Paying for Dates A Good Article

[Untouchable_Fire]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23244363/ns/business-personal_finance/

 

I like this because it explains the origin of some traditions and provides a look at what the challenges are in this.

 

The fact is that this tends to be a touchy topic because the old standard is giving way to something new, yet a good chunk of people want to stick to the more traditional system.

[810]

interesting article. thank you UF.

 

I feel sorry for the guys because I know how expensive it is to date. I have a brother and saw how much he had spent when dating his ex. My ex spent tons too and that's why I always bought him presents (and he was expensive as well lolz)

 

Last guy I went out on a date with, I picked a mom and pop type of restaurant and he felt insulted lolz. oh well.

[donnamaybe]

I thought my postings on that last thread about this were actually just common sense from a person who just gives a damn about her sweety.

[Untouchable_Fire]

I thought my postings on that last thread about this were actually just common sense from a person who just gives a damn about her sweety.

 

DM, I love your approach... in a perfect world that is how things should be.

 

However, the world isn't the place we want to be and your going to wind up being taken advantage of 9 times in 10 with that attitude. Sure you meet that one person and it works, but you can't tell right away... and too many people see generosity as a sign of a sucker.

 

I say hold off until your resources are legally pooled... or you have so much history behind the relationship that trust is a nonissue.

[zengirl]

Yes, it's so complicated when it's all stats and generalizations. It's surprisingly easy when you just act the way you feel to be best and treat others with consideration, adjusting to them as individuals.

 

DM, I love your approach... in a perfect world that is how things should be.

 

However, the world isn't the place we want to be and your going to wind up being taken advantage of 9 times in 10 with that attitude. Sure you meet that one person and it works, but you can't tell right away... and too many people see generosity as a sign of a sucker.

 

I say hold off until your resources are legally pooled... or you have so much history behind the relationship that trust is a nonissue.

 

If trust is an issue, it means you can't trust yourself and you can't trust others. What emotionally healthy person wants to date someone like that?

[donnamaybe]

DM, I love your approach... in a perfect world that is how things should be.

 

However, the world isn't the place we want to be and your going to wind up being taken advantage of 9 times in 10 with that attitude. Sure you meet that one person and it works, but you can't tell right away... and too many people see generosity as a sign of a sucker.

 

I say hold off until your resources are legally pooled... or you have so much history behind the relationship that trust is a nonissue.

I've been with my honey for 5 1/2 years. I've seen his generosity as well. He was recently a victim of the economy, and the business he was managing closed. He has been on unemployment of late. Should I allow him to suffer further blows by refusing to be his true partner when it comes to finances? I think he just landed a job, so his income will increase - slightly - but it still won't come anywhere near what I make. He's my sweet, loving man. He gives his all in every sense of the word, and not only to me but to my children and grandchildren, and did so even when, financially, times were good for him. I have nothing but love in my heart for him and want him to be happy. This isn't some guy I've been dating for a few months who wants me to buy him a timeshare in Hawaii.

 

By the way - he's been remodeling my house. MY house. With only MY name on the title. He trusts me (with good reason) and I trust him.

[Untouchable_Fire]

If trust is an issue, it means you can't trust yourself and you can't trust others. What emotionally healthy person wants to date someone like that?

 

What a load of horse dung. So your theory is that a bank wants your credit history before providing a loan because they can't trust themselves?

 

I was emotionally unhealthy when I trusted right off... Im much better now. Women who want trust right up front more than likely have bad intentions.

[Sanman]

UF, great article! It certainly presents the opinions of both sides quite well.

[zengirl]

What a load of horse dung. So your theory is that a bank wants your credit history before providing a loan because they can't trust themselves?

 

I was emotionally unhealthy when I trusted right off... Im much better now. Women who want trust right up front more than likely have bad intentions.

 

Oh, this is a silly analogy. I'm not asking a man to give me tons of money or the access codes to his bank account right off the bat, or anything.

 

I do expect him to be open and trusting by nature because the best people are. I'm a natural cynic (too analytical for my damn good), and even I've learned that the people who get the best things in life are the ones who are open and able to trust others, without testing them or making them jump through hoops.

 

Your attitude is needlessly paranoid is what I'm saying.

 

Whatever you think of people -- good or ill -- is likely what you will see in the world, day to day, (not all of it but a greater part of it) and those are the kinds of people you will meet and align yourselves with. I offer my trust without "hoops" and I expect the same, yes.

 

I also would never compare a relationship -- a loving partnership with a human being -- to banking. The banking industry has nothing but my scorn.

[oaks]

The banking industry has nothing but my scorn.

 

I was about to agree but I remembered that they have my money, too.

[Untouchable_Fire]

Oh, this is a silly analogy. I'm not asking a man to give me tons of money or the access codes to his bank account right off the bat, or anything.

 

You completely read the analogy wrong. I wasn't talking about a loan as in real money... but as in an emotional and physical investment.

 

I do expect him to be open and trusting by nature because the best people are. I'm a natural cynic (too analytical for my damn good), and even I've learned that the people who get the best things in life are the ones who are open and able to trust others, without testing them or making them jump through hoops.

Your attitude is needlessly paranoid is what I'm saying.

 

No... I'm not needlessly paranoid. I've learned that trust should come with verification.

 

It's easy to tell when someone is attracted to you... it's hard to tell why. Often the reasons are not good, though probably well intentioned.

 

Most women don't understand this because men either think you are hot... or not. It's very rare a man will like you just for your money.

 

Whatever you think of people -- good or ill -- is likely what you will see in the world, day to day, (not all of it but a greater part of it) and those are the kinds of people you will meet and align yourselves with. I offer my trust without "hoops" and I expect the same, yes.

I also would never compare a relationship -- a loving partnership with a human being -- to banking. The banking industry has nothing but my scorn.

 

Trust should be given to people in an intelligent manner... not willy nilly.

[zengirl]

You completely read the analogy wrong. I wasn't talking about a loan as in real money... but as in an emotional and physical investment.

 

No, I got that. That's what made it an analogy.

 

Banks take risks, very calculated risks, only to make a profit. They aren't interested in being a good "partner" to their customers. Their interest lies ONLY in their own self-interest and the furthering of there business.

 

That's why I thought the analogy was very strange for a relationship. Investing that way, with that attitude, in interpersonal relationships, leads nowhere good. Banks aren't nurturing. They aren't warm. They don't help you when you're down---in fact, that's when they have absolutely no interest in dealing with you, generally. Except to get theirs, of course. They are exactly the opposite of a healthy partner.

 

No... I'm not needlessly paranoid. I've learned that trust should come with verification.

 

If it requires verification, it's not trust.

 

That's not to say I think people should jump off emotional cliffs, but if you can't develop and trust your own instincts, without needing some kind of "proof," you can't be a healthy partner to someone else. That's my view. No one can ever "prove" themselves, really, and nobody worthwhile will jump through hoops to try.

 

It's easy to tell when someone is attracted to you... it's hard to tell why.

 

Not really. It's easy to tell why if you work on yourself, your own values/priorities, and tune your people-picker.

 

Often the reasons are not good, though probably well intentioned.

 

If they're well-intentioned, I wouldn't agree they're "not good." (Less well intentioned, sure.) Perhaps not compatible? But if you know what works for you, those are easy to do away with.

 

Most women don't understand this because men either think you are hot... or not. It's very rare a man will like you just for your money.

 

I don't want to be with a man because he thinks I'm hot either, FTR. That's no good reason for a relationship.

 

But, really, it's about trusting -- yourself, others, the Universe. Everyone I know who is successful with people is able to trust, has excellent instincts, and accepts what happens to them -- good or bad -- without hardening (maybe temporarily, but not permanently).

 

Trust should be given to people in an intelligent manner... not willy nilly.

 

I'm not against intelligence in trust. I'm against reticience. It should be given, or not. There should be no "tests" or time periods.

[AverageJoe]

Oh, this is a silly analogy. I'm not asking a man to give me tons of money or the access codes to his bank account right off the bat, or anything.

 

 

Right off the bat. I found this intriguing. To insinuate you will get eventually get it? I am assuming of course. Why would you need access to such a thing?

 

Relationship, or marriage. I will never have a joint account or share my pin number.

 

Do you guys remember the thread where the females were saying you were not a gentleman, if you didn't pay? I don't buy into the whole gentleman aspect of it. But it was a very interesting read that confirmed many of my own theory's.

[zengirl]

Right off the bat. I found this intriguing. To insinuate you will get eventually get it? I am assuming of course. Why would you need access to such a thing?

 

Relationship, or marriage. I will never have a joint account or share my pin number.

 

Do you guys remember the thread where the females were saying you were not a gentleman, if you didn't pay? I don't buy into the whole gentleman aspect of it. But it was a very interesting read that confirmed many of my own theory's.

 

Yes, in my LTR, I eventually assume all of our money -- mine and his -- will become joint. And we'll both have the access codes to each others' accounts. That's generally included in "marriage" as it usually exists. He can have all my money and the access codes to my accounts then, too. Because they will be joint.

 

You -- with your recurring POV -- are generally against marriage, at least as I've always seen marriages work. No issues. Everyone has their own values. To me, you join everything in a total 100% partnership, no "Mine and Yours," just "Ours," or no point in getting married at all.

[AverageJoe]

To me, you join everything in a total 100% partnership, no "Mine and Yours," just "Ours," or no point in getting married at all.

 

You have just summed up my question completely. Pay attention boys.

 

I read it as, if it wasn't for joint assets. There is no point at all for marriage.

Am I off here, I did quote you.

 

And people wonder why I have no interest in marriage.

[Untouchable_Fire]

You have just summed up my question completely. Pay attention boys.

I read it as, if it wasn't for joint assets. There is no point at all for marriage.

Am I off here, I did quote you.

And people wonder why I have no interest in marriage.

 

Oh... but if you don't provide access to all of your material wealth... it means you are an untrusting bastard!!

 

If you don't pay 100% for a date it's a personal insult.

 

A good number of women are more interested in what you can give than you as a person.

[Untouchable_Fire]

No, I got that. That's what made it an analogy.

Banks take risks, very calculated risks, only to make a profit. They aren't interested in being a good "partner" to their customers. Their interest lies ONLY in their own self-interest and the furthering of there business.

That's why I thought the analogy was very strange for a relationship. Investing that way, with that attitude, in interpersonal relationships, leads nowhere good. Banks aren't nurturing. They aren't warm. They don't help you when you're down---in fact, that's when they have absolutely no interest in dealing with you, generally. Except to get theirs, of course. They are exactly the opposite of a healthy partner.

 

That isn't entirely true. Banks make home loans and in doing so they in fact DO become your partner. Yes, they stand to profit from the transaction, but in most cases you expect to profit as well as the value of your home rises.

 

When the market drops and your house loses value... you lose your job... typically your bank will take the loss much harder than you. Many times banks will perform loan modifications and refinances to keep you in your home and to keep themselves from losing large sums of money. This is how banks have traditionally operated.

 

The last 10 years this has changed not because of banks and banking but instead because of the Aholes in the insurance industry like AIG. They found ways to sell banks insurance policies that allowed them to make money by foreclosing on you. They did this because banks from the late 70's and onward were REQUIRED by the US Government to make what were then called Sub Prime Loans. It was simply a way for banks to take super high risk situations and still turn a high profit.

 

Our recent economic collapse was caused directly by AIG. What nobody knew is that they had something crazy like 30 trillion dollars in these insurance liabilities... and Wall Street was making money off of them as bonds bundled into CDO's.

 

If it requires verification, it's not trust.

That's not to say I think people should jump off emotional cliffs, but if you can't develop and trust your own instincts, without needing some kind of "proof," you can't be a healthy partner to someone else. That's my view. No one can ever "prove" themselves, really, and nobody worthwhile will jump through hoops to try.

Not really. It's easy to tell why if you work on yourself, your own values/priorities, and tune your people-picker.

If they're well-intentioned, I wouldn't agree they're "not good." (Less well intentioned, sure.) Perhaps not compatible? But if you know what works for you, those are easy to do away with.

 

The more emotionally involved I am the worse my "instincts" get. My people picker works fairly well. The reason I've run into issues so much in the past is that I have a tendency to be generous, giving, and trusting.

 

My x/GF never intended to leave me. She started cheating because I had a 2 month stretch where I had to work a lot... and she felt insecure and lonely. She went to a party got really drunk and slept with a coworker.... then continued meeting him until I caught her.

 

That is pretty typical from what I see.

 

I don't want to be with a man because he thinks I'm hot either, FTR. That's no good reason for a relationship.

But, really, it's about trusting -- yourself, others, the Universe. Everyone I know who is successful with people is able to trust, has excellent instincts, and accepts what happens to them -- good or bad -- without hardening (maybe temporarily, but not permanently).

I'm not against intelligence in trust. I'm against reticience. It should be given, or not. There should be no "tests" or time periods.

 

My point is that it's rare a man dates you for reasons other than attraction and love. Women date men all the time for security, comfort, and material goods... and have no sexual attraction to the man whatsoever. How does a guy tell if this is the case? Having been in that situation when I was very young... I can tell you it's extremely hard to tell sometimes. Many times the woman herself doesn't realize the motivation behind her feelings.

 

It takes time to get to know someone... and you should not be too trusting until then.

 

I don't buy into your "blame the victim" mentality. Most people are totally untrustworthy... it's silly to think you can tell at a glance.

[zengirl]

You have just summed up my question completely. Pay attention boys.

 

I read it as, if it wasn't for joint assets. There is no point at all for marriage.

Am I off here, I did quote you.

 

And people wonder why I have no interest in marriage.

 

Not just assets, but yes, those must be 100% combined as well. As I said, I bring assets into a marriage too (and no debt, which is rare for people my age---that comes in, too!). It's not like I want some guy to give me money, but I want every single aspect of my life intertwined with someone, as that's a healthy marriage. Finances are part of that. If I'm going to live with someone, build a life with someone, plan to be with them forever, and have children with them, we're sharing everything there is to share, money, debt, problems, celebrations, success, all decisions, etc.

 

Generally speaking, that's not an odd definition of marriage. Your partner is considered an extension of you, legally.

 

That isn't entirely true. Banks make home loans and in doing so they in fact DO become your partner. Yes, they stand to profit from the transaction, but in most cases you expect to profit as well as the value of your home rises.

 

Banks are only interested if you're doing well enough to benefit them. Does that sound like a healthy relationship? If it does, you view relationships very differently than I do.

 

As far as banking goes, there are good and bad banks, but even the good banks are a business. To me, romance and business are not similar enough to draw analogies. You know what kind of girls find them similar? Exactly the kind you're worried about.

 

As far as the banking industry argument. . . I haven't honestly the energy to discuss it. There are a lot of problems. You've outlined some. I keep all my money with a credit union, because I find them preferable to the big banks, though still imperfect.

 

The more emotionally involved I am the worse my "instincts" get. My people picker works fairly well. The reason I've run into issues so much in the past is that I have a tendency to be generous, giving, and trusting.

 

But with calculation. You didn't give freely, so when you didn't get what you thought you "deserved" in response, it made you snap backwards. Human, but not all that interesting to me. Nothing wrong with learning from relationships, but learning to be untrusting is the wrong lesson, IMO. Never seen it make anyone happy.

 

My x/GF never intended to leave me. She started cheating because I had a 2 month stretch where I had to work a lot... and she felt insecure and lonely. She went to a party got really drunk and slept with a coworker.... then continued meeting him until I caught her.

 

That is pretty typical from what I see.

 

I don't know that cheating is typical, or that this is the whole story (not that I'm saying you're lying or anything, but stories are often more complicated than they appear). Clearly, there were some issues in your relationship if 2 months of a lot of work strained it to the point where she felt insecure in it. I'm not surprised, with someone as bitter as you can be---that doesn't go away, even when you don't feel it bubbling up or want it too. She wasn't the first one to leave you, and you haven't gotten over stuff long before her, is my guess.

 

Which is not to say it's your "fault" she cheated (that's her bad, and it's terrible), but you did pick her, create the relationship, etc, and it's worth learning where your actions and choices could've been improved for future circumstances.

 

It takes time to get to know someone... and you should not be too trusting until then.

 

The way you calculate trust doesn't really work. At least, I've never seen it. I'm not saying that people should be stupid. I don't get into cars with strangers. I don't give out my bank information. But I don't consciously "withhold" trust from the people I date. I take the attitude that nobody who cares about me is really going to ask for more than I'm comfortable with, to where I have to worry about keeping my guard up. I have my boundaries, and, of course, they move as a relationship grows, but I don't feel the need to guard them or mistrust. I trust my own instincts, as I've honed them by trusting, and that works for me.

 

I can't see how your way could possibly work, is all.

 

As far as telling if a woman is attracted to you, the sex should tell you that. Initiating the physical attraction, but letting a woman initiate sex -- might take longer than men like -- is what I'd always recommend for men who worry women might like them for other reasons.

 

I don't buy into your "blame the victim" mentality. Most people are totally untrustworthy... it's silly to think you can tell at a glance.

 

My point isn't to blame the victim. My point is more, You are the only person who you absolutely control. Anything you create. . . only changing your actions can change what you're creating.

 

Also: Most people are neither trustworthy, nor untrustworthy, but will act whichever way you indicate them to be. So if you trust others, they are more likely to act in good ways. This is not to say you have to be Mr. Magoo and pretend bad things don't happen and go blind. If someone does act in an untrustworthy way, note that, and address it with the person or don't interact with them.

 

But I see it kind of like the way I run a classroom -- the kids always get all my trust at first. They're all perfect angels. Will they be? Of course not. But that's how I treat them, and it takes care of 90% of behavior problems, really. Adults are not so different. People are programmed to act how you treat them.

 

A few people are genuinely on bad paths already, and those are pretty easy to spot. It's these middling people that I suspect are getting you, and your treatment of them -- your natural mistrust -- is likely exacerbating the situation. That'd be my guess.

[Untouchable_Fire]

but I want every single aspect of my life intertwined with someone, as that's a healthy marriage. Finances are part of that. If I'm going to live with someone, build a life with someone, plan to be with them forever, and have children with them, we're sharing everything there is to share, money, debt, problems, celebrations, success, all decisions, etc.

Generally speaking, that's not an odd definition of marriage. Your partner is considered an extension of you, legally.

 

If you require "Financial Intimacy" to have emotional intimacy... there is a problem.

 

Look, forever doesn't exist anymore. In some very rare circumstances it does... but for the most part divorce is the norm. I was a strong idealist as a youth and believed in all those fantastical notions, but now that I am 30... I am no longer a starry eyed naive boy.

 

If you go into a relationship thinking in terms of forever... it won't last. If you go in with the idea of keeping the other person as long as you can... that works much better.

 

Banks are only interested if you're doing well enough to benefit them. Does that sound like a healthy relationship? If it does, you view relationships very differently than I do.

As far as banking goes, there are good and bad banks, but even the good banks are a business. To me, romance and business are not similar enough to draw analogies. You know what kind of girls find them similar? Exactly the kind you're worried about.

As far as the banking industry argument. . . I haven't honestly the energy to discuss it. There are a lot of problems. You've outlined some. I keep all my money with a credit union, because I find them preferable to the big banks, though still imperfect.

 

Eh? If you don't think romance and business are similar... why do you require financial access to your hubbys accounts? That seems contradictory to me.

 

I used the bank analogy in terms of trust, because I don't just hand out trust. I keep emotional distance until I get an idea of what the "credit score" or average trustability might be. Then I constantly reevaluate my level of trust as I continue to learn about her.

 

But with calculation. You didn't give freely, so when you didn't get what you thought you "deserved" in response, it made you snap backwards. Human, but not all that interesting to me. Nothing wrong with learning from relationships, but learning to be untrusting is the wrong lesson, IMO. Never seen it make anyone happy.

 

You are correct, both extremes of trust fail to create happiness... but in my opinion it's something that a woman should earn, not be given. Since very few women are trustworthy... it's something that needs to be constantly monitored.

 

I don't know that cheating is typical, or that this is the whole story (not that I'm saying you're lying or anything, but stories are often more complicated than they appear). Clearly, there were some issues in your relationship if 2 months of a lot of work strained it to the point where she felt insecure in it. I'm not surprised, with someone as bitter as you can be---that doesn't go away, even when you don't feel it bubbling up or want it too. She wasn't the first one to leave you, and you haven't gotten over stuff long before her, is my guess.

Which is not to say it's your "fault" she cheated (that's her bad, and it's terrible), but you did pick her, create the relationship, etc, and it's worth learning where your actions and choices could've been improved for future circumstances.

 

Actually, that is the one thing that bugs the crap out of me. She didn't leave me... she never even made the attempt. Maybe I just caught her too soon, but she denied everything to her last breath. I caught them at a hotel bar together... and I even confirmed that they had a room... and she claimed they were just "talking".

 

I would not call myself bitter in real life. I've actually moved on fairly well. My feelings about the situation are complex because I never really got closure. Plus, despite the fact that I KNEW there was something going on... she lied her butt off and made me chase my tail around so hard that it still haunts me.

 

Her lies were very convincing. 4 years ago I had a GF do something fairly similar, but she admitted the whole thing when pressed. I moved on rather quickly and didn't seem to have any residual emotional effects. After this last one though... it's snapped back triple hard.

 

Seriously I don't really like talking about my feelings on this site. Nothing against you, but I don't feel anyone here cares. I feel comfortable expressing some negative emotions sometimes... that's it.

 

 

As far as telling if a woman is attracted to you, the sex should tell you that. Initiating the physical attraction, but letting a woman initiate sex -- might take longer than men like -- is what I'd always recommend for men who worry women might like them for other reasons.

 

That is a good indicator... sometimes. It isn't perfect.

 

My point isn't to blame the victim. My point is more, You are the only person who you absolutely control. Anything you create. . . only changing your actions can change what you're creating.

Also: Most people are neither trustworthy, nor untrustworthy, but will act whichever way you indicate them to be. So if you trust others, they are more likely to act in good ways.

 

I see what your saying. Yes, mistrust can create a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

If you go out to a bar and let a guy buy you a drink... is that a breach of trust? If you mildly flirt with a co-worker... is that a breach of trust? Having 1 on 1 coffee with a male friend... is that a breach of trust?

 

I find a good chunk of the women I run into don't hold themselves to that kind of high standard. The really religious girls I dated in my youth were very zealous about such things to my face, but less so when my back was turned.