Anonymous wrote:All these male and female responses from people talking about all the ways dates should go, about how men should want to pay and women should want to be spoiled. Sounds like a lot of advice from people with a lot of dating experience. Maybe you all are doing something wrong if all of those early stage dates just keep leading to more early stage dates with new people.

Perhaps take advice from people who date less and got married young.

That's not how I would characterize it, but I have made some comments that you're probably interpreting that way. I got married at 24. Does my opinion now seem more valid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?

NP. No, I don’t think that men paying for the dates while first few months dating means you’re always going to be on unequal footing and you can expect that the man will always think his only obligation is bringing home money. That makes no sense to assume or anticipate that. Showing an eagerness to romance a woman is not the same as an entitlement to have a wife who is your cook and housekeeper. Weird way of thinking.

I think OP’s point is if you start out defaulting to traditional expectations (I.e. the man should always pay), part of that bargain is accepting expectations for traditional gender roles across the board. Especially someone like OP who seems to want a sugar daddy.

And I think that idea is erroneous. Wanting one traditional thing doesn’t not mean you want all “traditional” things. And this is especially true if the woman plans on living in a two-income household. If a man wants a relationship involving traditional gender roles that means he expects to be the breadwinner forever. Most SAHMs don’t complain about the idea that the bulk of the burden of cooking, cleaning, and childcare falls on them. I know I don’t.

If you wanted sahm from the get go, and your dh wanted to be primary earner from the get go, then you’re exactly the point. You both showed your true colors on your first dates by setting up traditional gender roles. These traditional roles would be a red flag in the dating stage for most women. But men insisting on paying for dates (or even being happy to do so) …. I mean, it’s not a surprise when this guy wants you to cook thanksgiving dinner for his whole family five years later while he watches foot ball and naps.

I’m Gen X, and for people of my generation it is a bit of a test (this is for hetero relationships). All thing being equal - I always offered to pay, but if he took me up on it, this relationship was going to go nowhere. After a few dates, then I would bring takeout, cook dinner, even buy tickets to something if that’s what I was planning for us to do. But in the initial few dates, if he didn’t pay, he was stingy and I can’t live with stingy. Also same if he shorted the tip - that’s really a sign of bad character.

All these male and female responses from people talking about all the ways dates should go, about how men should want to pay and women should want to be spoiled. Sounds like a lot of advice from people with a lot of dating experience. Maybe you all are doing something wrong if all of those early stage dates just keep leading to more early stage dates with new people.

Perhaps take advice from people who date less and got married young.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?

NP. No, I don’t think that men paying for the dates while first few months dating means you’re always going to be on unequal footing and you can expect that the man will always think his only obligation is bringing home money. That makes no sense to assume or anticipate that. Showing an eagerness to romance a woman is not the same as an entitlement to have a wife who is your cook and housekeeper. Weird way of thinking.

I think OP’s point is if you start out defaulting to traditional expectations (I.e. the man should always pay), part of that bargain is accepting expectations for traditional gender roles across the board. Especially someone like OP who seems to want a sugar daddy.

And I think that idea is erroneous. Wanting one traditional thing doesn’t not mean you want all “traditional” things. And this is especially true if the woman plans on living in a two-income household. If a man wants a relationship involving traditional gender roles that means he expects to be the breadwinner forever. Most SAHMs don’t complain about the idea that the bulk of the burden of cooking, cleaning, and childcare falls on them. I know I don’t.

I always offered and alternated paying with guys I dated. Not doing so feels like I owe them something else and that’s just a gross feeling. I do appreciate little acts of chivalry like opening doors and letting me go through first, adjusting my chair at a restaurant, holding my coat, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?

NP. No, I don’t think that men paying for the dates while first few months dating means you’re always going to be on unequal footing and you can expect that the man will always think his only obligation is bringing home money. That makes no sense to assume or anticipate that. Showing an eagerness to romance a woman is not the same as an entitlement to have a wife who is your cook and housekeeper. Weird way of thinking.

I think OP’s point is if you start out defaulting to traditional expectations (I.e. the man should always pay), part of that bargain is accepting expectations for traditional gender roles across the board. Especially someone like OP who seems to want a sugar daddy.

Anonymous wrote:I know a guy who makes $$$ who gets upset when the woman does not offer to pay. For the first few dates, fine. After a handful, he starts getting bothered.

Its like A Bronx Tale. There's the test you give which is the new version of the door test. Cars now have automatic doors so she's not going to unlock your door for you. But on a date, even the first date you can get the bill and see if she reaches for her wallet. If she doesn't then you take the advice of Sonny, "Listen to me, kid. If she doesn't reach over and lift up that button so that you can get in, that means she's a selfish broad and all you're seeing is the tip of the iceberg. You dump her and you dump her fast."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?

NP. No, I don’t think that men paying for the dates while first few months dating means you’re always going to be on unequal footing and you can expect that the man will always think his only obligation is bringing home money. That makes no sense to assume or anticipate that. Showing an eagerness to romance a woman is not the same as an entitlement to have a wife who is your cook and housekeeper. Weird way of thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?

Male here

I don't see the two related at all. I think between dating and marriage there is enough time to know what you are getting into, have discussion about future rolls, how those change when you have kids, and continue that conversation. The issue is no one discusses until the animosity is there.

I always paid for dates. The problem that arises from men paying is you have men who expect something more than a cordial conversation on the next date after paying for 1,2,3,4 dates etc. That can set the tone for a transactional relationship. Paying for a date with expectation that sex is the "thank you" is the big issue. And my guess is this is what makes a lot of woman feel more comfortable chipping in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

It’s weird you think the paragraph you describe above remotely describes feminism.

Let me guess: you also think it’s a sign of feminism for a women to have the right to choose to be a stay at home mom?

NP. Let’s hear what you think feminism is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a guy who makes $$$ who gets upset when the woman does not offer to pay. For the first few dates, fine. After a handful, he starts getting bothered.

Does it matter if the guy makes 50k or 500k?

Guy I’m thinking of probably makes $500-800k per year.

Dh and I were both in grad school when we started dating. Dh paid for most dates. I know I would pick up take out or buy groceries. I’m not sure how I would handle dating a guy who I knew made a lot who would not want to pay for me. But if he was broke or made equal or less than me, I would of course not expect him to pay for everything.

To me, the biggest red flag in this story is that your DH was taking you in dates in grad school that involved paying, and he was paying for two. Where was the money coming from? Loans? His parents? Neither of those are good answers for someone you are screening for marriage material. Every dollar he’s paying to take you in dates in grad school is likely a dollar of debt the two of you will have to pay off together later in life. Not sexy.

My husband paid for all our dates when he was in undergrad and living off student loans. The horror! Our dates were ice cream, burgers, the cheap movie theater, etc. Yes those dollars were a debt we had to pay interest on, and he decided that the dollar be paid for ice cream that he would later have to pay back as two dollars was worth it. When we were officially dating he put 80 dollars in cash in an envelope and that was our date money for the month, and when it was gone it was gone. After he (and I) graduated from law school we did just fine paying off our student loans.

You can show a woman a good time and still be fiscally responsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

It’s weird you think the paragraph you describe above remotely describes feminism.

Let me guess: you also think it’s a sign of feminism for a women to have the right to choose to be a stay at home mom?

Anonymous wrote:I know a guy who makes $$$ who gets upset when the woman does not offer to pay. For the first few dates, fine. After a handful, he starts getting bothered.

Does it matter if the guy makes 50k or 500k?

Guy I’m thinking of probably makes $500-800k per year.

Dh and I were both in grad school when we started dating. Dh paid for most dates. I know I would pick up take out or buy groceries. I’m not sure how I would handle dating a guy who I knew made a lot who would not want to pay for me. But if he was broke or made equal or less than me, I would of course not expect him to pay for everything.

To me, the biggest red flag in this story is that your DH was taking you in dates in grad school that involved paying, and he was paying for two. Where was the money coming from? Loans? His parents? Neither of those are good answers for someone you are screening for marriage material. Every dollar he’s paying to take you in dates in grad school is likely a dollar of debt the two of you will have to pay off together later in life. Not sexy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are all feminists until the check comes. Right ladies!

Feminism doesn’t mean you can’t be treated to a meal or entertainment— by men or women. It’s weird you think that.

In the early dating stages, paying for dates is a way to show generosity. Stinginess is one of the biggest turn-offs and it’s hard with only a short history to show your partner that you’re a generous person, so this is the easy way. Later on in dating when you can do things like bring them soup and Gatorade if they’re ill or sit with them waiting for vet results it’s not as relevant because you have other ways to show it.

And then you wonder why we have all these threads on dcum about ladies in ten year marriages where they’re furious that the women handle all the work around the house, cooking, cleaning and taking care of their “man baby” who thinks his only obligation to the home is to bring a pay check.

You all see that if you start on unequal footing, you’ll likely stay that way, right?