Should the guy always pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

If I am a female in 5th percentile based on salary and in 10th percentile based on looks I would have no self respect dating someone way behind myself in these categories. I dont care if others respect me or not for that. Many women are fine being single particular financially independent ones

You are probably not that percentile based on looks. A lot of women vastly overrate themselves in this regard.

Also, you need to be in the right percentile for the traits that your preferred partner deems desirable, not things you like or perceive about yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

If I am a female in 5th percentile based on salary and in 10th percentile based on looks I would have no self respect dating someone way behind myself in these categories. I dont care if others respect me or not for that. Many women are fine being single particular financially independent ones

You are probably not that percentile based on looks. A lot of women vastly overrate themselves in this regard.

Also, you need to be in the right percentile for the traits that your preferred partner deems desirable, not things you like or perceive about yourself.

If you really were in the top 10% looks, you would be taken.

I was probably top 10% looks, top 1% brains and top 5% income. I had tons of guys. Anywhere and everywhere I went I had guys. I realize how arrogant that sounds but it was true. I got asked out constantly by very decent men. They were all good looking, smart and successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

If I am a female in 5th percentile based on salary and in 10th percentile based on looks I would have no self respect dating someone way behind myself in these categories. I dont care if others respect me or not for that. Many women are fine being single particular financially independent ones

You are probably not that percentile based on looks. A lot of women vastly overrate themselves in this regard.

Also, you need to be in the right percentile for the traits that your preferred partner deems desirable, not things you like or perceive about yourself.

If you really were in the top 10% looks, you would be taken.

I was probably top 10% looks, top 1% brains and top 5% income. I had tons of guys. Anywhere and everywhere I went I had guys. I realize how arrogant that sounds but it was true. I got asked out constantly by very decent men. They were all good looking, smart and successful.

Who told you I wasn't taken? I got married twice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

If I am a female in 5th percentile based on salary and in 10th percentile based on looks I would have no self respect dating someone way behind myself in these categories. I dont care if others respect me or not for that. Many women are fine being single particular financially independent ones

You are probably not that percentile based on looks. A lot of women vastly overrate themselves in this regard.

Also, you need to be in the right percentile for the traits that your preferred partner deems desirable, not things you like or perceive about yourself.

If you really were in the top 10% looks, you would be taken.

I was probably top 10% looks, top 1% brains and top 5% income. I had tons of guys. Anywhere and everywhere I went I had guys. I realize how arrogant that sounds but it was true. I got asked out constantly by very decent men. They were all good looking, smart and successful.

Who told you I wasn't taken? I got married twice

I would guess will end up divorced and single.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Absolutely. The guy should always pay or try to pay. Now, it is up to the lady to take turns paying, go dutch or cook the guy dinner sometimes, but the unspoken default is that the guy will pay.

My DD was taught by me to always go on an inexpensive date first (coffee), always have her own transport and always pay her share. I did not want any guy to think that she owned them anything because they paid for the date. My DD dated extensively in college and was asked out a lot. She also always paid her share.

I wanted to add, having my DD pay her share (because she had our credit card) actually made her not take these men seriously or the relationship to progress more. She was not sleeping with any of these guys. The time when she started to let her boyfriend pay for her meals and dates was the time when we knew that she was serious about the guy. She did not give the honor of paying for her dinner to any random guy. But, she also did not go on multiple dates with the same person. After one date with a person she knew she was not into them. Having paid for her own dinner, she had no obligation to go out with them again, or even let the date linger if she was not feeling it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

I'm tall and generous, and I hate entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Absolutely. The guy should always pay or try to pay. Now, it is up to the lady to take turns paying, go dutch or cook the guy dinner sometimes, but the unspoken default is that the guy will pay.

My DD was taught by me to always go on an inexpensive date first (coffee), always have her own transport and always pay her share. I did not want any guy to think that she owned them anything because they paid for the date. My DD dated extensively in college and was asked out a lot. She also always paid her share.

I wanted to add, having my DD pay her share (because she had our credit card) actually made her not take these men seriously or the relationship to progress more. She was not sleeping with any of these guys. The time when she started to let her boyfriend pay for her meals and dates was the time when we knew that she was serious about the guy. She did not give the honor of paying for her dinner to any random guy. But, she also did not go on multiple dates with the same person. After one date with a person she knew she was not into them. Having paid for her own dinner, she had no obligation to go out with them again, or even let the date linger if she was not feeling it.

I think it's pretty sick that you know this much about your daughter's dating life. You might want to put the helicopter back on the landing pad, dad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

And yet I’m happily married to someone who continues to get the check. Weird how “lines in the sand” is a way to spell “standards”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chances are, regardless of how many checks you pick up or what your income is, you are going to contribute significantly more domestically than he is if you have kids. There's no deal you're making where if you don't let him pay for you he's going to support your career or wake up in the middle of the night. Maybe it will work out that way, maybe it won't. A lot of the costs of being egalitarian just don't kick in for men until after there are kids, so you can't know.

Given that, if you still want to split things evenly financially early on, go ahead. There are reasons to want that. But you're not buying yourself anything.

This. Your money is better off in your retirement account.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

And yet I’m happily married to someone who continues to get the check. Weird how “lines in the sand” is a way to spell “standards”

DH always has and still does always pay for me. Chivalry is not dead.

While my daughter is still young, I hope that one day she can meet a man who is worthy to buy my daughter dinner. We have plenty of money and she won’t need the guy to pay.

[Anonymous]

But shouldn't women continue to contribute more domestically given the view on here that men should continue to contribute more financially?

If you are into the traditional gender roles, then yes, the women will do far more at home and with the children and the man will work all day and pay for all expenses for the wife and children and the home and their lives.

Many of you are advocating for this model to continue - that men have a duty to pay for everything and therefore women will continue to take on the domestic and childcare roles and live off of the man. You will teach your sons to pay for the woman and your daughters to clean and look after kids and take the man's money.

One of my brothers and his wife are completely into traditional gender roles. He works, she doesn't. She looks after the home and children and he is the protector and provider. It works out great, both love this model and are happy with it. They each have their roles. I am sure he paid for all dates and she happily keeps house in return.

That isn't the model I want for anyone in my own family. To me equality means women contribute financially and men contribute with childcare and domestically. Both share in all aspects of adult life and adult responsibilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So women can’t prefer generous men, can’t prefer tall men…are there any preferences that don’t trigger you guys so badly?

Prefer whatever you want. But if you exclude 85% of men based on height, or 90% of men based on salary, and you’re hopelessly single, well you’re not going to be respected for your lines in the sand.

And yet I’m happily married to someone who continues to get the check. Weird how “lines in the sand” is a way to spell “standards”

DH always has and still does always pay for me. Chivalry is not dead.

While my daughter is still young, I hope that one day she can meet a man who is worthy to buy my daughter dinner. We have plenty of money and she won’t need the guy to pay.

And people wonder why women are so entitled these days.

They're being raised to be selfish monsters. Good lord.

[Anonymous]

People should probably look deeper into chivalry and the role of a woman in a chivalrous relationship before advocating for it. Women being obedient was part of chivalry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People should probably look deeper into chivalry and the role of a woman in a chivalrous relationship before advocating for it. Women being obedient was part of chivalry.

They don't care. They pick and choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But shouldn't women continue to contribute more domestically given the view on here that men should continue to contribute more financially?

If you are into the traditional gender roles, then yes, the women will do far more at home and with the children and the man will work all day and pay for all expenses for the wife and children and the home and their lives.

Many of you are advocating for this model to continue - that men have a duty to pay for everything and therefore women will continue to take on the domestic and childcare roles and live off of the man. You will teach your sons to pay for the woman and your daughters to clean and look after kids and take the man's money.

One of my brothers and his wife are completely into traditional gender roles. He works, she doesn't. She looks after the home and children and he is the protector and provider. It works out great, both love this model and are happy with it. They each have their roles. I am sure he paid for all dates and she happily keeps house in return.

That isn't the model I want for anyone in my own family. To me equality means women contribute financially and men contribute with childcare and domestically. Both share in all aspects of adult life and adult responsibilities.

I'm not advocating for anything. I'm saying that you can want whatever model you want, you can 'not be into' traditional gender roles, but you will probably still be doing more domestic labor than your husband. And if you tell your daughter that she can control this by picking up the check at dinner, you are setting her up to be disappointed.