Women don't play by the rules

[Rejected Rosebud]

When I took my GF out for drinks on our second date, I got the first round. She volunteered to pay for the second. That's when I knew she'd get that third date.

I would do the same thing your girlfriend did probably (I have hardly dated in my life though) but to make that the deciding factor on whether she "got" the third date (you sound like you think you are a super big prize dude!! ) seems kind of ... well, a sad way to make a decision on whether you like a person. Just out of curiosity, what about you earned you the third date with her? Was she as super impressed that you paid for some drinks as you were when she paid?? I guess that would make you a good match though.

[toolforgrowth]

Exactly. Simple enough.

 

When I was dating, my husband wanted to pay, always. It was totally swoon-worthy to me, combined with the fact that I was hot for him and really liked him. It was just the kind of romantic icing on the cake that made me want to rip his pants off with my teeth.

 

I've always been a sucker for chivalry

 

For sure! Again, I don't have an issue with men paying. I have an issue with the EXPECTATION that he pay. It was his choice to do so, and I respect that.

 

And for the record, I've paid for 99% of all dates I've ever been on. They've all been my choice. But there have been times where I said "no, I'm not taking you out tonight because I want to save my money for other things I want to buy or do", or "my daughter needs new clothes so I have to save my money for that". Our just because I wanted to increase the amount of money I put in savings that month.

 

That's when I look very closely at her reaction. Does she understand? Does she offer to pay for both of us? Or does she get angry that I said no?

[xxoo]

For sure! Again, I don't have an issue with men paying. I have an issue with the EXPECTATION that he pay. It was his choice to do so, and I respect that.

 

And for the record, I've paid for 99% of all dates I've ever been on. They've all been my choice. But there have been times where I said "no, I'm not taking you out tonight because I want to save my money for other things I want to buy or do", or "my daughter needs new clothes so I have to save my money for that". Our just because I wanted to increase the amount of money I put in savings that month.

 

That's when I look very closely at her reaction. Does she understand? Does she offer to pay for both of us? Or does she get angry that I said no?

 

This I understand. I would never expect anyone to pay for someone ungrateful, or even to date someone who puts expensive dates over financial responsibility and kids. I could never respect a man who didn't put his kids first financially.

[Woggle]

I think the big issue men have with always paying is how many women thumb their nose at traditional roles on their part. Ask a woman to play her traditional role in dating or a relationship and a man is shouted down as a misogynist but then we turn around and are expected to do always pay and open doors and all that stuff. The hypocrisy gets on our nerves.

[toolforgrowth]

I would do the same thing your girlfriend did probably (I have hardly dated in my life though) but to make that the deciding factor on whether she "got" the third date (you sound like you think you are a super big prize dude!! ) seems kind of ... well, a sad way to make a decision on whether you like a person. Just out of curiosity, what about you earned you the third date with her? Was she as super impressed that you paid for some drinks as you were when she paid?? I guess that would make you a good match though.

 

I AM a super big prize dude. I have a great career in IT making a lot of money. I own my own 3 bedroom 2 bathroom home which I bought brand new 10 years ago. I own a car with less than 32,000 miles on it. I'm a fantastic father to sweet little 7 year old girl. I'm a healthy, good looking guy with an active sex drive. I'm highly intelligent. I have a very close relationship with my family. I don't depend on anybody for anything. I know my way around a kitchen and grill (cooking is I've of my favorite hobbies). I can do dishes, laundry, vacuum, and change a diaper. Need I go on?

 

The fact that I was already going out with her is an obvious indication that I was already interested. As to why it earned her that third date, the fact that she was willing to pay for me showed me that she wouldn't take and take without giving something back (like my xWW). It also showed she was just as interested in me too.

 

As to me earning a third date with her, I can't speak for her. I can only speak for myself. It's possible I wouldn't have earned it with her but she would have earned it with me, and vice versa. If it had been nice versa, the fact that she would have gone out with me again would have been irrelevant if I didn't want to go out with her again. THAT'S the point I'm trying to make.

[toolforgrowth]

I think the big issue men have with always paying is how many women thumb their nose at traditional roles on their part. Ask a woman to play her traditional role in dating or a relationship and a man is shouted down as a misogynist but then we turn around and are expected to do always pay and open doors and all that stuff. The hypocrisy gets on our nerves.

 

This. 1000x this.

[elaine567]

I think it is madness to make decisions re dating material or not on who pays for the initial dates.

 

If I was a big gold digger, I would make doubly sure I paid my way for the first dates... wouldn't want to give the wrong impression, would I?

[xxoo]

I think the big issue men have with always paying is how many women thumb their nose at traditional roles on their part. Ask a woman to play her traditional role in dating or a relationship and a man is shouted down as a misogynist but then we turn around and are expected to do always pay and open doors and all that stuff. The hypocrisy gets on our nerves.

 

No one asks men or women to play traditional roles. If someone ASKED me to play a role, I'd be annoyed.

 

It's about genuinely being who we are, and being drawn together. Feminism provided men and women with choice. I still choose to be traditional, but I'm really glad others (women and men) can choose to be non-traditional and find a place in society.

[StanMusial]

I think the big issue men have with always paying is how many women thumb their nose at traditional roles on their part. Ask a woman to play her traditional role in dating or a relationship and a man is shouted down as a misogynist but then we turn around and are expected to do always pay and open doors and all that stuff. The hypocrisy gets on our nerves.

 

That's what I don't understand though... I have never and will never date the women you describe. So I don't care. Plus I've never dated a girl that had as much money as me either, so I never minded.

[toolforgrowth]

I think it is madness to make decisions re dating material or not on who pays for the initial dates.

 

If I was a big gold digger, I would make doubly sure I paid my way for the first dates... wouldn't want to give the wrong impression, would I?

 

A man can weed out potential bad matches. If I say, "wanna go out for coffee? It's cheap, simple, and we don't have to worry about splitting a bill", and she says "well, I think the man should pay", POOF. I'm gone.

 

Entitled people don't think that way. They just assume that they'll get what they want without having to be dishonest.

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

Turn ons rarely make practical sense, especially when you take them in context of the modern era alone. Why are some men still turned on by the hourglass figure despite the fact that in 2015 medical advances in fertility and childbirth have overridden any advantage it would have provided (and many of the men who like the hourglass figure don't even want children to begin with)? Why are some women still turned on by tall men when in 2015 the pen (or, in fact, computer) is infinitely mightier than the fist? Why are some men turned on by dark-haired women and others by light-haired women? Why are some men turned on by certain types of voices?

 

None of the above are 'necessary for survival' in 2015, but we are all still human and each with our own personal turn ons. If THAT didn't exist, we as a species probably wouldn't.

 

You've raised some very good points, Elswyth. Idk...I guess each person's turn ons are different and they have their own reasons - even if it doesn't make sense to me or to anyone else.

 

You mentioned why are some women turned on by tall men or why are some guys turned on by brunettes or blondes with hourglass figures with certain kinds of voices...in my opinion, those things have nothing to do with money (which is a material thing); and as such, those are turn ons that I consider to be normal, within reason and within a natural biological/physical attraction type of range.

 

I guess I couldn't understand why someone would be turned on by a complete stranger paying for their meal (even if it's just a cup of java); I would feel weirded out and would pay my own way, regardless of what it was just so I would be on equal footing with the guy. But, like you said, turn ons vary from person to person and for various reasons.

 

Thanks for putting this in perspective for me.

 

 

.

[xxoo]

You mentioned why are some women turned on by tall men or why are some guys turned on by brunettes or blondes with hourglass figures with certain kinds of voices...in my opinion, those things have nothing to do with money (which is a material thing); and as such, those are turn ons that I consider to be normal, within reason and within a natural biological/physical attraction type of range.

.

 

 

Providing and protecting are primal attraction cues. A fresh kill, or a cup of coffee, for me? Oh, thank you!

[elaine567]

A man can weed out potential bad matches. If I say, "wanna go out for coffee? It's cheap, simple, and we don't have to worry about splitting a bill", and she says "well, I think the man should pay", POOF. I'm gone.

 

Entitled people don't think that way. They just assume that they'll get what they want without having to be dishonest.

 

Yes you can weed out entitled people and idiots, true, but the devious ones will be paying their half, was the point I made. Not all, are straight down the middle and as easy to read as you seem to be implying.

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

A man kicking up a stink about paying $20 for our date is a turn off. I want a man who isn't so tight with money or petty or thinks I am a "waste" of his money and time.

 

I understand what you're saying. But...even though $20 bucks doesn't sound like a lot of money for you to spend on ONE date, think about it: If this same guys has 3 or 4 dates with 3 or 4 different women per week (even just 3 different women), that's $60 to $80 total for the week! Imagine if this same guy wanted to date 2 or 3 different women 3 weeks out of every month and pay their way so as not to "turn off" each of those women by not paying! I'm just saying...that's about $20 bucks a pop for each date that he wants to pay for to "impress" her.

 

But, I do get what you're saying though (thanks to Elswyth's earlier post). I now understand both sides of this equation - the guy's side and the woman's side.

 

 

.

[toolforgrowth]

I guess I couldn't understand why someone would be turned on by a complete stranger paying for their meal (even if it's just a cup of java)

 

For me, it has nothing to do with turn ons. It has everything to do with long term compatibility. I've had plenty of debaucherous sex with women I considered to be smoking hot, but with whom I could never be in a relationship. But if I feel a woman could potentially be relationship material, then I put her through a much more rigorous vetting regimen to gauge our long term compatibility.

 

Traditionally, couples fight over two things: sex and money. So, I take great interest in how a potential mate views money. Not only that, is the relationship going to be one sided? Or is there going to be some give and take? How a person reacts in the very beginning is indicative of how they'll continue to react as time progresses; after all, the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior.

 

I'm not talking about turn ons. I'm talking about her worthiness to be in my life as my partner. I take that $h!t very seriously.

[StanMusial]

I understand what you're saying. But...even though $20 bucks doesn't sound like a lot of money for you to spend on ONE date, think about it: If this same guys has 3 or 4 dates with 3 or 4 different women per week (even just 3 different women), that's $60 to $80 total for the week! Imagine if this same guy wanted to date 2 or 3 different women 3 weeks out of every month and pay their way so as not to "turn off" each of those women by not paying! I'm just saying...that's about $20 bucks a pop for each date that he wants to pay for to "impress" her.

 

But, I do get what you're saying though (thanks to Elswyth's earlier post). I now understand both sides of this equation - the guy's side and the woman's side.

 

 

.

 

It's pay to play.

 

Don't try to be a playa if you can't afford it.

[elaine567]

I think the big issue men have with always paying is how many women thumb their nose at traditional roles on their part. Ask a woman to play her traditional role in dating or a relationship and a man is shouted down as a misogynist but then we turn around and are expected to do always pay and open doors and all that stuff. The hypocrisy gets on our nerves.

 

Yes but paying and opening doors are hardly a big deal, I hold open doors all the time for people in general and pay my way, but adopting the female traditional role is more about kowtowing to men, submitting to male power, supporting men with little reciprocation, "women's" work and being a general dogsbody. What is there to like?

[elaine567]

It's pay to play.

 

Don't try to be a playa if you can't afford it.

 

Yes, no-one is telling men to date 3-4 women a week, maybe if he stuck to getting to know one better, he may be more successful.

[toolforgrowth]

Yes but paying and opening doors are hardly a big deal, I hold open doors all the time for people in general and pay my way, but adopting the female traditional role is more about kowtowing to men, submitting to male power, supporting men with little reciprocation, "women's" work and being a general dogsbody. What is there to like?

 

You lose all credibility with me here. You cannot simultaneously say that it's okay for women to break out of their gender roles but not okay for men. That is a double standard and hypocrisy at its finest. Because the flip side is that your financial well being would then become my responsibility; there is no amount of cooking, cleaning, and sex that you could offer that would ever make me want to go back to the 1950's and accept responsibility for your well being and survival.

 

If you don't want to submit to male power, then be independent and pay for yourself like a responsible adult and don't expect a man to do it. Take that power away from him and do it yourself. You're capable, aren't you?

 

Of course you are.

[Hawaii51]

$20 bucks a pop for each date that he wants to pay for to "impress" her. .

 

I want to meet the impressed $20 date.

[toolforgrowth]

Yes, no-one is telling men to date 3-4 women a week, maybe if he stuck to getting to know one better, he may be more successful.

 

Until you both decide to become exclusive, his dating habits are of no concern of yours. If he chooses to go Dutch because of it, it's his choice.

 

Why is the concept of men having a choice so inexplicable?

[xxoo]

I understand what you're saying. But...even though $20 bucks doesn't sound like a lot of money for you to spend on ONE date, think about it: If this same guys has 3 or 4 dates with 3 or 4 different women per week (even just 3 different women), that's $60 to $80 total for the week! Imagine if this same guy wanted to date 2 or 3 different women 3 weeks out of every month and pay their way so as not to "turn off" each of those women by not paying! I'm just saying...that's about $20 bucks a pop for each date that he wants to pay for to "impress" her.

 

But, I do get what you're saying though (thanks to Elswyth's earlier post). I now understand both sides of this equation - the guy's side and the woman's side.

 

 

.

 

This is another reason it's attractive. It implies investment, presumably in this individual woman (not throwing money at all women). I understand this isn't any sort of guarantee of that, but it's a single action to consider within a whole picture.

[BlackOpsZombieGirl]

Exactly. Simple enough.

 

When I was dating, my husband wanted to pay, always. It was totally swoon-worthy to me, combined with the fact that I was hot for him and really liked him. It was just the kind of romantic icing on the cake that made me want to rip his pants off with my teeth.

 

I've always been a sucker for chivalry

 

It's interesting how different women view chivalry. For me, date-wise, chivalry means a guy holding the door open for me when we're walking into a restaurant (or any building), or him walking to the passenger side of the car and opening the car door for me, him gently placing his hand on the small of my back when we're entering an establishment or about to be seated at a table or when he listens to me intently as I speak about something without him interrupting me or thinking about what he's going to say next.

 

I guess those things could count as a guy being (polite) gentlemanly also. None of those things costs the guy any money for him to do for me on a date and if he did even ONE of those things (let alone all of them), I'd feel special and I'd think that he was being chivalrous. Him doing all of those things because he wanted to would turn me on enough to stir within me the desire to unzip his pants with my teeth in the near future lol

 

There's NO way (on heaven, earth or in hell) that I would allow any guy to pay my way entirely on a date! Only when it's been communicated between the two of us that we're totally into each other would I allow a guy to pay my way for anything; and even then, I'd pay my way a lot of the time so he wouldn't feel any obligation to pay for me. Now, if by that time, he insisted on paying my way for something, then I'd feel comfy with it because it was already acknowledged mutually that we feel a connection together. Anything less than this scenario, and um, I'd feel VERY uncomfortable and weird letting the guy pay for me for ANYTHING.

 

A guy doesn't have to spend any of his money on me in order for me to be impressed with him or for him to turn me on. If he behaves towards me in a respectful, gentlemanly and chivalrous way, trust me....that alone is enough to make me tingle in all kinds of places.

 

 

.

[xxoo]

Until you both decide to become exclusive, his dating habits are of no concern of yours. If he chooses to go Dutch because of it, it's his choice.

 

Why is the concept of men having a choice so inexplicable?

 

All this is quite logical!

 

But courting isn't really logical

[xxoo]

It's interesting how different women view chivalry.

 

Not really that different. I find all those things chivalrous, too