denise_xo Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 You promise? What if I moved to Canada and it turned out Canadian women werent as generous as you said? :p:p I'm not Canadian. I live in Europe. And yes, that's a promise
musemaj111 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm not Canadian. I live in Europe. And yes, that's a promise What have you been doing all this time here then? I cant imagine how confused non-Americans must be being on this forum.
denise_xo Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 What have you been doing all this time here then? I cant imagine how confused non-Americans must be being on this forum. I'm an anthropologist
musemaj111 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I'm an anthropologist Lol, Im not even gonna ask what your observational report says so far. Anyway, I plan to find a way to move to Central or Northern Europe once I earn my degree. I find American society too selfish and not egalitarian enough for my taste. Im nearly 30 and Im just going to waste a lot more of my life looking for a compatible mate to have a family with here.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 I find this thread interesting when taken in conjunction with http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t260355/ . In that thread, the overall consensus by men was that 'Yes, all men look at other women, it's been our nature for ages, you just have to accept it'. Conversely, the 'nature' of women for the past centuries has indeed been to look to the man as the provider. Why is one 'nature' acceptable, and the other not? BTW, I disagree with both - I feel that in the modern world, 'nature' is not a sufficient excuse for doing whatever you damn well like anymore. And thus, I feel that women should not use 'nature / traditional history' as an excuse for expecting to be paid for, and I also feel men should not use 'nature' as an excuse to be able to goggle at whatever piece of ass they want to without repercussions.
oaks Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Who do you think should pay when you go out on dates? Or is the man paying the bill an outdated dating formality that has been replaced with going Dutch? I think it's outdated in the same way that women not having their own incomes is outdated, but I think I live in a place where splitting the bill (or at least genuinely offering to without it being a crude test) is considered normal and polite. I don't mind if she doesn't offer to pay her half (and I wouldn't ask her) but I wouldn't refuse if she offered. Honestly though, paying for my own drinks at a bar with him does not make me want to go back home and have sexy times with him. Just sayin' I'm disappointed that people think there should be a link between who pays for a date and whether fun times are had afterwards. I must be getting old.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) Also, I think culture has a lot to do with it. Back in my Asian homeland, the culture was simply that the guy paid. There wasn't any good or logical reason for it, it just was. So, people just went along with it because it was easier. Especially with the conservative culture there, touching, kissing, and whatnot typically was not done on a first date, so there had to be ways to show interest and set the date apart as a 'date' and not just two friends having a meal. The conventional way to do this was how the bill was split, usually. If the man insisted on paying, there was a good chance he was interested. Also, if the woman insisted on paying her own way despite being offered, there was a good chance she wasn't interested. I admit I have used the 'insistence on paying' way a few times to draw boundaries with male friends who wanted to pay, while I would not insist if my offer was turned down by a guy I was actually interested in being with, because I did not want to send him the wrong signals. I was quite horror-struck once when I received a revelation about how the guys there think, though. Was hanging out with a group of guys, and one of them talked about a girl he was interested in. When encouraged to pursue her, he said, "Nah, I can't, I don't have the capability to pay for her, she's a rich girl with a luxurious lifestyle". I was like, "Huh?! Is that how you guys decide whether or not to pursue someone you like?!". The answer, from all 8 or so of them, was a resounding, "Duh! You don't know anything about that cause you're a girl." Mind you, these are all educated, intelligent men capable of rational thought (we were all in med school). Sometimes I really don't get it. It's one thing to want to pay for someone you like... it's another thing to think you shouldn't even pursue her just because you can't pay for her! Edited January 12, 2011 by Elswyth
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Obviously its an incompatibility. Its akin to a man who wont continue dating a woman if she doesnt put out by the second date. His interest lies solely in what he gets. He is not genuine. I'm amazed that the day has arrived when I actually agree with you. I think this is a very apt analogy - women often make the mistake of expecting to be paid for, just like how men do with sex. This leads to a very cold and business-like approach to dating, as embodied by TheFourthPlanet's post on another thread, "Well, if you don't give it to me by the 3rd date, there are plenty of women who will, so why should I bother waiting around for you?" Substitute 'give it to me' with 'pay for me', and you have the rather ugly attitude of women who will disqualify a man simply because he does not pay for her. On the other hand, plenty of women enjoy being paid for, just as how plenty of men enjoy receiving NSA sex. In this, I see nothing wrong.
oaks Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 On the other hand, plenty of women enjoy being paid for, just as how plenty of men enjoy receiving NSA sex. In this, I see nothing wrong. Fully agree. Nothing wrong with enjoying. It's expecting that's wrong.
sally4sara Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Make a game of it. Everyone who is single and dating, get a round fish bowl and toss your change in it. When you get asked/ask out someone, you both grab two handfuls of loose change on your way out the door. Meet up and figure out the most fun you can have for however much it ends up being collectively. If the date sucks, you're both boring and the relationship will be too.
musemaj111 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) I'm amazed that the day has arrived when I actually agree with you. My stance has always been the same which is that I believe in an egalitarian society in which the difference between men and woman is only anatomical and neither men nor women should expect one another to behave in certain ways along gender lines. Its not the job of men to ask women out, pay for dates, or provide for the family as its not the job of women to cook, clean, and give up sex when they dont want to. All these things should not be expectations. All these things should be privileges. The reason that I often sounded like a sexist pig is that I frequently voiced my opinions through satirical and exaggerative methods that enraged people who didnt understand what I was trying to convey. Back in my Asian homeland, the culture was simply that the guy paid. There wasn't any good or logical reason for it, it just was. So, people just went along with it because it was easier. But then, once he married her, he earned himself a 'maid' for life. I originally came from Southeast Asia. As I said in another thread, if I have a daughter one day, Im never going to let her marry a traditional Asian man because I know the patriarchal culture well. My own mother believes that she is less than my father and its her job to serve him as its his job to feed her and the children. No logical reason either. Thats just the way it is. I was quite horror-struck once when I received a revelation about how the guys there think, though. Was hanging out with a group of guys, and one of them talked about a girl he was interested in. When encouraged to pursue her, he said, "Nah, I can't, I don't have the capability to pay for her, she's a rich girl with a luxurious lifestyle". I was like, "Huh?! Is that how you guys decide whether or not to pursue someone you like?!". The answer, from all 8 or so of them, was a resounding, "Duh! You don't know anything about that cause you're a girl." Mind you, these are all educated, intelligent men capable of rational thought (we were all in med school). Sometimes I really don't get it. It's one thing to want to pay for someone you like... it's another thing to think you shouldn't even pursue her just because you can't pay for her! Again, as I said in another thread, women dont understand many things that men are going through. And I dont deny men also dont understand many things that women are going through. Men who are afraid to approach women with higher status and wealth is akin to women who are afraid to approach men with higher physical attractiveness. Well I think there is not any competition for paying bills. We saw that most of the time guys pay for bills and all. But this is not necessary that always guys should make us special. We can also make them. It will be appreciated. Yup, women's reasoning behind their insistence on having men pay for them revolves heavily around the selfish need of feeling wanted and treated special. But one thing these women forget is that men also want to feel wanted and treated special. Men who dont like paying on dates largely cite similar reason, which is that they feel that they are expected to pay for the woman's time and attention when she has her own money as if the man's time and attention were worth less than hers. Its as simple as that. Anyway, its funny that it seems all the women who are sympathetic and understanding of men share something in common. They are not American. Edited January 12, 2011 by musemaj111
zengirl Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 On the other hand, plenty of women enjoy being paid for, just as how plenty of men enjoy receiving NSA sex. In this, I see nothing wrong. Sure. I think there's a difference between enjoying and expecting, but where do we draw the line? In terms of the poster who says she'll pay her way (this is not my style, really, but just for discussion's sake), but if the guy doesn't pay, there's no 2nd date, who are we to say that's really "expecting." I don't have an issue with a guy who won't go on a second date with a girl because he can see that she's chaste and not going to have sex with him for a good, long time, or even because she didn't sleep with him on the first date. A first date should create no expectation of a second date at all, unless it is already agreed upon that it'll happen (i.e. you set one date up on the next). And whenever someone does anything you don't enjoy or fails to do something you do enjoy, isn't that reason enough not to go on a 2nd date? It's not like you are in the relationship deeply enough to owe them a 'fighting chance.' A first date is no guarantee of anything. For me, if money is for any reason an issue -- if some issue with money bothers me early on or bothers him early on, or if, later on, we have major issues with it -- I'm going to drop a guy because incompatibility with money doesn't bode well for marriage. To clarify---That's not to say I "expect" guys to pay for dates; as I said, my relationships have gone several different ways (though I do think the better guys who've made better boyfriends in other ways -- been more thoughtful, attentive, communicative -- have also been the most insistent on paying; I don't think the two are necessarily always linked, but it's been a constant dataset; the BF who I paid for almost everything with was the only one who I ever had any issues with infidelity or bad behavior, but I still don't care about the money; I had plenty of it, I spent what I wanted to freely, and whether or not it worked out wasn't the point). My point was more that an incompatibility in this area, whomever you want to say is 'wrong' or 'right', doesn't bode well for relationships.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Zengirl, my post was referring to women who say, specifically, "If he doesn't pay on the first date, there will be no second date, no matter what". No thoughts about financial incompatibilities, etc. I personally find this attitude ugly, just as I find the attitude of men who say "If she doesn't put out by 3rd date, I'm gone" ugly. This is a personal opinion. Yours evidently differs, and that's okay.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 As I said in another thread, if I have a daughter one day, Im never going to let her marry a traditional Asian man because I know the patriarchal culture well. This alone, my dear, is patriarchal in itself. The egalitarian belief is that children, once above a certain age, are entitled to make their own decisions based on the values and beliefs that you instilled in them.
sally4sara Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 My stance has always been the same which is that I believe in an egalitarian society in which the difference between men and woman is only anatomical and neither men nor women should expect one another to behave in certain ways along gender lines. Its not the job of men to ask women out, pay for dates, or provide for the family as its not the job of women to cook, clean, and give up sex when they dont want to. All these things should not be expectations. All these things should be privileges. The reason that I often sounded like a sexist pig is that I frequently voiced my opinions through satirical and exaggerative methods that enraged people who didnt understand what I was trying to convey. I originally came from Southeast Asia. As I said in another thread, if I have a daughter one day, Im never going to let her marry a traditional Asian man because I know the patriarchal culture well. My own mother believes that she is less than my father and its her job to serve him as its his job to feed her and the children. No logical reason either. Thats just the way it is. The problem with this is: Its no one's birthright to pay, ask, support, provide, cook, clean or have sex when they'd prefer to not. But these things will have to be done by someone. Sex when you're not all about it will be asked of in a relationship. It isn't as if women ever CHOSE to be regulated to having sex only when the urge strikes her partner, cooking and cleaning only. As a choice among others, some will choose it. If a man chooses it out of other options, he's going to expect a damn parade over it! Why? Because it is contrary to what he has been taught is appropriate to his gender. Why does your mom think she is lesser than your dad? Did he roll up one day and flash some money at her and she was all "ohhohohhhhhoooo money!" and begin groveling and promising to be his slave? I doubt it. She was conditioned to this by her family and community. While I agree that men and women are just as capable of equality in most anything, I don't see traditional men and women as biologically flawed for their beliefs. I don't view them as lesser, I view them as conditioned to their beliefs by their elders. But you quite often come off like this is in no way relative to the behaviors you dislike when it comes to women so much as some biological flaw inherent to their gender. When oh when, my egalitarian friend, will you be goading men with satire and exaggeration, referring to them as lesser than women for their tendency to EXPECT women to do the hands on child rearing and the lion's share of cooking and cleaning and coughing up the sex on the whim not of their own instead of pulling their own weight and like reciprocity over preferred substitutes (money)? You won't be doing any of that because all your "egalitarian" aim is at getting out of what only effects YOU rather than seeing a result for society at large or to the benefit and betterment of all. I don't believe you're pining for your equal so much as an easier field to plow.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Although I agree with the rest of your post re: traditional Asian men, muse, I must echo sally's statement. Your egalitarian fight has seemed mostly directed at women, despite your own confessed views of traditional men. You did not speak up in the 'sex on 3rd dates' thread, certainly. When oh when, my egalitarian friend, will you be goading men with satire and exaggeration, referring to them as lesser than women for their tendency to EXPECT women to do the hands on child rearing and the lion's share of cooking and cleaning and coughing up the sex on the whim not of their own instead of pulling their own weight and like reciprocity over preferred substitutes (money)?
zengirl Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Zengirl, my post was referring to women who say, specifically, "If he doesn't pay on the first date, there will be no second date, no matter what". No thoughts about financial incompatibilities, etc. I personally find this attitude ugly, just as I find the attitude of men who say "If she doesn't put out by 3rd date, I'm gone" ugly. This is a personal opinion. Yours evidently differs, and that's okay. I don't really agree with it, but I don't find it ugly either. I guess I just see it as more multi-faceted. (The sex thing can be more multi-faceted too, though it's not a social norm for LTRs to have sex that early -- 3rd date seems to be the "first" acceptable time to have sex, if you're going to set forth norms, for LTR. So, it's in different ways.) I guess it's more because I don't really like the attitudes that are sometimes on these boads where people seem to feel entitled to another date -- male or female -- and they think that one partner (they or the other person) did something "wrong" if it doesn't occur. Not getting another date is the norm, in terms of early dating, and not a 'penalty' really. In theory, I don't care if a man pays on the first date (though I'll insist to pay my way if I know I will never, ever go on a second date with him). In practice, I think it depends on what happens. I remember a story for a guy who asked a girl out, took her to a $2 Taco Tuesday, and then made a big fuss about her paying for the tip. I also remember a story about a man who paid for dinner, but got angry when the girl was boxing up her leftovers because he'd "paid" for it. So, a lot of it has to do with the way people do things. The truth is, most American men, at least in the South where I live, expect to pay on the first date (this is the socialization -- whether it's right is a different story, and I'm not saying it is), and those that don't, or make a fuss about it, have a higher tendency to be weirdo outliers. So, I guess my point is that it can be complex. But, yes, social norms, generally suck, and we can certainly evolve them or rise above them. Ignoring them seems less productive. At any rate, as I said, my points are mostly 'Devil's Advocate.' I do find anyone who's petty about money unattractive, but I don't expect men to pay for everything. . . none of this stuff has ever really been an issue for me.
Ometeotl Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Generally, In any social circumstance, if you invite somebody to a meal, the cordial thing to do is pay for them. Then, if they invite you, they pay. Eventually, I assume it breaks even. In a relationship, it maybe a 60/40 kinda thing. I wouldnt think to much in to the money issue, just do what feels natural and is within your finances.
catgotyourtongue Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 Make a game of it. Everyone who is single and dating, get a round fish bowl and toss your change in it. When you get asked/ask out someone, you both grab two handfuls of loose change on your way out the door. Meet up and figure out the most fun you can have for however much it ends up being collectively. If the date sucks, you're both boring and the relationship will be too. LOL I always enjoy your posts. Sounds like a good plan actually. Maybe the first date should just be a game of naked twister, and then no one has anywhere on their body to hide money...so you have to rely on FUN -rather than who is paying for what. Just plain adult fun. Leave the wallet and purse at home. I need to lay off the painkillers before I post, I am looopy!
musemaj111 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 This alone, my dear, is patriarchal in itself. The egalitarian belief is that children, once above a certain age, are entitled to make their own decisions based on the values and beliefs that you instilled in them. What did I say about me being exaggerative and satirical in conveying my message? Of course if I had a child, in the end I wouldnt be able to force her/him to lead a life according to my approval. But I would have my preference of what kind of choices I would like her/him to make. When oh when, my egalitarian friend, will you be goading men with satire and exaggeration, referring to them as lesser than women for their tendency to EXPECT women to do the hands on child rearing and the lion's share of cooking and cleaning and coughing up the sex on the whim not of their own instead of pulling their own weight and like reciprocity over preferred substitutes (money)? What are you talking about? No man would even dare mention that the job of a woman is to cook and clean unless he wanna be called a sexist pig. In all Western countries its an already accepted fact of life in society that a woman is free to choose whether she wanna lead the life of a 'man' or a 'woman'. But the same choice is still restricted for men, they have to aim to be the main breadwinners. Although I agree with the rest of your post re: traditional Asian men, muse, I must echo sally's statement. Your egalitarian fight has seemed mostly directed at women, despite your own confessed views of traditional men. You did not speak up in the 'sex on 3rd dates' thread, certainly. Which thread? As far as I know, the only person who constantly rambles about 'sex on the 3rd date or I leave' is The Fourth Planet. But that guy doesnt seem to be healthy. I never even took him seriously and I thought neither did everyone else.
Els Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 He certainly wasn't the only male poster echoing the statement, although he was indeed the most trollish. I don't have the time right now to search for it though, sorry. Regardless, the fact remains: There have been many threads here which were sexist towards women. I am sure you have seen at least a few of them, considering how active you are. Why do you only post in those where there is inequality towards men, if your true goal is equality?
musemaj111 Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 He certainly wasn't the only male poster echoing the statement, although he was indeed the most trollish. I don't have the time right now to search for it though, sorry. Regardless, the fact remains: There have been many threads here which were sexist towards women. I am sure you have seen at least a few of them, considering how active you are. Why do you only post in those where there is inequality towards men, if your true goal is equality? I have to disagree. I have always stuck up for women when they open a thread and complain about how they are being mistreated by men. I remember recently telling a woman, in a thread she started, to leave a man who always expected her to pay on dates and then expected her also to have sex with him whenever he wanted. But Im not going to bother responding to posters like The Fourth Planet or Average Joe. They are trolls. Anyone who actually bother reading and responding to their posts simply waste their time and energy and I feel sorry for him/her.
sally4sara Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 What are you talking about? Suddenly, he can't read. Which thread? Or remember the threads about how women should know how to cook and threads about how "real" mothers stay at home with the babies. I also notice there are now a handful of female posters dubbed by you to be THE ONLY western female capable of logic and a sense of fair play. Whats going on with that? We're so lesser it takes 5 of us to equal one? No no Musemaji (now 111), you find us inherently (def: naturally, innately, unavoidably) incapable of being a man's equal and so much so, we need to post en masse to the contrary for that estimate of ONE to go up. You have a view and its your right, but it is not one you want to see proven otherwise. Nor is it a view about a portion of the population becoming more capable. Its about you being less expected of by people you don't feel are deserving in the first place. The old saying that a woman has to work twice as hard to be seen as a peer by men is the one you carry. The tradition held; men as providers and women as care givers so men paid for dates to find someone to care for them and the babies. Now women work, don't need paid for and are still pulling the caregiver and domestic duties in the home more than men. An egalitarian would be capable of recognizing this. I guess you're inherently blind huh? No no no, you're no egalitarian. Otherwise you'd be wondering when men would evolve to the level of bringing home the bacon, frying it up in the pan and never letting their wives forget they're women instead of the same old tune they sang when women did not work. I'm an egalitarian because I know they're capable of it even if a good many everywhere (not just the US) don't care to live up to it.
Untouchable_Fire Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 The tradition held; men as providers and women as care givers so men paid for dates to find someone to care for them and the babies. Now women work, don't need paid for and are still pulling the caregiver and domestic duties in the home more than men. An egalitarian would be capable of recognizing this. I guess you're inherently blind huh? No no no, you're no egalitarian. Otherwise you'd be wondering when men would evolve to the level of bringing home the bacon, frying it up in the pan and never letting their wives forget they're women instead of the same old tune they sang when women did not work. I'm an egalitarian because I know they're capable of it even if a good many everywhere (not just the US) don't care to live up to it. Yes, today women tend to spend more time on household chores than men, but the gap isn't that large anymore. For people in my age group it's 16 hours a week on average for women and 12 for men. That's with stay at home mothers still factored in. The point is that if the traditional roles of women are every increasingly being shared... Why not the cost of dating? Most people are looking for a partner to share and build their lives together with mutual effort. Does it still make sense that a man pay all the cost of that? Maybe... but I don't see a strong justification for it. Lets be honest... the cost of dating can be very high at times. I spend around $500-1,000 a month dating when I am single... and no that isn't 5 star restaurants.
bac Posted January 12, 2011 Posted January 12, 2011 My boyfried of 3 months bought the first few dinner dates, but then we started splitting them more recently. Sometimes he entirely avoids paying and I foot the bill. But he makes way more money than me! He has said that he felt taken advantage of in the past, and if he pays for everything, he feels like he's "renting" his girlfriends. I would be happy if he paid for every time we went out together. Who do you think should pay when you go out on dates? Honestly though, paying for my own drinks at a bar with him does not make me want to go back home and have sexy times with him. Just sayin' I would pay for myself if I was in a serious relationship and if I felt that it was the right thing to do. IMO, A relationship of 3 months is not very serious yet. I had no problems to pay when I was with a guy who gave me a lot of help and emotional support but he was not financially good enough to pay for some expensive fun. In other words, if you feel strange about paying for yourself when you are with your guy, IMO, it means that you do not get the right stuff from him. You sense unconsciously that you give him much more that you get from him. IMO He felt that he was renting his GFs because they did use him because of his money. If they could use him because of his other great qualities they would certainly do that. He just does not have any other talents neither emotional/social skills nor sexual skills based on your description of him. That is why you do not want to have sexy time with him. For him, the only way to have sexy time with girls is to show his money unless he gets better in something else.
Recommended Posts