Study on Dating and Paying for Meals:

[JuneL]

Getting invited out on a date by a guy and then insisting on paying for your half of it is like getting a birthday or Christmas gift and then insisting to pay back the person for the cost of the gift. It is an insult to the person offering it to you.

 

That’s a good point. As I got older (and dated older men), it became harder to get the date to be okay with me paying for my half. Often, you can tell easily if this is the case by reading their body language.

[alphamale]

If I'm expected to pay for everything on a first date, I lose my interest. I live an expensive lifestyle and I want a partner who is at least somewhat financially equal to me. Women want to be equal yet want to be coddled. Still expect men to chase, still expect men to pay, but complain about gender roles and patriarchal society. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?

 

I agree crispy toast

[Els]

If I'm expected to pay for everything on a first date, I lose my interest.

 

 

I agree that it should never be an expectation. One would have to be pretty darn entitled to think that their date should be "expected" to do anything beyond common courtesy, be it paying for their meal or having sex with them. It can be a valid preference, though.

 

 

 

Still expect men to chase, still expect men to pay, but complain about gender roles and patriarchal society. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?

As long as it's not an expectation and merely a preference, I don't see the connection. Supporting equality in society does not need to involve having literally zero preferences for your romantic partner that you don't fulfill yourself. A man can believe in equality in society, but still be more attracted to a woman who wears dresses or who keeps her hair long or who is softer-spoken than he is, for instance. Edited June 27, 2019 by Elswyth

[littleblackheart]

Have you read the paper I linked above, @crispytoast? Clearly lots of women don't want to be molly-coddled and are quite happy sharing expenses.

 

Maybe more men need to put their foot down on the first date instead of wanting to appear 'gentlemanly' or feeling guilty for taking a woman's money then whining that women are entitled.

 

Or maybe more men need to be ok relinquishing some of the power and control that come with money, ie not sharing other chores later down the line.

 

Or maybe more people need to be more transparent in what they actually want, so as not waste time, impose their own expectations onto others and assume everyone else should fit their views?

 

Or maybe it's an LS /US thing and everyone else manages to deal with it just fine?

 

Other than offering to pay on a first date and meaning it (basic manners) it's up to the individual couples to do what they see fit anyway, imo.

[crispytoast]

@Elswyth Saying "I wouldn't keep dating a man who doesn't pay on the first date" is essentially setting the expectation that "you'd better be ready to spend if you are going to date me."

 

 

@Lbh Ok fair enough. Personally I do put my foot down, I cook 5* food at home so if I'm going out it's some place nice and I do expect that my date pays for herself. Its a way of communicating that "yes I can handle my own sh*t and you won't have to baby me down the line".

Edited June 27, 2019 by crispytoast

[PRW]

I live an expensive lifestyle and I want a partner who is at least somewhat financially equal to me.

That is your own doing. You are setting yourself up. It isn't the woman's fault that you live an expensive lifestyle. A smart woman wants a guy who lives within his means.

 

Women want to be equal yet want to be coddled. Still expect men to chase, still expect men to pay, but complain about gender roles and patriarchal society. Am I the only one who finds this ironic?

It seems ironic,...but only if you actually believe all aspects of it. I ignore the pop-culture politically correct complaints of feminism and take a more old school approach and in all my years I have never ran into trouble over it. Plus if a woman is caught up in and upset over gender roles and the patriarchy I'm not going to date her in the first place.

[Els]

 

Or maybe it's an LS /US thing and everyone else manages to deal with it just fine?

 

 

It's definitely a LS thing IMO. In real life I find that most people just pair up with a compatible partner. Some men actually enjoy paying, and those men tend to pair up with women who are attracted to men who pay. A lid for every pot and all that.

 

 

 

 

Other than offering to pay on a first date and meaning it (basic manners) it's up to the individual couples to do what they see fit anyway, imo.

 

 

I agree completely.

 

 

 

@Elswyth Saying "I wouldn't keep dating a man who doesn't pay on the first date" is essentially setting the expectation that "you'd better be ready to spend if you are going to date me."

 

 

 

I think there's a spectrum where it comes to preferences. The example you mention is definitely closer to the extreme, where the line gets blurred between "expectation" and "preference". A more moderate (and IMO, more common) type of preference is where they are more attracted to men who pay, but wouldn't make it a principle to ditch a man solely for not paying.

 

 

 

Again, this is no different from a man being more attracted to women who wear dresses or women who behave in a stereotypically feminine manner or any other sort of preference. Most heterosexual people have preferences in a partner that they themselves don't satisfy, I'm sure you do too.

[PRW]

Maybe more men need to put their foot down on the first date instead of wanting to appear 'gentlemanly'

 

I hope they do. It will leave behind a bigger selection of single women for me

[crispytoast]

That is your own doing. You are setting yourself up. It isn't the woman's fault that you live an expensive lifestyle. A smart woman wants a guy who lives within his means.

I do just fine for myself thank you very much. I work hard and play harder. If she wants to play the way I play, she'd better be able to pay her own way. You can have all the broke single women to yourself. Edited June 27, 2019 by crispytoast

[PRW]

It's not narrowing the conversation than to simply put it there than women have their own agency. A guy 'allowing' me to do anything is the one narrowing things down.

 

This doesn't need to be a gender thing. But it is.

You're misrepresenting my point. When I say allowing I mean I just don't argue with her about it. Then she pays her half. But it is my choice if I don't offer her a second date,...no one can tell me that I can't make that choice.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with allowing/denying "agency" or treading on rights or having a gender war. The birthday/Christmas gift is the best analogy,...it is rude and insulting to try to pay the person back who gave you the gift. Someone also mentioned that women often pay their half when they know they aren't that into the guy,...and if they aren't that into me,...I'm not going to offer a second date either.

[PRW]

I do just fine for myself thank you very much. I work hard and play harder. If she wants to play the way I play, she'd better be able to pay her own way. You can have all the broke single women to yourself.

Sounds good to me. I'll get all the broke ones and a large part of the rest since even the ones with money will dump you over that viewpoint. It's a win-win for me.

[crispytoast]

I do fine in life. My posts are in response to the attitudes I often see on this forum. Offering some perspective because it seems a lot of people here want their cake and to eat it too. This isn't aimed at any member in particular but if you want a man to be every form of perfect and pay for you but you also want to wear the pants in the relationship, there's a reason that you're on an internet forum asking why there aren't any good men left in the world. Same goes for the guys who want a f*kin super model that loves them for them but have difficulty respecting regular people out in the world.

Edited June 27, 2019 by crispytoast

[Shining One]

Again, this is no different from a man being more attracted to women who wear dresses or women who behave in a stereotypically feminine manner or any other sort of preference.

I don't think that wearing dresses is a valid comparison. I'd say a man being attracted to women who demonstrate strong domestic inclinations and skills would be a more apt comparison.

[Els]

I don't think that wearing dresses is a valid comparison. I'd say a man being attracted to women who demonstrate strong domestic inclinations and skills would be a more apt comparison.

 

 

IMO there is no difference, but sure, that analogy works too, if you prefer.

[Shining One]

IMO there is no difference, but sure, that analogy works too, if you prefer.

I differentiate between physical appearance attraction (which includes clothing) and attraction to actions that directly benefit the other party (paying for dates, providing domestic services). I know, I'm weird like that.

[Els]

I differentiate between physical appearance attraction (which includes clothing) and attraction to actions that directly benefit the other party (paying for dates, providing domestic services). I know, I'm weird like that.

 

 

Well, being attracted to a woman who behaves in a stereotypically feminine manner isn't always purely about physical appearance, either. It could be the way she talks and acts, her mannerisms, the tone of voice she uses, etc. Maybe for some men it might be the way she makes him feel in charge, or the way she nurtures him.

 

And especially for women, attraction is almost never purely about the man's physical appearance IMO. Although I would certainly be skeptical of the intentions of a woman for whom attraction was 100% related to whether he paid or not...

[Kitty Tantrum]

Logo, I give you a little mental nod now every time I listen to Weird Al's "Girls Just Wanna Have Lunch."

 

"She eats like she got a hole in her neck / and I'm the one who always gets stuck with the check"

 

As far as discrepancy in expectations between cultures, I think one component of this is that the USA kinda follows along behind Europe in terms of sexual/cultural revolution. It's not quite as deeply rooted here... yet, at least.

 

I'll agree with those complaining about hypocrisy: women who want to pick and choose between "equality" and "patriarchy" (for lack of simpler terms) on the basis of whichever best serves their own interest in any given situation... pretty much just shouldn't ever be taken seriously.

 

But there ARE still those of us who have a hankering for what many would call "patriarchal oppression" and won't settle for less. For us, being expected to do the feminist song-and-dance to appease a man (on the grounds that some OTHER women, who are NOT US, want things that way) is pretty insulting. The fact that I am effectively of a different culture than these other women doesn't make me a hypocrite; my principles are highly consistent.

[littleblackheart]

You're misrepresenting my point. When I say allowing I mean I just don't argue with her about it.

 

Sure... I guess I'll allow you to back pedal a little...

 

The birthday/Christmas gift is the best analogy,...it is rude and insulting to try to pay the person back who gave you the gift.

 

A date is a gift? Never heard of that before. Is this online dating coach parlance?

 

Regardless, all people can do is communicate clearly what they're after, especially online.

 

The rudest thing you can do is waste a stranger's time (and money), imo. When life views are aligned, no one gets annoyed and everyone's happy.