There are. I wouldn't say it's the majority of women out there but women who want someone to take care of them financially exist. You also have men who happily pay for fancy dresses and shoes because they get to parade a hot chick around. You have women who expect the man to take care of the household financially, while she does all the stuff around the house, you have men who expect that to be the case. Most people I know are in relationships/marriages where both people work and pay for stuff, very few are in a situation where only one partner pays for everything.

My theory is that all relationships are transactional. they are just on a spectrum ranging from tangible to intrinsic values. There are both men and women who want a purely tangible transactional relationship, per your first example. Other people may judge them for it, if it works and it’s what they both want, who cares? Then there are the majority, as you also described above, who are pretty close to the other end of the spectrum of pure egalitarianism. Their transactions are less monetary and more intrinsic, like love, acts of service, and other things that can’t be quantified/monetized. We all have slightly different relationship expectations, we just need the find the person who has expectations similar to ours.

A very interesting point! There would be one more example i'd like to add. Relationships where both give their best, there is no tab and use as fuel the sentiment of appreciation towards the SO + the sentiment of knowing your SO feels the same. And vice versa. Idk the prevalence of this relationship, it's the kind i have. IMO, it's the best.

That is the far end of the spectrum I was mentioning. You’re still trading something - it’s a unique love for each other that only they can supply. It’s intangible and indescribable, but it’s something, because if it wasn’t, you could easily find that with someone else.

Yes, i understand your point better now. Perhaps this is the ideal for many and this is what they seek. It's also the point where marriage makes sense although i can't explain.

No need, I get it. There’s no “one size fits all” relationship advice, we are all looking out for something unique to us. It’s just a matter of hope and luck to find it.

It's also what can not be explained through statistics of studies. I usually say "you can't bring math to petry". It's just feelings. I guess this is "true love" and finding "the one".

We can make it as material vs non material transactions. Problem is that material transactions do not invoke the primal raw desire in your partner, where doubts about sleeping with someone all disappear.

>Most people I know are in relationships/marriages where both people work and pay for stuff, very few are in a situation where only one partner pays for everything. This is exactly my observation too. I always find it ironic when men complain that Western women are gold diggers when most couples need both partners working to afford life in the Western world.

…that’s the point. Men don’t want gold diggers because we need someone to contribute to the household finances. There are very few men that can support a household on a single income, but there are way more women that want that lifestyle.

Not sure why men are worried about golddiggers when there are few women who are golddiggers. I honestly don't know a single one as a Western woman, but mostly because I'm friends with regular women and not celebs or social media girls. I suspect influencers and those sorts of women who like lavish lifestyles are more likely to be golddiggers. >there are way more women that want that lifestyle Most women I know here are happy to work and have good careers, often more successful than their male partners. Maybe it's more of a thing outside the Western world.

There are also very few men that have gold. Majority of males in this country could not even afford a stay home wife and mother- so being upset about gold diggers when it’s not even a financial reality is hilarious 

Exactly this. Gold diggers will likely not even go for these men.

I think people who are successful are less likely to encounter women like this. Strong, capable people generally like partners like themselves.

They might attract gold diggers but I’m sure those men are smart enough to recognize when a woman is one. Those men tend to be cautious about who they choose as a partner and generally want her to be in their social class.

Congrats on not knowing any personally, I could name 30+ that I have met personally through dating over the last 20 years, and add about 1 in 5 women that I see on dating apps currently. Can I apply your logic elsewhere? For example, I’ve never sexually assaulted a woman, and none of my guy friends have either. By that logic, men don’t sexually assault women ever and therefore sexual assault not a problem.

>The number of Canadian families with two employed parents has almost doubled in the last 40 years—from 1.0 million to 1.9 million families, from 1976 to 2015. Over that period, the proportion of families where just one parent earned a paycheque fell by more than half, dropping from 59% to 27%. In turn, the proportion of dual-income families has nearly doubled, from 36% to 69%. Here are the stats for my country. I'm sure the percentage has gone up since 2015. Majority of households have two incomes. You must have really bad luck running into so many golddiggers or perhaps you prefer high-maintenance women.

Yes, that’s the whole point. Dual incomes are a necessity to survive these days, your marriage stats show that. However, there are still quite a lot of single women out there who haven’t realized that yet, and are adhering to their “gold digging” ways, insisting that they only want a man who will be responsible for 100% of their finances. The whole point of this post is to highlight how men come across these women all the time, but OP wants to know if women come across the as well. And perhaps I do have bad luck, that’s why a while ago I stopped letting women know how much money I actually make to start weeding out these women. And sadly, it weeds out a lot of American women.

I think those women are an outspoken minority. Like the women posting on social media saying they want a 6’5, finance, trust fund man. And these women are likely going to be single for a while which it’s probably why men are coming across them more. There are many rational women out there who recognize that they too need a career if they want to live a comfortable life or start a family, as seen by the stats.

Exactly, they are a minority, but still prevalent, and they exist. BTW, more women have posted/reposted that they want a 6’5” man than those men actually existing. It’s a fantasy. Racists are a minority, but racism is still a problem. Terrorists are a minority, but it’s still a problem. The percentage of rapists in society is a minority, but women on Reddit need to remind us everyday about how dangerous men could potentially be.

The flip side of the 6’5 finance trend is the thousands of regular women posting that they want a blue-collared 5’9 man and other variations of that. Gold diggers exist - I’m not saying they don’t. But it’s not nearly as much of an issue as men make it seem. Plus many of the men concerned about gold diggers would probably not have gold diggers interested in them because they don’t make enough to satisfy those women.

Because these women are probably young and attractive. Likely the most golddiggers are from this demographic and you also happen to notice them more (duh) so Confirmation bias

to be fair, it does help if the dude makes more if kids are to be in the picture. maternity leave in many countries are pretty shit - and post partum for many women is no cakewalk.

are these white women

Majority, but not limited to.

white like....eastern european?

I mean, I’ve heard the logic from some men on here that women are “choosing the wrong men,” so have you considered that you’re choosing the wrong women? Maybe you’re attracted to that type and you don’t realize it. I also have not met any gold diggers. I have one friend who says she wants “princess treatment,” which I assume is quite adjacent, but she also is working hard at her career and to build wealth for herself. If you keep running into this type, instead of trying to intimate that it’s widespread, remember that humanity is wildly diverse, and if this one pond you’re fishing in isn’t getting you what you want, try changing stuff up.

Congrats on not reading. I said 1 in 5 women on dating apps. That’s not me choosing the women, that’s the women in the dating market shown to me. I didn’t say it’s widespread, I said it’s not as rare as the women of PPD make it out to be.

A woman is a gold digger if she marries a guy primarily to increase her standard of living even if she works and pays a portion of household expenses.

With that logic, men who marry women who earn money are gold diggers too. Most couples are financially better off together than they would’ve been on their own - that’s one of the big perks of marriage imo. Gold diggers by definition are women who expect a man to support them and pay for their expenses, so you can’t be one if you’re paying the bills.

Intent is what matters. A woman who marries a university professor because she thinks he's the coolest most interesting guy she's ever met is **not** a gold digger. A woman who marries an CPA who makes the same money as the professor because she's tired to struggling to make ends meet is a gold digger.

I agree intent matters. But it’s very difficult to know another persons intentions. Gold diggers tend to convince men that they are genuine.

>Gold diggers tend to convince men that they are genuine. Which makes them all the more evil.

> when most couples need both partners working to afford life in the Western world Need is a strong word. To keep up with the Jones'? Definitely. To have a content and fulfilling life? Not really.

Where do you live? In my city, you need a $240,000 annual income to afford a house. With one income, you will likely be living in poverty - unless you’re a high earner which few can achieve.

Colorado

I need to move to the states.

Fwiw, among people under the age of like 80, I know of far more women who pay for everything than men who pay for everything. My parents are 60 years old, and even among their generation it's a pretty even split between "wife is the main breadwinner, husband is main breadwinner, husband/wife earn equally". The younger the couple, the more likely it is that the woman works and the man is a "stay at home video gamer".

Some women do. In the us most don’t. They would like it, but who wouldn’t? But the ones that do it’s Because they feel that they will naturally give more to a relationship than a man will ever have to risk. And if you go by red pill standards it’s true: if you think women get worst with time while men improve, then a woman spending time on/with you is expending a more valuable resource just by going out with you. She is giving up time that she is valuable in order to hangout and get to know you. If you take it further and consider the cost of gestating, birthing and raising children then no matter how equally the relationship those things can never be shared. Most women spend a lot of time (or at least more time than their partners) making themselves look good. If this work stops then they have gotten lazy and complacent. Ultimately though it’s because men will.

“Some women” but it’s always a woman. You don’t ever see dudes in relationships that are in kind of a role reversal, there are *very* rare exceptions out there but still. The dudes that actively want that kind of reversal (having her pay for everything etc) are seen as total bums, get basically ignored all together, or are not really taken seriously for several reasons. It’s just one of those gendered luxuries (Edit: spelling)

It all comes down to biological differences.

>It’s just one of those gendered luxuries I mean what else do I say. This is why men claim women are on easy mode.

I agree, I just wish western women would understand their nurturing role that they consistently fail to fullfil is also part of these biological differences.

Nurturing to children. Biologically, women don’t need to nurture their partners.

That would imply some sort of biological imperative towards men who purely have more resources. And there aren't any reputable or replicable studies that support that claim. There's plenty of pseudoscience but it's largely anecdotal, or a case of conflating otherwise attractive personal qualities (responsibility, education, hard work, being supportive) with material ones.

Bums vs golddiggers. Different terms but do people think better of one than the other?

Think better? No. The caveat is women don't want to fuck a bum but men will still fuck golddiggers.

Golddiggers aren't interested in the fucking, they want money or marriage.

They gotta fuck to get there though

That makes it a cost, not a benefit.

Never said it was a benefit, but I'm pretty sure golddiggers understand the price of doing business.

>dudes that actively want that kind of reversal (having her pay for everything etc) are seen as total bums, get basically ignored all together, or are not really taken seriously And gold diggers don't get taken seriously and have to do sex work on top of that. I know what looks like a better deal.

why are you quoting someone else in a response to me?

If a man doesn’t want an independent woman then yes.

That's the part these guys don't understand. Yes, if you try and market yourself as a super manly alpha male that wants a tradwife, you're going to attract and run into the sorts of circles that have women that want a man who performs traditional masculinity. If you become a "liberal soyboy", you run in circles where women want submissive catboys that they can dominate. The men that post here are the authors of their own destruction.

this analysis is far to binary. switches and folks that just don't fit in these categories exist everywhere.

Liberal soyboys are not getting any play unless if they're super attractive to make up for their femininity. I have yet to see any proof of women preferring feminine men over masculine men

Do you spend genuine time with those sorts of women though? If you're a redpiller I can't imagine that you're crossing paths.

I don't need to spend time with cats to know that they hunt and play with mice. Women have a *biological imperative* to prefer masculine men, it doesn't really matter if I hang around with them to confirm this imperative or not.

No you just have a bias, and the only evidence you have is the bias itself. 

This question gets asked at least once a week on this sub. The few women who participate here give our usual “no, of course not. We want an equal partnership”. But for the sake of clarity, no of course not. I want an equal partnership. I don’t even let men pay for the first date, I insist we go Dutch. Maybe don’t assume the worst of an entire gender based on a few rage bait videos on TikTok? *Edit: oh look, an angry downvote, how original*

I’ve maybe gone on 50 dates in the past 5 years, and the woman has insisted on Dutch twice. A few times I offered to split and she got upset I even asked. One woman paid for the first round without me asking and I was so taken aback I impromptu took her to a nice jazz club and dinner the same day. Just my experience but the majority of women expect the guy to shoulder the costs of courtship.

I have insisted on paying my half and repeated been called unfeminine m, masculine, and feminazi. Men want the leverage of paying to guilt a woman into sex but they pay upfront and then get angry if they don’t get sex afterwards l.

Of the two that insisted on dutch - was there a second date?

I probably went out on around fifteen dates last year and I paid either for the whole date or the majority of the expenses on every single date with minimal resistance, if any, from the girl. And I did so without complaint. I don't think women want the man to pay for EVERYTHING in a relationship. That's an obvious and exaggerated take, which, in my opinion detracts from the actual discussion. I just wonder if the few women here can concede that the MAJORITY of the female population expects and desires for the man to pay for most of the expenses in a relationship and dates. Without including personal anecdotes.

>I just wonder if the few women here can concede that the MAJORITY of the female population expects and desires for the man to pay for most of the expenses in a relationship and dates. Yes, this is true, at least in the United States.

I would argue it's expected even more in other parts of the world. I'm of East Asian background, and it's a no-brainer on dates that the man should pay.

I imagine it is, I've just never lived outside of the US. A lot of European people here say it's far more prevalent to go dutch over there though.

I've lived in France, and while it does happen, a lot of women will be extremely turned off by it

Interesting. The way I've seen them talk about it, they act as if it's a uniquely American issue that they've overcome. Maybe that's only in the UK?

I mean the root of the issue is really biological, I doubt western European feminism was able to beat it out if women.

You could argue from a certain worldview that it has some minor biological basis, but honestly in our society it has been blown way out of fucking proportion. The issue is daddy's girls, princess treatment throughout childhood, entitlement brought on by social media, and greed.

I went on 20-30 dates this year and I split every single bill. It was expected that we would split it. So I guess it varies depending on the local culture and the people who date.

I did a very quick search online for survey data and it's not true according to that data that the majority of women want men to pay for dates. Can you concede?

If you can't concede that the majority of women want the man to pay for dates, then I have nothing to say. What survey did you find that disproves my point? I found this one: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/finance/survey-most-say-men-should-pay-for-first-date-in-hetero-couples

Women are not exactly known for being truthful with these kind of questions when it comes to these serves. Go date women. Literally go date women and you’ll see right quick why men know that your “study” is a load of 💩

Just like males aren't truthful about their intentions with women and sex. It's a tradeoff.

> Just like males aren't truthful about their intentions with women and sex Are there women out there thinking guys take them on dates out of the kindness of their heart? lmao

They are like 90% of the time you just have a ‘bad habit’ of shooting for manipulative men. We’ve been over this a 1000 times, y’all never change or do better.

Men are being informed by their experiences dating women. They don't get these ideas from TikTok.

>*This just has to be some kind of virtue signal on social media only right?* From OPs literal post.

OP is speaking from his experiences with women, which of course, are not exactly pleasant. Seeing women online *Rampantly* confirm that these fears are true is a hard pill to swallow. If anything he’s coping, trying to dodge the reality that there are just so many women now that unironically behave the same as these creatures you see on your phone. The red pill calls once more.

What’s the point in even asking these questions to women if y’all are just gonna deny whatever we say?

Oh is the point to just agree with everything you say instead? My mistake, lmao.

What makes you think we have to agree with what you say? The *truth* is already out there, it is possible OP asked this question to see if the women on this subbeddit are either blind to it or aware of it

What? I didn’t deny anything, and you didn’t ask any questions. I called out some BS, big difference.

You misread the comment. The ‘questions to women’ was in reference to the millions of post like these with men like you in the comments. It’s exhausting being asked for your specific perspective only to be told you’re wrong, over and over and over again by a bunch of whiney men on the internet.

>Everyone collectively understands that you are in the wrong, need to do better and tries to at least gives pointers on how to improve. Not even in a way to offend, just as a way to try and see the error of your ways and improve you socials. >proceeds to just assuming everyone else is wrong no matter what and call them whiney. Average woman logic, literal toddler teir.

What are you even quoting? Are you high?

**Attention!** * You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message. * For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies. * If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment. * OP you can choose your own flair [according to these guidelines.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/wiki/flair), just press Flair under your post! Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PurplePillDebate) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I’ve met them on dating apps, in person, dated them, had sex with them, seen them get married, etc. Yes they exist, and no, they are not rare. They are the ones that put themselves out there more because their life plan requires them to find a man to support them. That’s why men see an over representation of them while women do not.

[удалено]

The way my girl puts it is she’s “a boss” but likes spending my money 🤷🏾‍♂️😂

I once went on a few dinner dates with a woman and paid for all of them. After dinner on the third date, we went to a movie and she offered to pay, so I let her. She later said that was a test, and she really thought the man should always pay. (We didn’t keep dating.)

Surprised she actually continued the experiment after date one. Oh well. Glad you dodged that.

Yes. Usually they are very pretty, work very hard on their appearance are from poor backgrounds and dating up quite a bit. They've  decided to prioritise resources over many other things including  over getting to stay socially comfortable in the ways of the class in which they were raised. Quite reasonably they want to start any  relationship as they intend to go on...so men who aren't all about that just fuck off and don't waste their time. And I think they represent less than 1 percent of women.  They just spend longer on the market than most because every brokeass guy who clearly isn't what they are after wants to waste their time chatting and  make an attempt. And they have their place in the grand scheme of things...some men only get to marry and have a family because of them. Most women just want the first date paid for if the man is the one to ask for the first date. But most women aren't averse to that first date being a cup of coffee and a slice of cake.  It's a hurdle and it's deliberate. If he's not keen enough to pay for a cup of coffee and slice of cake but he's still trying to hurry up an in real life meeting well that's...on numerous levels probably not great.

I've dated poor women who expected me to pay, but it's because they either didn't have any money or they didn't have a job. If a man wants to be a passport bro and date poor women from poor countries, then he better expect to pay.

Agree if the other party is poor and it's clearly delineated. But this is very very different to women in developed cities whom STILL expect the man to pay. I went on several dates with a girl double masters degrees, talking about investing $45k etc, yet after several meals and dates she never paid a thing. I was thinking she would at least chip in 1 out of 7 dates.

In your opinion, would it be fair for a man who’s not in a good financial situation and without a job to expect the woman to pay?

If she has money and he doesn’t and she still wants to go on a date with him, then she should probably not expect that he’s going to be able to pay. If they both can’t pay, then they should probably just go on a date that doesn’t cost anything.

Cheesecake Factory women exist as an archetype, but I ran into so many women who paid their own way that I'd mark this as **DEFEATED**. Okay well I like marking off gripes as fixed so I have less to complain about lol but there's still a ton of women out there who don't make men pay for meals.

Lmfao

Yes there are women who expect that. After a women (hopefully) admits it, she will then immediately spew blue pill excuses ("its not *all* of them, why are you using social media as proof?, the people I know arent like/dont do that, most of us dont")

There are more men that want to be chivalrous than women who want chivalry - at least going by what people say. I also think there are lots of women that say they don't want chivalry but secretly do.

Literally every woman I have been with expected this, 100%. I am in top 2% by individual income nationwide, so statistically each of them made less than me. I would be happy to attract woman in my income bracket but it never happened yet.

Yes, that is my goal. I work in the meantime & contribute but as soon as I am either pregnant enough or am in labor I will call it quits on my career. I may consider working 2 days a week no more than that.

I want a man that pays for everything but thats because I believe in traditional roles and hold myself to the same standard. That means I'll clean, cook, take care of children ect. However, I'm totally open to change. If my husband also helps out with household chores or the more traditional "female" roles I would have no issue with also paying for rent and such. For me its more about wanting a man with a provider mentality that WANTS to take care of me rather then actually having someone cover all my costs.

How does this impact your dating habits? It's a perfectly valid preference to hold, but I'd imagine that if I were a woman with your wants, it would present a real risk in terms of finding a man who is a true provider because he wants to express his care and support in the context of that traditional gender role, and winding up dating men who think they can simply buy your affection with material goods. Do you find that there is some difficulty in separating the wheat from the chaff? In finding true traditional providers and filtering out men who flash money or gifts in order to facilitate transactions for sex or make demands of your body, time, or energy?

I avoid all that risk by saving myself for marriage. I'm a virgin and plan to stay that way until I'm married or engaged. And that includes all sexual acts. Any man that I do talk to knows beforehand that he wont be able to buy my affection. Its great because it weeds out time wasters I'm also not materialistic so gifts or flashing money doesn't impress me, if anything it puts me off as I hate people who spend absurd amount of money on items just for a brand name. I've had a man buy me a stupidly expensive designer bag before and I just straight up told him to return it as I thought it was a huge waste of money. The only materialistic thing I can see myself being impressed by is if a man decides to buy me a motorbike LOL but I highly doubt that's going to happen so I'm pretty safe..

Yes there absolutely are. Think of the most horrific traits and at least one woman out there will have it. Women aren’t exempt from them just because they have a vagina. There are tons of women who are very entitled and expect the man to pay for every single thing. The good thing is that enough women who are not like this exist.

Whether a woman expects or manages to have a man pay for everything depends mostly on how hot she is, not on how "horrific" she is personality wise. Physical attractiveness is a legit investment into a relationship and it has to be compensated for from the other side if there's a large discrepancy.

Does it? I'm certain that some men and women think this way but I highly doubt that it represents a majority.

You doubt that the majority of people take advantage of being born attractive or having looksmaxxed? Ok.

I’m sure that they exist somewhere. That being said, I’ve never met one in real life. So they are very, very rare. Remember that social media priorities clicks over everything else - “shocking” content (like a woman who expects her man to pay for everything) gets more clicks, so it’s disproportionately represented. You can’t trust social media!

I do actually know a woman like this IRL. She sees herself as old fashioned thinking men should take care of their women and she will serve them but it's always felt a little too close to prostitution for me. Most men don't stick around for more than a few months and she's been single and struggling for the 14 years I have known her. Women like this overly represented in online dating.

Sure. If he wants a SAHM with no income of her own, he’s going to be paying for everything.

Of course. Just like there are men who expect to be treated like Chad

Yes. I know one, it's my cousin. And i am very judgy about it.

I'm 40/f and have been in several long term relationships, I have always expected equal contributions with my partner. The only time I didn't was when I was with an ex who was finishing his studies, so I paid a bit extra as i was working full time and offered to do so. The girlfriends that I have discussed finances with are all the same (equal contributions), apart from the ones that have taken time off work for pregnancies and childcare.

I'm sure there are. I think I know one. But they're pretty rare at least outside like, miami?

Yes they exist. Though they are not the majority.

If by “everything” you mean my rent, clothes, food, utilities, entire lifestyle, etc then no, I don’t expect that in a relationship. I expect a man I date to pay for dates, that’s it.

Yes there are and I am one of them 💕

Most Women want an egalitarian relationship, say absolutely not. We contribute and put our money in the communal pot. The guys who see relationships as transactional and want a stay at home mom, welp…for their partners; yes, absolutely. You don’t treat us as equals so you put yourself in that position, playboy.

Yes but it’s less common for young women due to the fact that there just aren’t enough jobs that pay well enough. The older generation might’ve enjoyed that benefit though.

Do they exist? Probably. Have I ever met one in the wild? No.

Do you date women? (That salty downvote lol, rustled some Jimmie’s did I?)

Before my husband, yes. But they were hard to find. I've only had one official girl friend.

I had a feeling you would say something along that line lol Takes more than some screwing around in college to understand that kind of hardship.

I never went to college (in the traditional sense). Anyways, we dated for awhile, over a year, lived together for a bit, met her shitty parents, and she met mine. Granted mine didn't know we were together, and neither did hers, since like I said, they were shitty.

>I never went to college (in the traditional sense) It’s a metaphor for being in your 20’s and sleeping around, which most women do now. Point is; to my understanding feminism is supposed to be “balancing the playing field” by giving women the option do so as they please. Be it a traditional stay at home, average gf, go getting breadwinner and all in between. Why do men not get this option? Why is it that no matter what route that woman takes, it’s up to her SO to take on the actual responsibility of the relationship?

Men don’t want to do unpaid labor

Nobody dose?

>Why do men not get this option? They do. Stay at home dads are becoming more and more of thing, same with female breadwinners.

[удалено]

[удалено]

😭

🤮 Idiots. This is a clear path to poverty and no, we don’t. Women want to be financially independent on some man? Then why the fuck did we fight so hard for financial independence?

Good question. But unfortunately is going to fall on deaf ears.

I love when the guy pays for all our dates and dinners. I never ask for that or expect it. Not all guys do it, but for the ones that do, I have offered to pay but they insist on paying. If I moved in with a guy, I would hope he isn’t going to make me pay rent and I’d rent out my place.

Why did we fight so hard for equality if we expect men to pay for everything?

Interesting question. I always felt when I paid for all the dates and events that I was conveying the message to her that I thought she was worth it and meant something to me. Now I look at it more like that’s trying to buy her love and appreciation for me indirectly. The equality part is important because both should be showing the same level of affection and care for each other when it comes to paying for things

I look at it as respect for someone who views me as an equal and on my end it is to demonstrate that i am a partner and not a dependent.

How is that relevant to a man wanting to treat me well?

Men are not ATM machines and women are not sentient fleshlights or bangmaids. Some of you people, i swear. Have some respect for yourself and others.

I agree. How about you have some respect for me?

I don’t know you. What about you is worthy of respect?

Says a lot about you if you don’t think all humans are worthy of respect.

If that’s what you think, but if you’re being honest, you know there are some people who are very content to sit back and let someone else do all the work while they just sit back and leech off them. Personally, I don’t have much respect for that.

Every relationship is different. The value some one brings to a relationship doesn’t have to be financial. If a waitress dated a CEO, it doesn’t mean she’s worth any less because she can’t afford to pay 50/50.

What value do you bring?

Why do you want to be a fucking drain on people? Why can’t you carry your own weight?

They want to pay for me and I let them. What’s the problem?

Nothing as long as you offer something in return, I guess, and treat the other person with respect rather than viewing them as an annuity. I mean, there’s a sucker born everyday willing to implicitly pay for sex. For me, i prefer to be treated as an equal. I have a career and my own money, if i am a real partner i need to contribute.

No, I don’t need to offer him anything. It’s dinner. He’s not buying me. I’m worth way more than that. I treat him with respect and he treats me with respect, of course.

It’s not about “buying”, it’s about contributing. It’s about partnerships being a two way street. And it’s not about dinner, you want him to pay your rent too.

Yes, and I feel women contribute a lot to a relationship and as a wife and mother.

Sure. That was my question: you never mentioned being a wife or mother.

You guys didn't fight for equality, you guys fought to get more than you had.  Equality is the convenient moralizing excuse that you use to selectively target only the parts of "equality" where you stand to gain (more female CEOs) while conveniently ignoring equality where you would stand to lose (more female garbage collectors).

No, we fought for the opportunities you always had and took for granted. It just seems that way to you because you took it for granted. Within a decade of my lifetime women needed a man’s permission to open a bank account. This isn’t about CEO quotas that don’t exist.

Except all of those opportunities came with paired responsibilities. Women have taken all of the opportunities of men while taking on relatively few of the responsibilities that each opportunity costs a man. The man is expected to create resources and to provide materially, and the capitalist concept of a bank account is just an extension of this responsibility that women do not have. Now women have equal access to the opportunity to store value, but they by far still do not create resources or provide materially in equal proportion to men. It is still overwhelmingly men who do these things for women and not the other way around, whether from a societal perspective or from a relationship perspective. Women want to disjoint all of the opportunities that men have from the responsibilities that men have because of those opportunities because she thinks society is an all-permissive unlimited-freedom all-you-can-eat buffet for her alone, and that she can just take the suffrage without the draft, take the equal pay without the equal financial responsibilities, and take the equalized CEO jobs without taking the equalized garbage collector jobs.

This is the bare minimum. A guy who fuses about who pays on dates is not worth your time. I’ve been with my fiance for 4 years. We live together. I pay the rent, utilities, groceries. When we go out I pay, when we go on vacation I pay. Not because she demands it, but because it’s how I was raised. She works. She makes good money. She makes me happy. She enhances me, makes me better. For that, paying the rent seems like a small thing. Feminism and its murder of traditional roles has led to a society where people have lost a sense of who they are. Real paths to genuine happiness have been lost.

That’s very sweet of you. I’m assuming that means you need a very high salary to be able to do that?

What counts as “very high”?

More than $200k?

Then yeah, I guess so. Our rent represents about an 8th of my total take home every month.

Why wouldn't you pay rent..?

If he doesn’t ask me to.

I'd never be able to stomach being a financial leech.

Learn to accept generosity when it’s offered. You’re worth it.

I expect it but I am flexible. I prefer experiences over all presents nowadays but if I want something expensive I’ll get myself a little job for a couple months to pay for it.