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.
I'd just make sure to limit the amount of meal-like dates that I go on if I'm dating someone who expects expensive restaurants. Like once or twice a month, and plan other dates around not eating out, or bringing your own food.
LOL! Yup, this is critical! I am not a sugar mama.
Which is ironic that some of you would be opposed to the idea of 1/2 of the partnership mooching off the other. Some women seemed to love that concept when the burden was carried entirely by the man in the thread I created. Pick and choose which equal rights apply to you all you want ladies. But don't complain when he leaves you for the next best thing. Looks don't last forever after all. Because the way some of you make it sound, all you're good for is your sex appeal and possibly homemaking attributes. If I had wives like you, I certainly wouldn't bat an eye over it.
If it's the first date with someone he doesn't know that well, I don't see a problem with what your friend is doing. He has made a sound financial decision. If he asks the woman out on a 2nd date (or vice versa), I think that's when the party asking should bare the responsibility for the full bill. Later on in the relationship, I think it should become more of a partnership in that the bill is typically split 50/50. That said, it's totally advisable and appropriate IMO to have romantic dates with your partner well into the relationship where one party pays for the other party. Romance is a very important part of a relationship after all. Also, romance doesn't necessarily equate to $$$. If it does, then s/he doesn't love you for you; s/he loves you for what you can provide him/her.
This is not pre-1950 anymore. Women work in high-earning positions. They have good jobs and make as much or more than men. They need to bare some of the financial responsibility in a relationship. If you want equal rights, you can't pick and choose which aspects you want to uphold based on what's most convenient to you.
What if the woman doesn't earn a lot? What if she earns significantly less? Should they bear less of the financial responsibility?
Oh - and you most certainly can pick and choose what you want out of a relationship. There are no laws governing relationships. A woman can have a high paying job and still want to be taken care of on dates. Will she find what she is looking for? Maybe - maybe not - but she is allowed to have that desire. There are no laws governing what people do in their dating lives. A man can want a high powered executive wife who waits on him hand and foot at home. Will he find that? Maybe - maybe not - but he can have that desire! But having equal rights under the law doesn't mean that we are now forced to have different preferences in our love lives. Everyone should have equal rights.
What if the woman doesn't earn a lot? What if she earns significantly less? Should they bear less of the financial responsibility?
See Sweet Like Sugar's response on this topic. I'll take that answer. If they can't afford a minimal dating life, then I'm not interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
Oh - and you most certainly can pick and choose what you want out of a relationship. There are no laws governing relationships. A woman can have a high paying job and still want to be taken care of on dates. Will she find what she is looking for? Maybe - maybe not - but she is allowed to have that desire. There are no laws governing what people do in their dating lives. A man can want a high powered executive wife who waits on him hand and foot at home. Will he find that? Maybe - maybe not - but he can have that desire! But having equal rights under the law doesn't mean that we are now forced to have different preferences in our love lives. Everyone should have equal rights.
Good luck with that. I'd typically be a proponent of loyalty in marriage till death do us part. But you ladies are making it extremely enticing for me to embrace the idea that once your sex appeal diminishes, you're out the door and I'm bringing in the next young, thin pair of legs. If I'm paying for all of it, I want the latest and greatest model to get equal satisfaction out of it.
Perhaps this is the true reality of "relationships", and I was just too naive to see it any other way before. Glad you're helping to open my eyes though before it was too late.
Which is ironic that some of you would be opposed to the idea of 1/2 of the partnership mooching off the other. Some women seemed to love that concept when the burden was carried entirely by the man in the thread I created. Pick and choose which equal rights apply to you all you want ladies. But don't complain when he leaves you for the next best thing. Looks don't last forever after all. Because the way some of you make it sound, all you're good for is your sex appeal and possibly homemaking attributes. If I had wives like you, I certainly wouldn't bat an eye over it.
Wow, you got all of that just from her saying that she wouldn't be a sugar mama? I personally know women who are in relationships with men who don't work and are totally reliant on the women's finances. If those women want to financially support those men, that's their business. If you don't want to financially support women, then don't. But I don't see why you're making a big deal out of women wanting what they want. If those women aren't for you, just don't date them.
When I had a job and my husband (then boyfriend) didn't, I paid for our dates. I had no problem with it. When we both were working, whoever asked was the one that paid, for the most part.
This eliminates having to stress over whether you can afford the restaurant or event that the other person has invited you to attend with them, or worrying if you can cover your share or having to decline because you can't afford it. Obviously, the person asking will plan dates they can afford as will the person they are dating.
Wow, you got all of that just from her saying that she wouldn't be a sugar mama? I personally know women who are in relationships with men who don't work and are totally reliant on the women's finances. If those women want to financially support those men, that's their business. If you don't want to financially support women, then don't. But I don't see why you're making a big deal out of women wanting what they want. If those women aren't for you, just don't date them.
The big deal part is that the woman is able to decide whether she's willing to accept the financial arrangement of being supported or not. Technically, you could argue that the man is, too, but the reality is he isn't. That's because the woman could choose to be totally dependent on the man and society and many men would not mind at all. In the reverse situation, everyone looks at the man as a slug and loser and asks what the woman is doing.
Which is ironic that some of you would be opposed to the idea of 1/2 of the partnership mooching off the other. Some women seemed to love that concept when the burden was carried entirely by the man in the thread I created. Pick and choose which equal rights apply to you all you want ladies. But don't complain when he leaves you for the next best thing. Looks don't last forever after all. Because the way some of you make it sound, all you're good for is your sex appeal and possibly homemaking attributes. If I had wives like you, I certainly wouldn't bat an eye over it.
I like when the man pays. There is no rule about how much that is. It just fits in better with the role I want in a relationship. I don't want to be the primary planner. This doesn't mean I'll never plan. But if you plan, you should pay!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdroplet76
What if the woman doesn't earn a lot? What if she earns significantly less? Should they bear less of the financial responsibility?
Oh - and you most certainly can pick and choose what you want out of a relationship. There are no laws governing relationships. A woman can have a high paying job and still want to be taken care of on dates. Will she find what she is looking for? Maybe - maybe not - but she is allowed to have that desire. There are no laws governing what people do in their dating lives. A man can want a high powered executive wife who waits on him hand and foot at home. Will he find that? Maybe - maybe not - but he can have that desire! But having equal rights under the law doesn't mean that we are now forced to have different preferences in our love lives. Everyone should have equal rights.
Exactly! The same rules do not have to apply in all aspects of life. I like to make decisions at work and be in charge. At home? Not so much!
Wow, you got all of that just from her saying that she wouldn't be a sugar mama? I personally know women who are in relationships with men who don't work and are totally reliant on the women's finances. If those women want to financially support those men, that's their business. If you don't want to financially support women, then don't. But I don't see why you're making a big deal out of women wanting what they want. If those women aren't for you, just don't date them.
I think the man should pay for everything.
But I don't think it's right for a man to rely on me for things. (I ain't his suga mama)
Just seems a little hypocritical to me.
But you're right, it's a preference. I'll stick with my equal partnership preference.
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.
See Sweet Like Sugar's response on this topic. I'll take that answer. If they can't afford a minimal dating life, then I'm not interested.
And that's totally fine.
Quote:
Good luck with that. I'd typically be a proponent of loyalty in marriage till death do us part. But you ladies are making it extremely enticing for me to embrace the idea that once your sex appeal diminishes, you're out the door and I'm bringing in the next young, thin pair of legs. If I'm paying for all of it, I want the latest and greatest model to get equal satisfaction out of it.
I'm simply pointing out that people can have whatever preferences they want to have in their love lives. Being equal under the law isn't some honor bestowed upon women for which they now need to change who they are attracted to - it was righting a wrong. I'm sorry that you seem to feel that you are now only viewing women as sex objects of which you will use and abuse to your satisfaction. That was not my intention. My intention was to point that people - meaning both men and women - can have whatever preferences they choose when it comes to relationships. They either find someone who measures up to what they are looking for or they don't. If they do - then great! If they don't - then they either adjust their expectations or they end up alone. A 45 year old man can choose to only date women under 25 who are models - and he'll either be successful or he won't. A woman can choose to only date men who will pay for dates - and she'll either be successful or she won't. People have choices in their love lives - they don't have to do anything.
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.
Hypocrisy in its essence
