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:

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.

Making time for dates, planning dates, and being courteous are different than paying for everything.

It is essentially the same. Of course I'll pay for my parking and drive myself to the jazz club. I don't want a man infantilize me with paying for trivial expenses.
But if he invited there, it's presumed he gets the tickets and the drinks.
Honestly, it was never an issue for the men I date: everyone was making $500K to a few million a year. I also make plenty. I just hate them expecting me taking turns where I feel like they are juggling several women. Make up your mind, dude, then let's discuss our joint budget and expenses.

Oh my mind is made up: I wouldn’t touch you and your mindset with a ten foot pole, even though I could “afford” you.

It’s so shameful for a man to entertain himself by courting several women and also expect these women cover your dates. Aren’t you ashamed ?
I would be, if I was a man. The men control the future of the relationship not women. So you are fine sleeping with a woman who likely makes less, after she invites you to a restaurant, or a concert, and then just say “thank you but it won’t work for me ?”

I wouldn’t touch any man who basically is soliciting free short term sex or expects women pay for his philandering

So you're a prostitute I get it.

No, I’m normal. You are the male prostitute

I don't exchange sex for meals

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:

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.

Making time for dates, planning dates, and being courteous are different than paying for everything.

It is essentially the same. Of course I'll pay for my parking and drive myself to the jazz club. I don't want a man infantilize me with paying for trivial expenses.
But if he invited there, it's presumed he gets the tickets and the drinks.
Honestly, it was never an issue for the men I date: everyone was making $500K to a few million a year. I also make plenty. I just hate them expecting me taking turns where I feel like they are juggling several women. Make up your mind, dude, then let's discuss our joint budget and expenses.

Oh my mind is made up: I wouldn’t touch you and your mindset with a ten foot pole, even though I could “afford” you.

It’s so shameful for a man to entertain himself by courting several women and also expect these women cover your dates. Aren’t you ashamed ?
I would be, if I was a man. The men control the future of the relationship not women. So you are fine sleeping with a woman who likely makes less, after she invites you to a restaurant, or a concert, and then just say “thank you but it won’t work for me ?”

I wouldn’t touch any man who basically is soliciting free short term sex or expects women pay for his philandering

So you're a prostitute I get it.

No, I’m normal. You are the male prostitute

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

I disagree with so much of this it’s not even funny.

1. It’s “bean counting” not “bins counting.”
2. I would never date someone with kids, you will always be second string, so I’d never be in the position of “driving his kids around.”
3. It’s not about “looking liberal and financially independent,” it’s about BEING so.
4. Men and women are equal and I don’t date daddy figures. You can have those older, wrinkly ballsacks all to yourself. I’m too young for that shit.

Are you Eastern European? I feel fairly certain that you weren’t born here.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dated a lot in the early 2010s in London, UK. Everyone took turns paying, there was almost never any awkwardness. One exception was a vibe from a guy who wanted to pay but I could just sense he expected something in return. I made sure I paid for those dates (3-4) before breaking it off. I was totally correct in his case. I’d never expect a man to pay for me, ever. I also wouldn’t want to be a SAHM/wife nor would I be a good match for a man who didn’t do his share of household and family duties.

DH are a great team in every way and I can’t relate at all to these posts about transactional dating as if it’s the norm. It’s not. DCUM makes it seem like that but there are plenty of normal, nice, uncomplicated people out there.

2010 and 2025 is totally different, and dating in your 20s is totally different from dating later in life. I also alternated paying with twenty something boys when I dated in college. They were all in the same boat with me and we all were just innocent kids looking for love and fun.

But OLD created a meat market where men have all the power to abuse the system, soliciting multiple women for short term sex, instead of just hiring hookers.

Read this forum, again. How these men think, what they say about women their age not being “worthy” any investments and paying only for young bodies.

This is horrendous how dating has changed with OLD

Wait, men have the power in OLD?

High status men hold all of the power in OLD.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dated a lot in the early 2010s in London, UK. Everyone took turns paying, there was almost never any awkwardness. One exception was a vibe from a guy who wanted to pay but I could just sense he expected something in return. I made sure I paid for those dates (3-4) before breaking it off. I was totally correct in his case. I’d never expect a man to pay for me, ever. I also wouldn’t want to be a SAHM/wife nor would I be a good match for a man who didn’t do his share of household and family duties.

DH are a great team in every way and I can’t relate at all to these posts about transactional dating as if it’s the norm. It’s not. DCUM makes it seem like that but there are plenty of normal, nice, uncomplicated people out there.

2010 and 2025 is totally different, and dating in your 20s is totally different from dating later in life. I also alternated paying with twenty something boys when I dated in college. They were all in the same boat with me and we all were just innocent kids looking for love and fun.

But OLD created a meat market where men have all the power to abuse the system, soliciting multiple women for short term sex, instead of just hiring hookers.

Read this forum, again. How these men think, what they say about women their age not being “worthy” any investments and paying only for young bodies.

This is horrendous how dating has changed with OLD

Wait, men have the power in OLD?

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:

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.

Making time for dates, planning dates, and being courteous are different than paying for everything.

It is essentially the same. Of course I'll pay for my parking and drive myself to the jazz club. I don't want a man infantilize me with paying for trivial expenses.
But if he invited there, it's presumed he gets the tickets and the drinks.
Honestly, it was never an issue for the men I date: everyone was making $500K to a few million a year. I also make plenty. I just hate them expecting me taking turns where I feel like they are juggling several women. Make up your mind, dude, then let's discuss our joint budget and expenses.

Oh my mind is made up: I wouldn’t touch you and your mindset with a ten foot pole, even though I could “afford” you.

It’s so shameful for a man to entertain himself by courting several women and also expect these women cover your dates. Aren’t you ashamed ?
I would be, if I was a man. The men control the future of the relationship not women. So you are fine sleeping with a woman who likely makes less, after she invites you to a restaurant, or a concert, and then just say “thank you but it won’t work for me ?”

I wouldn’t touch any man who basically is soliciting free short term sex or expects women pay for his philandering

Hell no. I’m not letting a man “control the future of a relationship.” I have as much agency and say in a relationship as any man.

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:

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.

Making time for dates, planning dates, and being courteous are different than paying for everything.

It is essentially the same. Of course I'll pay for my parking and drive myself to the jazz club. I don't want a man infantilize me with paying for trivial expenses.
But if he invited there, it's presumed he gets the tickets and the drinks.
Honestly, it was never an issue for the men I date: everyone was making $500K to a few million a year. I also make plenty. I just hate them expecting me taking turns where I feel like they are juggling several women. Make up your mind, dude, then let's discuss our joint budget and expenses.

Oh my mind is made up: I wouldn’t touch you and your mindset with a ten foot pole, even though I could “afford” you.

It’s so shameful for a man to entertain himself by courting several women and also expect these women cover your dates. Aren’t you ashamed ?
I would be, if I was a man. The men control the future of the relationship not women. So you are fine sleeping with a woman who likely makes less, after she invites you to a restaurant, or a concert, and then just say “thank you but it won’t work for me ?”

I wouldn’t touch any man who basically is soliciting free short term sex or expects women pay for his philandering

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dated a lot in the early 2010s in London, UK. Everyone took turns paying, there was almost never any awkwardness. One exception was a vibe from a guy who wanted to pay but I could just sense he expected something in return. I made sure I paid for those dates (3-4) before breaking it off. I was totally correct in his case. I’d never expect a man to pay for me, ever. I also wouldn’t want to be a SAHM/wife nor would I be a good match for a man who didn’t do his share of household and family duties.

DH are a great team in every way and I can’t relate at all to these posts about transactional dating as if it’s the norm. It’s not. DCUM makes it seem like that but there are plenty of normal, nice, uncomplicated people out there.

2010 and 2025 is totally different, and dating in your 20s is totally different from dating later in life. I also alternated paying with twenty something boys when I dated in college. They were all in the same boat with me and we all were just innocent kids looking for love and fun.

But OLD created a meat market where men have all the power to abuse the system, soliciting multiple women for short term sex, instead of just hiring hookers.

Read this forum, again. How these men think, what they say about women their age not being “worthy” any investments and paying only for young bodies.

This is horrendous how dating has changed with OLD

Wait, men have the power in OLD?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I dated a lot in the early 2010s in London, UK. Everyone took turns paying, there was almost never any awkwardness. One exception was a vibe from a guy who wanted to pay but I could just sense he expected something in return. I made sure I paid for those dates (3-4) before breaking it off. I was totally correct in his case. I’d never expect a man to pay for me, ever. I also wouldn’t want to be a SAHM/wife nor would I be a good match for a man who didn’t do his share of household and family duties.

DH are a great team in every way and I can’t relate at all to these posts about transactional dating as if it’s the norm. It’s not. DCUM makes it seem like that but there are plenty of normal, nice, uncomplicated people out there.

2010 and 2025 is totally different, and dating in your 20s is totally different from dating later in life. I also alternated paying with twenty something boys when I dated in college. They were all in the same boat with me and we all were just innocent kids looking for love and fun.

But OLD created a meat market where men have all the power to abuse the system, soliciting multiple women for short term sex, instead of just hiring hookers.

Read this forum, again. How these men think, what they say about women their age not being “worthy” any investments and paying only for young bodies.

This is horrendous how dating has changed with OLD

Anonymous wrote:I dated a lot in the early 2010s in London, UK. Everyone took turns paying, there was almost never any awkwardness. One exception was a vibe from a guy who wanted to pay but I could just sense he expected something in return. I made sure I paid for those dates (3-4) before breaking it off. I was totally correct in his case. I’d never expect a man to pay for me, ever. I also wouldn’t want to be a SAHM/wife nor would I be a good match for a man who didn’t do his share of household and family duties.

DH are a great team in every way and I can’t relate at all to these posts about transactional dating as if it’s the norm. It’s not. DCUM makes it seem like that but there are plenty of normal, nice, uncomplicated people out there.