Should the guy always pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that men who want to take advantage of “equality” in splitting the check don’t necessarily want to put in equal work in the other aspects of the relationship/household.

The problem is that women who want to take advantage and not be equal in splitting the check don't necessarily want to put in equal work to be a financial partner in the relationship. They don't share the financial responsibility for the relationship or household.


They should just add traditional gender roles option to dating apps. Let the men who want to pay and the woman who want to be pretty for their man - meet up. Then the people for whom those qualities are important in a mate can find each other. Let the gentlemanly and ladylike people find each other easier and let those of us who want more equality rule them out faster.

You can't have your cake and eat it but not share the cost. Either have traditional roles or have modern style equality.

This might be what you think but there are plenty of men who are happy to pay for the dates and have an equitable marriage. A man insisting women pay for dates isn't some sign of commitment to feminism. I think it makes you sound like a jerk.

If he insists on paying then the ship has already sailed on an equitable marriage as he has shown he doesn't respect me as an equal partner.

It shouldn't be about either insisting. To me, equality is that it is a non issue - someone pays, who cares who it is. Those are the men I am attracted to. Not someone who insists on paying or on me paying.

And if he’s ok with you splitting larger expenses like mortgage, joint vacations etc further down the road? If he continues picking up the check at restaurants but otherwise we are equal, I don’t see how it’s him not seeing me as an equal partner financially. Picking a check is sort of same thing as telling me how nice I look that evening, bring coffee to bed, gifting me lingerie or jewelry, giving flowers. Types of things men do to show their sexual adoration and desire nothing related to family budgeting really.

In a relationship where both are seen as equals, a woman can do nice things for their partner as well to show their adoration and interest - it just isn't one directional. If a woman wants to pick up the check to treat him to dinner to show she cares - she should be able to do that as well.

If you think the actions are different for men and women but it is still an equal relationship, what is it women should always be doing when dating to show the man they care and are interested and are putting in effort? I am just not about there being a list of man actions and woman actions that are distinct. For me respect as an equal means we can both do any action to show how we feel. If he wants to cook dinner - great - I am not going to insist that no, I am the woman and must do the cooking and equally if I want to pay - great, he needs to not insist that no he is the man and he must pay.

Ha, surely you know this. Surely you're familiar with what women who like men do that does not involve paying for dates (although I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman paying for dates).

When a woman likes a man, she might (not always, but might, all women are different) bring him cookies, make him dinner, give him nice gifts for his birthday or just because, laugh at al this jokes, text him a lot, rearrange her schedule to spend time with him, and dress really nicely when she is around him. Women almost always do these things. Too much probably. I know I scared off at least one guy I was dating with showing too much interest, and I didn't have to spend a dime.

The difference for me is that there isn't a list for men and a list for women. Picking up a check, telling them how nice they look that evening, bring coffee to bed, gifting clothes or jewelry, giving flowers, bring cookies, make dinner, give nice gifts for a birthday or just because, laugh at their jokes, text a lot, rearrange their schedule to spend time with them, and dress really nicely. In my world, both men and women can do any of the above.

I am not a girly girl woman - never have been so since I already don't fall into traditional gender roles, it has never been something I valued. I have also been very independent so I have no interest in being financially taken care of. I don't find that dynamic endearing at all.

Sure, they can! You asked what women should do when they show effort, and I showed you some examples, but of course men and women can and should do non-monetary things to show interest.

You keep implying that wanting to be pursued, which would include not handling dates, means you're into traditional gender roles, not independent, a girly-girl, not interested in an equitable partnership, etc. I'm trying to explain to you that no, you can prefer that a man pick up the check without being a girly-girly dependent traditional woman.

I think the issue is that if there is an expectation that one gender will do this, it's problematic.

Do you consider that for everything or just paying?

I don’t see men wearing makeup or grooming— which is an expectation of women.

Men don’t do any childbearing of breastfeeding— expectation of women.

Women are expected to take long maternity leave and make career sacrifices at much higher rates than men.

So when you want identical expectations of both genders I’ll find it compelling that men and women should pay for dates equally. Until then I’ll think you’re cheap or (at best) lacking nuance in what constitutes equality. If you have children you have probably said this to them— equal and fair are not always the same.

I’m a woman. I always paid for myself on dates. I don’t dress up or wear makeup or do my hair because I hate doing those things. Never did them on dates, I’d pick an activity like hiking or rock climbing where I could dress however I wanted.

I chose not to make career sacrifices despite the intense pressure to. I also chose not to breastfeed.

Things can be equal if you make the choice to keep it equal.

Uh, congratulations on choosing work over your kid?

Thanks! I worked hard for a couple years and am now in a place where I work 6 hours a day and can take off the entire summer to be with my kids while making more money than most. 100% worth it, I never have to worry about money and I spend more time with my kids than most parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My other brother works full time and does 90% of everything childcare related and about half the domestic work (he does all cooking and laundry). Maybe it is where I live, but I am just not surrounded by men who come home and do nothing. Picking up the kids at school and probably 60% of the parents doing pick up are men. Kids activities on the weekend and it is mostly dads there. I am sure there are many individual men who do nothing other than bring home the paycheck and then retire to their man cave or play video games but I don't actually know anyone like that at all. Every man in my circle - be it male colleagues talking about the meals they cook or needing to leave early to pick up a sick kid at daycare or the tournament they coached on the weekend or friends and families that I know and see are involved in domestic labour. I will never teach my daughters that a man is the plan or to try and use men for their money or to be financially dependent on a man. You don't create change by reinforcing tradition.

[Anonymous]

Who are these women that all think they’re top 1% for looks and income?? If you’re on DCUM, you’re not. I work with women who are legit top 1% in looks and wealth, and I promise they ain’t on here. You’re probably like me - the prettiest in your high school class, maybe did some modeling, now make 6 figures. Sorry, but we’re nowhere near the top.

Also pretty horrible to teach your daughters to think this way. My parents drilled it into me that because I was beautiful and came from a wealthy family, I needed to find an attractive, wealthy man. It screwed me up BAD and it took me until my mid-30s to learn what it actually important in a partner.

[Anonymous]

It depends on the situation. We were both broke when dating so we switched off or each paid our own way. No big deal. I paid for a lot of things early on. He's paid for everything for the last 15 years and I can buy what ever I want (within reason) and he never says a thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that men who want to take advantage of “equality” in splitting the check don’t necessarily want to put in equal work in the other aspects of the relationship/household.

The problem is that women who want to take advantage and not be equal in splitting the check don't necessarily want to put in equal work to be a financial partner in the relationship. They don't share the financial responsibility for the relationship or household.


They should just add traditional gender roles option to dating apps. Let the men who want to pay and the woman who want to be pretty for their man - meet up. Then the people for whom those qualities are important in a mate can find each other. Let the gentlemanly and ladylike people find each other easier and let those of us who want more equality rule them out faster.

You can't have your cake and eat it but not share the cost. Either have traditional roles or have modern style equality.

This might be what you think but there are plenty of men who are happy to pay for the dates and have an equitable marriage. A man insisting women pay for dates isn't some sign of commitment to feminism. I think it makes you sound like a jerk.

If he insists on paying then the ship has already sailed on an equitable marriage as he has shown he doesn't respect me as an equal partner.

It shouldn't be about either insisting. To me, equality is that it is a non issue - someone pays, who cares who it is. Those are the men I am attracted to. Not someone who insists on paying or on me paying.

And if he’s ok with you splitting larger expenses like mortgage, joint vacations etc further down the road? If he continues picking up the check at restaurants but otherwise we are equal, I don’t see how it’s him not seeing me as an equal partner financially. Picking a check is sort of same thing as telling me how nice I look that evening, bring coffee to bed, gifting me lingerie or jewelry, giving flowers. Types of things men do to show their sexual adoration and desire nothing related to family budgeting really.

In a relationship where both are seen as equals, a woman can do nice things for their partner as well to show their adoration and interest - it just isn't one directional. If a woman wants to pick up the check to treat him to dinner to show she cares - she should be able to do that as well.

If you think the actions are different for men and women but it is still an equal relationship, what is it women should always be doing when dating to show the man they care and are interested and are putting in effort? I am just not about there being a list of man actions and woman actions that are distinct. For me respect as an equal means we can both do any action to show how we feel. If he wants to cook dinner - great - I am not going to insist that no, I am the woman and must do the cooking and equally if I want to pay - great, he needs to not insist that no he is the man and he must pay.

Ha, surely you know this. Surely you're familiar with what women who like men do that does not involve paying for dates (although I don't think there is anything wrong with a woman paying for dates).

When a woman likes a man, she might (not always, but might, all women are different) bring him cookies, make him dinner, give him nice gifts for his birthday or just because, laugh at al this jokes, text him a lot, rearrange her schedule to spend time with him, and dress really nicely when she is around him. Women almost always do these things. Too much probably. I know I scared off at least one guy I was dating with showing too much interest, and I didn't have to spend a dime.

The difference for me is that there isn't a list for men and a list for women. Picking up a check, telling them how nice they look that evening, bring coffee to bed, gifting clothes or jewelry, giving flowers, bring cookies, make dinner, give nice gifts for a birthday or just because, laugh at their jokes, text a lot, rearrange their schedule to spend time with them, and dress really nicely. In my world, both men and women can do any of the above.

I am not a girly girl woman - never have been so since I already don't fall into traditional gender roles, it has never been something I valued. I have also been very independent so I have no interest in being financially taken care of. I don't find that dynamic endearing at all.

Sure, they can! You asked what women should do when they show effort, and I showed you some examples, but of course men and women can and should do non-monetary things to show interest.

You keep implying that wanting to be pursued, which would include not handling dates, means you're into traditional gender roles, not independent, a girly-girl, not interested in an equitable partnership, etc. I'm trying to explain to you that no, you can prefer that a man pick up the check without being a girly-girly dependent traditional woman.

I think the issue is that if there is an expectation that one gender will do this, it's problematic.

Do you consider that for everything or just paying?

I don’t see men wearing makeup or grooming— which is an expectation of women.

Men don’t do any childbearing of breastfeeding— expectation of women.

Women are expected to take long maternity leave and make career sacrifices at much higher rates than men.

So when you want identical expectations of both genders I’ll find it compelling that men and women should pay for dates equally. Until then I’ll think you’re cheap or (at best) lacking nuance in what constitutes equality. If you have children you have probably said this to them— equal and fair are not always the same.

I’m a woman. I always paid for myself on dates. I don’t dress up or wear makeup or do my hair because I hate doing those things. Never did them on dates, I’d pick an activity like hiking or rock climbing where I could dress however I wanted.

I chose not to make career sacrifices despite the intense pressure to. I also chose not to breastfeed.

Things can be equal if you make the choice to keep it equal.

My son is 17 and he already can tell for sure he likes girls who wear nice dresses, do their hair, smell good perfume and wear nice shoes. Men like feminine women by at large, not a "pal" type GF. I hope that me teaching him to pay for dinners will help him to be successful with women he likes.

I am feminine, like to wear nice dresses and high hills to dates, like for the car door to be opened for me. At the same time I am a professional woman with good income and a nice house. It's not mutually exclusive.

Also, as it was discussed many times on this forum: refusing to accept that women are sacrificing more by nature than men to produce off-spring and take care of this offspring is actually placing women in far unequal position vs higher paid men

Oh noes, a 17 year old isn’t attracted to me! Whatever will I do??

I’ve never had any trouble attracting men, including the DCUM standard of multi-millionaire. Usually I stand out a ton - the last wealthy guy I dated said I was a massive relief from the 24 year old skanks he usually attracts. I took him to a farm and we played with goats on our first date.

So weird that people think the only options are “girly” and “butch”. Just be FUN and interesting, and you’ll have no trouble finding men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are these women that all think they’re top 1% for looks and income?? If you’re on DCUM, you’re not. I work with women who are legit top 1% in looks and wealth, and I promise they ain’t on here. You’re probably like me - the prettiest in your high school class, maybe did some modeling, now make 6 figures. Sorry, but we’re nowhere near the top.

Also pretty horrible to teach your daughters to think this way. My parents drilled it into me that because I was beautiful and came from a wealthy family, I needed to find an attractive, wealthy man. It screwed me up BAD and it took me until my mid-30s to learn what it actually important in a partner.

Last time I checked income and net worth data I was in top 1% for single women in my age group, about top 5% for households (eg 2 earners). I make 350-400k gross a year, NW $4mm. Business owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these women that all think they’re top 1% for looks and income?? If you’re on DCUM, you’re not. I work with women who are legit top 1% in looks and wealth, and I promise they ain’t on here. You’re probably like me - the prettiest in your high school class, maybe did some modeling, now make 6 figures. Sorry, but we’re nowhere near the top.

Also pretty horrible to teach your daughters to think this way. My parents drilled it into me that because I was beautiful and came from a wealthy family, I needed to find an attractive, wealthy man. It screwed me up BAD and it took me until my mid-30s to learn what it actually important in a partner.

Last time I checked income and net worth data I was in top 1% for single women in my age group, about top 5% for households (eg 2 earners). I make 350-400k gross a year, NW $4mm. Business owner.

Top 1% of wealth is $11 million.

I mean, I guess it’s lower if you’re a single woman in her 40s. But that’s nowhere near the TOP 1%. Those women are on a whole other planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. And the Venn diagram of men who pay for their dates and men who do half the household labor is larger than you think, because they care about women. The cheap men aren’t in it for “equality” they’re just…cheap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, for the people making a “feminist” argument for why men shouldn’t pay, do you think women should spend money on dates? Waxing, makeup, those shouldn’t be one sided expenses for you bastions of egalitarianism right?

Because this is really just a lot of cheap men pretending feminism and, whine funny, it’s kind of sad.

Makeup and waxing stay with you when the date is over, and if you didn’t date, you’d be doing it anyway.

[Anonymous]

I guess a related question is to prenup or not to prenup? In my case I came into the marriage with a fair amount of money and she came in with some debt. I thought about a prenup but ultimately decided not to. And while things can always change suddenly, at this point 20 years later I'm glad I decided against it.

Just as splitting a check can take away from the romance of a date, a prenup can take away from the romance of a marriage. It's the same principle, just several orders of magnitude greater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, for the people making a “feminist” argument for why men shouldn’t pay, do you think women should spend money on dates? Waxing, makeup, those shouldn’t be one sided expenses for you bastions of egalitarianism right?

Because this is really just a lot of cheap men pretending feminism and, whine funny, it’s kind of sad.

Makeup and waxing stay with you when the date is over, and if you didn’t date, you’d be doing it anyway.

And the dude would be eating anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My other brother works full time and does 90% of everything childcare related and about half the domestic work (he does all cooking and laundry). Maybe it is where I live, but I am just not surrounded by men who come home and do nothing. Picking up the kids at school and probably 60% of the parents doing pick up are men. Kids activities on the weekend and it is mostly dads there. I am sure there are many individual men who do nothing other than bring home the paycheck and then retire to their man cave or play video games but I don't actually know anyone like that at all. Every man in my circle - be it male colleagues talking about the meals they cook or needing to leave early to pick up a sick kid at daycare or the tournament they coached on the weekend or friends and families that I know and see are involved in domestic labour. I will never teach my daughters that a man is the plan or to try and use men for their money or to be financially dependent on a man. You don't create change by reinforcing tradition.

There is a huge difference between totally useless and actually doing half of the work in the area. Many women who had no expectation that they would wind up pulling most of the weight domestically, and who have husbands who say they're all in, nonetheless find themselves there.

And absolutely plan to make your own money. But letting a guy pick up the check is not 'using a man for his money.' That's nuts. Men aren't going through this kind of self-torture because they enjoy an attractive, feminine date, and women shouldn't drive themselves crazy if they like a guy who takes them out. It actually really doesn't mean that much in the scheme of things. Or split the check - whatever.

[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.

Neither does anyone who didn’t pay for dinner. The issue is confidence and self respect not whether you had to buy your own meal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are these women that all think they’re top 1% for looks and income?? If you’re on DCUM, you’re not. I work with women who are legit top 1% in looks and wealth, and I promise they ain’t on here. You’re probably like me - the prettiest in your high school class, maybe did some modeling, now make 6 figures. Sorry, but we’re nowhere near the top.

Also pretty horrible to teach your daughters to think this way. My parents drilled it into me that because I was beautiful and came from a wealthy family, I needed to find an attractive, wealthy man. It screwed me up BAD and it took me until my mid-30s to learn what it actually important in a partner.

Last time I checked income and net worth data I was in top 1% for single women in my age group, about top 5% for households (eg 2 earners). I make 350-400k gross a year, NW $4mm. Business owner.

Top 1% of wealth is $11 million.

I mean, I guess it’s lower if you’re a single woman in her 40s. But that’s nowhere near the TOP 1%. Those women are on a whole other planet.

$11mm is for households (most of which are much older families of two earners, not singles) . NW statistics makes sense by the age group. Yes I am early 40s single female.
I bet the women you are referring to are all married and you consider gross net worth of their household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess a related question is to prenup or not to prenup? In my case I came into the marriage with a fair amount of money and she came in with some debt. I thought about a prenup but ultimately decided not to. And while things can always change suddenly, at this point 20 years later I'm glad I decided against it.

Just as splitting a check can take away from the romance of a date, a prenup can take away from the romance of a marriage. It's the same principle, just several orders of magnitude greater.

I don't see much purpose in prenups unless it's to provide more protection to one spouse vs what's already in laws. Marriage is dynamic: she could be a medical student with debt today, and making millions as surgeon in 15 years.I actually know such a family: he was 20 years older and had about 10mm she had law school debts. She out-earned him and contributed more into joint assets during marriage and he retired. What was his before marriage is his by law anyways.

You did the right decision