How many girls expect the guy to pay?

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by Groovy

I missed that part. I agree YX32Nemesis, a gal can get a battery operated orgasm without all the bullcrap of obligation. Or men can get blow up dolls and they don't need to buy them anything.

 

Or people could just... *gasp* use their intelligence and personality to attract and impress each other rather than dangling free dinner and pu$$y as their only source of control. Of course, that doesn't seem to work for the majority of the population.

[XNemesisX]

Tanbark, I do know how to read. I wasn't talking about you PERSONALLY! I know that you pay.

 

Go back to what I said about the wedding issue. The bride is supposed to pay for the wedding, the groom pays for the honeymoon (or their families) traditionally speaking. This is why men are supposed to pay for the courtship. (weddings are far more costly than honeymoons). So YOU should re-read what I said and also what Alpha said about how it evens out.

 

Also, as someone said the last time this thread was started, equality in the workforce does not apply to dating.

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

Tanbark, I do know how to read. I wasn't talking about you PERSONALLY! I know that you pay.

 

Ok, then I apologize for that part.

 

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

Also, as someone said the last time this thread was started, equality in the workforce does not apply to dating.

 

That doesn't make any sense to me. Either you want equality or you don't, but selective equality isn't technically equality at all.

[XNemesisX]

Ok, then I apologize for that part.

 

No problem

I don't think you are a cyclops Tanbark

 

That doesn't make any sense to me. Either you want equality or you don't, but selective equality isn't technically equality at all.

 

Hey I don't make the rules

 

I will see if I can go back and see who talked about this in another thread, or I will let someone else talk more about that subject. I think that traditions are hard to break though. The rules of dating are a whole other ballpark than other parts of life. I see your point, but I don't think this will change things much as long as traditional ideals are still at work in the world regarding love and relationships. Now, if a man doesn't ever plan on having a wedding...perhaps just getting married in Vegas then that would throw out the whole men pays in courtship because the bride's family pays for the wedding thing. But I still think traditions are hard to break and mindsets are hard to break. Women are brought up thinking that the man should pay, and men are brought up believing this too. These are deeply socially ingrained ideals.

 

I think a lot of women may not want to admit it, because maybe it is politically incorrect or unacceptable for a woman to say this, but I think most women still like the idea of the man being the leader/head of household and providing for/protecting his family. (the traditional idea of a man).

 

Not all women want complete equality. I am in a Psychology of Women class and most of the women in there are actually not for complete equality and are actually pretty content with the way things are. But this is for a whole other thread that I wouldn't mind talking about sometime

[XNemesisX]

Oh wait...I just thought of something.

 

A lady in my psy of women class was saying that equality in the workplace shouldn't go over in to other realms because traditionally speaking, women weren't expected to work. They were the caregiver, "housewife" so to speak. So, if the "woman must work just like a man, then she should also be treated the same in that working environment."

 

Just thought I would throw that opinion in there.

[Groovy]

quote:Originally posted by Groovy

I missed that part. I agree YX32Nemesis, a gal can get a battery operated orgasm without all the bullcrap of obligation. Or men can get blow up dolls and they don't need to buy them anything.

 

 

 

Or people could just... *gasp* use their intelligence and personality to attract and impress each other rather than dangling free dinner and pu$$y as their only source of control. Of course, that doesn't seem to work for the majority of the population.

Of course I'm out to f*ck her, but last time I checked, girls enjoy sex too

 

Well personality and intelligence don't really attract men to f_ck a women, do they? Women who are smart and have a great personality deserve better than a motive to be f-cked. Maybe you should use your words selectively if your refererring to an actual attraction to who someone is on the inside. But if you want to talk about "pussy" and "f_cking" then knock yourself out cowboy...

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

No problem

I don't think you are a cyclops Tanbark

 

Thanks.

 

 

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

I think a lot of women may not want to admit it, because maybe it is politically incorrect or unacceptable for a woman to say this, but I think most women still like the idea of the man being the leader/head of household and providing for/protecting his family. (the traditional idea of a man).

 

Not all women want complete equality. I am in a Psychology of Women class and most of the women in there are actually not for complete equality and are actually pretty content with the way things are. But this is for a whole other thread that I wouldn't mind talking about sometime

 

Ok, I can kind of understand the above part. As for this next part..

 

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

A lady in my psy of women class was saying that equality in the workplace shouldn't go over in to other realms because traditionally speaking, women weren't expected to work. They were the caregiver, "housewife" so to speak. So, if the "woman must work just like a man, then she should also be treated the same in that working environment."

 

..now, I agree that if women are in the workplace, they should be treated equally in that environment. That's a given. But what about the traditional housewife role you mentioned? If workplace equality shouldn't extend to social realms, doesn't that mean that women should still be expected to cook and clean and have babies regardless of whether or not they work? And if not, then why the distinction between equality extending into marriage and not into dating. Aren't they basically the same social realm?

[tanbark813]

Originally posted by Groovy

But if you want to talk about "pussy" and "f_cking" then knock yourself out cowboy...

 

I was simply tailoring my explanation to your own choice of vibrators and blow up dolls. You're right, though, personality and intelligence don't initially attract a man. They do, however, make the difference between a f*ckbuddy and a girlfriend (or wife for that matter).

[alphamale]

Originally posted by tanbark813

Only gold-diggers' sexual desire vanishes once they realize the guy doesn't want to pay for absolutely everything, and I don't date gold-diggers anyway. Finally, how can it be said that a guy is a cheapskate for not paying but the girl isn't??

Well TAANBARK, a "gold-digger" is a woman who wantss her rich man to buy her a Jaguar or pay for her apt rent after dating for 2 months.

 

98% of women are not gold-diggers per the definition above but most women still are interested in a man with some resources and money to potentially take care of her and their offspring down the road, if any.

 

Just cause you take some woman out for dinner and pay $100 yourself does not mean she is a gold digger. If you want to broaden the definition of "golddigger" than most women would fall in that category.

[juliainoz]

Its amazing that people can make assumptions about my dating life just because I dont mind chipping in/paying for my half or taking turns paying for things.

 

To me, it is not just what someone can buy me or take me out that makes them a decent man for me to date.

 

I am not just doing it as a feminist action, as I am certainly not like that, it is simply offering to pay my way, either than can take up that offer, or they can pay for me.

 

I have had a few dates with the guy im dating -

 

the first date he bought me a drink first, then we went around 60/40 in way of dinner. On the second date he paid for dinner, and i paid for a movie and then a drink before and a coffee after - still his was the more expensive. On the last date just recently, I paid only $10 of dinner, but then paid for cheap movie tickets, and then he paid for coffee later.

 

to me, i prefer to be equal in a relationship - true i like to be spoiled at times, but am quite happy being equal.

 

Oh well this is just my opinion - but i dont hold out my vag for only someone who buys me dinner - there are more important thigns to a relationship than someone buying me dinner!

[moimeme]

you don't deserve it, or your "vag" is not worth much.

 

Well I seem to be in the minority here, but I don't sell my body parts for a price. For some odd reason, a lot of people on this thread appear to be advocating that women trade themselves for cash. And, even more bizarrely, this constitutes women 'thinking highly of themselves'. Well, I guess if you consider the most highly-paid prostitute to be the most valuable woman on the planet....

[Fuzzy Chickens]

Which raises the question "Just who IS the most highly-paid prostitute on the planet?"

 

Whoever she is, she must be DAMN good.

 

Other than that, I believe that everyone should pay for their own expenses. It's the only fair and logical way to do things.

[clynn]

I might have noticed that the Americans / Europeans favour the tradition of men paying and the Canadian / Australians are more comfortable with an alternative to that.

[XNemesisX]

Yeah, I noticed this too while reading this thread. There might be a little bit of cultural differences.

 

Moi~

For some odd reason, a lot of people on this thread appear to be advocating that women trade themselves for cash. And, even more bizarrely, this constitutes women 'thinking highly of themselves'.

 

What would make me feel really low about myself would be if I gave sex to a guy who did NOTHING for it. I know some people act like this is prostitution, but (in my opinion) having sex for nothing is pretty much saying you aren't worth the time, effort, or money from a guy. It would be lower than a prostitute. That would make me feel really cheap, and make me feel like I am of less worth to a guy if he doesn't even care enough about me to pay for some dates.

 

I'm not sure if this is conscious "prostitution" but more just the way things naturally flow. Guy asks the girl out, the girl sees he's not a gentleman/doesn't have resources etc by him acting reluctant/not paying and then she loses interest. Isn't this in evolutionary psychology? Women want a man with resources that can provide for a family if that happens. So even if it is subconscious, I think women take notes of things like this mentally. Acting hesitant to pay for a date could send a vibe to the woman that he is not good mate material because he wouldn't be as likely to provide resources for children if that should occur. It's just like how men subconsciously look at the hip-to waist ratio because that is a sign of better child bearing capability. I'm not sure if all of this is completely within our control.

[moimeme]

You've swung very far from women and men sharing equally to men 'not wanting to pay'.

 

Tanbark isn't not wanting to pay, he just doesn't want to pay all the time, and surely that's only fair.

 

If both people are kind and good-hearted, then each wants to give to the other - and that goes for everything from meals to sex. Your cold accounts of trading meals for sex give me the willies, frankly. I would certainly hope that there would be a good many more reasons for someone to sleep with someone than that the one bought the other a pricey meal, and I would hope most of all that the desire to give would be chief among them.

 

I'm not the slightest bit interested in relationships based on cash transactions or perceived value. And you and Alpha can argue that 'it's the way it's always been' until you're blue in the face, but 'because it's always been that way' is not a good reason for anything. Yes, it's good for the man to have a job and not get fired regularly. It is, IMHO, equally important that a woman can fend for herself so that the man doesn't feel like a meal ticket.

 

It's pointless to discuss this from the point of foolish extremes. We're not talking about men who never pay. We're talking about taking turns giving to each other. Or at least I am.

[juliainoz]

i agree moimeme - couldnt say it better myself!

 

It seems to me to get sex out of some of you women - all they have to do is open up their wallet and they are putty in your hands.

 

The way I see it - to get a little bit of lovin' from me, they have to show me that they are worth it, are interested in me genuinely, and are warm, fun, loving, got a good sense of humour.

[Donut]

I always offer to pay for something during the date, usually the guy pays the lions share and I pay for other small things. Drinks, Cinema Tix, or leave the tip.

 

And occasionally I'll pay the lions share, and treat him instead.

 

However, I always say thanks and I never expect him to pay for everything.

[XNemesisX]

You've swung very far from women and men sharing equally to men 'not wanting to pay'.

 

Tanbark isn't not wanting to pay, he just doesn't want to pay all the time, and surely that's only fair.

 

Where did I say anything like this? I think I am going to have to rephrase my words because this makes twice that it must have sounded like I was talking about Tanbark specifically and I wasn't. I was saying in a hypothetical situation where the man doesn't pay, usually (at least from the women I know) the interest would be gone. I am not making any reference to Tanbark at all. But maybe I strayed too far from the topic of what is going on with Tanbark so what I said became confusing.

 

Your cold accounts of trading meals for sex give me the willies, frankly. I would certainly hope that there would be a good many more reasons for someone to sleep with someone than that the one bought the other a pricey meal, and I would hope most of all that the desire to give would be chief among them.

 

Well DUH moi!

 

Of course and that is not what I'm saying at all. Did I say that if a man buys you a meal then you must have sex with him? Umm NO!! I'm saying that in the BEGINNING of a courtship I think the men should do the paying. I don't ask it from the guy, and I do offer everytime I go out because no one is obligated but if they were to let me pay without hesitation I would certainly not go out with them again (and hence sex would obviously NEVER be happening). I have said a hundred times that once a relationship has been formed that it should be equal. After a relationship is ESTABLISHED then it goes both ways. NOT in the BEGINNING of a courtship (at least in my opinion).

 

Let's face it. Men are USUALLY the ones who ask the woman out. You ask, you pay. I don't know many women who pursue men in the way we think of men pursuing women. And...arghhh...I don't feel like rehashing. But I think my opinion has really been exaggerated or taken completely far away from what I intended.

[XNemesisX]

There are also several other women on this thread who feel the same way as I do about men paying. So, I must not be too far off in the basic belief that men should do the paying in the beginning of courtship.

 

EC:

After in a comitted relationship then you can alternate. But I mean c'mon guys..your taking us out because you want to impress us and f*ck us. The least you could do is pay for dinner.

 

When they are your man yes! I agree 100%!! I treat my man all the time now. But in the beginning I expect to be taken out, wined and dined. You have to show me what you have that allllllll the other men out there don't. Court me, romance me, and pay for my food! lol

 

I guess Im old school, You want me you pay in the beginning, after we have sex and are committed I will help you pay.

 

Blind Otter:

Honestly it does make me think less of a man when he doesn't pay for me. I will offer but I fully expect him to say, no way, I am paying.

 

Tiki:

I mean, why ask someone out if you're not going to pay?

 

Ain't no way I'm givin it up if he's a tight-ass.

 

Tabatha:

Exactly! I mean I would be pissed if a guy asked me out and then for him to actually expect me to pay for it WTF? I would offer anyways, but any real man wouldn't accept it even if I insisted. Unless he's cheap!

 

Ms Pixie:

Once it's a committed relationship then I expect to pay from time to time.

 

RecordProducter:

I haven't paid for my drinks or dinners since college time.

Girls spend money on make-up and cosmeticians, guys on drinks and food.

 

Ok..well everyone gets the point. The point is, I think the majority of the women on here agree that men should pay, at least in the beginning.

 

You are outnumbered moi

It may really have something to do with the cultural differences though. I know you are in Canada and some women on here in Australia seem to think the same way as you do. The Americans and Europeans seem to agree that men should pay at least in the beginning.

 

Moi, do you find that other women you know in Canada think the same way as you about this or is it mostly traditional? I do have a friend from Canada and she is one of the female friends I have been mentioning that will absolutely not date a guy anymore if he doesn't pay for dates. So I'm just curious....

 

Also, I was dating a guy from Australia for a little while and he INSISTED on paying for all of our dates and was adament about it. Maybe they have just been American-ized though!

[moimeme]

Um. Appealing to numbers is a fallacy in logic. There are six billion people in the world. Ten people on a one particular board on one particular night don't represent the majority of humanity. And even if it did, that a majority thinks something doesn't ever make it right.

 

Moi, do you find that other women you know in Canada think the same way as you about this or is it mostly traditional?

 

I find it depends on maturity and education The more of both you have, the less likely you are to buy into romantic mythology.

 

Look. Buying anything for anybody is giving them a gift. Why would you buy something for a perfect stranger on spec that you might like that person. And would you not get a little fed up of always having to be the buyer for strangers who often don't turn out to be people you wouldn't want to give anything to?

 

So to me both people ought to pay for themselves or take turns until they've decided they like each other well enough to *want* to pay as a gift. How much nicer is it to have someone buy you a treat because he wants to rather than because it's 'tradition' or 'expected' or some sort of bogus means test. Hell, he could have maxed out all his credit cards but the one, pay for your meal, and here are you all impressed by this gesture which really shows nothing about his earning power or financial situation anyway.

 

Nope. Buy me a meal because you want to and I'll gladly accept. Do it out of obligation and it's a chore for you and therefore spoils it for me, too.

[XNemesisX]

I find it depends on maturity and education

 

Ok, well ya got me there. I know you are more mature than me, I feel old but I guess I'm still 22.

 

But what about Alphamale? He's an old fart! I'm only kidding, Alpha. My mom says that 20 years go by before you know it so I better not call 40 old because it will hit me before I know it.

 

Ok I completely went off topic...and its bedtime for me now..

[tokyo]

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

Also, I was dating a guy from Australia for a little while and he INSISTED on paying for all of our dates and was adament about it. Maybe they have just been American-ized though!

I also knew a guy from Australia who always insisted on paying for my friend.

[juliainoz]

Im not saying that Australian men dont pay

 

Ive been with with a few men, and they dont always offer to pay, sometimes they do, sometimes its dutch, and sometimes the woman will treat.

 

Im just saying the aussie men who I have dated who have paid for me are as tight with money as the men who havent paid for me..to be honest, men are different in so many ways, they each do different things for me.

[clynn]

Originally posted by moimeme

Look. Buying anything for anybody is giving them a gift. Why would you buy something for a perfect stranger on spec that you might like that person. And would you not get a little fed up of always having to be the buyer for strangers who often don't turn out to be people you wouldn't want to give anything to?

 

So to me both people ought to pay for themselves or take turns until they've decided they like each other well enough to *want* to pay as a gift. How much nicer is it to have someone buy you a treat because he wants to rather than because it's 'tradition' or 'expected' or some sort of bogus means test. Hell, he could have maxed out all his credit cards but the one, pay for your meal, and here are you all impressed by this gesture which really shows nothing about his earning power or financial situation anyway.

 

Well stated.

 

 

Originally posted by YX32Nemesis

 

But what about Alphamale?

 

I think it is great Alphamale pays but if it is buying into the provider / nurturer concept it is a little skewed. After all, I think I have gotten the distinct impression from various posts of Alphamale's, for instance, that he is not interested in a long term relationship or marriage and so his courting is really not a process of proving himself capable of maintaining a household and children. And if it is .... but he isn't interested..... then that makes the traditional gesture inconsistent with the motive.

 

Just Postulating.

[alphamale]

Originally posted by clynn

I think it is great Alphamale pays but if it is buying into the provider / nurturer concept it is a little skewed. After all, I think I have gotten the distinct impression from various posts of Alphamale's, for instance, that he is not interested in a long term relationship or marriage and so his courting is really not a process of proving himself capable of maintaining a household and children. And if it is .... but he isn't interested..... then that makes the traditional gesture inconsistent with the motive.

 

Just Postulating.

 

I am interested in LTR but not marriage or kids anymore and I tell most women that up front so they don't waste their time. And I don't need to get married and have children to show the "provider" in me.

 

What I was trying to state was that the proper way for this to work is that the man should pay most of the early dating expenses and the woman repays him in other ways. For instance i went out with this woman last Sat nite and paid most of the expenses and tomorrow nite she is making me dinner at her place.