Biggest red flags in dating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:what do you think about woman who expect their man to pay for everything and never go 50/50. If you are a man and would do it then what do you need or want to see in her?

You are grossly taking your question out of proportion or reality. 1. There is a difference between never contributing or starting contributing when people are exclusive 2. Counting each time 50/50, Venmo back and forth, going Dutch looks very transactional to me as a woman. I have a companion like that with whom I go out to book clubs, opera and jazz at times. But I feel nothing sexual towards a transactional man who always bins counts. 3. There are ways she can contribute without going 50/50 in restaurants in front of everyone to show how "liberal" and financially independent she is. Travel, contribute to expensive joint purchases like cars, taking on more household or childcare duties (some GFs drive their partners' kids to sports practices, never heard of it?) 4. Men and women are not equal. In dating, a man is almost ALWAYS older, more professionally established and better situated in life. It would be unfair to ask a younger woman to pay 50/50 with someone more financially successful, anyway. If this is what he wants, he should date women his age or older, and of similar financial stamina

Wow, there are a ton of assumptions built in there. It makes no sense to me that the rate of contribution, whatever that may be, would change dramatically at exclusivity.

It absolutely does. I won't contribute anything to a man "test driving" me . He gets casual sex which is plenty and cheaper than hiring an escort. I'm nothing to him, a number on his bed post. I know how men on OLD think and operate- men told me themselves. A woman must be nuts and really desperate to contribute financially until he commits to only seeing her. They will only think she's desperate if woman starts organizing and paying for dates.
Men are the most practical and transactional creatures out there: they vote for women with their wallet.

It’s probably for the best you aren’t contributing. You need to save your money for therapy.

No, I'm just realistic - the world is harsh for women out there. A lot of men are using OLD for casual encounters so they can avoid paying for escorts and sleep with 'clean" women

[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:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to 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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to pay

You have like 20 different rationales for this and none make sense. Let’s start with the fact that if you feel you are at risk of getting an STD you need to address that directly and not by sleeping with men on the basis that they pay for dinner.

[Anonymous]

I don't care about a couple of casual dates but if I am paying for it all then she doesn't have much say in the relationship. I can't believe some women want to act and treated as feminist but don't have courage to contribute anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't care about a couple of casual dates but if I am paying for it all then she doesn't have much say in the relationship. I can't believe some women want to act and treated as feminist but don't have courage to contribute anything.

You are taking it out of context. Never paying anything and contributing after exclusivity are two different things. I am an equal, smart partner in a long term relationship.
Just see no point in me paying when he’s still treating it casually.
It reduces my chances of meeting men who abuse OLD - the main reason.

[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:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

We wouldn’t be exclusive after a couple of dates so I would assume she is also seeing other people. I’m also not sure how that factors into who is paying/contributing.

Your assumption is wrong: women in general are way less promiscuous as men. Most women don't sleep with a man unless they see a relationship potential. Women are monogamous. She's likely just sleeping with one man at a time and chatting with other guys online and doing coffee dates, while you decide
So this is the answer. I won't be paying for ANY man anything until we discussed finances and became exclusive (at his request). Dates don't need to be expensive. When dating multiple people usually they see me once or twice a week. If he's unable to cover the cost of basic drinks at a bar once a week, our invite me to a cheap jazz club, or if it takes him more than 2 months to decide on exclusivity - I'm just not a good match for him. Most relationships like that end at second-third month for that reason, not for financial reasons; the men juggle multiple women. Those men who want to be serious, start touching base on exclusivity in 4-5 dates and 2-3 nights together. They begin including me in activities with their friends, co-workers, plan a weekend together. So the timeline of me beginning financially contributing is much shorter.

so, you want to be used as a test drive and then decide to contribute? You are already setting base as not equal in relationship and he would always have an upper hand.

[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:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

We wouldn’t be exclusive after a couple of dates so I would assume she is also seeing other people. I’m also not sure how that factors into who is paying/contributing.

Your assumption is wrong: women in general are way less promiscuous as men. Most women don't sleep with a man unless they see a relationship potential. Women are monogamous. She's likely just sleeping with one man at a time and chatting with other guys online and doing coffee dates, while you decide
So this is the answer. I won't be paying for ANY man anything until we discussed finances and became exclusive (at his request). Dates don't need to be expensive. When dating multiple people usually they see me once or twice a week. If he's unable to cover the cost of basic drinks at a bar once a week, our invite me to a cheap jazz club, or if it takes him more than 2 months to decide on exclusivity - I'm just not a good match for him. Most relationships like that end at second-third month for that reason, not for financial reasons; the men juggle multiple women. Those men who want to be serious, start touching base on exclusivity in 4-5 dates and 2-3 nights together. They begin including me in activities with their friends, co-workers, plan a weekend together. So the timeline of me beginning financially contributing is much shorter.

so, you want to be used as a test drive and then decide to contribute? You are already setting base as not equal in relationship and he would always have an upper hand.

Not at all. Men value those women in whom they are invested the most - with their time, money, emotions. I’m highly educated and truly an equal to most educated men. It’s clear from the start to them what I would bring to table

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to pay

It seems like having a guy pay for everything is a power trip for you. It lets you prove to yourself that you still have the “pretty privilege” and are still desirable to high-quality men. But at the same time you describe man is wanting to use you like a dumpster so it seems like you’re not really convinced yourself that you still have it like you might have 10 or 20 years ago.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to pay

It seems like having a guy pay for everything is a power trip for you. It lets you prove to yourself that you still have the “pretty privilege” and are still desirable to high-quality men. But at the same time you describe man is wanting to use you like a dumpster so it seems like you’re not really convinced yourself that you still have it like you might have 10 or 20 years ago.

That allows me to limit my dating to only those men for whom I’m very attractive. I don’t care about the universe of men. Only one.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

We wouldn’t be exclusive after a couple of dates so I would assume she is also seeing other people. I’m also not sure how that factors into who is paying/contributing.

Your assumption is wrong: women in general are way less promiscuous as men. Most women don't sleep with a man unless they see a relationship potential. Women are monogamous. She's likely just sleeping with one man at a time and chatting with other guys online and doing coffee dates, while you decide
So this is the answer. I won't be paying for ANY man anything until we discussed finances and became exclusive (at his request). Dates don't need to be expensive. When dating multiple people usually they see me once or twice a week. If he's unable to cover the cost of basic drinks at a bar once a week, our invite me to a cheap jazz club, or if it takes him more than 2 months to decide on exclusivity - I'm just not a good match for him. Most relationships like that end at second-third month for that reason, not for financial reasons; the men juggle multiple women. Those men who want to be serious, start touching base on exclusivity in 4-5 dates and 2-3 nights together. They begin including me in activities with their friends, co-workers, plan a weekend together. So the timeline of me beginning financially contributing is much shorter.

so, you want to be used as a test drive and then decide to contribute? You are already setting base as not equal in relationship and he would always have an upper hand.

Not at all. Men value those women in whom they are invested the most - with their time, money, emotions. I’m highly educated and truly an equal to most educated men. It’s clear from the start to them what I would bring to table

Entitlement?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to pay

It seems like having a guy pay for everything is a power trip for you. It lets you prove to yourself that you still have the “pretty privilege” and are still desirable to high-quality men. But at the same time you describe man is wanting to use you like a dumpster so it seems like you’re not really convinced yourself that you still have it like you might have 10 or 20 years ago.

That allows me to limit my dating to only those men for whom I’m very attractive. I don’t care about the universe of men. Only one.

Why do you assume that willingness to pay for everything is a sign of how attractive you are to someone? I would imagine there are guys who are willing to pay for everything and guys who aren’t, so you are necessarily missing out on anyone who falls into the latter. I have trouble believing their guys out there that would say for this really attractive woman I’ll pay for everything but this other person I’m more than happy to date her as long as she pays at least some of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anyone who thinks Trump, Biden or Harris were good candidates.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

And, lastly, do you date women who are at least 5 years younger than you or your age peers of similar financial standing, do you know/disciss their financial situation after date 3, and do you expect a relationship or casual dating?

No, people I date are not necessarily at least five years younger. I probably make more than most people I’ve gone out with, but some have made more and others are somewhat comparable. We wouldn’t discuss detailed finances, but if you know someone’s job you have a sense of income.

I’m ultimately looking for a relationship, but why would casual v relationship influence who pays?

It absolutely does make a difference. My body is not a dumpster and can't sustain casual dating. I have a serous beauty routine in my 40s, I test between partners, take vaginal estrogen, treatments, dress out to go out on dates with a man. Yes, men also gave me STDs couple times (not serious not something like ureaplasma or e-coli), as they tend not to be particular careful with protection or how their fingers move around if it's just a casual encounter. Once I was getting $400 bills in mail for a urinary infection I got from someone I dated for 2 months and wasn't exclusive with. Men are less prone to that, they don't need to invest as much into their looks and sexual health.
I do only date for a relationship and make it clear. If a man only wants casual until he decides on relationship, he better organizes really nice dates for me to leave my house and meet them.

Wow. I’m not sure what to say except for that your dating strategy does not appear to be working for you, on a number of levels.

While I enjoy being treated as much as the next person, I generally find things go best when I treat men as, you know, people, and not stereotypes. I am an adult so I can pay for myself or take turns, just like with any other adult person. And figuring out a menu of activities and entertainment that meets both parties financial resources and interests is kind of a key part of dating.

I also don’t really get the logic of forcing men to pay for everything on the grounds that you are still casual. if I date casually it will be for fun and with no real obligations to the other person - so why would I expect them to pay for me, and why would I let them decide what to do?

I guess there are some good matches out there for the woman who has regressive views on men paying for everything, but seems like you are going to end up a trad wife or something.

I have a lot of dates offers (planned by men) so nobody is "forced" to ask me out. They are happy with. I don't abuse my pretty privilege and only accept dates when I'm really interested and see a future potential.
As I explained before, women are less protected than men - body-wise, safety, and less paid than men. You can pay for your casual dates but I won't. And yes, I was in a long marriage to a successful man (I always worked as well, and we had a joint budget for everything). I also had a LTR after divorce and money was never an issue.
I suppose if I was dating younger, less financially privileged men than me, I would be asking them out. But everyone I ever dated seriously was more financially successful than me and at least 5 years older. It's simply unfair to expect a less economically successful party to pay

It seems like having a guy pay for everything is a power trip for you. It lets you prove to yourself that you still have the “pretty privilege” and are still desirable to high-quality men. But at the same time you describe man is wanting to use you like a dumpster so it seems like you’re not really convinced yourself that you still have it like you might have 10 or 20 years ago.

That allows me to limit my dating to only those men for whom I’m very attractive. I don’t care about the universe of men. Only one.

Why do you assume that willingness to pay for everything is a sign of how attractive you are to someone? I would imagine there are guys who are willing to pay for everything and guys who aren’t, so you are necessarily missing out on anyone who falls into the latter. I have trouble believing their guys out there that would say for this really attractive woman I’ll pay for everything but this other person I’m more than happy to date her as long as she pays at least some of the time.

You literally just need to read this forum. Guys in their 50s bragging about dating much younger, that the women who are their age peers are all "expired" and they should only be paying for young bodies. And that 40-50s women should be just grateful to be used as free "holes" to stick their Ps. Dusgusting truth from men and a way to understand their transactional approach to OLD. Yes, it is absolutely an indicator if someone is interested in growing a connection when that person plans their free time around you, is courteous and plans the dates.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:for me, if a woman is angry or can't cover her bills or expect you to pay every time.

which bills?

Her own bills or pay her share if you are living together or anything. One of the other turn-offs are when women expect men to pay for everything not because he love or care about you but because they are supposed to do that. Really? Most of these gold diggers do end up alone or just move from one sucker to another.

I'd rather pay an escort for sex than pay a gold digger.

Isn’t it essentially the same ? And how valid are these male concerns about women paying for themselves ? All women I know are married work and contribute all their salaries into joint big pot. From that joint pot families cover joint expenses
At the stage of daring when men aren’t really committing to anything long term and could be test driving several women there is non point for the woman to pay. No joint expenses, no future investment plans etc.
I pay my own bills as a single woman (apartment, car, my solo travel, food etc) and support my child. Before any man joins my life with a joint budget - he’s planning and paying for dates. The only thing there I would contribute with someone I don’t live with is expensive joint travel

This probably dramatically reduces your dating pool. It’s also a very antagonistic stance. I know someone who says the same, so I know it’s not just you, though. It does seem to me to be a kind of self-protective hostility.

My friends who aren't married have this stance and I haven't seen it impacting their dating pool. They have more guys asking them for dates than they can fit in. But they are also pretty and thin so it works for them.

I mean I can see this for the first few dates, but it boggles the mind to think of it continuing past the early dating stage unless there is a massive income differential and the man wants to do fancy things only. Even then I can’t figure out how a grown woman would think it was appropriate to literally never pick and activity and pay for it. Like you never say “let’s see this movie, I’ll get the tickets”?

I only start contributing after he asked for exclusivity, introduced me to family and friends. Why they heck I would be inviting for dates a guy who might be dating several other women? Of course they invite me, and I have no deficit of men wanting to ask me out. Dating different people usually goes for 3-6 months and then we either part ways or become exclusive. Once exclusive, and he officially becomes my BF I will start contributing with small things: get him small items for the kitchen for us to cook together; invite for a workout to my gym; grab coffee to go, get him a scarf in winter, cook him dinner. E.g small gestures that show my affection and care for him.
If the man wants to move to something serious like living together then we would need to discuss joint budget and expenses. Before that I don't even know what they make and don't disclose how much I make. I usually do date upper SEC men, so it's not an issue for them to cover dates for a few months.

That would be a hard no for me. I could afford to do this, but I have no interest in doing so. I don’t mind paying for the first 2-3 dates (although I don’t think men should necessarily have to do this) but once we get past the very initial stage, I expect the person I am dating to contribute.

It doesn’t have to be 50-50, especially if there is an income disparity. She could pick up movie tickets after I get dinner. Or she could make dinner if going out was too expensive.

Do you date multiple women at the same time? After 2-3 dates with one of them, do you expect her to invite her and yet continue paying for all other women?

We wouldn’t be exclusive after a couple of dates so I would assume she is also seeing other people. I’m also not sure how that factors into who is paying/contributing.

Your assumption is wrong: women in general are way less promiscuous as men. Most women don't sleep with a man unless they see a relationship potential. Women are monogamous. She's likely just sleeping with one man at a time and chatting with other guys online and doing coffee dates, while you decide
So this is the answer. I won't be paying for ANY man anything until we discussed finances and became exclusive (at his request). Dates don't need to be expensive. When dating multiple people usually they see me once or twice a week. If he's unable to cover the cost of basic drinks at a bar once a week, our invite me to a cheap jazz club, or if it takes him more than 2 months to decide on exclusivity - I'm just not a good match for him. Most relationships like that end at second-third month for that reason, not for financial reasons; the men juggle multiple women. Those men who want to be serious, start touching base on exclusivity in 4-5 dates and 2-3 nights together. They begin including me in activities with their friends, co-workers, plan a weekend together. So the timeline of me beginning financially contributing is much shorter.

so, you want to be used as a test drive and then decide to contribute? You are already setting base as not equal in relationship and he would always have an upper hand.

Not at all. Men value those women in whom they are invested the most - with their time, money, emotions. I’m highly educated and truly an equal to most educated men. It’s clear from the start to them what I would bring to table

Entitlement?

Entitlement is when a "high value" man is juggling a "pride" of younger women without any commitments and also expects them to pay for the dates.