Jazzari Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 I also would never date a guy who was much wealthier than me and let him pay for expensive dinners; it's just very "typical female" princess like behavior or traditional to accept expensive dinners and then paying him back by doing "sweet" things. It just makes me gag.Yes, you do nice things for each other in relationships but nobody is keeping score. You do it because you like them and want to make them happy. Not because you're obligated or because it's expected. You would turn down love just because the guy has more money than you? Falling in love with a wealthy man does not make the girl a "princess". Nor does it make her a golddigger or a whore. It makes her a girl in love.
runner Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 5. Woman insists on paying for entire bill = Woman is not interested. In summary, your best shot is with a woman who she offers to pay/split but you don't let her. hmm. what if she insisted on paying and then we make out afterward, and we still see each other ? Yes, you do nice things for each other in relationships but nobody is keeping score. You do it because you like them and want to make them happy. Not because you're obligated or because it's expected. You would turn down love just because the guy has more money than you? Falling in love with a wealthy man does not make the girl a "princess". Nor does it make her a golddigger or a whore. It makes her a girl in love. well said
zengirl Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 Personally, I wouldn't let a guy pay if I wasn't interested. I'd never not-offer to pay for my stuff. (I always make the offer, and sincerely. It's only polite to expect I'd pay my own way, though I find men are happy to pay, especially on early dates.) I assume a guy is not interested if he doesn't insist on paying for at least the 1st date AND is American. If he's European, different story. Also different story, if he's given me significant reason to think otherwise. But marriage material, American men in my area (the South) are raised to be gentleman and they WANT to pay for 1st dates, at least. I've seen nary an exception to this rule so far.
Eternal Sunshine Posted April 23, 2011 Posted April 23, 2011 I always offer to pay on first few dates but like it when the guy is a gentleman and refuses. Further on in a relationship, I will get more forceful with insisting to pay and will buy things for him occasionally. It leans more towards equality. If it's a first date and I am not into the guy, I would insist on paying at least my half. Often, I would take care of the whole bill myself because I feel bad that I don't find him physically attractive.
daphne Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 You don't know the first thing about me. If you knew me; you would know I'm even more of a hardass about paying in real-life then I come across on the boards. If you're not a troll, you're very young with a big chip on your shoulder. Lighten up a little maybe.
miss_28 Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 (edited) I am not the most tactful person and social graces are not important to me; making a statement about my ability to pay is more important than me then doing what society feels is acceptable. Proving a point is more important to me. Well, there you go. If this tactic works for you, and you are happy with your relationships, then more power to you. If not, then that's too bad, but I have a feeling very few people would be willing to bend to what you find to be socially acceptable. BTW, the point you are trying to make is??? We're all stupid and you are the model of the perfect woman? Men who offer to pay for dinner or who open doors for women are old-fashion controlling apes who don't deserve to be in the presence of women? Wearing heels or makeup on a date means we are bimbos? BTW, always wanting to win an argument or get your way at all costs, that's the mark of a true princess. Edited April 24, 2011 by miss_28
somedude81 Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 I don't really agree with how you've categorized this. In the first 1-2 dates, I'd put it like this: 1. Woman allows man to pay and makes no offer to chip in = Woman is either interested and traditional or he previously explicitly indicated it was his treat, or freeloading. 2. Woman offers to pay/split, but he refuses and pays the entire bill = woman is interested. 3. Woman offers to pay/split, and he accepts and lets her pay/split = woman was interested, but may have lost interest based on his acceptance. 4. Woman insists on splitting = Woman is either interested and wants to be equal, or woman is not interested at all. 5. Woman insists on paying for entire bill = Woman is not interested. In summary, your best shot is with a woman who she offers to pay/split but you don't let her. Ugh, too much game playing.
J200 Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 Wearing heels or makeup on a date means we are bimbos? I'm high maintenance and never leave house without makeup and wear heels almost all of the time. I am extremely high maintenance and ultra feminine. My point is that I can't help but feel "above" women who are weak enough to complain that they don't make enough money and can't help it that their bf's make so much more so they just accept it as grace. I find it weak. My point is that I am extremely independent and don't need anything from anyone.
Nexus One Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 I am extremely high maintenance and ultra feminine. You also use a lot of superlatives. My point is that I am extremely independent and don't need anything from anyone. That I can respect. My point is that I can't help but feel "above" women who are weak enough to complain that they don't make enough money and can't help it that their bf's make so much more so they just accept it as grace. I find it weak. Well in my opinion that then comes down to by what grace you make your money. If you're self-employed, freelancer or a business owner/founder, then I can see how you could rationalize such a point. However if you got hired by some company which just happens to pay its employees well, or if you for example screw your boss, well then that point loses its weight.
orangelady Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 Funny this wouldn't be even discussed in certain parts of the world. For example, Middle Eastern men do not and will not allow women to pay for the bill. Even if the girl is not their girlfriend or date. It's just their upbringing because for them, if a girl pays for her own meal or pays for both of them, he is not a man. That's just how it is for them. My friends and I also experienced this first hand. They are just really different.
zengirl Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 My point is that I can't help but feel "above" women who are weak enough to complain that they don't make enough money and can't help it that their bf's make so much more so they just accept it as grace. I find it weak. You have a lot of obsession with strength. Which is your right, to be sure, but I find living a life with a lot of yang energy not so easy, as a gal, so I imagine that's where your dissonance and frustration come in. Feeling "above" anyone because you have a difference of opinion or values is not going to get you much of anywhere in life. I make plenty of money to live my life as I live it, but I may not always make enough to operate in the realm of everyone I date (They may like fancier places). I accept this as fact, and it always works out fine. I used to make a lot more money, and I paid a lot more on dates. Even partially supported a laid-off BF once for a brief spell (we lived together). Never thought he was weak for letting someone who loved him help him out. Certainly never thought he was weak if I picked up a check for a place he couldn't afford or wouldn't dream of going on his own. And, as such, I'll never feel weak for being on the other side of it, when I am. Learning to give and learning to receive gracefully are BOTH important in a relationship (and in life). Granted, I suppose I'd raise an eyebrow at anyone who couldn't learn to support themselves (not temporarily laid off and taking some help but really had no way to do so), but that wouldn't include stay-at-home Moms or Dads, as they're contributing in another way to the household that's presumably been agreed to by the family as a whole. My point is that I am extremely independent and don't need anything from anyone. I get that. And in some ways, that's certainly commendable. Self-reliance is awesome in some ways. However, I think it can be taken to extremes. (I'm not suggesting wanting to go dutch on a date is extreme, but you're extremely emotionally attached to it to an odd degree---in terms of what OTHER people do.) At any rate, the statement is a bit untrue, too. We ALL need something from someone. No man is an island. Whenever someone makes as definitive a statement as this, it makes me wonder what great fear is behind it. I used to say things like this --- and I did pay for both college and grad school myself (parents never helped out) and have been living on my own, without a penny from anyone, since right before I turned 17, since I graduated HS early. I've always supported myself. I've helped out family members who haven't been as blessed. I don't consider allowing a partner who makes a bit more to buy me a meal here and there or tickets to a show to be some slight to my capability or independence as a woman.
zengirl Posted April 24, 2011 Posted April 24, 2011 Funny this wouldn't be even discussed in certain parts of the world. For example, Middle Eastern men do not and will not allow women to pay for the bill. Even if the girl is not their girlfriend or date. It's just their upbringing because for them, if a girl pays for her own meal or pays for both of them, he is not a man. That's just how it is for them. My friends and I also experienced this first hand. They are just really different. And in Holland, everyone goes dutch. (Ba-dum-dum-dum. ) Actually, I don't know if they do there, but in parts of Europe, it's certainly a cultural norm. Everywhere is different.
Recommended Posts