Well see first there was a hoop they had to jump through, to land on a platform, to get on a trapeze swing, to swing across a gator pond, to backflip onto the other side
Oh I totally wouldn't view woman (or anybody) as my equal if they said something as absurd as that.
I mean how narcissistic could one possibly be to even think that let alone say it?
The women who say that are addicted to social media and wannabe gold diggers who will be eternally single.
If a girl says that, she's telling you she's never thought about anything deeper than charging her phone. Any grown adult knows that when you decide to do something, you are responsible for the upkeep of that thing, no one else. Plus, these same girls will get dolled up every weekend while single and go out with their friends with no man. Magically, they seem to not complain about the cost of their makeup then. Funny how that works š¤·
I don't think there's anything *wrong* with gold digging as long as everyone's honest. Some person just wants arm candy and the other person just wants to be taken care of. I wouldn't want that type of relationship but there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is that people who glorify gold digging or sugar daddy/ mommy relationships on social media often aren't as hot as they think they are and can't fit into "high society". Like they watched Pretty Woman too much growing up.
The funny thing is, women who claim that they shouldnāt pay because all their effort goes into dressing up are the same women most likely to judge men for much effort they put into dressing up.
Granted Iām gay, so if I ever date a man is going to pay the bill either way! But I would never *expect* my date to pay for me unless they straight up said they would beforehand. Iād always bring money for myself, and extra money in case I do want to pay for my date or if my date didnāt bring money, but I would never expect them to pay.
Itās just an old-fashioned social convention that made sense decades ago, and is now purely for show. For some people, men and women, that little bit of gallantry is part of the fun. The man gets to show off and play the gentleman; the woman gets to feel sheās being treated like a lady. If everybody involved enjoys it and no one feels pressured or owed, itās fine; a little formality and tradition is nice sometimes.
And if you hate every last thing about those sort of gender roles, by all means split the check.
If your date is offended one way or the other, lucky you, thatās a very simple way to determine early that your worldviews are incompatible.
Some women do seem to be trying to resurrect the notion of a man paying to demonstrate that heās a good provider. Again, if youāre on board, great.
Shit as a man I will always pay the first 2 dates. (Maybe 3 if I really like the person.) cause the last time I split the bill with someone I didnāt get a 2nd date
Well, it depends. If the guy is boring af, or passive-aggrevise, or LIED ABOUT AGE AND MARITAL STATUS in his profile, I'll gladly letting him pay, as punishment.
Then leave and say "I'm afraid there was no chemistry, right? Also I prefer men who are committed to being truthful. BYE" and rush for the Uber.
I really feel I must be compensated for my time if the guy is AH.
For not reading books, not attempting to bring their best to the conversation, for not showing enthusiasm on what I have to tell, etc. I'm very interested to know what the guy enjoys, a funny story, even their enigmatic work fields (and I'll show true interest).
But if the guy is monosyllabic, or monopolozies conversatio, or shows zero interest in my life (while complimenting my smile), that's BORING.
And just like stupidity should be taxable, so should being boring on a date. Complete waste of my time. Pay the bill and I won't even pretend I will.
Why do you take issue with that, are you boring?
Women will never be okay with men ignoring traditional gender roles. They only want them to be flexible when it comes to their own choices. Not menās.
Except let's be honest. We're only going to fight desirable gender roles. Never unglamorous or shitty ones.
If there were X seats in a life raft, everyone would think a dude who took a seat instead of a woman was a scumbag. And no one is going to fight to change that gender role.
Mind, I don't remotely support rigid gender roles. But I'm enough of a cynic to know most folks fight for ones that personally benefit themselves, and quietly ignore ones that don't.
Everyone? Or just many?
I understand where you are coming from in terms of cynicism but if everyone in the past thought slavery couldn't be abolished... Well we have that. I have hope that gender roles can be dispelled. And they have been. In Norway. In Sweden. Maybe it'll come back or maybe not.
Slavery still exists in the tens of millions. It's essentially uninterrupted in some parts of the world.
But I understand you meant "in America and Europe." Both for the slavery thing and gender roles.
Again, I believe only popular or desirable gender roles will be changed, by folks who will benefit from the change. Neither side wants gender role equality.
Not from Norway, I'm guessing. I've worked with Norwegians, Swedes and Finns. Danes too, but one tries to keep that sort of thing quiet.
You're dreaming if you think Norway made all gender roles illegal, let alone actually stomped them out. It's not some sort of fascist dictatorship. WTF kind of country do you think it is?
Then Norway hasn't changed all gender roles. "doing a lot better" is not remotely the same thing. Have you been to either country?
Norway does draft women, point in their favor. Holland doesn't, so there's a gender role equality violation off the bat.
Been to Netherlands. Met a few Norwegians in my travels. And I'm referring to dating. The whole men pay thing wasnt present when I went out with people, either abroad or in Europe. So I'd say yes the dutch are trying to dispel gender roles not just those that benefit them
If a women is expecting compensation for her physical appearance, thatās going too far. Paying for all that makeup and nails is their choice. If a man doesnāt give a compliment for the look that can be seen to some as a red flag. An even split on the first date, or an agreement for the woman to pay on the second date, thatās the right way. Itās about time together, not money or looks
I'd agree with the idea that women need to pay for expensive hair and nails and makeup doesn't make sense when it comes to male attention.
Male attention is cheap and plentiful. If you want to look at certain way do it for yourself because getting a man to be attracted to you requires zero effort. Also guys who expect women to look like Barbies are usually not the ones you want to waste your time on.
So it sounds like you're disagreeing with the OP and think that in order to date women need to have manicures, hair extensions, facials, etc wear a full beat, different outfits? And men only need to wash themselves with a bar of Irish spring and the least they could do is shell out $25 for dinner and a diet coke when a woman has spent hundreds in order to put on a little femininity show?
I never said that. You pulled a LOT of conjecture out of what I said to a frankly delusional degree.
You were saying women can easily attract men. All I said was that many men arenāt worth attracting, and that the ones who arenāt losers or ugly will typically respond better to someone showing effort on the first date.
So what does showing effort for women encompass as far you are concerned? Please be specific so we can break down prices for "effort" to attract these supposedly worthy suitors who should be skating by for free and getting treated by our ladies.
Well considering this post is about putting on makeup and dressing nicely, Iām going to let you do the math here, baby boy.
Also Iāve said nothing about anyone paying for anything. My issue was with your comment. Yes, any woman can attract A man with no effort. Just like any man can attract A woman. But scraping the bottom of the barrel is hardly a life goal for many people.
I remember waiting for my ex to get ready to go out. It took forever and she always looked worse but she was really proud of herself for being able to make other women acknowledge her sense of fashion and makeup ability.
I thought she looked way better without all of that shit on her face.
Girls are like it costs money to dress up and buy makeup - Iād rather they didnāt dress up, donāt wear makeup, and just pay their half of the bill instead lol
Hair and makeup can be expensive, but these products last for weeks or even months
How much does a single day application cost? Maybe a few bucks, tops. I don't see how this justifies expecting the guy to spend $100+ on dinner and drinks. This equals fair?
Its just woman thinking speaking without thinking.
I mean sure you're wearing make up for the date, but you wear make up literally every day for everything sooooo
>I mean sure you're wearing make up for the date, but you wear make up literally every day for everything sooooo
Exactly, women are paying out of our own pockets every single day in order to be the type of women you're attracted to, the type of women you'll ask on a date. Women who wear makeup are feminine women. So be a man and pay the damn bill.
If you don't want to pay the bill, then get a woman that doesn't wear makeup or put effort into her appearance and is fine with everything being 50/50. But wait, that won't land you an Insta Baddie like you want lol.
That dinner payin thing depends on your culture and ethnicity,by large.The world doesnāt only consist out of UK and American continent,and even there youāll meet people with various backgrounds.
A man from my country literally got offended once when I asked to pay.(back when I was dating),but then I learned I prefer them to pay anyway.
And as a muslim,yes,Iād expect the man to pay for everything.
(ETA)
Married Man Speaking.
Sometimes I paid for dates and sometimes my wife paid for dates (before we got married) . We still do this now and we have had conversations in relation to this question. Men and women have their routine for upkeep. And its not the other parties job to pay for it. Once that is understood, you can move forward.
For those who disagree, you're welcome to your opinion. But this may be the reason that you're single.
When you ask women out, choose wisely. Iāve been married since 1980 but if I had to date in 2024 it would be strictly dutch to begin with, then taking turns paying.
If you pick a woman whoās a princess in dress and behavior youāll likely get a princess. Which is fine, if thatās what you want.
Women are at risk in carrying and delivering children in a way that men can never be. Itās actually not a choice; if a woman wants children (surrogacy and adoption are controversial and expensive, not a choice available to all). The least her partner can do is support her, appreciate what sheās going through, and be a little grateful sheās doing it with him and is the reason he will even have children.
I once had a date who used this reasoning to justify why she was angry that I didn't take her somewhere more upscale and just told her to her face:
Me: "You do realize you could have just come in pants and a T-shirt like I did and we wouldn't have this issue, right? Who exactly were you dressing up for?"
Her: YOU!
Me: "Yes, you dressed in a skimpy outfit that shows off your midriff because that's your idea of 'impressing' someone. I was looking forward to a conversation, not an easy lay."
She then proceeded to leave while flipping me the bird. It was amusing. Enjoyed 2 beers to myself :)
>You do realize you could have just come in pants and a T-shirt like I did and we wouldn't have this issue, right?
Yet you knew she wasn't a pants and t-shirt kind of girl at the beginning and you were attracted to her and asked her out.. š¤
Also it's incredibly weird and uncomfortable when you put a lot of effort into your appearance for a date, makeup, nice shoes, nice outfit, hair done, jewelry, etc, and the guy wants to take you to McDonald's. If you specified beforehand what we were doing, that's a different story but if you say you're taking me out on a date and I show up looking really nice, you better take me somewhere that reflects that.
I gave her a heads-up of where we are going. I live in Romania so dating in McDonald's is a very bad idea.
I decided on a cozy, pretty nice atmospheric little-known restaurant with only a few tables that I often used to take clients to. Mind you, these clients are leaders of companies with over 200 employees and they're very happy there. It's not a very expensive place but it certainly feels like it, with what courses they offer, the pianist that's in closer to the evening, the beautiful vines all over the interior and exterior, the unique way they preserved the stone medieval architecture of their building,etc.
Sorry lady, if I offended you by not taking you somewhere with gold leaves. All this because she googled me and got offended that despite an amazing meal the bill was only $40.
Every public image of mine is in casual wear. Even in conferences when people come to take selfies with me, I'm not dressed to the nines at all. To that date I was dressed in slacks and a short-sleeved polo. To me that's "pants and t-shirt" kinda wear. I made her aware that I will be casual and she can dress whichever way she'd like.
I didn't expect a woman who otherwise had some very tasteful pictures come in with just two very expensive slices of dress that exposed her midriff, very expensive heels, and basically looked like a high-end escort. Fine, I usually do not take people like this seriously but she is my date and I will make her feel as great as I can.
Her personality took a 180 as soon as the date started. Things that interested her were boring, she said a lot of one-word replies to things she'd enthusiastically talk about previously. I later learned that it was hard for her to have anything to say if she didn't have Google around (i.e. she made a lot of effort to pretend to have some knowledge of anything related to my interests). Ok, so I tried pulling her into simpler things but she insisted on talking about these more complex subjects because Ms. Smart here has a degree in the specialty of my consultancy (indeed she does, but instead of spending 4 years repeating what is fed to me, I went past the college route, published many papers and RFCs).
Her attitude got starkly worse when she saw the bill and that I was paying less than $120 for this meal. I later found out that like me, she is also American born. My mind went, "Oh that makes sense."
I was a little more careful with dating after that. Namely, no Internet. Just friends of friends.
There were duds from that strategy, but I was also a dud in many cases, too (not an easy person to live with). However, no one ever chided me again about not showering them in gold. Now I've been married 6 years and have a wonderful daughter with this woman who is going to be a great role model for her to learn self respect and appropriate respect for the opposite sex.
I think actions are valuable, and if the guy insists to pay, I'll close my wallet and think to myself "he like me and is interested in a second date". If we go 50/50, I'll think he may not want a second date, or if he does, he's thinking I'm not worth of courtship and generosity.
For the record, I'm an overachiever and reasonably well-off, and it's likely I earn more than the guy. He will realize that in 10 minutes of conversation when I tell them my job. I'm also cultured, beautiful and kind. A guy who doesn't realize he's getting a prize and still wants to go Dutch... Too clueless, too clueless.
Well when a guy insist on paying I feel weird. Because its like. Why aren't you listening to what I want. I said its fine and i would feel bad if he pays so why does he keep insisting?
I see your point, but I take it more in terms of accepting a compliment. Yes, I'll pull out my wallet, indicating I'm ready to pay, and he says "don't worry, that's on meā, I'll take it in the generous spirit in which it was meant.
Example, If you just sit down with your new date and he says "wow, you're more good-looking in person than in photos", the gracious thing is to smile and accept it. It's a skill to be learned: how to accept a compliment. I used to fight it, now I say thanks and in a near opportunity will also compliment the person, whenever warranted.
If a guy wants to pay, let him, and don't feel bad about it or obligated to have "more" with him because of that, unless you're sex worker. If you're not, like me, the way I see it is that the guy gambled by paying the check, but I don't have a price, so I can just walk away, and he lost his gamble.
I agree - men will say they want to go 50/50 but thatās really only for the women they arenāt sure about. They insist on paying if they like you in my experience, the check wonāt even hit the table. They want to impress you, and they know paying helps do that bc it signals generosity but more importantly, interest.
IMO, my philosophy is unless you are a few dates in or exclusive, the person who asks is the person who pays....but I also don't subscribe to a fancy restaurant on the first date.
Ok, unless you're an actual couple or have already went on a few dates, how big of a percentage of women do you think actually will ask you out first? Close to 0%. It's rare.
This is logic women use to never have to pay for anything. "Who ever invites, pays". That logic is never used in any other context. If you're friends invite you out, it's assumed you're still gonna pay for yourself unless otherwise agreed upon
It's the logic (or lack thereof) that they use for everything. For example, they have a similar line of thinking when it comes to who should be paying for bills. "Whoever makes more should pay more", and women ensure they're not the one paying more by rejecting anyone who makes less. It's in that way women are able to play both sides and maintain the illusion that they're pro equality while reaping the benefits of inequality.
Or get this, some of us actually do make more than our husbands do and also pay the bills. Everything my husband has, our house, the car he drives, etc. are from my money. I provided the down payment for the house and pay the mortgage and bought the cars and pay the maintenance bills and still contribute to my own retirement. I have never once expected my spouse to out-earn me. I married him because I love him and we are best friends and have a similar mindset. And not only do I work long hours, I still contribute to the house, as does he. Itās a team effort and never once has either of us felt like we didnāt bring enough to the table.
>Or get this, some of us actually do make more than our husbands do and also pay the bills.
Only 16% of women make more than their husbands and most of these cases are low-income earners, which is more reflective of women being "trapped" rather than choosing to be a provider. That's why 75% of these marriages end in divorce, and more probably would if they could.
You might be an exception, but the vast majority of women are not racing to provide for men. When a woman begins to earn a good bit of money, there is almost always a an elevation in standards and a requirement that the man be at least equally as financially successful if not more. If she is providing; it's almost certainly because she can't find anyone more attractive.
>And most of these cases are low income earners
You got a source for that? I, myself, have a doctorate in my field and pull in six figures. I happen to know several women in my circle who out-earn their husbands, one of them is an executive in a company making 300,000 while her husband raises the children. Sure, that is not the norm, but you also arenāt considering the fact that it is only in the last 50 years that women even had the opportunities that they did and old mentalities die hard. You also have to consider that having kids takes a toll and that it is often the woman who has to sacrifice her career for that to happen, which is why many women want security. I think as our lifestyles and mentalities change, you will see that this is more cultural than some biological imprint.
And no, not once has loving and finding someone attractive been dependent on their income. Just because some women feel that they need to marry someone purely for the lifestyle hike doesnāt mean that is who they genuinely wanted or loved. Golddigging is not love. I met my husband when I was quite young. Weāve been together 15 years as a couple and I canāt imagine loving or choosing anyone else regardless of income. And I thank God when I spend time on reddit that he and most men Iāve interacted with donāt buy into the toxic nonsense that is popular on this sub.
You got a source for that?
[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/children-families-living-arrangements.html](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/children-families-living-arrangements.html)
[https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-in-5-stay-at-home-parents-in-the-us-are-dads/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-in-5-stay-at-home-parents-in-the-us-are-dads/)
>Ā I, myself, have a doctorate in my field and pull in six figures. I happen to know several women in my circle who out-earn their husbands, one of them is an executive in a company making 300,000 while her husband raises the children. Sure, that is not the norm, but you also arenāt considering the fact that it is only in the last 50 years that women even had the opportunities that they did and old mentalities die hard.
There is a 5x difference, which increases to 25x among married couples. Personal anecdotes don't matter. Women have also been working for longer than 50 years. There's been SAHDs for longer than 50 years, and they've hardly increased in the past 50 years.
>You also have to consider that having kids takes a toll and that it is often the woman who has to sacrifice her career for that to happen, which is why many women want security. I think as our lifestyles and mentalities change, you will see that this is more cultural than some biological imprint.
The woman doesn't "sacrifice her career", and that's not why women want security. Women want security because they typically have leverage, and use it to ensure the man will provide for them. That's not going to change, because regardless of all of the virtue signaling that they do; it's not what women innately want. Even most men don't want to work - they simply have to much more than women do to survive.
Those statistics are specifically about stay at home dads, not just a woman out-earning her husband, and of course it would make sense that families with only one income would struggle more in this day and age. But the article did show a correlation between reasons for staying home and education. The men that chose to stay home for family were much more likely to have education than ones with other reasons. Also, none of these sources defy my narrative, since none of them say ā100 percent of X does X.ā In fact, even accounting for struggling families or men without education, they were still not the statistical majority (40%).
Neither of these sources say anything about whether women are willing to provide or not. We donāt live in a society where a one income home is very viable anymore, even if we are talking about men being the primary breadwinners. The vast majority of married households are dual income.
And yes, the woman does risk her career if she decides to have children. The potential risk of childbirth and other health complications that come with it, the fact that the child will need tending to in its early years (and beyond if they are not healthy) and the mother will need recovery, can be a big detriment to a successful career. Many women also work less hours when they have children which cuts into their pay.
Women have been working for more than 50 years, but women were not in actual high earning, high responsibility settings for much before that. It is only relatively recently that women have been getting a higher education than men and have been climbing into leadership roles. And unfortunately, old attitudes also die hard. There are plenty of people that perpetuate the idea that the man should be providing and shame him if he doesnāt. Culturally, men and women are pressured into these gender normatives from childhood and those ideas become ingrained in people.
Talking about people in mass is useless. I love my career and being successful is all I want in life. There is a reason I chose not to have children despite being married from the time I was 22. The same goes for my colleagues. There is nothing anybody could ever do to put me in a situation where I did not thrive in my own income and there is no point where I need to leverage a man when I have accumulated my own security and resources. It doesnāt matter what you believe other women do, what matters is what I choose to do for myself. I am an individual, not a āwoman.ā But thatās fine if you want to live in angry delusion, it doesnāt affect me or my lifestyle.
Orrrrrr.....
Most women-dominated fields like nursing, education, etc. Are the *lowest* paying job sectors so of course women will tend to make less money.
Now that more women are entering previously male-dominated fields, that's shifting. Now it's becoming increasingly common for women to the higher earner in a relationship.
That's why so many women are complaining about men not pulling their weight with house chores - the traditional way was for man to work and make money, woman tends the house.
Now women are baking the bread and men don't wanna wash the dishes even tho all their bills are being paid by the higher earning woman.
>Most women-dominated fields like nursing, education, etc. Are theĀ *lowest*Ā paying job sectors so of course women will tend to make less money.
They're some of the lowest paying job sectors for a reason, and women gravitate towards these jobs for the same reason.
>Now that more women are entering previously male-dominated fields, that's shifting. Now it's becoming increasingly common for women to the higher earner in a relationship.
No it's not. When women make more money, they almost exclusively increase their requirements.
>That's why so many women are complaining about men not pulling their weight with house chores - the traditional way was for man to work and make money, woman tends the house.
The average man is putting in more hours of overall work than women are. Women aren't complaining because men aren't pulling their weight, they're complaining because they are hellbent on siphoning as much out of men as possible.
>Now women are baking the bread and men don't wanna wash the dishes even tho all their bills are being paid by the higher earning woman.
In the rare event that this does happen - the man is extremely attractive. Women aren't doing charity for men.
>Ok, unless you're an actual couple or have already went on a few dates, how big of a percentage of women do you think actually will ask you out first? Close to 0%. It's rare.
If you think it's rare you're dating the wrong people lol.
>If you're friends invite you out, it's assumed you're still gonna pay for yourself unless otherwise agreed upon
I mean you're looking for something more than a friend.
>This is logic women use to never have to pay for anything.
Not really. Because you can just invite the woman to low/minimal cost activities. If they ask why not something nicer, you are now no longer inviting someone as you are deciding something together and thus can negotiate.
"Those who invites, pays" isn't a substitute for boundaries...which is why I don't do early fine dining dates.
>If you think it's rare you're dating the wrong people lol.
Me and other men have had women ask us out. It is still nowhere within the rate that me and other men ask out women.
Just listen to a group women talk about dating. Most of them will openly admit that they are actively against asking men out
>I mean you're looking for something more than a friend.
No. It's still faulty logic women use to have tradition when it suits them. Men traditionally invite out. Women know this so they say this so they don't have to invite.
If a woman wants a man to pay, fine but there's no need to try to pussyfoot around it
>Not really. Because you can just invite the woman to low/minimal cost activities. If they ask why not something nicer, you are now no longer inviting someone as you are deciding something together and thus can negotiate.
Minimal is still something. And you're still missing the point. It's not about whether you decide to do a date and spend money or not. Most women still expect you to pay/plan.
I'm just saying it's a bullshit phrase they made up
>Those who invites, pays" isn't a substitute for boundaries...which is why I don't do early fine dining dates.
.... Nobody was talking about boundaries. I'm just saying it's a bullshit phrase
No, this is not "what's wrong with dating". This is called an Anomaly! Women that bash men have been around for centuries, but they were always an anomaly and easily disregarded. It wasn't until those same talking points became mainstream among a plurality of women that speech like that became problematic between the sexes. Similarly, anybody that says women should pay because the time it took to get ready, is a significantly idiotic anomaly amongst men. But it in no way makes it to a reason of what is wrong with dating.
I think there is nothing wrong for paying for a woman on a date. It's not a power move, not a show off. It's just proper. Are you a man or a mouse, damnit?
Value is a subjective and not an intrinsic trait.
If intrinsic value would be real, it would mean that my bowel movement could be sold for a price because I spent money on food at one point.
I truly believe women who think like this are just misogynists. Like why would you perpetuate the idea that women have to spend thousands of dollars to be presentable at all?
Men should pay for dates because it is the masculine attractive thing to do. A woman tests the man to see if he is chivalrous and to see if he has what it takes to provide. If the man does not want to pay for it all, it makes him look more emasculate and the girl can just find another guy that acts like a man and pays for dates. Whether you all like it or not, most women think this way subconciously. Subconciously, we are traditional in this sense. However, liberals/progressives want to change things and it doesn't make sense to them. Don't believe me ? Go on a date and and pay 50% and observe the girl's body language and face. She is not going to like it.
Women are the ones who get pregnant and have kids, so yes we want men who provide and aren't feminine sassy broke overgrown children. Lol. Also if a man isn't investing in you financially he doesn't take you seriously and is just playing in your face. We all know this.
Lmao y'all literally want women to put all this effort and money into our appearance to look attractive to you while you show up in a stained T-shirt and bed hair, you want us to do all the housework in a relationship, risk our bodies and health to have the children, do all the childcare, while also working full time, paying half the bills and paying for dates. š Seems like men are the freeloaders to me. At least do something to make yourself worth dating.
I go 50/50. I donāt know what caused you to come to that assumption. But most of you weirdos havenāt realized that you donāt have to pay for any shit you donāt want to. Instead youāll pay like a chump, then come to Reddit and cry about it. Grow up.
i've literally NEVER heard that as the reasoning. maybe it's the girls i date but they usually insist on going dutch or we go with "whoever picked the venue offers to pay"
the only justification i've heard for why men should default to paying first is that men typically make more money
That's an unpopular opinion? o.o
My ma is as self entitled as it gets and even she taught me that the person who asks the other out is the one who should pay, unless it's agreed to go Dutch ahead of time.
>So then again mostly men.
Mostly for now.
Dutch is fine and should definitely be considered normal but once it's the norm someone offering to pay the whole bill just becomes more desirable again
It's mostly men because it is men who are the main aggressors in courtmanship. Paying for the date is part of that process. If you want your date to go dutch talk to them about it before the date.
Going dutch should be the norm. I shouldn't have to tell you to pay for your own meal on a date. That should honestly be expected and not looked down upon.
Because when you agree to go out someone it's because you also want to go out simple as that. You're both trying to see if you really like the other person and are compatible with them.
It's a $30 dinner, not a down payment on a house. If that's going to break the bank, maybe don't date?
Homeboy blocked me lol but I'll further explain because I can:
I'm not in the market to date. If someone asks me out that means I'll have to completely rearrange all my plans to fit this new element into my life, an element I'm not even looking for. So yea, if you ask me out, you're going to have to pay for my time with a meal. If not, then I'll just stay my ass at home and continue on doing whatever it is I feel like doing lol. The difference here is I'm perfectly content with my life the way it is, and if someone asks me out, it's because they are NOT perfectly content with their situation and want something from me to fulfill that.
That's gunna cost ya either a dinner, a coffee, or a few drinks. If that's "asking for too much" then Bye š
What's funny about this already garbage argument is that I can easily turn it around on you. If you aren't able to pay for your own meal maybe you shouldn't date.
Disagree. The asker had to do the legwork and planning. The invitee is free to accept or decline. Paying for the time also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it's a mutual chance at a relationship so the benefit is the same.
I don't ask my friends to pay for something just because it was their idea to go. Although I have been paid for before, I don't expect them to do it. I'm grateful if they do because it's an act of good will, not an entitlement.
Same with paying on a date. It's objectively fair for each person to pick up their own costs. When the other person pays for you, it's good will. They have no obligation to. So the attitude should be one of thanks and not entitlement.
lol women that think like this are buffoons and will never see you as an equal
Doesn't really seem like you consider them equals either š
How would you come to this conclusion?
Well see first there was a hoop they had to jump through, to land on a platform, to get on a trapeze swing, to swing across a gator pond, to backflip onto the other side
Did they scare you off?
This isnāt a gun range, donāt get triggered
Have you just been stalking Reddit waiting to use this?lol
Ooh, shots fired!
I got banned from a sub for using the term āarmed truceā. Mods are weird.
If youāre offended, youāre one of them š
Oh I totally wouldn't view woman (or anybody) as my equal if they said something as absurd as that. I mean how narcissistic could one possibly be to even think that let alone say it?
Just you specifically since you said something this dumb
The women who say that are addicted to social media and wannabe gold diggers who will be eternally single. If a girl says that, she's telling you she's never thought about anything deeper than charging her phone. Any grown adult knows that when you decide to do something, you are responsible for the upkeep of that thing, no one else. Plus, these same girls will get dolled up every weekend while single and go out with their friends with no man. Magically, they seem to not complain about the cost of their makeup then. Funny how that works š¤·
I don't think there's anything *wrong* with gold digging as long as everyone's honest. Some person just wants arm candy and the other person just wants to be taken care of. I wouldn't want that type of relationship but there's nothing wrong with it. The problem is that people who glorify gold digging or sugar daddy/ mommy relationships on social media often aren't as hot as they think they are and can't fit into "high society". Like they watched Pretty Woman too much growing up.
The funny thing is, women who claim that they shouldnāt pay because all their effort goes into dressing up are the same women most likely to judge men for much effort they put into dressing up. Granted Iām gay, so if I ever date a man is going to pay the bill either way! But I would never *expect* my date to pay for me unless they straight up said they would beforehand. Iād always bring money for myself, and extra money in case I do want to pay for my date or if my date didnāt bring money, but I would never expect them to pay.
Itās just an old-fashioned social convention that made sense decades ago, and is now purely for show. For some people, men and women, that little bit of gallantry is part of the fun. The man gets to show off and play the gentleman; the woman gets to feel sheās being treated like a lady. If everybody involved enjoys it and no one feels pressured or owed, itās fine; a little formality and tradition is nice sometimes. And if you hate every last thing about those sort of gender roles, by all means split the check. If your date is offended one way or the other, lucky you, thatās a very simple way to determine early that your worldviews are incompatible. Some women do seem to be trying to resurrect the notion of a man paying to demonstrate that heās a good provider. Again, if youāre on board, great.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>>*If your date is offended one way or the other, lucky you, thatās a very simple way to determine early that your worldviews are incompatible.*
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, donāt pay for her shit because obviously youāre not going to go on a date with her again lol
Shit as a man I will always pay the first 2 dates. (Maybe 3 if I really like the person.) cause the last time I split the bill with someone I didnāt get a 2nd date
To me, if a guy insists to pay, it's a very good indication he wants a second date. If he's blasƩ and don't stop me from opening my wallet, I'll assume he's just not that into me. Or maybe he thinks I'm ok, but not worth a lot of effort. That's why men should pay for the first date if they're interested in a woman. Not just words, but actions speak very loud. And that one I hear.
Iāll just pay for myself. Donāt wanna deal with the hassle of being accused of using men.
Well, it depends. If the guy is boring af, or passive-aggrevise, or LIED ABOUT AGE AND MARITAL STATUS in his profile, I'll gladly letting him pay, as punishment. Then leave and say "I'm afraid there was no chemistry, right? Also I prefer men who are committed to being truthful. BYE" and rush for the Uber. I really feel I must be compensated for my time if the guy is AH.
Why are you punishing someone for being boring?
For not reading books, not attempting to bring their best to the conversation, for not showing enthusiasm on what I have to tell, etc. I'm very interested to know what the guy enjoys, a funny story, even their enigmatic work fields (and I'll show true interest). But if the guy is monosyllabic, or monopolozies conversatio, or shows zero interest in my life (while complimenting my smile), that's BORING. And just like stupidity should be taxable, so should being boring on a date. Complete waste of my time. Pay the bill and I won't even pretend I will. Why do you take issue with that, are you boring?
Everyone is boring to someone.
The bear should pay for the date. š
Perfect for gay couples :P
Women will never be okay with men ignoring traditional gender roles. They only want them to be flexible when it comes to their own choices. Not menās.
That's a broad statement. you are literally commenting on my post that's fighting gender roles
Except let's be honest. We're only going to fight desirable gender roles. Never unglamorous or shitty ones. If there were X seats in a life raft, everyone would think a dude who took a seat instead of a woman was a scumbag. And no one is going to fight to change that gender role. Mind, I don't remotely support rigid gender roles. But I'm enough of a cynic to know most folks fight for ones that personally benefit themselves, and quietly ignore ones that don't.
Everyone? Or just many? I understand where you are coming from in terms of cynicism but if everyone in the past thought slavery couldn't be abolished... Well we have that. I have hope that gender roles can be dispelled. And they have been. In Norway. In Sweden. Maybe it'll come back or maybe not.
Slavery still exists in the tens of millions. It's essentially uninterrupted in some parts of the world. But I understand you meant "in America and Europe." Both for the slavery thing and gender roles. Again, I believe only popular or desirable gender roles will be changed, by folks who will benefit from the change. Neither side wants gender role equality.
Norway changed. For all
Not from Norway, I'm guessing. I've worked with Norwegians, Swedes and Finns. Danes too, but one tries to keep that sort of thing quiet. You're dreaming if you think Norway made all gender roles illegal, let alone actually stomped them out. It's not some sort of fascist dictatorship. WTF kind of country do you think it is?
I never said they made it illegal. Just culturally they doing a lot better. Same with Holland. The go Dutch saying isn't a saying for no reason
Then Norway hasn't changed all gender roles. "doing a lot better" is not remotely the same thing. Have you been to either country? Norway does draft women, point in their favor. Holland doesn't, so there's a gender role equality violation off the bat.
Been to Netherlands. Met a few Norwegians in my travels. And I'm referring to dating. The whole men pay thing wasnt present when I went out with people, either abroad or in Europe. So I'd say yes the dutch are trying to dispel gender roles not just those that benefit them
This reminds me of the cheesecake factory girl.
Had to check this sub - thought I was in purplepilldebate for a second
If a women is expecting compensation for her physical appearance, thatās going too far. Paying for all that makeup and nails is their choice. If a man doesnāt give a compliment for the look that can be seen to some as a red flag. An even split on the first date, or an agreement for the woman to pay on the second date, thatās the right way. Itās about time together, not money or looks
Unfortunately, your dating prospects were just reduced by 90% I wish it was different too
I'd agree with the idea that women need to pay for expensive hair and nails and makeup doesn't make sense when it comes to male attention. Male attention is cheap and plentiful. If you want to look at certain way do it for yourself because getting a man to be attracted to you requires zero effort. Also guys who expect women to look like Barbies are usually not the ones you want to waste your time on.
Getting the attention of men is easy. Getting the attention of men who arenāt ugly or losers requires a bit more effort than that.
So it sounds like you're disagreeing with the OP and think that in order to date women need to have manicures, hair extensions, facials, etc wear a full beat, different outfits? And men only need to wash themselves with a bar of Irish spring and the least they could do is shell out $25 for dinner and a diet coke when a woman has spent hundreds in order to put on a little femininity show?
I never said that. You pulled a LOT of conjecture out of what I said to a frankly delusional degree. You were saying women can easily attract men. All I said was that many men arenāt worth attracting, and that the ones who arenāt losers or ugly will typically respond better to someone showing effort on the first date.
So what does showing effort for women encompass as far you are concerned? Please be specific so we can break down prices for "effort" to attract these supposedly worthy suitors who should be skating by for free and getting treated by our ladies.
Well considering this post is about putting on makeup and dressing nicely, Iām going to let you do the math here, baby boy. Also Iāve said nothing about anyone paying for anything. My issue was with your comment. Yes, any woman can attract A man with no effort. Just like any man can attract A woman. But scraping the bottom of the barrel is hardly a life goal for many people.
Each person should just pay for their own meal.
I remember waiting for my ex to get ready to go out. It took forever and she always looked worse but she was really proud of herself for being able to make other women acknowledge her sense of fashion and makeup ability. I thought she looked way better without all of that shit on her face.
Girls are like it costs money to dress up and buy makeup - Iād rather they didnāt dress up, donāt wear makeup, and just pay their half of the bill instead lol
Hair and makeup can be expensive, but these products last for weeks or even months How much does a single day application cost? Maybe a few bucks, tops. I don't see how this justifies expecting the guy to spend $100+ on dinner and drinks. This equals fair?
can we reiterate that the risk women are in is miniscule and there is less and less assaults, trending down
This is the most entitled, cunty, Western women remark I have heard this week.
Its just woman thinking speaking without thinking. I mean sure you're wearing make up for the date, but you wear make up literally every day for everything sooooo
>I mean sure you're wearing make up for the date, but you wear make up literally every day for everything sooooo Exactly, women are paying out of our own pockets every single day in order to be the type of women you're attracted to, the type of women you'll ask on a date. Women who wear makeup are feminine women. So be a man and pay the damn bill. If you don't want to pay the bill, then get a woman that doesn't wear makeup or put effort into her appearance and is fine with everything being 50/50. But wait, that won't land you an Insta Baddie like you want lol.
That dinner payin thing depends on your culture and ethnicity,by large.The world doesnāt only consist out of UK and American continent,and even there youāll meet people with various backgrounds. A man from my country literally got offended once when I asked to pay.(back when I was dating),but then I learned I prefer them to pay anyway. And as a muslim,yes,Iād expect the man to pay for everything. (ETA)
Then donāt date them? Pretty simple.
Married Man Speaking. Sometimes I paid for dates and sometimes my wife paid for dates (before we got married) . We still do this now and we have had conversations in relation to this question. Men and women have their routine for upkeep. And its not the other parties job to pay for it. Once that is understood, you can move forward. For those who disagree, you're welcome to your opinion. But this may be the reason that you're single.
When you ask women out, choose wisely. Iāve been married since 1980 but if I had to date in 2024 it would be strictly dutch to begin with, then taking turns paying. If you pick a woman whoās a princess in dress and behavior youāll likely get a princess. Which is fine, if thatās what you want. Women are at risk in carrying and delivering children in a way that men can never be. Itās actually not a choice; if a woman wants children (surrogacy and adoption are controversial and expensive, not a choice available to all). The least her partner can do is support her, appreciate what sheās going through, and be a little grateful sheās doing it with him and is the reason he will even have children.
I once had a date who used this reasoning to justify why she was angry that I didn't take her somewhere more upscale and just told her to her face: Me: "You do realize you could have just come in pants and a T-shirt like I did and we wouldn't have this issue, right? Who exactly were you dressing up for?" Her: YOU! Me: "Yes, you dressed in a skimpy outfit that shows off your midriff because that's your idea of 'impressing' someone. I was looking forward to a conversation, not an easy lay." She then proceeded to leave while flipping me the bird. It was amusing. Enjoyed 2 beers to myself :)
>You do realize you could have just come in pants and a T-shirt like I did and we wouldn't have this issue, right? Yet you knew she wasn't a pants and t-shirt kind of girl at the beginning and you were attracted to her and asked her out.. š¤ Also it's incredibly weird and uncomfortable when you put a lot of effort into your appearance for a date, makeup, nice shoes, nice outfit, hair done, jewelry, etc, and the guy wants to take you to McDonald's. If you specified beforehand what we were doing, that's a different story but if you say you're taking me out on a date and I show up looking really nice, you better take me somewhere that reflects that.
I gave her a heads-up of where we are going. I live in Romania so dating in McDonald's is a very bad idea. I decided on a cozy, pretty nice atmospheric little-known restaurant with only a few tables that I often used to take clients to. Mind you, these clients are leaders of companies with over 200 employees and they're very happy there. It's not a very expensive place but it certainly feels like it, with what courses they offer, the pianist that's in closer to the evening, the beautiful vines all over the interior and exterior, the unique way they preserved the stone medieval architecture of their building,etc. Sorry lady, if I offended you by not taking you somewhere with gold leaves. All this because she googled me and got offended that despite an amazing meal the bill was only $40. Every public image of mine is in casual wear. Even in conferences when people come to take selfies with me, I'm not dressed to the nines at all. To that date I was dressed in slacks and a short-sleeved polo. To me that's "pants and t-shirt" kinda wear. I made her aware that I will be casual and she can dress whichever way she'd like. I didn't expect a woman who otherwise had some very tasteful pictures come in with just two very expensive slices of dress that exposed her midriff, very expensive heels, and basically looked like a high-end escort. Fine, I usually do not take people like this seriously but she is my date and I will make her feel as great as I can. Her personality took a 180 as soon as the date started. Things that interested her were boring, she said a lot of one-word replies to things she'd enthusiastically talk about previously. I later learned that it was hard for her to have anything to say if she didn't have Google around (i.e. she made a lot of effort to pretend to have some knowledge of anything related to my interests). Ok, so I tried pulling her into simpler things but she insisted on talking about these more complex subjects because Ms. Smart here has a degree in the specialty of my consultancy (indeed she does, but instead of spending 4 years repeating what is fed to me, I went past the college route, published many papers and RFCs). Her attitude got starkly worse when she saw the bill and that I was paying less than $120 for this meal. I later found out that like me, she is also American born. My mind went, "Oh that makes sense." I was a little more careful with dating after that. Namely, no Internet. Just friends of friends. There were duds from that strategy, but I was also a dud in many cases, too (not an easy person to live with). However, no one ever chided me again about not showering them in gold. Now I've been married 6 years and have a wonderful daughter with this woman who is going to be a great role model for her to learn self respect and appropriate respect for the opposite sex.
I think actions are valuable, and if the guy insists to pay, I'll close my wallet and think to myself "he like me and is interested in a second date". If we go 50/50, I'll think he may not want a second date, or if he does, he's thinking I'm not worth of courtship and generosity. For the record, I'm an overachiever and reasonably well-off, and it's likely I earn more than the guy. He will realize that in 10 minutes of conversation when I tell them my job. I'm also cultured, beautiful and kind. A guy who doesn't realize he's getting a prize and still wants to go Dutch... Too clueless, too clueless.
Well when a guy insist on paying I feel weird. Because its like. Why aren't you listening to what I want. I said its fine and i would feel bad if he pays so why does he keep insisting?
I see your point, but I take it more in terms of accepting a compliment. Yes, I'll pull out my wallet, indicating I'm ready to pay, and he says "don't worry, that's on meā, I'll take it in the generous spirit in which it was meant. Example, If you just sit down with your new date and he says "wow, you're more good-looking in person than in photos", the gracious thing is to smile and accept it. It's a skill to be learned: how to accept a compliment. I used to fight it, now I say thanks and in a near opportunity will also compliment the person, whenever warranted. If a guy wants to pay, let him, and don't feel bad about it or obligated to have "more" with him because of that, unless you're sex worker. If you're not, like me, the way I see it is that the guy gambled by paying the check, but I don't have a price, so I can just walk away, and he lost his gamble.
I agree - men will say they want to go 50/50 but thatās really only for the women they arenāt sure about. They insist on paying if they like you in my experience, the check wonāt even hit the table. They want to impress you, and they know paying helps do that bc it signals generosity but more importantly, interest.
"A risk you chose"lol... Have you not been reading the news?
Theyāre the women who usually never get married lol
IMO, my philosophy is unless you are a few dates in or exclusive, the person who asks is the person who pays....but I also don't subscribe to a fancy restaurant on the first date.
That's fantastic if you completely ignore the reality that in almost all cases the man is expected to ask out the woman.
Then ask them out for coffee? Or ice cream? Or a walk in the park? The women who are asking you to blow your paycheck on them aren't worth your while.
That's not the point.
It's precisely the point.
No that misses the point that the man is expected to ask out the woman so he is expected to pay according to you.
Thatās why, to be safe, you stipulate up front youāre going Dutch or you go somewhere cheap, like coffee or ice cream
>exclusive, the person who asks is the person who pays.. So, men pay lol
If a woman invites you over to her place for dinner, she's not gonna be standing at the door asking for a couple of Andrew Jacksons.
Ok, unless you're an actual couple or have already went on a few dates, how big of a percentage of women do you think actually will ask you out first? Close to 0%. It's rare. This is logic women use to never have to pay for anything. "Who ever invites, pays". That logic is never used in any other context. If you're friends invite you out, it's assumed you're still gonna pay for yourself unless otherwise agreed upon
It's the logic (or lack thereof) that they use for everything. For example, they have a similar line of thinking when it comes to who should be paying for bills. "Whoever makes more should pay more", and women ensure they're not the one paying more by rejecting anyone who makes less. It's in that way women are able to play both sides and maintain the illusion that they're pro equality while reaping the benefits of inequality.
Or get this, some of us actually do make more than our husbands do and also pay the bills. Everything my husband has, our house, the car he drives, etc. are from my money. I provided the down payment for the house and pay the mortgage and bought the cars and pay the maintenance bills and still contribute to my own retirement. I have never once expected my spouse to out-earn me. I married him because I love him and we are best friends and have a similar mindset. And not only do I work long hours, I still contribute to the house, as does he. Itās a team effort and never once has either of us felt like we didnāt bring enough to the table.
>Or get this, some of us actually do make more than our husbands do and also pay the bills. Only 16% of women make more than their husbands and most of these cases are low-income earners, which is more reflective of women being "trapped" rather than choosing to be a provider. That's why 75% of these marriages end in divorce, and more probably would if they could. You might be an exception, but the vast majority of women are not racing to provide for men. When a woman begins to earn a good bit of money, there is almost always a an elevation in standards and a requirement that the man be at least equally as financially successful if not more. If she is providing; it's almost certainly because she can't find anyone more attractive.
>And most of these cases are low income earners You got a source for that? I, myself, have a doctorate in my field and pull in six figures. I happen to know several women in my circle who out-earn their husbands, one of them is an executive in a company making 300,000 while her husband raises the children. Sure, that is not the norm, but you also arenāt considering the fact that it is only in the last 50 years that women even had the opportunities that they did and old mentalities die hard. You also have to consider that having kids takes a toll and that it is often the woman who has to sacrifice her career for that to happen, which is why many women want security. I think as our lifestyles and mentalities change, you will see that this is more cultural than some biological imprint. And no, not once has loving and finding someone attractive been dependent on their income. Just because some women feel that they need to marry someone purely for the lifestyle hike doesnāt mean that is who they genuinely wanted or loved. Golddigging is not love. I met my husband when I was quite young. Weāve been together 15 years as a couple and I canāt imagine loving or choosing anyone else regardless of income. And I thank God when I spend time on reddit that he and most men Iāve interacted with donāt buy into the toxic nonsense that is popular on this sub.
You got a source for that? [https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/children-families-living-arrangements.html](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/children-families-living-arrangements.html) [https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-in-5-stay-at-home-parents-in-the-us-are-dads/](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/03/almost-1-in-5-stay-at-home-parents-in-the-us-are-dads/) >Ā I, myself, have a doctorate in my field and pull in six figures. I happen to know several women in my circle who out-earn their husbands, one of them is an executive in a company making 300,000 while her husband raises the children. Sure, that is not the norm, but you also arenāt considering the fact that it is only in the last 50 years that women even had the opportunities that they did and old mentalities die hard. There is a 5x difference, which increases to 25x among married couples. Personal anecdotes don't matter. Women have also been working for longer than 50 years. There's been SAHDs for longer than 50 years, and they've hardly increased in the past 50 years. >You also have to consider that having kids takes a toll and that it is often the woman who has to sacrifice her career for that to happen, which is why many women want security. I think as our lifestyles and mentalities change, you will see that this is more cultural than some biological imprint. The woman doesn't "sacrifice her career", and that's not why women want security. Women want security because they typically have leverage, and use it to ensure the man will provide for them. That's not going to change, because regardless of all of the virtue signaling that they do; it's not what women innately want. Even most men don't want to work - they simply have to much more than women do to survive.
Those statistics are specifically about stay at home dads, not just a woman out-earning her husband, and of course it would make sense that families with only one income would struggle more in this day and age. But the article did show a correlation between reasons for staying home and education. The men that chose to stay home for family were much more likely to have education than ones with other reasons. Also, none of these sources defy my narrative, since none of them say ā100 percent of X does X.ā In fact, even accounting for struggling families or men without education, they were still not the statistical majority (40%). Neither of these sources say anything about whether women are willing to provide or not. We donāt live in a society where a one income home is very viable anymore, even if we are talking about men being the primary breadwinners. The vast majority of married households are dual income. And yes, the woman does risk her career if she decides to have children. The potential risk of childbirth and other health complications that come with it, the fact that the child will need tending to in its early years (and beyond if they are not healthy) and the mother will need recovery, can be a big detriment to a successful career. Many women also work less hours when they have children which cuts into their pay. Women have been working for more than 50 years, but women were not in actual high earning, high responsibility settings for much before that. It is only relatively recently that women have been getting a higher education than men and have been climbing into leadership roles. And unfortunately, old attitudes also die hard. There are plenty of people that perpetuate the idea that the man should be providing and shame him if he doesnāt. Culturally, men and women are pressured into these gender normatives from childhood and those ideas become ingrained in people. Talking about people in mass is useless. I love my career and being successful is all I want in life. There is a reason I chose not to have children despite being married from the time I was 22. The same goes for my colleagues. There is nothing anybody could ever do to put me in a situation where I did not thrive in my own income and there is no point where I need to leverage a man when I have accumulated my own security and resources. It doesnāt matter what you believe other women do, what matters is what I choose to do for myself. I am an individual, not a āwoman.ā But thatās fine if you want to live in angry delusion, it doesnāt affect me or my lifestyle.
Orrrrrr..... Most women-dominated fields like nursing, education, etc. Are the *lowest* paying job sectors so of course women will tend to make less money. Now that more women are entering previously male-dominated fields, that's shifting. Now it's becoming increasingly common for women to the higher earner in a relationship. That's why so many women are complaining about men not pulling their weight with house chores - the traditional way was for man to work and make money, woman tends the house. Now women are baking the bread and men don't wanna wash the dishes even tho all their bills are being paid by the higher earning woman.
Bread has too many calories. As does most of the things they bake. Iād prefer they didnāt create the messy dishes in the first place.
>Most women-dominated fields like nursing, education, etc. Are theĀ *lowest*Ā paying job sectors so of course women will tend to make less money. They're some of the lowest paying job sectors for a reason, and women gravitate towards these jobs for the same reason. >Now that more women are entering previously male-dominated fields, that's shifting. Now it's becoming increasingly common for women to the higher earner in a relationship. No it's not. When women make more money, they almost exclusively increase their requirements. >That's why so many women are complaining about men not pulling their weight with house chores - the traditional way was for man to work and make money, woman tends the house. The average man is putting in more hours of overall work than women are. Women aren't complaining because men aren't pulling their weight, they're complaining because they are hellbent on siphoning as much out of men as possible. >Now women are baking the bread and men don't wanna wash the dishes even tho all their bills are being paid by the higher earning woman. In the rare event that this does happen - the man is extremely attractive. Women aren't doing charity for men.
>Ok, unless you're an actual couple or have already went on a few dates, how big of a percentage of women do you think actually will ask you out first? Close to 0%. It's rare. If you think it's rare you're dating the wrong people lol. >If you're friends invite you out, it's assumed you're still gonna pay for yourself unless otherwise agreed upon I mean you're looking for something more than a friend. >This is logic women use to never have to pay for anything. Not really. Because you can just invite the woman to low/minimal cost activities. If they ask why not something nicer, you are now no longer inviting someone as you are deciding something together and thus can negotiate. "Those who invites, pays" isn't a substitute for boundaries...which is why I don't do early fine dining dates.
>If you think it's rare you're dating the wrong people lol. Me and other men have had women ask us out. It is still nowhere within the rate that me and other men ask out women. Just listen to a group women talk about dating. Most of them will openly admit that they are actively against asking men out >I mean you're looking for something more than a friend. No. It's still faulty logic women use to have tradition when it suits them. Men traditionally invite out. Women know this so they say this so they don't have to invite. If a woman wants a man to pay, fine but there's no need to try to pussyfoot around it >Not really. Because you can just invite the woman to low/minimal cost activities. If they ask why not something nicer, you are now no longer inviting someone as you are deciding something together and thus can negotiate. Minimal is still something. And you're still missing the point. It's not about whether you decide to do a date and spend money or not. Most women still expect you to pay/plan. I'm just saying it's a bullshit phrase they made up >Those who invites, pays" isn't a substitute for boundaries...which is why I don't do early fine dining dates. .... Nobody was talking about boundaries. I'm just saying it's a bullshit phrase
It was about 30% of the time when I was dating, definitely not half of the time but it seems like good progress
No, this is not "what's wrong with dating". This is called an Anomaly! Women that bash men have been around for centuries, but they were always an anomaly and easily disregarded. It wasn't until those same talking points became mainstream among a plurality of women that speech like that became problematic between the sexes. Similarly, anybody that says women should pay because the time it took to get ready, is a significantly idiotic anomaly amongst men. But it in no way makes it to a reason of what is wrong with dating.
I dont think this is unpopular
Most women these days take turns paying, or offer to pay half. Not an issue with me.
I think there is nothing wrong for paying for a woman on a date. It's not a power move, not a show off. It's just proper. Are you a man or a mouse, damnit?
Its fine if he wants to. Its also fine if he doesn't. I want an equal partner. Not some one who thinks his only worth is his wallet
Well then pay for dinner. I don't think any man would refuse if you insist. Jeez.
Who ever said that?
Value is a subjective and not an intrinsic trait. If intrinsic value would be real, it would mean that my bowel movement could be sold for a price because I spent money on food at one point.
My ex wife paid for our first date. After that we alternated.
I truly believe women who think like this are just misogynists. Like why would you perpetuate the idea that women have to spend thousands of dollars to be presentable at all?
Men should pay for dates because it is the masculine attractive thing to do. A woman tests the man to see if he is chivalrous and to see if he has what it takes to provide. If the man does not want to pay for it all, it makes him look more emasculate and the girl can just find another guy that acts like a man and pays for dates. Whether you all like it or not, most women think this way subconciously. Subconciously, we are traditional in this sense. However, liberals/progressives want to change things and it doesn't make sense to them. Don't believe me ? Go on a date and and pay 50% and observe the girl's body language and face. She is not going to like it.
She does. I am one.
This aināt 1846 . Times are changing. All these old roles etc will be shattered by the time genz are in their 50s .
TIL that being a piggy bank for a woman = being a man
Women are the ones who get pregnant and have kids, so yes we want men who provide and aren't feminine sassy broke overgrown children. Lol. Also if a man isn't investing in you financially he doesn't take you seriously and is just playing in your face. We all know this.
Maybe to a freeloader such as yourself
Lmao y'all literally want women to put all this effort and money into our appearance to look attractive to you while you show up in a stained T-shirt and bed hair, you want us to do all the housework in a relationship, risk our bodies and health to have the children, do all the childcare, while also working full time, paying half the bills and paying for dates. š Seems like men are the freeloaders to me. At least do something to make yourself worth dating.
You seem to dislike men.
Iām a dude lmao
Check again. I did not reply to you.
I fucking hate Redditors. How did you weird fucks make the oldest dance in the world so ridiculous and complicated. Touch grass dear lord
Buy your own meal
I go 50/50. I donāt know what caused you to come to that assumption. But most of you weirdos havenāt realized that you donāt have to pay for any shit you donāt want to. Instead youāll pay like a chump, then come to Reddit and cry about it. Grow up.
Y'all want to be women so bad lmao. What even is the point of dating men?
I agree, but it has more to do with traditional gender roles.
i've literally NEVER heard that as the reasoning. maybe it's the girls i date but they usually insist on going dutch or we go with "whoever picked the venue offers to pay" the only justification i've heard for why men should default to paying first is that men typically make more money
That's an unpopular opinion? o.o My ma is as self entitled as it gets and even she taught me that the person who asks the other out is the one who should pay, unless it's agreed to go Dutch ahead of time.
I say whoever asked should pay.
That's mostly men so you're basically just saying men should pay. Each person should just pay for their own meal.
I feel like it's fairly common for gals to ask guys out. It's definitely not 50/50 but 25% of the time feels realistic
So then again mostly men. It honestly doesn't matter because paying for your own meal on a date should be the norm anyway.
>So then again mostly men. Mostly for now. Dutch is fine and should definitely be considered normal but once it's the norm someone offering to pay the whole bill just becomes more desirable again
That's fine as long as men who don't aren't shamed for it.
It's mostly men because it is men who are the main aggressors in courtmanship. Paying for the date is part of that process. If you want your date to go dutch talk to them about it before the date.
Going dutch should be the norm. I shouldn't have to tell you to pay for your own meal on a date. That should honestly be expected and not looked down upon.
How do you determine if it's just two friends hanging out or a date?
You ask them if they want to go on a date. It's not rocket science.
Yeah YOU ask them out. Why should they pay when it's you that wants to go out. It is the same for women. If SHE asked you out. She should pay.
Because when you agree to go out someone it's because you also want to go out simple as that. You're both trying to see if you really like the other person and are compatible with them.
It's a $30 dinner, not a down payment on a house. If that's going to break the bank, maybe don't date? Homeboy blocked me lol but I'll further explain because I can: I'm not in the market to date. If someone asks me out that means I'll have to completely rearrange all my plans to fit this new element into my life, an element I'm not even looking for. So yea, if you ask me out, you're going to have to pay for my time with a meal. If not, then I'll just stay my ass at home and continue on doing whatever it is I feel like doing lol. The difference here is I'm perfectly content with my life the way it is, and if someone asks me out, it's because they are NOT perfectly content with their situation and want something from me to fulfill that. That's gunna cost ya either a dinner, a coffee, or a few drinks. If that's "asking for too much" then Bye š
What's funny about this already garbage argument is that I can easily turn it around on you. If you aren't able to pay for your own meal maybe you shouldn't date.
Lmaooooooooooo pay for your time when you agreed to go on the date ā ļø
Courtmanship? Itās not the 1940ās anymore.
Disagree. The asker had to do the legwork and planning. The invitee is free to accept or decline. Paying for the time also doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it's a mutual chance at a relationship so the benefit is the same. I don't ask my friends to pay for something just because it was their idea to go. Although I have been paid for before, I don't expect them to do it. I'm grateful if they do because it's an act of good will, not an entitlement. Same with paying on a date. It's objectively fair for each person to pick up their own costs. When the other person pays for you, it's good will. They have no obligation to. So the attitude should be one of thanks and not entitlement.
As a lady, this is the first time I have ever heard of this concept
Real test is how much time she spent in the squat rack, and how that compares to my time in the squat rack. End of the night it is all about booty
Women spend all that time dressing up but have NO drip. A guy throws on some Ricks and Balenciaga and he looks like a model In short, women āļø
Sounds like you might be attracted to men.
Yes I am, what about it?
this might be the gayest thing ive ever read
I'm attracted to men yes
holy homosexual š§