Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My observations are my opinion. My comments were made specifically for the purpose of providing MY feedback/opinion to the OP regarding her situation. Its not about you. The people who happened to disagree with MY opinion (and the opinions of those who agreed with me) went into attack mode if we uttered a single word that did not placate the OP.
This is my last post in this thread because heaven forbid that someone provide insight that is contrary to the chorus of "its not you sweetie, he's just a jerk for not wanting you". This is the exact reason why that guy who dumped her didn't tell her the complete, explicit truth. Speaking the truth is the ultimate sin with this thread as the proof.
I'm not mad at your opinion and never have been. However, you are attacking people who disagree with you just as badly as you say you've been attacked, and are now making it about you by playing the victim card. If you had simply stated you opinion without insulting everyone who disagreed with you by implying we are all wimpy placating liars, then perhaps you would not have gotten as much blowback? Just a thought.
Anyway I'm not mad at you. I'm sure Jet will take your opinions into consideration regardless.
This isn't about permission, so there's no need to thump your chest. I already removed myself from your characterization simply by noting details that you neglected to mention.
Well if you say so, but it really didn't need to be all this big fuss you made out of it. Your quote was provided as one of dozen counter-example to someone who said there weren't many comments like yours. That's all there was to it. It's not like it was about you personally. But if you feel relieved to have "removed yourself" from... well, whatever it is you reckon you've removed yourself from, I guess we're all happy now.
You assume that a man SHOULD be paying and a woman SHOULD be "letting him".
I object to your assumption that women SHOULD NOT pay.
Enough. You are wrong when you talk about my "assumption." You make it sound like I feel a woman should never pay for anything, and that is not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilac110
I heart JJ, but my experience runs contrary to hers and that of several others among my "pals" here: I think going dutch before one is in an established couple is a bad idea, because I think it puts off more men than it turns on. If a man asks you out, feel free to offer to pay for yourself, but if he tells you to put your wallet away, put it away and let him pay for the date. If you feel you must return the favor, and you like him, offer to stop in at another place for a drink and pay for a round. But by and large, if he asks you out, he's obviously prepared to pay, or he wouldn't have asked you out--or he dang well should be prepared to pay. So don't accept the date on condition that you will pay your own way, don't go snatching the tab so you can be sure to pay for your meal, and don't make a big to-do out of insisting that you pay for yourself. As with dancing, let him lead.
And hell yes I feel it rude to insist on going dutch when someone asks you out. When someone invites you over for dinner, do you bring your own meal? You might offer to bring wine or dessert, which would be parallel to stopping in for a drink after the meal on a date, but you wouldn't cook your own dinner and bring it over, because that would be rude. It's the same thing.
And I'll go one further: If I asked a man out, and he insisted on going dutch, I would be offended, and I would not ask him out again. Why? Because he would be rejecting something I offered him because I like him.
So please, enough with putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do so, I'm just going to ignore your comments.
You can put an elephant in a tutu and it is still an elephant. JJ tends to lead with a masculine foot. Women with masculine energy can be a turn off for many men. Based on what she stated that the guy gave as his reasons for breaking it off, it is very easy to read between the lines that he happened to find her to be too masculine for his personal taste. This is very obvious to those of us who are not worried about kissing JJ's tush.
I seriously doubt that JJ fully gets that she truly gives off too much masculine energy and she therefore would not be able to articulate her experiences accurately or objectively.
I get what your opinion is. My comment was regarding your odd turn of phrase, which you repeated here, and the image it conjured in my head.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 05-29-2013 at 12:16 PM..
Enough. You are wrong when you talk about my "assumption." You make it sound like I feel a woman should never pay for anything, and that is not the case.
And hell yes I feel it rude to insist on going dutch when someone asks you out. When someone invites you over for dinner, do you bring your own meal? You might offer to bring wine or dessert, which would be parallel to stopping in for a drink after the meal on a date, but you wouldn't cook your own dinner and bring it over, because that would be rude. It's the same thing.
And I'll go one further: If I asked a man out, and he insisted on going dutch, I would be offended, and I would not ask him out again.
So please, enough with putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do so, I'm just going to ignore your comments.
LOL! Maybe you should work on being less pushy and demanding. It might be shrinking your dating pool!
See, that is the problem I have with all of this dutch business for the first few dates. I really and truly feel that a lot of women (not all, but a lot) who whip out the ol' wallet and insist on going dutch from the start are either:
--worried about feeling obligated or what his expectations might be because he paid for a date, in which case, I say you don't owe him a dang thing more than, "Thank you very much, I had a wonderful evening,"
--worried that they won't be able to afford to return the favor, and it's better to pay $30 now and $30 on the next date, after a pay-day, then to let him treat and then pay $60 for a whole date later, to which I say, "this isn't about keeping up with the Joneses, so when you'd like to take him out, you do what you can afford,"
--on some level that they might not even be aware of, afraid of letting someone be nice to them or are subconsciously throwing up a wall of some sort because they feel they don't deserve or aren't worthy of the treat, or
--concerned with making themselves look empowered, in control, and invulnerable, like, "I can pay for MYSELF, I don't NEED a man," to which I say, "Just because a man pays for the date, that doesn't mean the sisterhood is going to demand that you turn in your tiara, bracelets, and Lasso of Truth."
Perhaps this is my age showing (mid-40s), but I just don't think it's worth putting yourself through all of this. I think women insisting on going dutch--or men insisting on going dutch when a woman asks them out, for that matter--sends a friendzone message on a good day, and a defensive, almost confrontational message on a bad, depending on how it's handled.
I'm a bit younger than you (late 30s) but my female friends and I prefer to go dutch for the first few dates for the following reasons:
- there still are some guys out there who feel like they're owed something if they buy you a cocktail or a steak. I've heard a few too many stories about unsafe situations occurring . . . such as being manhandled, a guy trying to prevent a girl from leaving, following her home, etc. It's just safest to remove the "I bought a meal for you so you owe me something" factor, especially when it's a first or second date with a guy you don't really know (online dating, cold approach, etc).
- there's a lot of guys out there who are paranoid about gold diggers. Going dutch tends to reassure them that I'm not just looking for someone to foot the bill at Michelin Star restaurants.
Seems like we're screwed no matter who pays... if we pay, we risk friend zoning ourselves. If we don't pay or go dutch, we're gold diggers.
My observations are my opinion. My comments were made specifically for the purpose of providing MY feedback/opinion to the OP regarding her situation. Its not about you. The people who happened to disagree with MY opinion (and the opinions of those who agreed with me) went into attack mode if we uttered a single word that did not placate the OP.
This is my last post in this thread because heaven forbid that someone provide insight that is contrary to the chorus of "its not you sweetie, he's just a jerk for not wanting you". This is the exact reason why that guy who dumped her didn't tell her the complete, explicit truth. Speaking the truth is the ultimate sin with this thread as the proof.
The OP has repeatedly lamented having issues that ALL lead back to being a woman who has a masculine energy. I am sorry that I pointed out the OBVIOUS. She will continue to have the same issues if she does not tweek the way in which she deals with men in regards to her masculine energy. Putting on a froufrou dress does not solve the problem if her interactions/energy are still perceived as masculine by men. What is the purpose of not telling her what she really needs to hear to make the progress that she wants to make in her romantic life?
I agree with your last paragraph IF you mean it. Are you really giving out constructive criticism, or are you really kicking a dog who is down in a sideways sort of way?
To further elaborate. I don't think fat people need to be told their fat. Old people to be told their old. Ugly people to be told their ugly. My point is at this stage of the game, most likely they know it. There's really no need to point out the obvious if that is the obvious.
Enough. You are wrong when you talk about my "assumption." You make it sound like I feel a woman should never pay for anything, and that is not the case.
And hell yes I feel it rude to insist on going dutch when someone asks you out. When someone invites you over for dinner, do you bring your own meal? You might offer to bring wine or dessert, which would be parallel to stopping in for a drink after the meal on a date, but you wouldn't cook your own dinner and bring it over, because that would be rude. It's the same thing.
And I'll go one further: If I asked a man out, and he insisted on going dutch, I would be offended, and I would not ask him out again. Why? Because he would be rejecting something I offered him because I like him.
So please, enough with putting words in my mouth. If you continue to do so, I'm just going to ignore your comments.
Just to explain what happened...I did not insist we go dutch. The check came, I took out my wallet and he told me how much I owed. He didn't offer to pay in any way, shape or form and I didn't insist that we split it. A few dates in he did pay for my movie tickets and I paid for dinner with seemingly no issues or resistance on his part. That is why I was so confused about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wry_Martini
I'm a bit younger than you (late 30s) but my female friends and I prefer to go dutch for the first few dates for the following reasons:
- there still are some guys out there who feel like they're owed something if they buy you a cocktail or a steak. I've heard a few too many stories about unsafe situations occurring . . . such as being manhandled, a guy trying to prevent a girl from leaving, following her home, etc. It's just safest to remove the "I bought a meal for you so you owe me something" factor, especially when it's a first or second date with a guy you don't really know (online dating, cold approach, etc).
- there's a lot of guys out there who are paranoid about gold diggers. Going dutch tends to reassure them that I'm not just looking for someone to foot the bill at Michelin Star restaurants.
Seems like we're screwed no matter who pays... if we pay, we risk friend zoning ourselves. If we don't pay or go dutch, we're gold diggers.
This is pretty much what it comes down to. Hell, I could have sat back and let him pay for everything and he could have easily whined about that too. It's a no win really...I guess you just have to find someone that shares your opinions. I've always offered and haven't yet had a guy insist on paying, unless it was for something very small like a frozen yogurt or maybe a cheap beer. Even then, I always get the next round.
LOL! I've never had a problem finding suitable partners or forming relationships!
Despite our radically different views on what constitutes rude or inappropriate date paying protocol, we both manage successful love lives! Thus my bottom line. Who pays is not cast in stone. Who prefers what about who pays is not cast in stone. If you and I were to date, it would possibly render us wildly incompatible. But that would not make either of our PoV about the relative merits of paying or not paying the RIGHT PoV nor either of us fundamentally wrong as daters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This isn't about permission, so there's no need to thump your chest. I already removed myself from your characterization simply by noting details that you neglected to mention. 
Enough. You are wrong when you talk about my "assumption." You make it sound like I feel a woman should never pay for anything, and that is not the case.
