LoveEachOther Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Girls: Would you date a guy that you knew there was no chance of him putting out (his money) for you? I know guys on here pretend that any guy who thinks women are for sex is a "misogynist" or whatever... but would you keep wasting time and money with no chance of that return. I know girls pretend to be confident and independent, but when you have to spend your own money, how long are you really willing to stay around?
MrCastle Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 No I wouldn't date her. Not all that interested in being friends with a woman.
carhill Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 It would seem that a woman who indeed had no interest in sexual intimacy would have far better relationship luck with other women, since they apparently connect better on all meaningful levels than women do with men. I would encourage that. This also tangentially obviates the dynamic of 'letting a man love her', which is a type of attention grab that won't emanate from straight female-female dynamics. So, it's a win-win in promoting healthier gender relations, as well as a more satisfying relationship for said lady
seachangeoflove Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I know girls pretend to be confident and independent, but when you have to spend your own money, how long are you really willing to stay around? Well, apparently not long. I'm 36 and make enough money to have purchased my own home and my own vehicle. I even fund a retirement account (which will probably be worth nothing when I retire) and I have also been single since I was 29. I have yet found a guy worthy of being my bf. (NOTE:this is not a complaint.) I guess since I have my own money, I don't need men anymore. Or I just get bored with them easily Sex is easy enough to get. Getting them to leave afterwards is harder. However I do have some sympathy for the men who get used for emotional tampons or free meals. I've had guys use me for various things too--ski trips, concert tickets etc. I've been used for both money and sex, and they both suck. In the case of being used for money, it's not the financial loss that is so painful. It's the hurt and betrayal you feel afterward--no different then being used for sex.. you think they liked you and they didn't. It's delayed rejection after being given hope. Edited July 16, 2012 by seachangeoflove 2
pteromom Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Girls: Would you date a guy that you knew there was no chance of him putting out (his money) for you? I have my own money, but I wouldn't date a guy who wouldn't have sex with me. 2
fishtaco Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Well, apparently not long. I'm 36 and make enough money to have purchased my own home and my own vehicle. I even fund a retirement account (which will probably be worth nothing when I retire) and I have also been single since I was 29. I have yet found a guy worthy of being my bf. (NOTE:this is not a complaint.) I guess since I have my own money, I don't need men anymore. Or I just get bored with them easily Sex is easy enough to get. Getting them to leave afterwards is harder. However I do have some sympathy for the men who get used for emotional tampons or free meals. I've had guys use me for various things too--ski trips, concert tickets etc. I've been used for both money and sex, and they both suck. In the case of being used for money, it's not the financial loss that is so painful. It's the hurt and betrayal you feel afterward--no different then being used for sex.. you think they liked you and they didn't. It's delayed rejection after being given hope. I like your post. To me it shows gender quality, because you are now independent, so you want men, but you don't need men. In essence, your considerations are now men-like. But that kind of reaffirms my theory, which is that a lot of the gender roles/differences are the way they are because of life opportunities. Gender equality, which I'm all for, is going to throw a wrench into all these traditional views, including marriage. And the topic of sex vs money always pop up. Because people often get used for these. And you are absolutely correct, they both suck, because being used suck, what you're being used for is just secondary. And I'm glad this view point came from a woman that have had both happen (although I'm sorry this happened, but you can't avoid it, impossible), because you are more qualified to make that statement.
dbzeng Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 If she had a good reason for not having sex like "I am a virgin and and want to save it till marriage" and I was really into her and she was willing to do things other than sex then yes.
The Tallest One Posted July 16, 2012 Posted July 16, 2012 Good question, I think it depends of the reason. Like above, if it's for virginity reasons or religion etc, that's one thing and it would depend on how much I was into her. I dated a girl 17 years ago that was terrified of getting pregnant no matter what precautions we discussed. We dated for 8 months without intercourse and it did get to me, but I was totally crazy for her. She dumped me before we ever closed the deal so I guess it didn't matter. Nowadays, I doubt it. After many years of being sexually active both in marriage and just dating, I like sex too much to date someone who refused to have sex with me. Now I can go weeks, hell even a few months if I had to before sleeping with a women, but if we're really into each other, then at some point I would have to wonder what's going on if she still won't have sex with me.
Teal Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I spend my own money all the time; is there supposed to be a problem in continuing to do so as I build up a loving relationship? There is, I guess, but I don't see it.
Recommended Posts