Anonymous wrote:It’s no different than any other dating norm, and all of dating is basically an audition for a relationship. Should a woman always dye her hair, should a man always refrain from interminable sports stories, should a man always hold the door, should a woman always walk to the inside of the sidewalk. Some of them are adhered to more closely at the beginning of dating and slip over time, but no one is being forced to do any of them, they do them to make a positive impression.

Who said I can't tell my sports stories on a date? Where else can I brag about the triple double I got against a guy who was almost in the league

Anonymous wrote:In my culture, yes. There's also no expectation the woman has to have sex.

People don’t have cultures. They have personalities and value systems. But you, yourself, don’t have a “culture.”

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

No one has to wax or wear makeup. These are individual choices.

I am happy paying for every date; but once I find out she waxes that would be the deal breaker. Full bush or minimal trimming around the edges only.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think men "should have" to pay. If men want to or a woman wants to only date a man who pays, that's their option.

The reason this issues vexes so many people (there's some variation of this question at least once a month on this forum) is that gender norms are in flux and there is no consensus on what the appropriate roles are. The lack of consensus is evidenced by 18 pages in this thread!

People being people, will cherry pick the gender norms that benefit them. Men and women do this. Men may want to their wife to work, but might expect her to do most of the cooking. Women want to be equal partners, but expect men to pay for dates & ask them out.

I think it's unwise for women to judge men over whether he pays or not, how could he possible know if you're a woman who believes in equal expectations of sexes or some other interpretation of gender roles. So if a guy accepts your offer to pay, I don't think that tells you much other than he's taking your offer seriously.

Well, I’m a traditional woman looking for a gentleman, so actually this would tell me we probably aren’t a good match.

It’s not about gender norms so much as finding someone that clicks with you personally.

It’s no different than any other dating norm, and all of dating is basically an audition for a relationship. Should a woman always dye her hair, should a man always refrain from interminable sports stories, should a man always hold the door, should a woman always walk to the inside of the sidewalk. Some of them are adhered to more closely at the beginning of dating and slip over time, but no one is being forced to do any of them, they do them to make a positive impression.

Anonymous wrote:In my culture, yes. There's also no expectation the woman has to have sex.

What culture is that….the Jane Austen culture?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a fair amount of women who "date" someone they have absolutely no intention of being with just to get a couple of free meals.
Men have caught on to this.
.
In some cases, they excuse themselves "to the restroom" , walk out the door, and leave the check behind for her to pay.

Really? There are many men who claim to want a relationship when all they want is sex.

It goes both ways.

News flash: Sex is free

It's really not. Maybe free in terms of money, but when men lied to me for sex and then bailed, it had a huge emotional toll on me and caused quite a bit of damage.

Money isn't the only thing with value. Emotions, intimacy, self-esteem, all of those have value as well.

Beautifully stated pp!

+2

Potential ramifications of sex - contracting a STI, becoming pregnant, and possibly being raped - are very impactful
too, economically and otherwise

Okay, so when you contract an STI, become pregnant, or are raped you can seek financial redress. Asking some guy you barely know to take financial responsibility for these injustices is insane.

Please let me know what state allows a woman to sue a man for contracting an STI or terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Who said sue? When I had an unwanted pregnancy, I asked the father to pay for half of the abortion, and he did. You must truly be sleeping with some bottom feeders not to be able to ask your partners for help in a situation like that. Fix your picker.

Because that’s what “redress” means. Not optional, partial, help. Nice that he paid for half of your abortion, did you get any sick time back? Did he get any of the side effects of medicine for you? No? Then sorry, you already paid more than half.

Father of what?

Whoever does the asking, pays. Simple as that. Once you're settled into the relationship and you know finances better, you can adjust accordingly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a fair amount of women who "date" someone they have absolutely no intention of being with just to get a couple of free meals.
Men have caught on to this.
.
In some cases, they excuse themselves "to the restroom" , walk out the door, and leave the check behind for her to pay.

There really aren’t. I promise you the free food is not worth your company.

You don't know my company and there are women that have so little integrity and self respect that they do this.
Actually, I think I may have found one right now.

Sorry dude I’m married. I never paid for meals while I was dating and men who were boorish never got second dates. My husband still picks up the check whenever we go out.

Sorry dudette,, your husband picks up the check because its both of your money.

I always have offered to split. I once dated someone who literally made 10x my salary and still I offered to split the check. He never took me up on it, thank god, or I’d have been completely broke from our dinners alone.

Yes, yes he should. Period.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think men "should have" to pay. If men want to or a woman wants to only date a man who pays, that's their option.

The reason this issues vexes so many people (there's some variation of this question at least once a month on this forum) is that gender norms are in flux and there is no consensus on what the appropriate roles are. The lack of consensus is evidenced by 18 pages in this thread!

People being people, will cherry pick the gender norms that benefit them. Men and women do this. Men may want to their wife to work, but might expect her to do most of the cooking. Women want to be equal partners, but expect men to pay for dates & ask them out.

I think it's unwise for women to judge men over whether he pays or not, how could he possible know if you're a woman who believes in equal expectations of sexes or some other interpretation of gender roles. So if a guy accepts your offer to pay, I don't think that tells you much other than he's taking your offer seriously.

I agree. I am someone who wouldn't date a man who insists on paying but there is no one for him to know that when we first meet. He has no idea if I am into traditional gender norms or if I am into equality. I don't care if he pays or offers to pay or wants to pay. I only have an issue if he resists (beyond basic social politeness) when I pay or offer to pay or want to pay another time. What I care about is his attitude. If he sees women as equal and therefore thinks it is perfectly fine for women to also pay - great. The exact logistics don't matter. of who pays what and when. If he has a no, men should pay and insists on paying because that is the man's role and women's role is to x,y,z (look pretty, cook, clean or whatever) then I have no interest. What I look for is a man who just doesn't care who pays because he seems both people are equals. In my dating pool, that isn't that hard to find. The more traditional, gentlemen types who think men should pay are pretty easy to exclude out as they usually hold other traditional beliefs and that comes through pretty fast. There are also enough traditional women out there who share their values that it isn't that hard to find who you are looking for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are a fair amount of women who "date" someone they have absolutely no intention of being with just to get a couple of free meals.
Men have caught on to this.
.
In some cases, they excuse themselves "to the restroom" , walk out the door, and leave the check behind for her to pay.

Really? There are many men who claim to want a relationship when all they want is sex.

It goes both ways.

News flash: Sex is free

It's really not. Maybe free in terms of money, but when men lied to me for sex and then bailed, it had a huge emotional toll on me and caused quite a bit of damage.

Money isn't the only thing with value. Emotions, intimacy, self-esteem, all of those have value as well.

Beautifully stated pp!

+2

Potential ramifications of sex - contracting a STI, becoming pregnant, and possibly being raped - are very impactful
too, economically and otherwise

Okay, so when you contract an STI, become pregnant, or are raped you can seek financial redress. Asking some guy you barely know to take financial responsibility for these injustices is insane.

Please let me know what state allows a woman to sue a man for contracting an STI or terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

Who said sue? When I had an unwanted pregnancy, I asked the father to pay for half of the abortion, and he did. You must truly be sleeping with some bottom feeders not to be able to ask your partners for help in a situation like that. Fix your picker.

Because that’s what “redress” means. Not optional, partial, help. Nice that he paid for half of your abortion, did you get any sick time back? Did he get any of the side effects of medicine for you? No? Then sorry, you already paid more than half.

I don't think men "should have" to pay. If men want to or a woman wants to only date a man who pays, that's their option.

The reason this issues vexes so many people (there's some variation of this question at least once a month on this forum) is that gender norms are in flux and there is no consensus on what the appropriate roles are. The lack of consensus is evidenced by 18 pages in this thread!

People being people, will cherry pick the gender norms that benefit them. Men and women do this. Men may want to their wife to work, but might expect her to do most of the cooking. Women want to be equal partners, but expect men to pay for dates & ask them out.

I think it's unwise for women to judge men over whether he pays or not, how could he possible know if you're a woman who believes in equal expectations of sexes or some other interpretation of gender roles. So if a guy accepts your offer to pay, I don't think that tells you much other than he's taking your offer seriously.

In my culture, yes. There's also no expectation the woman has to have sex.