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.
Yeah, it's definitely on them, but a woman might feel like she needs to have sex before she's ready to make a guy happy just like a guy might feel like he needs to pay for dates to please a woman. But naturally, I'm only hearing complaints from men about things that don't benefit them, so why should I sympathize with them? It's like, "I want a woman to contribute to date expenses, I don't want a relationship but I want to have casual sex with her, and I want her to be young and attractive." Ok great, but what's in it for her exactly?
Yeah, it's definitely on them, but a woman might feel like she needs to have sex before she's ready to make a guy happy
I don't buy that because it's not true. That's just a line women use in order to excuse themselves like "I had no choice!!" Women turn down guys all the time and for any reason they want.
I always pay for dates, I'd feel like a chump if I didn't.
I've dated 2 women who I know made more than me, or were well off. They both offered to pay but I paid anyway. One was a real estate agent and owned quite a few businesses in town, the other was just from very wealthy family. They had just moved over from Holland.
Struck out with them both after a couple weeks. Oh well!
I also find that if the gap is too big, it doesn't work out. There is some sort of stigma or confidence issue or something that happens when the gap too big. Or maybe it is resentment? I don't know the word, but it feels like the guys feel bad if they can't treat to the same level of stuff I treat myself to.
I think big wage gap also leads to different types of lifestyles. Say for instance a guy makes 40K a year, his potential 'date' makes 120K, three times as much. Most likely that woman goes out more often than him to eat, dines at more expensive places, goes to more exotic vacations than him, probably lives in a better part of the city with a higher chance of no roomates.
She can afford to go out more and possibly experiences more because she can afford to, like ballroom dancing, rock climbing, concerts, etc etc.
Unless the two parties are frugal in life, I think lifestyles of big wage gaps can be too different to handle. Sort of like having rich friends. They just don't understand why you can't don't want to go to Europe and just want to head to Mexico instead. MONEY.
Is it really any different than a woman who likes or prefers being submissive? There are women who have no problem being the submissive, in whatever context, in their relationship. I don't see the need to analyze or claim they're deluding themselves. It may not be something for me, but hey, we're all different and like different things.
Hmm, interesting. I suppose it isn't. I'd be interested in hearing the opinion of a woman that finds the idea of submission repulsive about other women who genuinely enjoy it. It's not the decision itself that bothers me, but the...I suppose "tone" from men that suggests that they're "better" than others by doing so? I guess I don't see that from submissive women. It could be there...I just never noticed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
Submissiveness and "gentlemanly" behaviors and actions are often regarded as expectations based on gender roles handed down by society decades ago. Are these traits or behaviors inherently, universally, specific to fulfilling a gender role, or could some people simply be "wired" or more inclined toward them?
I think to theorize about that is way beyond my anthropological pay grade
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique
Some men simply don't mind contributing however they can or want to. It doesn't mean they're deluding themselves or blinded by outdated concepts. And the same can be said about a variety of traits or behaviors.
And to me, that relates a bit to what sobaloba was suggesting about the differences in genders "accepting" their role, so to speak (assuming that these roles were inherent in our nature, not culture). I'm the first to admit that it's a biased point for me, but I generally see most men accepting these contributions, where I generally see women fighting them tooth and nail.
As an example, when I see people of either gender refer to themselves as old-fashioned types (however you choose to define that), the guy defines it by HIS contributions and the woman defines it by.....HIS contributions. (e.g. guy: "I'm old fashioned, I like to do x, y z." woman: "I'm old fashioned, I like the guy to do x, y, z")
If someone makes me, I'll quote posts about it, but they'd be from other threads and, to be honest, a lot of work
That's not what feminism was about. I'm not sure why I'm even trying to have a conversation with you about this anymore…
Then feminists fooled the entire world.
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.
