The guy paying: is chivalry dead?

[Sanman]

Meh.... the women have higher expenses that go toward keeping them up to par with current beauty standards. I bet all your dates looked and smelled nice when you asked them out and went out with them... you think lipsticks are free??

 

And 25 women per year? That's a lot of women. Maybe you should be more choosy about whom you go out with.

 

Actually, my last gf was quite tomboyish. She was usually a t-shirt and jeans girl with minimal makeup unless we were meeting up after work. Hence she wore make-upfor work, not me. I think Mr. White and kdark adequately illustrated why this is a poor excuse.

 

I'm sorry you don't approve of my dating habits. However, I prefer to be open-minded and give any woman I find attractive and can hold a conversation with a chance to know me better. My last gf and the woman I am currently seeing were both not my top my initial choices of gf based on looks and first impressions. However, both turned out to be amazing women with wonderful personalities. I hate to think about where I would be if I narrowed my dating prospects based on superficial things and these wonderful women had never entered my life. Both have also insisted on paying for themselves since the beginning despite my offer to pay for them initially.

 

Originally Posted by Phateless

I want an equal partner, not some little trophy girl.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

To me, "chivalry" feels like a hangover from when women never had to grow up and were second-class. The only reason I would let a guy pay for dinner on the first date is because it is tradition, so it's a measure of how much he is into me, though I would make an exception on this if he's a student like me or if he comes from a culture like Sweden where it's normal for things to be split. That said, it is completely my style to get the drinks if we go out afterwards.

 

As for the holding doors open thing, I have always found that to be weird for as long as I can remember. Sure, I may need a man to carry extremely heavy bags of groceries for me, but I'm perfectly capable of opening my own door.

 

SassyKitten, I like your attitude. More women should be like you. As I am a grad student and the women I date are as well I appreaciate where you are coming from. That said, if I invite a woman on an expensive date that was my idea and they are a grad student, I insist on paying.

 

As for holding doors and such, I consider it more politeness than chivalry. I do the same things for the elderly or others in public. I had a co-worker that hated when I waited for others to get off an elevator before I walked off, but I consider it polite to offer others the right of way.

Edited July 30, 2010 by Sanman

[Untouchable_Fire]

Meh.... the women have higher expenses that go toward keeping them up to par with current beauty standards. I bet all your dates looked and smelled nice when you asked them out and went out with them... you think lipsticks are free??

 

And 25 women per year? That's a lot of women. Maybe you should be more choosy about whom you go out with.

 

That argument only works if I am the only guy she plans to date. Otherwise all that money she spends is for her own benefit not mine.

 

However, I think it best that guys pay everything because its good pratice for marriage.

[cleverpartner]

Okay, i have a topic id like to discuss.

GUYS- do you feel like you should pay for every date? Once you are in a relationship, would you want your gf to pay once in a while? expect her to? when would you no longer feel obligated to pay? Do you feel like theres a certain point where it should be equal or nonimportant? What is that point? Would you feel like a woman only wants your money if she expects you to pay for every date?

 

LADIES- do you expect a man to pay for every date? how would you feel if he asked if you were going to pay for something? Would you feel like hes cheap if he didnt want to pay for something, or that hes a jerk if he expects you to? Is being cheap a serious offense? Should paying be more equal? How would you feel about paying for a date, assuming you arent broke? If you expect him to always pay, are there things you would expect to pay for evenly? Is there a certain point where you'd be comfortable freely sharing your money and being more of an equal?

 

Sound off!

 

 

I am a guy, and I have a few opinions as it concerns dating and the wallet game. First, in most societies, Men are the chasers, and women are the indulger. A woman has the right to "expect" a man to "charm" her and "shows" that he is worthy of her time. If a woman is not worth your time, then you would not be out with her in the first place. I believe it is still a man's responsibility to use some brain power and sense to win a woman's attention enough so she will "Want" to take you out and pay for some dates.

 

Men are no longer at the top of the food chain, so if you find a classy woman with money, she wont even bother with you if you start stinging on the few dollars you pay for dinner, lunch or a romantic evening. Even women on just solid ground will ignore you after they see that you are cheap and just want to free loaf and get something for nothing.

 

I for one do not feel comfortable with a woman paying, however if she insists, then I may let her pay for one date. I would feel incapable of holding my own, babied, or just sad if a woman "Had" to pay for the dates I am out with her.

 

Guys should also learn to be a "Gentleman" and not just another guy she thinks is "average". Hold the door for her, help her with her chair at dinner (other women will see how charming you are), feed her small bites of appetizer if she allows it, and tell her jokes so you can see how pretty she looks when she smiles. So don't be a cheap a$$, go out there and enjoy the money you spend, if you left us today, uncle sam would gladly waste it.

 

I believe in chivalry and so I wrote a book that touches on this very subject. Currently being sold in E-Book form, Book printing will start soon.

 

My username is the website dot com.

 

Enjoy

[Ruby Slippers]

I'm an old-fashioned romantic in some ways, and this is the one of them. I like it when the guy pays more of the time, and love it when he pays most or all of the time. But I am happy fulfilling certain traditional female roles, so it doesn't just go one way. And I'm not materialistic and don't have expensive tastes.

 

I have always been looking for a long-term partner. And a quality long-term partner and potential mate is going to be happy to show me he is serious about me, and able to provide for me and our offspring. Just like I am going to do things that show him I'm good long-term partner and mother material.

 

If it's a worthwhile partnership, eventually we're going to be thriving and both contributing financially to the relationship, for mutual gain.

 

And it has been my experience that the men who are the best partners across the board are also those who have no problem paying, and in fact enjoy doing it. The tightwads are also the ones who are emotional, logistical, and physical tightwads, too.

[zengirl]

Not just that but holding doors and carrying heavy stuff. I feel like women usually look at men as dumb muscle and I will never do heavy lifting for a woman I do not know.

 

I don't think it ever hurts to help someone out with something. I mean, I don't expect men to go around carrying my things or opening my doors (I'm not even sure I like the door thing). But when I landed in Korea, the country was instantly endeared to me by a Korean mother and her 16-year-old son who rushed to me to help me get my large pieces of luggage (my whole life in these suitcases!) onto a baggage cart. They certainly weren't dumb muscle.

 

I help older people and children when I see them struggling to carry things and give up my seat on the subway. If someone drops something near me, I reach to pick it up for them (whether I know them or not). Admittedly, I'm not much help with the very heavy stuff. But I think helping people if you're slightly more able----stronger, etc----in that area is just human kindness.

 

My point was that you should not expect one archaic concept when you dislike others.

 

Well, you can, technically. (For the record, I'm not a huge "men must pay for dates" gal, except, as I said in my answer, in what I've observed about men. So my issue with this is more the logic of it.) In fact, historically, we have "picked and chosen" what we liked, as we moved our society along. You don't have to throw everything out at once. That applies to just about everything. For instance, I'm no longer really Jewish, but I still celebrate Hanukkah. I'm not really Buddhist, but I practice Zen Meditation. I take pieces of all sorts of philosophies, religions, cultures, and historical practices and weave them into my everyday life and view of the world. The notion that one must conform to some set standard philosophy or throw every bit of it out is silly to me.

 

At any rate, if you're going with, "If you want legal equality, then. . . " I think the argument would be better applied to things like the draft (now that's a genuine legal unfairness; I don't have to be legally registered with the SS, but fellows do) than dating. Dating and legal equality have little to do with each other.

 

I dated about 25 women in the past year with an average of two dates

 

25 x 2 = 50

 

An average date (conservative estimate) = $50

 

$50 x 50 dates = $2500 annually

 

Let's say I do this for 3 years before meeting my wife ( though it will be more)

 

$2500 x 3 = $7500

 

The $3750 I would have saved going dutch is a significant savings that a woman does not have if she CHOOSES not to pay (and she can choose). I would like to save that money for myself and future loved ones. MAybe for a house or a car. WHy should I be asked to forgo that simply to see if a women has any potential as a partner.

 

Interesting statement. While I see the inherent logic in it. . . it still makes me think, "25 gals? Dude, that's a lot. And no relationship? Kind of weird."

 

I suppose part of it is that different people show that they're investing in dating/a relationship in different ways. For most men I know, desiring to pay for dates is one of the ways they demonstrate investment. This is a purely sociological thing, but denying sociological constructs exists in a culture are pretty silly. (Not to say this is the only way men invest in relationships or that it, on its own, demonstrates sufficient investment to be attractive.) If you show your investment in a different way, and it works for you, more power to you, I say.

 

If you don't want to invest in any way on the first 2 dates (I'm not speaking strictly financially), I think that's a bad sign. But what do I know about money? I've lent money to strangers (always been paid back by the way). I'm a bit weird about money. I've been rich, I've been poor. . . I mostly think it's unhealthy to think too much about money (beyond avoiding debt).

 

What about if I have a planned eating venue with a budget and they want to go elsewhere that is more expensive? Do I state to them that we can only eat at the venue I chose and they have no say since I asked them out and am paying? SHow me a woman sho agrees with that. Men used to picke the place order for their date in those days. No chance of being stuck with a bill for lobster and champag.

Anyone who wants lobster and champagne on a first or second date seems like a pure materialist to me.

 

I've got no objection to a fellow picking the place (he should pick a reasonable, PG, positive place, of course), though phrasing it as "You have no say!" would turn me off. I don't even speak to children like that. It's a matter of attitude. Dates need not be expensive to be good. I think most serious women will tell you that----in fact, most women I know will tell you some of the best dates they went on were cheap or even free. But those require more creativity and planning.

 

That said, I've always offered to pick up my own tab (unless a fellow unexpectedly takes me to a place I can't afford. . . that's a bit uncomfortable) or the whole thing, if he's gotten a date already. I actually pretty much insist on paying if I don't like the guy and don't want to see him again, going so far as to put money on the table.

 

It's funny because I see the logic inherent in your argument, but a lot of the way you phrased things and your reasoning for it "bothered" (turned me off, repelled me, etc) me. That's what happens a lot of time this argument comes up. It seems like the fellows who are most likely to be kind and giving don't really get their backs up about it and follow the sociological mores closely. That doesn't mean you can't be kind and giving and not pay. I'm sure you can. I'm just not sure how often that happens in a person. Kind of like finding a blue-eyed Asian. (It does happen. Just not very often.) Though I don't mean to imply it's a matter of genetics, just the sticky minefield of sociological conditioning and what makes one argue with this particular implied more. I would have to think that someone would have to be quite non-traditional to pull off opposing this social more without seeming withholding.

Edited July 30, 2010 by zengirl

[GordonDarkfoot]

I don't get why people make such a big fcking deal about who pays. If you can't afford to treat someone to dinner, you shouldn't be going out to restaurants. If you can't afford to buy the food to cook a dinner for two, you shouldn't be dating.

 

So, in addition to starving, poor people don't get to have sex?

 

Harsh, man. Harsh.

[donnamaybe]

I'm not some kind of feminazi or anything, so if a guy wants to pay for me when we go out, I'm not gonna go all bee-yotch on him and start ranting about equality. But in this day and age where sometimes women earn MORE than men I would feel a guy who constantly showered his money on a woman without expectations in return was a doormat and felt like he had to pay a woman to be with him. Of course there are going to be situations where perhaps a guy firmly established in a good paying job will be dating someone who is still finishing college and is fully aware that there are many financial responsibilities and limitations. That's different, of course.

 

It's a fine line. There's no exact right answer for me, but I can tell when a guy is a cheapskate or not. There are other ways to determine things about someone's personality without having overt examples like money flowing only in one direction or the other. Also, as regards the guy always paying because of the nice things I'll do for him in return, I would prefer the man doing nice things for me as well instead of just the money being pulled out. There should be a mutual spending and a mutual effort of doing nice stuff from both. You can't measure it all up exactly 50/50. That would be ridiculous. It's just a matter of people appreciating each other and the efforts of both and just displaying some common courtesy.

[GordonDarkfoot]

That argument only works if I am the only guy she plans to date. Otherwise all that money she spends is for her own benefit not mine.

 

However, I think it best that guys pay everything because its good pratice for marriage.

 

Also it's good practice for the divorce.

[SassyKitten]

I can definitely understand holding doors open for elderly people, I do that myself! At the same time, what I am looking for is a man to take care of me and not a partner in crime. If I was able to cook a decent meal, my style would be doing that as a thank you for dinner, but unfortunately I'm terrible in the kitchen so I have to think of other ways to even the field if the first date goes well.

 

That said, the only reason I will let the guy pay on the first date is because he usually feels better doing that than splitting the bill. Which seems to be the resounding feeling from guys on this thread.

[donnamaybe]

So, in addition to starving, poor people don't get to have sex?

 

Harsh, man. Harsh.

 

Now THAT'S funny!

 

I'm waiting for the gals with the "you must have low self esteem if you don't make the guys always pick up the check" mantra.

[WintersNightTraveler]

So, in addition to starving, poor people don't get to have sex?

 

Harsh, man. Harsh.

 

Nahh, read closely. They just can't date. Nothing's preventing them from having meaningless, desitute sexual trysts while scraping out their meager livings, just as long as they aren't buying any food for each other before they copulate.

[donnamaybe]

At the same time, what I am looking for is a man to take care of me and not a partner in crime.

I'll keep my partner in crime, thanks. He takes care of me AND I take care of him. Where he has strengths, he uses those to help me, and vice versa. We both make about the same money, so we take care of each other quite nicely.

[SassyKitten]

I'll keep my partner in crime, thanks. He takes care of me AND I take care of him. Where he has strengths, he uses those to help me, and vice versa. We both make about the same money, so we take care of each other quite nicely.

 

That is exactly the kind of relationship I'm looking for!! Still working on my own money part, but working hard on my degree is much easier work for that one than hooking up with someone for his money.

[yah]

LADIES- do you expect a man to pay for every date? how would you feel if he asked if you were going to pay for something? Would you feel like hes cheap if he didnt want to pay for something, or that hes a jerk if he expects you to? Is being cheap a serious offense? Should paying be more equal? How would you feel about paying for a date, assuming you arent broke? If you expect him to always pay, are there things you would expect to pay for evenly? Is there a certain point where you'd be comfortable freely sharing your money and being more of an equal?

 

1. No.

2. I'd feel offended if I was already paying for some things, however little amount. Just curious, if the guy pays for dinner one night and the girl cooks him dinner another night is that girl still considered not pulling her weight, financially-speaking??

3. To an extent. Not sure since its never happened.

4. Yes.

5. If its long-term/exclusive, only if your incomes are equal.

6. I feel fine. =P

7. n/a

8. Sharing all money, not until marriage. What do you consider "equal"? To me, 50/50 is not equal/fair if your incomes aren't the same. I'm a grad student and I'm pretty sure BF makes much more than me. Even if I was working a typical entry-level job I don't think I'd have to ability to go 50/50. When I graduate and earn more, I'd happily pay for more things. Until then, he understands.

[kdark]

I think what zengirl said pretty much hit it spot on.

 

Any man that wants to argue at the table about it is going to sound pretty lame. It sounds good in theory, but in practice just ruins the date.

 

Me, I just offer to pay first off just so the date goes smooth hoping she will offer. If she doesn't, no big deal. But if she hasn't put anything financially on the table by the second or third date, whether it's drinks, a fun activity, condoms, or what have you, then I'm going to start getting unhappy.

[Pink Cupcakes]

Whoever asks should pay. With the guy I've been seeing for 2 months, I knew he was very successful before we went out and "old school" when it comes to dating and it would have been awkward for me to even offer and demasculate him by even attempting to offer to pay for dinner on our date.

I haven't offered since then, because from getting to know him better, I know it brings him pride to buy me nice dinners. I did take him a nice bottle of wine when I visited him at his house and he liked it and graciously accepted.

He is taking me to San Francisco in a couple weeks and I know that involves him booking a very expensive hotel, expensive dinners, etc. He has box seats to the baseball team there....a guy who can afford that, it would be silly for me to offer to pay anything.

 

Now if he were a teacher, like myself, I would have picked up some dinners by now after two months, it would have been 50/50. However, the first few dates, a man wants to feel like a man so I let him feel like a man.

[Blade Runner]

Nahh, read closely. They just can't date.[/Quote]

 

Yeah, 'cause dinner dates or dates that involve food and money are the only type of date.

[zengirl]

I can definitely understand holding doors open for elderly people, I do that myself! At the same time, what I am looking for is a man to take care of me and not a partner in crime. If I was able to cook a decent meal, my style would be doing that as a thank you for dinner, but unfortunately I'm terrible in the kitchen so I have to think of other ways to even the field if the first date goes well.

 

That said, the only reason I will let the guy pay on the first date is because he usually feels better doing that than splitting the bill. Which seems to be the resounding feeling from guys on this thread.

 

Yeah, I tend to cook men dinners (or bring over groceries and cook together) as the relationship progresses towards/into a relationship. I love cooking, and I like to have company while I cook, so those are some of my favorite dates. I also tend to make picnics.

 

Actually, the best thing about my old job was all the free stuff I got around town (I worked with restaurants, theme parks, and clubs. . . well, and salons, but that didn't help dating much), so I could always take a guy to something I had "tickets" for. Nobody feels less manly by using something the girl got free. Tickets, in general. . . I tend to just buy tickets to things. Dinner can be a bit more of a minefield, unless you've been dating a bit, but "Hey, I've got tickets to such and such" works out well, because then the fellow can pick up dinner and still not express any cognitive dissonance over it. I also think it's silly to think that there aren't men who do sincerely experience cognitive dissonance over a gal paying, even nice, good men, who consider women equals in the workplace. Dating is not the workplace. It is not a court of law. It is a more complex thing.

 

I've always had "partners in crime" so to speak, no matter who paid a bit more or less. Honestly, it only becomes a lot about money when you're talking about guys who are going out on a lot of 1st and 2nd dates. And that's its own problem. I tend to go for guys who don't go on a lot of dates and don't appointment-date. But that might just be the nerdy only-kinda-know-they're-cute guys I like.

[Sanman]

I don't think it ever hurts to help someone out with something. I mean, I don't expect men to go around carrying my things or opening my doors (I'm not even sure I like the door thing). But when I landed in Korea, the country was instantly endeared to me by a Korean mother and her 16-year-old son who rushed to me to help me get my large pieces of luggage (my whole life in these suitcases!) onto a baggage cart. They certainly weren't dumb muscle.

 

I help older people and children when I see them struggling to carry things and give up my seat on the subway. If someone drops something near me, I reach to pick it up for them (whether I know them or not). Admittedly, I'm not much help with the very heavy stuff. But I think helping people if you're slightly more able----stronger, etc----in that area is just human kindness.

 

 

 

Well, you can, technically. (For the record, I'm not a huge "men must pay for dates" gal, except, as I said in my answer, in what I've observed about men. So my issue with this is more the logic of it.) In fact, historically, we have "picked and chosen" what we liked, as we moved our society along. You don't have to throw everything out at once. That applies to just about everything. For instance, I'm no longer really Jewish, but I still celebrate Hanukkah. I'm not really Buddhist, but I practice Zen Meditation. I take pieces of all sorts of philosophies, religions, cultures, and historical practices and weave them into my everyday life and view of the world. The notion that one must conform to some set standard philosophy or throw every bit of it out is silly to me.

 

At any rate, if you're going with, "If you want legal equality, then. . . " I think the argument would be better applied to things like the draft (now that's a genuine legal unfairness; I don't have to be legally registered with the SS, but fellows do) than dating. Dating and legal equality have little to do with each other.

 

 

 

Interesting statement. While I see the inherent logic in it. . . it still makes me think, "25 gals? Dude, that's a lot. And no relationship? Kind of weird."

 

I suppose part of it is that different people show that they're investing in dating/a relationship in different ways. For most men I know, desiring to pay for dates is one of the ways they demonstrate investment. This is a purely sociological thing, but denying sociological constructs exists in a culture are pretty silly. (Not to say this is the only way men invest in relationships or that it, on its own, demonstrates sufficient investment to be attractive.) If you show your investment in a different way, and it works for you, more power to you, I say.

 

If you don't want to invest in any way on the first 2 dates (I'm not speaking strictly financially), I think that's a bad sign. But what do I know about money? I've lent money to strangers (always been paid back by the way). I'm a bit weird about money. I've been rich, I've been poor. . . I mostly think it's unhealthy to think too much about money (beyond avoiding debt).

 

Anyone who wants lobster and champagne on a first or second date seems like a pure materialist to me.

 

I've got no objection to a fellow picking the place (he should pick a reasonable, PG, positive place, of course), though phrasing it as "You have no say!" would turn me off. I don't even speak to children like that. It's a matter of attitude. Dates need not be expensive to be good. I think most serious women will tell you that----in fact, most women I know will tell you some of the best dates they went on were cheap or even free. But those require more creativity and planning.

 

That said, I've always offered to pick up my own tab (unless a fellow unexpectedly takes me to a place I can't afford. . . that's a bit uncomfortable) or the whole thing, if he's gotten a date already. I actually pretty much insist on paying if I don't like the guy and don't want to see him again, going so far as to put money on the table.

 

It's funny because I see the logic inherent in your argument, but a lot of the way you phrased things and your reasoning for it "bothered" (turned me off, repelled me, etc) me. That's what happens a lot of time this argument comes up. It seems like the fellows who are most likely to be kind and giving don't really get their backs up about it and follow the sociological mores closely. That doesn't mean you can't be kind and giving and not pay. I'm sure you can. I'm just not sure how often that happens in a person. Kind of like finding a blue-eyed Asian. (It does happen. Just not very often.) Though I don't mean to imply it's a matter of genetics, just the sticky minefield of sociological conditioning and what makes one argue with this particular implied more. I would have to think that someone would have to be quite non-traditional to pull off opposing this social more without seeming withholding.

 

 

Zengirl,

 

I agree that we all take bits and pieces we enjoy and weave them into our life. It is to our ADVANTAGE to do so. It is to a woman's advantage to adopt the 'women shouldn't pay for dinner' social more while reaping the benefits of the women's lib movement. In the same way many Christians choose to feast at easter without choosing to forgo for lent. They have the advantage of having the feast without the famine.

 

I'm being a bit over the top to get my point across, but I'm glad you see the logic. As I stated above, I usually do pay for dates, but am very turned off if the woman doesn't at least attempt to pay. Then again, I come from a conservative culture and am about to be a doctor, this means I meet many women who only see me as future financial security. However, they bring little to the table for me and have little interest in me as a person. I come from a family of very strong, independent women and relish having that in my life. The point being is that the objections I hear are more about social tradition rather than any logic. I see it as a double standard that suggests that men need to pay in order to enjoy a woman's company, but a man's company is worth nothing.

 

As for the 25 women, there have been several relationships that have not worked out for a variety of reasons in there. I live in NYC and am a bit ahead of my peers careerwise. I prefer women with strong career interests as well. Dueling careers means moving, not being settled, etc. The woman I am currently dating is currently applying for residency and may be forced to leave the state next year. Aside from dueling careers, I rarely meet a woman who is both attractive to me, liberal, can contribute to my intellectual and emotional growth, and are sensible enough to suit me (I have learned I am too sensible for the artists/musicians i enjoy otherwise). I have had to make concessions in other areas to find these women, but I have been lucky enough to meet some. A couple of them would like to get back together with me if they become ready to settle down and our circumstances align. However, this thread is not about me.

 

I agree that there are other ways to show interest above and beyond paying for dates. In fact, I consider only doing that to be laziness on a man's part. You can woo a woman without money and I have learned to be creative with picnics, museum dates, etc. I have also researched and then gone 45 minutes out of my way to surprise my ex-gf with the only Red Velvet Cake Ice Cream in NYC because they were sold out the cake at the restaurant the week before and she was disappointed. That is just who I am. I have high standards, but certainly do treat the women who meet those standards like the gift that they are.

[SassyKitten]

I have also researched and then gone 45 minutes out of my way to surprise my ex-gf with the only Red Velvet Cake Ice Cream in NYC because they were sold out the cake at the restaurant the week before and she was disappointed.

 

Oh my God, Red Velvet Cake ice cream sounds like my idea of heaven!!!!

[Sanman]

Oh my God, Red Velvet Cake ice cream sounds like my idea of heaven!!!!

 

I introduced it to a female friend and she stated that every bite led to an orgasm!

[zengirl]

Zengirl,

 

I agree that we all take bits and pieces we enjoy and weave them into our life. It is to our ADVANTAGE to do so. It is to a woman's advantage to adopt the 'women shouldn't pay for dinner' social more while reaping the benefits of the women's lib movement. In the same way many Christians choose to feast at easter without choosing to forgo for lent. They have the advantage of having the feast without the famine.

 

just the same. Ah. . . but I celebrate Easter (but more like a proper pagan, with eggs and colors and chocolates, though I'm not a pagan either) but don't fast for Lent. I see what you mean, about hypocrisy to a degree. But it's only hypocritical if they claim to be a Christian under a sect that believes in fasting for Lent. Many sects don't! And they celebrate their "resurrection."

 

The truth is philosophies are rarely about fairness, and anyone who studies them deeply will be able to point this out. The social mores people adopt are rarely consciously adopted, and we often consciously say things that don't even go to our social mores (even I do this sometimes, and I consider myself pretty damn good at awareness, abstract thinking, and knowing myself; most people have no idea when they're reacting to social mores unless you point it out). Religion, politics and philosophies are way to provoke or assuage cognitive dissonance in someone, usually in regard to social mores.

 

Hypocrisy can't be as broad as all that. Hypocrisy is more like, "Well, you should fast for Lent, but I shouldn't because I've accepted Jesus and my Lord and Savior." Saying, "Hey, we can celebrate Jesus and have an Easter feast without fasting for Lent" is just making a new philosophy. The old philosophers might not agree with it, but it's not hypocritical.

 

I'm being a bit over the top to get my point across, but I'm glad you see the logic. As I stated above, I usually do pay for dates, but am very turned off if the woman doesn't at least attempt to pay.

 

Pretty reasonable. As I generalized men above, I will generalize women now: I've rarely encountered a nice, decent gal who won't at least offer or attempt to pay (unless you're knowingly doing something outside of her income range, etc). Also, the nice, decent gals don't expect lobster. I'm not saying that those likes/actions can't coincide with a nice decent gal (just like above, with my male description, and the blue-eyed Asian, I suppose it's possible), but they rarely do.

 

Then again, I come from a conservative culture and am about to be a doctor, this means I meet many women who only see me as future financial security. However, they bring little to the table for me and have little interest in me as a person. I come from a family of very strong, independent women and relish having that in my life. The point being is that the objections I hear are more about social tradition rather than any logic. I see it as a double standard that suggests that men need to pay in order to enjoy a woman's company, but a man's company is worth nothing.

 

As for the 25 women, there have been several relationships that have not worked out for a variety of reasons in there. I live in NYC and am a bit ahead of my peers careerwise. I prefer women with strong career interests as well. Dueling careers means moving, not being settled, etc. The woman I am currently dating is currently applying for residency and may be forced to leave the state next year. Aside from dueling careers, I rarely meet a woman who is both attractive to me, liberal, can contribute to my intellectual and emotional growth, and are sensible enough to suit me (I have learned I am too sensible for the artists/musicians i enjoy otherwise). I have had to make concessions in other areas to find these women, but I have been lucky enough to meet some. A couple of them would like to get back together with me if they become ready to settle down and our circumstances align. However, this thread is not about me.

 

Fair enough. I know it's hard for doctors to date when they're young. The hours are murder. I'm still surprised that you manage to get out for 50 1st and 2nd dates a year.

 

I agree that there are other ways to show interest above and beyond paying for dates. In fact, I consider only doing that to be laziness on a man's part. You can woo a woman without money and I have learned to be creative with picnics, museum dates, etc. I have also researched and then gone 45 minutes out of my way to surprise my ex-gf with the only Red Velvet Cake Ice Cream in NYC because they were sold out the cake at the restaurant the week before and she was disappointed. That is just who I am. I have high standards, but certainly do treat the women who meet those standards like the gift that they are.

 

Word, especially to the underlined part.

[WintersNightTraveler]

Yeah, 'cause dinner dates or dates that involve food and money are the only type of date.

 

Well, they can always just eat their own children.

[SassyKitten]

I introduced it to a female friend and she stated that every bite led to an orgasm!

 

Haha, I was about to type that it sounds like orgasm in my mouth!!

[donnamaybe]

I've rarely encountered a nice, decent gal who won't at least offer or attempt to pay (unless you're knowingly doing something outside of her income range, etc). Also, the nice, decent gals don't expect lobster.

 

Right on zengirl. No matter how successful the guy who has taken me out, I don't just go wild and spend like crazy when I've been out for a meal. That's just rude and self entitled. Likewise, I don't look for the cheapest thing on the menu either. I just try to be sensible and considerate while still being happy with my choice. I didn't want to milk the guy for everything I could get out of him. It just wouldn't feel right.