Lizzie60 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Because old-fashioned etiquette is old-fashioned and does not apply in the modern age, and equality is not old-fashioned and does apply in these times. If a woman wants equality, she must shed all claims of entitlement to the pre-modern treatment, whether said pre-modern treatment benefits her or not. End of story. Well said.. I totally agree..
vonerik012 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 What I can say is this.. Women whom I have dated who genuinely could not care less about who paid were the best catches. They also had the most friends. They also got along well with other women. They were fun. Dating them was not viewed as a battlefield. The women who were insistent on never paying for anything in a relationship also played the most games. They had no friends. They were insecure. Selfish, spoiled, or princesses. It is very nice to hear "Vonerik honey, put that away, you always pay." And actually mean it. As opposed to "I don't split bills with men!" The former enjoys my company, and really does not care at all about money. Similar to myself. The latter just comes off as entitled and selfish, opposite of myself.
vonerik012 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Tomcat lol.. Here is another article on ask men saying why men should NEVER pay on dates lol. http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/101_dating_advice.html But equal rights come with a price because true equality means equality across the board, not just equality until the check comes. The real gender gap is that women with good jobs and equal incomes are still insisting that men finance their social lives. I'd say that's a double standard a very self-serving double standard. Why should men foot the bill for dinner, entertainment and weekend getaways, while women happily bank their paychecks? In an age of equality, shouldn't the focus of dating be on partnership and sharing, instead of women still expecting to be taken care of financially? Let's look at some of the excuses women use to justify forcing their "equals" to pick up the check: [sIZE=3]1- Men earn more than women for the same job. [/sIZE] False. Such skewed statistics as "women earn about 75 cents for every dollar a man earns" represent outdated, selected data still promoted by radical feminists who insist on portraying women as angelic victims of a "man's world." According to the U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (among others), the wage gap simply does not exist for women with bachelor's degrees, even in such "male-dominated" fields as architecture and engineering. And many similarly-educated women aged 35 to 44 actually earn more than their male counterparts. Moreover, studies by these same organizations show that men consistently work longer hours than women at the same job, so, in essence, women are earning a higher hourly wage. Where a wage gap does exist can easily be accounted for by: job experience (according to The Journal of Labor Economics , full-time employed women have 20% less job experience than men); larger numbers of men in their 50s and 60s who are earning bigger salaries based on time and experience; female job choices (women often seek out jobs with less income potential such as teaching or retail, or are less dangerous than certain higher-paid male-dominated occupations, such as firefighting and construction); longer male hours at work (men work 90% of overtime hours); the large percentage of female part-time workers which distort the statistics; and the time women take off from work for child-rearing (an option not normally afforded to men). Even if it were true that women earn 25% less than men, women still should be picking up 75% of their half of the dating expenses. Equal rights means equal rights. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to their excuses [sIZE=3]2- If a man's a gentleman, he'll pay for me. [/sIZE] Acting as a woman's version of a "gentleman" is an excellent example of how men are brainwashed by women to fulfill their self-serving interests. Mothers train their sons to buy into this scam at an early age, teaching them to treat women like goddesses and to pay for female company without question. No man should allow himself to become a doormat for female whims, and no man should have to pay for a woman earning as much as he is. [sIZE=3]3- It costs more to be a woman. [/sIZE] Women package themselves for sale to the highest bidder they can attract -- you don't see umpteen magazines touting beauty tips or gigantic cosmetic counters for men. No one -- and I mean no one, needs a hundred pairs of shoes. And as for what it costs to be a man -- try getting a date without an expensive house, an upscale car and nice clothing. [sIZE=3]4- It's just nice. [/sIZE] Sure it's nice -- I'd like someone to give me door-to-door chauffeur service, bring me presents, and pay for my dinner and entertainment, all for the possibility of sex, but with no obligation whatsoever. Let's be honest; if we did this, we'd be in jail for fraud. [sIZE=3]5- It's just expected. [/sIZE] Yes, it is expected by women who have set up the rules of dating and sex by forcing men to bend to their rules. And this means, if you don't pay, you don't get laid. [sIZE=3]6- If you don't pay for me, you're cheap. [/sIZE] I love this one -- pure sexual blackmail. It just proves that what women really want is cash. [sIZE=3]7- Whoever asks for the date should pay. [/sIZE] This is a great example of the female double standard. How many women have actually asked you out? And yet you can hear this excuse from women on a daily basis! Let's look at it this way -- when two women go out to dinner, does the one who asks pay? No, they usually split the bill. The same thing happens when a woman goes out with a man who's just a "friend" -- each pays an equal share. But the second that sex enters the equation, the woman expects to be paid for. This is nothing less than whitewashed prostitution. [sIZE=3]8- I can get away with it. [/sIZE] This is when the truth finally comes out. I've heard many women say, "I've got what you want and you're going to have to pay for it." Such arrogance just reduces dating to a whore/john relationship. [sIZE=3]9- My girlfriend's boyfriend pays for her, so why shouldn't you? [/sIZE] This is another version of the "you're cheap" routine. What's she's really saying is, "my girlfriend gets away with sexual blackmail, and I want to get away with it, too." [sIZE=3]10- I offer to pay, but guys say no. [/sIZE] In these days of equal rights some women will make a thinly-veiled, half-hearted attempt -- once -- to uphold their end of the "equality" bargain by offering to pay their half of the check. But it's all a sham -- she knows that the guy knows that if he takes her up on her offer, any hope of sex is over.bottom line As men, the best thing we can do is to put our collective feet down and stop paying for women. After all, their behavior amounts to little more than extortion and sexual blackmail. The reason women can still get away with this behavior is because we let them. It's time to stand up for ourselves and demand equal rights as men. There should be absolutely no question about who should pay the bill: we both should.
goldencloud Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Because old-fashioned etiquette is old-fashioned and does not apply in the modern age, and equality is not old-fashioned and does apply in these times. If a woman wants equality, she must shed all claims of entitlement to the pre-modern treatment, whether said pre-modern treatment benefits her or not. End of story. dear lights its called manners. its not a big deal. it's sweet, its nice, and its definately most appreciated when a guy shows that in regards to a date. there is no grand argument behind it, it's courtesy, something alot of us are lacking these days women fought for equality because there was a need for it...because as human beings we should be entitled to rights which rightfully belong to all of us, whether u be man or woman but that does not necessarily mean we should disown all the good in times past...life is black and white, is not a rich life, its a life that categories u into boxes and where is the fun in that and it's not just about paying for first days and what not, things like opening doors, pulling out chairs etc...all these sentiments means something and are in the end ..in very simple terminology, just plain nice there are grander issues in this world- if one is so consumed with thoughts of equality- to fight for...fighting out of paying for a first date really is quite irrelevant. all in all, it's one's choice, whether u choose to pay, whether u don't...it's really all up to u, says nothing about u as a person...same way if i as a woman appreciate it when a man pays for me on a first date etc...it's just nice and much appreciated.period
Dirk Diggler Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Honey, it's not just a battlefield - it's an absolute JUNGLE out there!! Like Vietnam Part Deux. Huh??!? I'm sorry to have to explain the obvious - but the normal, typical route to an established relationship IS through dating, until you find one you like! Well, good for you and your GF! But you're not in the dating stage anymore. The same posters in this thread who've said they wouldn't pay for the first few dates, also said they normally pitch in 50-50 once a steady relationship is established. Isn't that the same thing you're saying here, with your GF?? Darlin', it's not our hearts or our wallets that we're actually guarding here. I actually never once mentioned that i have a problem spending money on a woman, i don't! I'm not angry regarding this as i am in an established relationship already, in which we are equally invested in one another this would include financially considering this is the topic here. Though there is no focus placed on such such as resentment that would come from selfishness etc. Though women here who speak of being financially compensated for their time out via meals etc. This comes off to me as someone looking to have their affections bought and paid for like a prostitute. Nothing genuine about it. Thus my argument is with those women who are the first to scream when their equality is being contested. Where as words like chivalry and courtship can be added in place when the need arises, which cheapens the act because there are ulterior motives in place. The involved intentions are not exactly meeting what they fiercely stand behind. But a woman saying she needs to bank 10 hot meals in her stomach before the relationship progresses. Comes off more as a selfish pre-conceived dating defense system.
Lights Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 dear lights its called manners. its not a big deal. it's sweet, its nice, and its definately most appreciated when a guy shows that in regards to a date. Let's correct that. It was called manners. Those manners are now obsolete. Whether or not it's appreciated, or who defines it as being nice, is irrelevant. I'd appreciate it if women routinely walked up to me and asked me out and didn't assume that I'd pay for any costs associated with their attempt at winning me over. Does that necessarily mean that it should be done or that anyone is somehow entitled to such subsidy due to any presumably applicable ad antiquitatem? women fought for equality because there was a need for it...because as human beings we should be entitled to rights which rightfully belong to all of us, whether u be man or woman but that does not necessarily mean we should disown all the good in times past... Prove that this sort of lopsided deal is "good" first. Even if it was applicable in earlier times, that doesn't mean it's good and applicable now.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Because old-fashioned etiquette is old-fashioned and does not apply in the modern age, and equality is not old-fashioned and does apply in these times. If a woman wants equality, she must shed all claims of entitlement to the pre-modern treatment, whether said pre-modern treatment benefits her or not. End of story. Wow, that's really romantic, Lights. You are sweeping me off my feet. Seriously, we have Vonerick saying that women are expecting to be taken care of financially, and he keeps talking about reltionships being partnerships. THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We are talking about the initial stages of dating. Many women on this thread have said the same thing. They like to be courted, and they like the man to pay for the first few dates. After that, we are more than happy to pay our share. INITIAL STAGES OF DATING. You are, once again, Vonerik, changing the scenario here. If you date a woman who is still expecting you to pay when you are exclusively seeing her, and you are in a relationship, then you are being taken for a ride. Are you speaking of the Brazilian, by any chance? I have to say that this is almost always how it happens for me. The man insists on paying for the first few dates. The seem more than happy to do it. Seriously, rarely has this been an issue for me. Maybe I'm just dating men who are more well off financially, so it isn't that big of a deal to take care of the bill. I dated a guy last year for three months and he continued to pay for many meals. It just wasn't an issue.
goldencloud Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 if i were to approach a man, and ask him out, well then naturally as the 'host' of this date, i would expect myself to pay unless the man insisted...which has been the case in the past..and yes i have asked men out before! i guess it's more traditional then anything, and it's one that i like coupled with other gentlemanly attributes. i certainly have never gone out on a date fantasising about my up coming free meal etc...and i certainly have made a move for the cheque because in the end we all have different ways of thinking and id never just 'assume' he will pick the check, generally he just does it! a guy wanting to impress me, and take me out isn't something that i lay awake worrying about at night...i think its great! and even if it takes place under the context of him inviting me to his place for a home cooked meal, that's great too! i dont view one as higher then the other...like i said, its all about the S-E-N-T-M-E-N-T! (:
Tomcat33 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Thanks, I suppose getting parts of the theoretical exams right is at least something. But there are more important aspects of dating where I apparently don't "get it" at all. :laugh: joine the club! So where in Europe are you and why is your English so perfect? Tomcat lol.. Here is another article on ask men saying why men should NEVER pay on dates lol. http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/101_dating_advice.html :laugh: Well I did preempt my last post with "Askmen.com is the douche of all douche sites" aaaaand I was right... Whatev. You stick to what works for you and I'll stick to what works for me since what is not broken for me shall not be fixed, and see you in the funny pages.
Lights Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Wow, that's really romantic, Lights. You are sweeping me off my feet. Not my problem. If such a thing as romance exists, it is not something to be defined solely by women or solely for their convenience. We are talking about the initial stages of dating. Many women on this thread have said the same thing. They like to be courted, and they like the man to pay for the first few dates. Exactly. And that's a problem, because "courtship" is a pre-modern and unequal ritual. Thus the necessity of its abolition in these modern times where equality is normative. I'll throw in 2 extra proverbial cents and say that I agree with virtually everything in Von Erik's last post.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Not my problem. If such a thing as romance exists, it is not something to be defined solely by women or solely for their convenience. Exactly. And that's a problem, because "courtship" is a pre-modern and unequal ritual. Thus the necessity of its abolition in these modern times where equality is normative. I'll throw in 2 extra proverbial cents and say that I agree with virtually everything in Von Erik's last post. I'm curious...does this attitude serve you well in the dating world? I'm serious.
Tomcat33 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Are you speaking of the Brazilian, by any chance? :laugh: No doubt. I've been to Brazil, a lot of those women are poor and don't have a leg to stand on all they have is a little shake of their thonged azz and their little games of "doe in the headlight rescue me immigrant cowboy" and the hopes that some poor sap will rescue them from the fabellas. Then they pull the Vontrap of all time. They are the worse kind of whores even worse than us American "date meal hungry whores". These chicks wrap the foreigner guys up so tight the poor saps don't see even see it coming. Wanna talk about meal ticket chicks? No wonder he is so hesitant to pay for a girl on a date.
goldencloud Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 cheryl blossom 35, you echo my thoughts...
Lights Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Post deleted. This isn't worth any more of my time.
Tomcat33 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 Post deleted. This isn't worth any more of my time. What a shame they always bail when the questions get tough! Some times less is more. Good work Cherry!
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 What a shame they always bail when the questions get tough! Some times less is more. Good work Cherry! Haha, thanks! I was thinking the same thing.
OpenBook Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 I'm still trying to figure out his logic in what he posted before he deleted it -- whether his strategy is actually working for him or not is irrelevant?? does. not. compute..
Lights Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 What a shame they always bail when the questions get tough! Some times less is more. Good work Cherry! Looks like I was wrong about this being not worth enough of my time. I cannot allow this sort of talk about me to be done. Interestingly, I wonder whose responses were tougher. I make a cogent statement, and all CherryBlossom can do is utilize sarcasm to deem it not "romantic" by her definition. Nowhere can she disprove its justice or accuracy. Good work me!
vonerik012 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 :laugh: No doubt. I've been to Brazil, a lot of those women are poor and don't have a leg to stand on all they have is a little shake of their thonged azz and their little games of "doe in the headlight rescue me immigrant cowboy" and the hopes that some poor sap will rescue them from the fabellas. Then they pull the Vontrap of all time. They are the worse kind of whores even worse than us American "date meal hungry whores". These chicks wrap the foreigner guys up so tight the poor saps don't see even see it coming. Wanna talk about meal ticket chicks? No wonder he is so hesitant to pay for a girl on a date. Tomcat, lol My Brazilian ex was from an extremely wealthy family. She had a full time personal maid, a beach house, a mountain home, and a completely decked out condo in the city. She spoke 4 languages fluently, and was also beautiful. She definitely did not need to be with me for a free meal, lol. I am speaking of the ultra feminist American female equality seekers, who are the opposite of a lady, then use words like "courting" to justify why a their money is worth more than a mans.
Lights Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 I'm still trying to figure out his logic in what he posted before he deleted it -- whether his strategy is actually working for him or not is irrelevant?? does. not. compute.. It computes, certainly. Whether or not a given "strategy" is "working", to use your terminology, is not relevant to the matter of whether or not a given social procedure is just. Up to 1920, we had an effective government without women's suffrage. Does that make the lack of women's suffrage just?
Tomcat33 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 It doesn't matter what he posted the point is IT DOESN'T work and I understand that they can kick and scream and call it unfair and call all they want but when push comes to shove any guy that cops that attitude right from the start better hope to find a woman like Walk in the dating world, one who thinks it is better for her to pay her own way because otherwise he will have a lonely time out there. It's unfair that women get called skanks for not useing self control sexually speaking but it is what it is. For every 1000 men that adhere to that mentality there are 2 that don't but you tend look at what most men expect not what the minority accept if you want to succeed in the dating world.
Cherry Blossom 35 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 It computes, certainly. Whether or not a given "strategy" is "working", to use your terminology, is not relevant to the matter of whether or not a given social procedure is just. The question I asked was whether or not this attitude worked for you. In the real world, in the dating world, does this attitude serve you well. That is a straightforward question. If you do not want to answer it, that is your choice of course, but I would like to know for the sake of this discussion.
Star Gazer Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 I do not expect them to. If you wouldn't expect a guest to your home to contribute, why expect a date to contribute?
vonerik012 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 It doesn't matter what he posted the point is IT DOESN'T work and I understand that they can kick and scream and call it unfair and call all they want but when push comes to shove any guy that cops that attitude right from the start better hope to find a woman like Walk in the dating world, one who thinks it is better for her to pay her own way because otherwise he will have a lonely time out there. It's unfair that women get called skanks for not useing self control sexually speaking but it is what it is. For every 1000 men that adhere to that mentality there are 2 that don't but you tend look at what most men expect not what the minority accept if you want to succeed in the dating world. Why do you keep comparing paying on dates to being called a skank? Have many men called you that? If a man likes a woman, he does not view her as a "skank" if they hit it off and become intimate quickly. If he does not like you, and used you just for sex, guess what? He would not have liked you if you held out either.
Tomcat33 Posted September 15, 2008 Posted September 15, 2008 My Brazilian ex was from an extremely wealthy family. She had a full time personal maid, a beach house, a mountain home, and a completely decked out condo in the city. She spoke 4 languages fluently, and was also beautiful. She definitely did not need to be with me for a free meal, lol. Your Brazilian ex had all that but she didn't have a phone where you can reach her and you had to meet her on the beach hoping she would show up because you had no way of contacting her? that's odd.... I am speaking of the ultra feminist American female equality seekers, who are the opposite of a lady, then use words like "courting" to justify why a their money is worth more than a mans. What's wrong with saying "courting"? it is the courting stage. The very early stages of dating is still refered to as courting. Just as when a couple marries, the part where they go away for a week vacation to consumate the relationship (even though they have already been f'ing for years) is still called the "honeymoon". Is that a feminist technicality as well? Because last I heard men weren't complaining about women giving it up before the honeymoon!?!? well not enough to insist on changing the name to make it more realistic to our times! What's the point?
Recommended Posts