It specifically states that the man will pay as an overt sign of romantic interest. That pretty much supports the idea that a guy really isn't into you if he's not paying. It also states that romantic couples will often split the bill, and many of us women have stated that is what is going on....once they are a couple. No you have cherry picked the bits that suit you. In a courtship situation where both parts have a similar financial standing, which is commonplace in Sweden, the traditional custom of the man always paying in restaurants has largely fallen out of use and is by many, including etiquette authorities considered old fashioned. It is generally assumed that everyone pays for himself or herself in restaurants unless the invitation stated otherwise. In most of northern and central Europe the practice of splitting the bill is common. On a dinner date, the man may pay the bill as way of overtly stating that he views this as a romantic situation and that he has some hopes or expectations for a future development. Some women object to this or even find it offensive (per Feminist support for Dutch date practice above) so it is a judgment call [ie NOT EXPECTED]Younger urban women especially tend not to accept men paying for them; or will in turn insist to pay for the next dinner or drink.
almost famous Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 You're cherry picking the ones that support you. Move to Sweden. It's not my fault that the men who ask me out want to pay and it makes them happy to pay.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I'm certainly going to keep doing what I'm doing because these are the kinds of guys I like. I went out last week with a guy who paid the bill before it even came to the table, so there was no awkwardness at all. Other times the guy will just whip out his card and slip it in the bill before I even have a chance to look at it. The other guy I'm dating treated me on out first date, and when I sent him an email thanking him, he said it was his pleasure and he would like to do it again. This works pretty well for me. No one is doubting that works pretty well for the woman. There is no need for any 'awkwardness' if women stop expecting free meals and pay their way.
almost famous Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Like I said I don't "expect" them to pay, but ones who are interested and "into" me (as in overt romantic interest, as your wiki article refers to) do. How is it our fault that men who date us want to pay?
vonerik012 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 So, a guy paying on a first date makes you feel special... Ok Understood. So down the road, lets day date 5, you no longer need money to make you feel special? When your girlfriends are bragging about their boyfriends buying them things, and paying for everything, you could not care less? I have dated many women, and I can tell you, many women NEVER want to pay for anything. Some do not care about money. Some chip in on rare occasion. All I am saying is, women whom do not care about money are the easiest to get along with in many ways. Since I do not care about money, I need to be with someone who also does not care. Many women are simply selfish and cheap, so they use the 'I want to feel special" excuse.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Like I said I don't "expect" them to pay, but ones who are interested and "into" me (as in overt romantic interest, as your wiki article refers to) do. How is it our fault that men who date us want to pay? Just to correct you again, the wiki article says men with overt romantic interest may pay, but some women find that offensive.' You don't find it offensive, that's clear. But you then set-up the idea that men who are interested in you pay. A man could be interested in you, but not want to pay for you (while you pay nothing) because he doesn't see how it is fair. Would you consider dating such a man again?
almost famous Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 If a man asked me out and said "pony up" when the bill came, it's over. He's clearly not interested enough to plan a date and pay. If he doesn't want to make that much effort, which really isn't that much, then we are not compatible because I am a very giving person and he is showing that he is not. I couldn't care less what they do in Sweden. if a guy asked me out on a first date, and he went to pay, it would be very rude of me to refuse this gesture and throw a feminist scene over it.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 If a man asked me out and said "pony up" when the bill came, it's over. He's clearly not interested enough to plan a date and pay. If he doesn't want to make that much effort, which really isn't that much, then we are not compatible because I am a very giving person and he is showing that he is not. No he is being a fair person and you are not being a giving person in any way. Being a 'giving person' isn't just something you can call yourself because it makes you feel good. Actions speak louder than words. If it really isn't that much, reach inside your purse and pay for the food and drink you just had.
vonerik012 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 If a man asked me out and said "pony up" when the bill came, it's over. He's clearly not interested enough to plan a date and pay. If he doesn't want to make that much effort, which really isn't that much, then we are not compatible because I am a very giving person and he is showing that he is not. I couldn't care less what they do in Sweden. if a guy asked me out on a first date, and he went to pay, it would be very rude of me to refuse this gesture and throw a feminist scene over it. What? lol You are a very giving person? Do you realize women whom actually are very giving DO NOT CARE about who pays? How are you "very giving" by expecting to date all the men you want and never pay for your half of the evening? So maybe if a man "earns it" then you will be giving? Well, why should a man view it differently?
djhall Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 This is how I feel at the end of the date if the guy pays happily and won't let me near the bill: Wow, he is generous and thoughtful. He enjoyed my time and seemed to think I was worth a Saturday night. I feel special and taken care of. All of these feelings allow me to open up and start feeling some emotions about this guy. It makes me want to see him again. Not because I want another free meal, but because of HOW HE MADE ME FEEL. Got it? Yep, I got it. The question I have is, "Is it real?" After all, the very definition of special is something that is extraordinary, exceptional, or different from what is ordinary or usual. If it is ordinary or usual for the man to pay when he takes a woman on a date, or if it is ordinary or ususal for the men who date you to pay for your date, then it is impossible for it to actually BE special. The only way it could be special is if it wasn't normally the case. As things are, this behavior is neither generous for him or special for you, it is simply ordinary and average for both of you which renders the entire gesture meaningless. Is he doing it because he wants to or because he knows it is expected for him to pretend that he wants to and you would think less of him if he didn't? There really isn't any way for you to know or tell.
vonerik012 Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Dj, exactly.. Many of the women claim they do not care for an expensive date... (They claim) So the man paying $2 for your cup of coffee makes you feel special? That shows he can take care of you? lol Stop being so cheap, or be a real traditional woman. Either is acceptable. Trying to be "equal", yet expecting men to foot the bill is ridiculous.
allieapplesauce Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Yeah well, i think at first it's a good thing for them to pay. i wasnt raised to let people pay for me so its a little hard to get used to. i'll offer...but if they say no i wont force the issue. i was set up with a guy thru a friend like 2 yrs ago and dated him like 5 times and when i asked if he'd like me to chip in he was like "oh if you WANT to...you can help contribute to my new car fund." like um ok you got a new car and i should help pay for it? WHAT?? yeah but so even tho i basically paid my half, when it was like close to my birthday and we had gone to something else he insisted on paying going "oh i know you want to pay but this is your birthday i cant letyou do that. you can pay some other time." as if i never paid ever! that didnt work out. he's dumb. after you get into the relationship i think it becomes a little of a trade. doesnt have to necessarily be even but both should start putting in a little effort.
almost famous Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I am very giving and loving. Once we are starting dating then he will find that out. A guy isn't very giving if he asks a woman out and then doesn't want to pay. If I ask him out on a future outing then I am paying. Once we hit the relationship, I am very generous and giving to that person. What? lol You are a very giving person? Do you realize women whom actually are very giving DO NOT CARE about who pays? How are you "very giving" by expecting to date all the men you want and never pay for your half of the evening? So maybe if a man "earns it" then you will be giving? Well, why should a man view it differently?
norajane Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Do you agree to go on a date with everyone who asks you? No. Two people agree to meet. Why should one pay for the others time/food etc? Who invited who is only an issue because it suits your argument. What an unromantic way to think of a date! It's more than two people agreeing to meet. Isn't it? It's one person asking to take another out. I've never done online dating - is that how it works? Two people agree to meet?
almost famous Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 No he is being a fair person and you are not being a giving person in any way. Being a 'giving person' isn't just something you can call yourself because it makes you feel good. Actions speak louder than words. If it really isn't that much, reach inside your purse and pay for the food and drink you just had. IF a man is asking me out, he is saying 'I want to go out with you and I want to treat you." Once we are dating past the first date, he will see how giving I am. I paid for a whole 2-week trip to France with the last guy I was in a serious relationship with because it was his dream to visit, if that's not giving, I don't know what is. Like I said, once you start dating past the first date, it will all even out. In that said relationship, we switched off who paid, we didn't verbally discuss it, however, and he always stated how generous and wonderful I was.
djhall Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 As though they need to save face because they can't justify it in a logical fashion. Walk, I think you are like me in that you expect people to examine their ideas, ideals, beliefs, and principles from as close as possible to a neutral, objective, unbiased, detatched, third-party point of view and analzye the extent to which their ideas and beliefs are fair, balanced, rational, logical, and consistent with the rest of their ideas, ideals, beliefs, and prinicples. Unfortunately, most people do not feel compelled to analyze themselves this way, and many, if not most, become defensive and hostile when pressed to do so. You or I would look at something like this and immediately run down a series of thoughts like the following: Forget how I feel about things, because that is just me and not really relevant. If I were a "random male" and/or "random female", what would be the ideal balance of fairness between both parties? Does this farly balance between those who are serially dating multiple people and those who are long-term exclusive dating? What if one is rich and the other poor? What if they are both men or both women? Does it work equally well regardless of which one is the more agressive pursuer? Does this position correlate with my ideals of gender balance and equality? Can I justify why I feel this position is a good "neutral and objective" position? To me, and I suspect to you as well, this is just the normal type of thought process I try to bring to everything and I try to modify my ideas and ideals accordingly. Very few people are willing to go there with us. For many people, the fact that they feel or believe a certain way that works for them is as far as they want to analyze themselves. When you press them to justify their positions from neutral and unbiased perspectives, instead of seeing it as an exercise in examining themselves and adjusting their thinking, they see it as a threat or an attack on them or their beliefs and react with hostility, anger, resentment, or a belief that they don't need to justify or prove the validity of their points. I hear you, and I appreciate what you are trying to do, but to a certain extent you are never going to get most people to go there with you.
Taramere Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 What an unromantic way to think of a date! It's more than two people agreeing to meet. Isn't it? It's one person asking to take another out. I've never done online dating - is that how it works? Two people agree to meet? Collector is from the UK, and there isn't quite the same dating culture here that there is in the US. Sure, some people do subscribe to the US style, but I would say it's far more common here for people to meet up for a drink as a first date. My feeling about the difference between male/female relationships here (UK) and in the US, based on what I've read on predominantly US message boards, is that dates are more of an "interview for potential partner" over in the US. A serious, planned out business - rather than just an opportunity for two people to spend time together in a social context that may or may not lead to romance. I've had definite American style invitations extended by men here along the lines of "I'm taking you to dinner", and if I offer to return the treat by buying dinner another time it's met with a derisive laugh and a "you will not. But you can cook for me if you like" response. That's the dominant "I'm the man, you're the woman" approach which is, to refer to Collector's reference to Swedish dating, the signal some men will give of overt interest. It's far from universal though. I've found it more common amongst men who are older than me and higher up professionally. A man with a less dominant approach might simply say " do you fancy meeting up for something to eat?" in the way that any of your friends might. When a friend makes that suggestion to me, I don't assume that they're offering to pay. Likewise I don't make the assumption, if it's a man who might be interested in me romantically - but isn't necessarily so, that he's offering to treat. I'd add quickly that I don't think a man taking a less dominant, "traditionally masculine" approach carries the stigma here that it perhaps does in the US. I couldn't care less what they do in Sweden. if a guy asked me out on a first date, and he went to pay, it would be very rude of me to refuse this gesture and throw a feminist scene over it. I've had a lot of dealings with Scandinavians...partly because of the proximity of the Nordic countries to mine. If you think Scandinavians are rude, then you're very misinformed. Although they can be a little reserved, they are exceptionally polite and hospitable people with a very egalitarian, fair-minded outlook. It's unlikely that you would see a Scandinavian woman throwing an undignified scene about a man picking up the tab. More likely that she might debate the fairness of it, to the man, with warmth, charm and humour. It may well be that in America, the pursuit of fairness and egalitarianism for both genders is an ugly, uncouth and aggressive business (though from the posts of some of the more analytical and articulate American women on this board, I wouldn't perceive it that way). I'm assuming you're that poster who's so taken with the "He's just not into you" book. You are generally speedy to assume a feminist stance when sexist propositions that don't suit you are put forward. It's somewhat disingenuous to dive into the cosy, oh-so-womanly "ugh, rude women throwing a feminist scene" role to ridicule arguments that are intended to examine and be considerate of male interests as well as female ones.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 It may well be that in America, the pursuit of fairness and egalitarianism for both genders is an ugly, uncouth and aggressive business....but please don't assume that the same thing follows everywhere else in the world. Feminism has acquired a bad reputation because of these aggressive militants who see an opportunity in almost any situation to blow up and cause a feminist scene everywhere. Even when it comes to something so trite as just graciously accepting a man's paying for a date. Being equal does not mean eradicating the intrinsic gender differences between the two sexes. It's these differences that spark the attraction between a man and a woman. Vive la difference as the French would say. As for paying, a man shouldn't ask a woman out on a first date if he can't afford it or is not willing to pay. It's classless in my book. It shouldn't even be an issue. If he doesn't want to spend the money, he should stay home. Of course, if you a serial dater which most on-line daters are, it could be a problem. If you think Scandinavians are rude, then you're very misinformed. Although they can be a little reserved, they are exceptionally polite and hospitable people with a very egalitarian, fair-minded outlook. Yes, they are a race of people that has managed to overcome many social and sexual taboos. They are free-thinkers, broad-minded, cultured and enjoy a high standard of living,probably the best in Europe as regards social benefits. They are polite, peace-loving and interesting conversationalists. Gotta love them.
Taramere Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Feminism has acquired a bad reputation because of these aggressive militants who see an opportunity in almost any situation to blow up and cause a feminist scene everywhere. Even when it comes to something so trite as just graciously accepting a man's paying for a date. Graciously accepting a genuine desire to treat is one thing. What I'm more concerned with is those situations where the man feels obliged to pay for both as a matter of convention. The less strictly applied that convention is, the more it means when someone does offer to treat you. It's more than just a "well, I'd better do this because I'm the man..." gesture. Being equal does not mean eradicating the intrinsic gender differences between the two sexes. No, it doesn't. But there are more ways of creating magic than following traditional male/female - he pays, she smiles and thanks him graciously - rules. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the he pays she thanks him demurely rule if the man is wanting to create a clear dominant/passive dynamic in the relationship and the woman's up for it.....but I think it sends out a confusing message if a woman adopts that traditional role happily one moment, then later on accuses the man of being condescending for continuing with the Me Tarzan, You Jane dynamic. To me, the gracious acceptance is an "I'm ready to get traditional with you" signal. If I'm not interested in a man, then I don't want to be left with that "he's out of pocket because he was trying to impress me" feeling. And I can't just dismiss it as his problem...he shouldn't be inviting women out for meals if he can't afford it etc. I've met financially strapped men who were smart, funny, great company and generally far more intelligent and interesting than some wealthier men who could afford to splash out on women. I don't see why they should be eliminated from the process of looking for love, sex and romance. A few weeks ago, a man I sometimes meet up with said (looking ashamed) "I'd really like it if we could meet up for for dinner, but cash is a problem. Would you be offended if we went to (low priced but fun) restaurant and went halves on it? I hate the fact that all these social norms leave smart, good guys feeling "not good enough" just because they're not earning a high wage. As for paying, a man shouldn't ask a woman out on a first date if he can't afford it or is not willing to pay. It's classless in my book. It shouldn't even be an issue. If he doesn't want to spend the money, he should stay home. I didn't find my date's behaviour classless. I found it honest....and honesty is top of the charts for me. This is a highly articulate, well educated guy who was here on a temporary basis - from an Eastern European country where wages are really low even for highly qualified professionals. He wanted us to go out for a meal together, but he couldn't afford to pay - and he was embarrassed and ashamed about that. I would much, much rather a guy be straight up about something like that. Then I can say "I'm fine with going halves. Let's go and eat." Over and over on this thread there have been the references to men who can't afford to pay, and how they shouldn't be asking women out....but the reality is that not every guy is in a fantastic financial situation. I'm interested in the quality of my date's conversation, not his ability to pay. It's supposed to be a fun get together, not an interview where he's being assessed on his ability to look after me.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 Taramere, I am talking about a first date. I most definitely don't expect someone to ALWAYS pay for me. I would also pay for him if we should continue to go out. I don't even look at it as a gender thing. I know that if I were to ask someone out, and, yes, I have done that, I would pay because I did the asking. That simple. The person you mention is someone you already know. You are friends and that's what friends or people in relationships do. They treat eachother to the movies, drinks,dinner etc.. No, it doesn't. But there are more ways of creating magic than following traditional male/female - he pays, she smiles and thanks him graciously - rules. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the he pays she thanks him demurely rule if the man is wanting to create a clear dominant/passive dynamic in the relationship and the woman's up for it... Of course there are more ways of creating magic. But here, it is not a case of creating magic. Magic is not created just because someone treats you to drinks or a meal, that's for sure. I don't think a man paying for a date is trying to create a dominant/passive relationship nor is the woman endorsing it by graciously (no, not demurely) accepting. I think this is stretching things a bit too far. Sometimes things are just what they appear to be..nothing more nothing less. Why must we read complex meanings into even the simplest gestures? Conversely, if I pay for a man, does that mean I am a controllling,aggressive woman who wants to have the upper hand? Most definitely not. I just feel like doing it for whatever reason. Over and over on this thread there have been the references to men who can't afford to pay, and how they shouldn't be asking women out....but the reality is that not every guy is in a fantastic financial situation. I stand by my stance that if it is a FIRST date, whoever is asking should pay. Later of course, it's a 50/50 situation. I'm interested in the quality of my date's conversation, not his ability to pay. It's supposed to be a fun get together, not an interview where he's being assessed on his ability to look after me. Of course what matters most is the person himself/herself and conversation is of utmost importance. I am not saying the opposite. And of course, I wouldn't go on a date for a free meal. Sheesh! Only someone very superficial or very hungry would do that. I can damn well feed myself. If I accept it is because I like the man. Interview? If we are talking about online dating,yes, it does feel like an interview that's why I am completely off this sort of thing. I prefer to be asked out by someone I already know and think I can, like you said, have a stimulating conversation with.
Taramere Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I don't think a man paying for a date is trying to create a dominant/passive relationship nor is the woman endorsing it by graciously (no, not demurely) accepting. I think this is stretching things a bit too far. I don't think dominant/passive is too strong a description, and I'm not using that terminology as an insult. We've seen comments on this thread about "shows the man's taking control, which is good...." "makes me feel like a woman". Enough to suggest that for some people this does relate to enjoyment of a dominant man/passive woman vibe. I found it interesting to read the responses to scratch's post. They were mainly approving, but when scratch wrote a guide a while back for women on "getting and keeping a man" the response was less welcoming. And that's part of what interests me about all this. The whole dominant/passive thing. "Ooooh. That's nice! Quite right. A man should be a man! But hang on....you mean to say you want to choose every venue for every date? Take decisions on matters without my input? My role is simply to say yes to everything? I should play that game? Woah....." If a man wants to treat, and the woman accepts graciously then that's no big deal. The big deal part of it is that a lot of women on this thread are expressing opinions that they want to be pursued, they want to be treated on the first date, they want the man to take the risk and possible pain of rejection....and he should pay up for the privilege of doing all that. That it would be ungentlemanly of him not to. I can't understand why it's so hard for people to see why some men might feel justified in finding that "here's what you need to do to impress me" entitlement complex objectionable if it isn't accompanied with an agreement, by the woman, to conform to aspects of what the man (rather than she personally) considers to be feminine and womanly.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 The big deal part of it is that a lot of women on this thread are expressing opinions that they want to be pursued, they want to be treated on the first date, they want the man to take the risk and possible pain of rejection....and he should pay up for the privilege of doing all that. That it would be ungentlemanly of him not to. I'll admit that I haven't read ALL the posts in this long thread. I think that I am little confused. Is this about online dating? Because if it, it's altogether a different ball game. I can't for the life of me see why one would want to serial date forever but then,again, I guess some people actually enjoy putting themselves out there constantly. When I did it, I hated it and resolved to stay off that neverending pursuit of an ephemera. While I was doing the online thing I came across many categories of people. Most belonged to the serial daters category and of course would never pay because if they did, they'd be in debt and behind bars in to time flat,lol!! Anyway, in normal circumstances, the man already knows the woman and vice versa. That means that they already have a pretty good idea of whether or not there is a mutual attraction. As adults, we are fully aware that rejection is a possibility,it sort of comes with the territory, so to speak, and we take full responsibilty for our decision to take the risk. We've seen comments on this thread about "shows the man's taking control, which is good...." "makes me feel like a woman". Although this is definitely not my cup of tea, I fully know that this type of dynamic exists between the sexes. Different folks for different strokes, I guess. There will always be the submissive types,the controlling types, the Barbie and Ken types as there will always be the the independent,self-reliant,assertive types who expect equality in a relationship. Ultimately I guess what is important is compatability...that one type finds his/her counterpart. Expecting a man who has asked me out on a first date to pay does not in any way diminish my worth as a human being nor does it make me a passive, submissive and superficial woman. Nor does my paying for him the next time we decide to go out make me a controlling,domineering, castrating female.
OpenBook Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 I can't understand why it's so hard for people to see why some men might feel justified in finding that "here's what you need to do to impress me" entitlement complex objectionable if it isn't accompanied with an agreement, by the woman, to conform to aspects of what the man (rather than she personally) considers to be feminine and womanly. G'ahh -- I can't wrap my brain around this!! It's like a labyrinth, or a Fun House of mirrors. But I'll take a counterpoint stab at it anyway... If the man has asked her out, then hasn't she already met his personal criteria for being "feminine and womanly"? I know of no men who ask a woman out on a date for any reason other than he's attracted to her... unless he's a scam artist. And men are generally driven to try to impress a woman they're attracted to. It's part of their DNA. They enjoy it!!-especially if the object of their desire responds affirmatively. This is why the attitudes of some of the male posters in this thread, completely mystify me. Their focus is totally on themselves (what's in it for ME??), at least in this thread. This is not the typical behavior of a man who is in love or infatuated with a woman. It seems they would prefer if women made more of an effort (monetarily and otherwise) to impress THEM. And that's fine, I guess... but I have never encountered men who actually behaved like this around women they're attracted to. The men I know would be either insulted, or it would kill their attraction to me, if I started behaving that way. In fact, I HAVE behaved that way in the past!! and it never got me anywhere with the object of my desire. Not once. It's been my experience that if a guy is really into me, he'll go all out to make me feel comfortable, entertained, adored, etc. - and part of that is insisting on paying for everything!! He wouldn't dream of letting me help. If he's not all that into me, he'll act more like a buddy, and he might even ask me to chip in. But even then, a lot of times he'll pick up the tab anyway... just to "be a gentleman" and save face in public.
marlena Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 It's been my experience that if a guy is really into me, he'll go all out to make me feel comfortable, entertained, adored, etc. - and part of that is insisting on paying for everything!! The key words being INTO ME as in CRAZY ABOUT ME!! A serial dater could give a damn about most of the women he dates. He is simply addicted to serial dating. This is expecially true of online daters. After a while, you are just one more female face/body in a swarming sea of females. So, his thinking is: why should I pay? He is just dating for the sake of dating or for a temporary hook-up with a woman. He could care less about most of the girls he sees,therefore, he doesn't care about pleasing them. However, I contend that even this seasoned dater will pay when he fianlly meets a girl that he really clicks with and that he is super attracted to. A keeper. When a man is really taken by a woman, as OB noted, he wants to please her in every possible way. It's that simple I think. I am reminded of a song, When a man loves a woman Can't keep his mind on nothing else He'll trade the world for the good thing he's found. UNLESS he is stingy. Petty people have petty minds and petty feelings. Nothing wll make me change my mind about this.
The Collector Posted September 21, 2008 Posted September 21, 2008 When a man is really taken by a woman, as OB noted, he wants to please her in every possible way. It's that simple I think. I am reminded of a song, When a man loves a woman Can't keep his mind on nothing else He'll trade the world for the good thing he's found. As an aside, that song is possibly the WORST ever guide to how a man should behave with a woman. Here are the full lyrics. When a man loves a woman Can't keep his mind on nothing else He'll trade the world For the good thing he's found If she's bad he can't see it She can do no wrong Turn his back on his best friend If he put her down When a man loves a woman Spend his very last dime Tryin' to hold on to what he needs He'd give up all his comfort Sleep out in the rain If she said that's the way it ought to be Well, this man loves a woman I gave you everything I had Tryin' to hold on to your precious love Baby, please don't treat me bad When a man loves a woman Down deep in his soul She can bring him such misery If she plays him for a fool He's the last one to know Lovin' eyes can't ever see When a man loves a woman He can do no wrong He can never own some other girl Yes when a man loves a woman I know exactly how he feels 'Cause baby, baby, baby, you're my world When a man loves a woman.....
Recommended Posts