To pay or not to pay?

[englishwoman41]

Im 41 and i would not date anyone who expected me to pay the bill or split it. When i was younger, i would always go dutch or share but not anymore. Theres always another guy who will pay for me and if he didnt then i would just walk out of the restaurant and jump in a cab home.

Age makes me more choosy lol.

[FifthLine]

Im 41 and i would not date anyone who expected me to pay the bill or split it. When i was younger, i would always go dutch or share but not anymore. Theres always another guy who will pay for me and if he didnt then i would just walk out of the restaurant and jump in a cab home.

 

True - like P.T. Barnum said "there's a sucker born every minute".

 

I saw an article in a newspaper this week advising women how to pick up guys in clubs. A line it it represented this attitude that too many women have: '... and even if you don't hook up with a guy at least you can expect free drinks.'

[Batya33]

It's too bad those women give women like me (who are more than willing to contribute, treat, whatever works for the couple) take advantage of a man's generosity. Yes, I still expect the man to pay on at least the first date with a few exceptions and I would be surprised if he didn't offer to pay on the next two or three dates. I went on a second date once where he invited me to dinner. Shortly before the date, I was invited to a benefit. I invited him to the benefit and told him in advance that I would treat for both tickets (even though he was very wealthy), which I did. In those instances where it is partly "my" invitation and the plan is pricey (in this case tickets were $85/person) I think it would be presumptuous to expect the guy to pay (although nice if he offers, just not necessary).

[FifthLine]

Yes, I still expect the man to pay on at least the first date with a few exceptions and I would be surprised if he didn't offer to pay on the next two or three dates.

What is it that gives women a sense of entitlement to this special treatment? Why, in these days of equality, should a woman expect that it is the man's job to ask and the man's job to pay?

 

If the sexes are equal, as we have come to accept, then what entitles you to the expectation that the man will pay? Is it a sense of superiority to men? Or that they are somehow supplicants for your favour? If it is necessary for a man to demonstrate his generosity of spirit and emotion by demonstrating his generosity in spending his money why should that same rationale not apply to women?

 

I have often seen women make this or similar statements and I have yet to see any modern justification for it that makes sense (other than the 'honeypot' reason which seems to me to be even more demeaning to women than it is to men.)

[Batya33]

I actually don't think men and women are equal in the sense you refer to. I do expect equal pay for equal work but that is not because I believe men and women are "equal" for all purposes, at all times. For example, I think, for the most part, women are better nurturers of children than men are (and so should be the one to stay home full time if there is a choice between woman and man), and there are other differences.

 

If a man invites me out on a date that he plans, he should offer to pay. He is asking me out to spend time with him. If I asked him out, I would pay. That seems fair to me. After a few dates, typically "we" plan the date even if he continues to do the asking and I think at that point, if it is becoming more of a steady thing, the woman should treat if not every other time, close enough to that.

 

Absolutely I appreciate when a man treats and I let him know that. If he has no money to take me out, then he should plan something free or very inexpensive. I probably wouldn't date a man who was not financially stable since I am but he certainly does not need to be wealthy and where I live there are plenty of free and fun activities.

[FifthLine]

Yes, I understand - i see this attitude from quite a few women. It's called 'convenient equality' whereby the woman reserves to herself the right to pick and choose those aspects of equality that most appeal to her but objects vociferously if a man wishes to pick and choose to suit himself.

 

If the choices clash - then she will demand the right to veto his by using manipulative terms like 'manners' and 'gentlemen' and 'courtesy'. Or they will use sex as a weapon to get their own way.

 

There are some men who will allow themselves to be used in this way and others who don't even know it is happening. But there are increasing numbers of men who want women who understand the true meaning of equality - that it does not mean equal opportunity to exploit one another for whatever reason but equal opportunity to love and nurture one another (and their children) in a mutually respectful and balanced relationship.

[charley]

Do you remember the 1970s? I was in grade school then, but I clearly remember the battle of the sexes as the ERA and women's rights movements were really worked up into full man hating mode those days and it even extended to and affected little boys (me). And yes, they did have some legitimate reasons to be p'd off, but not with little boys. Yet even as an 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 year old boy I was many times called a "male chauvanist pig" or sometimes just "pig" for short for trying to be polite and hold a door or some other manners thing my grandma had taught me. I learned that manners were something I should do only for elderly women. I'm only just now relearning to use manners for younger women. As an 8 and 9 year old, I had to learn to cook at home for myself and my dad because my mom, like other housewives of the time, was on strike (literally). I think that was a national housewife strike thing. It's hard to remember exactly since I was 8 and 9 at the time. My dad was hopeless as a cook. So my grandmas taught me to cook. Grandmas never went on strike. This national battle of the sexes stuff went on from when I was 8 to 12, which was basically the last half of the 1970s. It affected many or most households and society in general, even kids.

 

Women eventually got their rights by the end of the 70s. During the 80s and 90s women calmed down so much towards men that I think ladies today are very reasonable and nice.

 

I have observed some of the things the post above complains of, but I'm not complaining. I'm very easy to please and I'm easy going about this stuff since it's SO MUCH BETTER than it used to be. Women today of all ages are so much nicer, mellower, and easier going than I remember in the past. The gals from 20 to early 30s seem especially reasonable and fair minded.

 

Actually, I don't think guys today have much to complain about at all compared to the past. Women today (on average) seem more reasonable and easier to get along with than ever before in my life. They even want to pay for half of many things now and/or take turns paying, holding doors, etc. Since they pay half (in many cases) they don't have as extravagant tastes as they used to. While I haven't dated in a while, I do have several platonic women friends who I go out with every week. So I see how reasonable and fair women are now.

 

If equality isn't perfect these days, it's better than ever before and I think improving all the time, especially with the younger generations who seem to have the equality thing nearly perfected and without the animosity of the past generations. So what do guys today have to complain about? Very little compared to the past. I personally have no complaints today. I have many complaints about the past, but it's over and best to let it go. Women today are awesome. Any guy who survived the 70s battle of the sexes should know that women today are wonderful. Not perfect maybe, but wonderful in most cases. They seem nearly perfect to me, but I have the perspective of the past, which helps me appreciate the present.