Should I feel guilty about not paying?

[No_Go]

In this case, I'd tell him let me get this one and you can get the next

 

I tried that with him unsuccessfully - the next would have been then cooking at his home or movie at his home. Not that this is not a contribution but still.

[JuneL]

OP: A good friend of mine has exactly your mentality. Obviously she is fully entitled to what she wants. But the reality is, she has been the breadwinner during half of her marriage, because her husband was laid off on and off throughout their marriage.

[normal person]

There are plenty of men who share my values, including many of the men who responded to this thread and affirmed that they prefer to pay for their girlfriends and wives.

 

For the record, I agree with you and I think if that's what you like and want to do, go for it. I'm somewhat into the traditional approach, but without this posturing. With all due respect, I think the way you're making this out is a little too convenient for the sake of your argument. Paying to feed/house/clothe/support another adult is not something that's done with joy. It's just something that's done because it needs to be done, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes to just avoid a whole situation like the one you find yourself in, or sometimes for more underhanded reasons. If a guy says he "prefers" it, consider that that might be an issue of semantics, and/or he may:

 

- prefer to simply submit to the assigned gender role rather than risk looking cheap and tarnishing his relationship by accepting her money, even if he wants to, which is self preservation and not a desire to pay for things

- want to feel "owed" something in return, which is shady and manipulative

- want the woman to be financially dependent on him because he's not good enough to keep her on his own merit, in which case he's insecure and controlling

- realize his romantic life has previously been so abysmal that reveling in the "opportunity" to pay for someone else all the time is better than the alternative, in which case his preference is to the lesser of two undesirable scenarios

 

I'm a little hesitant to believe any guy who says they "prefer" it, because I can't see any upside to it besides self preservation and avoiding conflict. Every other reason seems ill-intentioned. Sure, if you like someone and appreciate them, you want to show them that. I could understand a guy using that to justify paying for his girlfriend once in a while. But once it crosses the line into obligation or expectation every single time, the guy is no longer just doing it to show his girlfriend how much he appreciates her, he's just doing it because he has to in order to avoid negative consequences.

 

Let's call a spade a spade. Paying for someone else is a liability. You're financially less well off for it. It's an obligation your partner doesn't have, yet as a man you don't get any additional benefit for doing it. No man is happy to spend money just to keep what he has. It's like paying property tax. Not enjoyable.

 

I'd say I "prefer" paying for my girlfriend, not because I enjoy spending my hard earned money to show someone I appreciate them (even if I do appreciate them), I just "prefer" to avoid her thinking that I'm a bum, or that I'm a bad provider, etc. That's just the premium I pay, and I accept that. It's "preferable" to the alternative under the current social conventions we have, but what I'd really prefer is if I didn't have to pay for her to eat just to avoid a negative outcome. Just because I don't complain about it doesn't mean I don't count the thousands of dollars it costs over time just to avoid being viewed negatively, and quietly resent it.

 

It might be preferable if there were a positive outcome attached to the buying of food, but there's not. I spend $75-200 on dinner, we come back to my place and drink ~$30 worth of my good scotch. Multiply that figure by the amount of times I see her, and it gets expensive. Yet if I asked her to "make up for it" somehow like cleaning, cooking, organizing, etc, she'd think I was a misogynist. I don't get anything near the equivalent of what I spend in return.

 

I know women have their own different "obligations," and those shouldn't be discredited. But I don't think there are too many women saying they "prefer" to have to keep shaving their legs, or maintain an unrealistic standard of beauty, etc. These things aren't preferences, they're reluctant capitulations to societal conventions. If you prefer a guy pays, that's all well and good. But if you really want to believe that deep down he gets actual enjoyment out of spending his money to feed you while getting nothing of equivalence in return, you're on very shaky footing. There's no way he "prefers" it without some kind of asterisk.

Edited November 17, 2017 by normal person

[BaileyB]

Further to the previous post that raises some good points, I would argue that for some men who say that they "prefer" to support a woman financially, it's really just about ego. It's a nice stroke to the ego to say that they are a "Man" who can "take care of his woman."

 

In much the same way that a man may make a big show of picking up the bill for the group at dinner. "It's on me..." That's usually about ego. They may think that it is a grand gesture, but really... It's just arrogance and self-importance.

 

As a woman, of course it's a nice thought to think that a man wants to take care of you - whether that's by holding the door, protecting you when you are walking downtown at night, or supporting the family financially. But, to expect that a man should assume the responsibilty of supporting the family while a woman puts the money she earns in a bank account is not very fair and not usually realistic for most families.

 

But, what you are essentially saying is that you are prepared to assume a cost of living in keeping with your husbands earnings, and I would hope that your earnings would be saved and "shared." There is nothing wrong with living below your means, it's a smart thing to do. But, to have a healthy marriage you must ensure that things are fair to both partners.

 

In this discussion... Sure, it's sweet that he wants to pay for the dates in the first few months... Not so sure that he will still find it "sweet" and agree to be solely responsible for accounts payable when there is a mortgage, a water bill, the kids need new clothes for school, and the family wants a vacation... But, this remains to be seen. Good luck!

[guest569]

Women under 35 out earn men under 35 by nearly 30%. That's a HUGE wage gap, so guys with solid careers get their pick.

 

*men out earn women. In every demographic world wide.

 

Probably because my mother was, and obtained an advanced degree, supported equal rights for everyone back when racism, bigotry, and subjugated feminine gender roles were more the norm than the exception. I don't get how these archaic mindset still exists in the 21st century.

 

Actually subjugated feminine gender roles are alive and well which is why this sort of mindset persists. Women now have to continue in their traditional feminine role and the 21st century masculine role. Not only is there a persistent pay gap but women tend to take on majority of the unpaid and undervalued work.

 

If OP and her partner are happy with the arrangement then I don't see a problem. I think that a lot of people, men and women, get taken advantage of financially and need to be careful. So I get why there are many who oppose it. I am 4th generation of working women but unfortunately am the first in my entire massive family to even graduate from secondary schooling let alone tertiary. It wasn't their choice not to pursue better careers. racism, sexism and inequalities are alive and well.

[salparadise]

Actually subjugated feminine gender roles are alive and well which is why this sort of mindset persists. Women now have to continue in their traditional feminine role and the 21st century masculine role. Not only is there a persistent pay gap but women tend to take on majority of the unpaid and undervalued work.

 

If OP and her partner are happy with the arrangement then I don't see a problem. I think that a lot of people, men and women, get taken advantage of financially and need to be careful. So I get why there are many who oppose it. I am 4th generation of working women but unfortunately am the first in my entire massive family to even graduate from secondary schooling let alone tertiary. It wasn't their choice not to pursue better careers. racism, sexism and inequalities are alive and well.

 

Yes, I realize it persists, and this thread is a prime example of how and why. There is a long history of the transactional nature of sex and reproductive opportunity between the genders. Women have leveraged their inherent asset to secure care-taking and/or cash-in-hand at the time of the transaction through the millennia. And men have ostentatiously strutted their willingness to pay the fee like male peacocks displaying their feathery plumage.

 

We can't change history, and social change takes generations. If we believe in equality and desire to enact change, it has to be done one data point at a time... and leading by example. Just as in the Harvey Weinstein situation, there will be tipping points where attitudes begin to shift toward a more fair and equitable world.

 

And if you think using Weinstein as an example is comparing apples and oranges... think again. The Weinstein/Cosby examples (and others) are more blatant, extreme expressions of transactional, subjugated gender relations, entitlement mentality based in wealth, status, power, displaying plumage.

 

If women seek to enact change toward a more egalitarian society, the logical place to start would be by abolishing the transactional expectation in their own mating dance. When I go on a date and a woman doesn't just feign an offer, but consciously chooses to eschew the old pay-to-play paradigm... I think, yes! She gets it!

[gaius]

So sal, how's that attitude your mother imposed on you working out? Have you had immense success with long term relationships over the course of your life?

 

I don't know about sal or other loveshack posters, I don't know most of their histories, but I have seen a lot of people who aren't into guys paying all the time and in general it doesn't work out that well in relationships.

 

I'd like to hear from Bailey or Sal, or any of the other scholars about the great relationships they're in where this blissful equality thrives and has created lasting and loving bonds with their partners. But until I do I'll reiterate what I said before 90's. That you have nothing to feel ashamed of. Just keep making him feel like you appreciate what he does.

[lovephule]

OP: A good friend of mine has exactly your mentality. Obviously she is fully entitled to what she wants. But the reality is, she has been the breadwinner during half of her marriage, because her husband was laid off on and off throughout their marriage.

 

Do you think this is because what she wants is unrealistic, or because she picked a partner with whom what she wants is unrealistic?

[BaileyB]

So sal, how's that attitude your mother imposed on you working out? Have you had immense success with long term relationships over the course of your life?

 

I don't know about sal or other loveshack posters, I don't know most of their histories, but I have seen a lot of people who aren't into guys paying all the time and in general it doesn't work out that well in relationships.

 

I'd like to hear from Bailey or Sal, or any of the other scholars about the great relationships they're in where this blissful equality thrives and has created lasting and loving bonds with their partners. But until I do I'll reiterate what I said before 90's. That you have nothing to feel ashamed of. Just keep making him feel like you appreciate what he does.

 

Blissful equality thrived in my parents marriage and it thrives in my relationship. My parents were married for 40 years before my mother's death. They taught me what it is to work hard, to share life's burdens, and support each other through the good and the bad times. Which is why I take issue with an intelligent, hard working young woman who is earning good money and expecting a man to foot her bills... That sense of entitlement would never have been acceptable in my home.

 

But, it certainly is her choice. There is more than one way to live. If anything, this highlights the fact that financial compatibility is important in a relationship. Not everyone has the same ideas about money and life.

Edited November 17, 2017 by BaileyB

[some_username1]

If you truly love someone, surely you WANT to spend money on them because money is symbolic of your ultimate resource having less value than your love for your partner?

 

For me that attitude of "well he can spend his money on me and I'll 'put money into the household' or something maybe" is the attitude of a woman who is holding back and ultimately values her own security over me. It doesn't suggest a long and fruitful relationship at all, rather a relationship where the woman in quesion has always got one eye on the door and the other on her 'rainy day fund'.

[some_username1]

For the record, I agree with you and I think if that's what you like and want to do, go for it. I'm somewhat into the traditional approach, but without this posturing. With all due respect, I think the way you're making this out is a little too convenient for the sake of your argument. Paying to feed/house/clothe/support another adult is not something that's done with joy. It's just something that's done because it needs to be done, sometimes out of necessity, sometimes to just avoid a whole situation like the one you find yourself in, or sometimes for more underhanded reasons. If a guy says he "prefers" it, consider that that might be an issue of semantics, and/or he may:

 

- prefer to simply submit to the assigned gender role rather than risk looking cheap and tarnishing his relationship by accepting her money, even if he wants to, which is self preservation and not a desire to pay for things

- want to feel "owed" something in return, which is shady and manipulative

- want the woman to be financially dependent on him because he's not good enough to keep her on his own merit, in which case he's insecure and controlling

- realize his romantic life has previously been so abysmal that reveling in the "opportunity" to pay for someone else all the time is better than the alternative, in which case his preference is to the lesser of two undesirable scenarios

 

I'm a little hesitant to believe any guy who says they "prefer" it, because I can't see any upside to it besides self preservation and avoiding conflict. Every other reason seems ill-intentioned. Sure, if you like someone and appreciate them, you want to show them that. I could understand a guy using that to justify paying for his girlfriend once in a while. But once it crosses the line into obligation or expectation every single time, the guy is no longer just doing it to show his girlfriend how much he appreciates her, he's just doing it because he has to in order to avoid negative consequences.

 

Let's call a spade a spade. Paying for someone else is a liability. You're financially less well off for it. It's an obligation your partner doesn't have, yet as a man you don't get any additional benefit for doing it. No man is happy to spend money just to keep what he has. It's like paying property tax. Not enjoyable.

 

I'd say I "prefer" paying for my girlfriend, not because I enjoy spending my hard earned money to show someone I appreciate them (even if I do appreciate them), I just "prefer" to avoid her thinking that I'm a bum, or that I'm a bad provider, etc. That's just the premium I pay, and I accept that. It's "preferable" to the alternative under the current social conventions we have, but what I'd really prefer is if I didn't have to pay for her to eat just to avoid a negative outcome. Just because I don't complain about it doesn't mean I don't count the thousands of dollars it costs over time just to avoid being viewed negatively, and quietly resent it.

 

It might be preferable if there were a positive outcome attached to the buying of food, but there's not. I spend $75-200 on dinner, we come back to my place and drink ~$30 worth of my good scotch. Multiply that figure by the amount of times I see her, and it gets expensive. Yet if I asked her to "make up for it" somehow like cleaning, cooking, organizing, etc, she'd think I was a misogynist. I don't get anything near the equivalent of what I spend in return.

 

I know women have their own different "obligations," and those shouldn't be discredited. But I don't think there are too many women saying they "prefer" to have to keep shaving their legs, or maintain an unrealistic standard of beauty, etc. These things aren't preferences, they're reluctant capitulations to societal conventions. If you prefer a guy pays, that's all well and good. But if you really want to believe that deep down he gets actual enjoyment out of spending his money to feed you while getting nothing of equivalence in return, you're on very shaky footing. There's no way he "prefers" it without some kind of asterisk.

 

Yeah i had a relationship like that. Im quite a traditional guy and if I have the money like paying for dates, but it got to the point where I saw her as more of a mafia captain than my partner- constantly having to 'wet her beak' everytime I spent money on myself!

 

She is now an ex-girlfriend for a very good reason.

[introverted1]

As a woman, and an older one at that, I simply don't get how it is possibly ok for one partner not to have an oar in the water. If two friends go out to dinner, the norm is for each to pay their own way (or to take turns). By what logic does this change simply because that same dinner is now with a date rather than a friend?

 

The notion that this is about "preference" is somewhat mind-boggling. How do you justify preferring inequality? Would it be ok to prefer other forms of inequality, like racism? That was traditional once, too.

[normal person]

Yeah i had a relationship like that. Im quite a traditional guy and if I have the money like paying for dates, but it got to the point where I saw her as more of a mafia captain than my partner- constantly having to 'wet her beak' everytime I spent money on myself

 

Hah. I'm "traditional" by default, just because it's easier. The cost of her food, as much as it is, is probably not worth the cost of the headache I'd get otherwise. The downside to having a nice career and some money to throw around is that it's just assumed that you're paying for everything, always. There's no discussion, feigned or otherwise, of splitting. We eat, I pay, we leave. After the first few times, there's not even a "thanks," it's just what I'm expected to do. Part of the program. I've had this experience many times over with many women.

 

The notion that this is about "preference" is somewhat mind-boggling. How do you justify preferring inequality? Would it be ok to prefer other forms of inequality, like racism? That was traditional once, too.

 

Someone might see it as "preferable" if it's advantageous for them, without considering, or downplaying, the liability it gives the other party. It's also very convenient when you can simply say that your boyfriend "prefers" it that way while ignoring the underlying implications of that. But to each their own.

[ThrowfordAwayington]

I've been dating a guy for about 2 months. We've gone on a handful of dates and he has payed for just about everything. I bought us popcorn and drinks at the movies once. Otherwise, he has paid for all of our dates. I offered to split the first time but he said he wanted to pay. Since then, I haven't offered (other than the popcorn).

He has never complained about paying. In fact, he often brings up places he wants to take me and things he wants to treat me to. I really appreciate a man who pays--it makes me feel taken care of. Part of me wants it to continue. However, for some reason, I'm starting to feel guilty about it. I really like him and I fear he'll grow resentful for paying. Am I paranoid considering he's never brought it up? Should I offer to pay in the future?

 

Are you here for an honest answer, or for validation of your predetermined course of action? You claim to be "starting to feel guilty about it," but not so much so that you grab the check and say "my treat." You admit to liking the status quo because it makes you feel taken care of, and fear he'll grow resentful at the inequity that you already note.

 

Yes, you should feel guilty about it. You should step up and be a partner in this dating relationship rather than a passive receiver of tribute. That's what equality would look like.

[some_username1]

Are you here for an honest answer, or for validation of your predetermined course of action? You claim to be "starting to feel guilty about it," but not so much so that you grab the check and say "my treat." You admit to liking the status quo because it makes you feel taken care of, and fear he'll grow resentful at the inequity that you already note.

 

Yes, you should feel guilty about it. You should step up and be a partner in this dating relationship rather than a passive receiver of tribute. That's what equality would look like.

 

What always amuses me about threads like this is the way the OP always falls over herself to tell us how she is some high falutin' director of commerce or whatever and has her own money yadda yadda like it somehow adds to her argument when in fact it simply serves to make it even more nonsensical that she wants to be someone's dependent.

 

"What's mine is mine and what's yours......is mine too!"