|
|
|
|
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 12:07:20 PM | I recommend a review of post 17 re: the expectation a man be chivalrous and the expectation that he recognize your independence are inherently contradictory. As soon as you “expect” him to foot the bill on everything, you immediately fall into the traditional role of a female that needs to be taken care of and is thus *dependent*.
You can’t have it both ways. If you want a partnership, act like a partner, not a dependent.
If I offer to pay my share, it’s because I’m happy to pay my share; I don’t believe in making insincere offers in order to test somebody. If my date insists on paying, I appreciate it as a nice gesture; it’s still not going to make any difference in the decision whether or not to see him again.
“Paying for bills on dates is just peanuts!! It is their gestures which indicate the type of men and who they are.”
Yes, gestures give you insight into him – but the problem is, you are only considering *one* gesture.
“If he can't afford to pay the bills on the dates, he will never afford to pay for anything else. If he insists I pay half, what will happen when I can't pay half if it develops into a long term relationship”
Hmmm…. I offered to, and did, pay my share on dates with my ex. He could afford it, no problem, but respected my desire to contribute towards the costs. Didn’t stop him from spoiling me rotten later in the relationship, and he never had a problem when I went back to school and could no longer pay ‘my share’ of the mortgage, bills, etc. Oh, and he always opened doors for me, walked on the proper side of me, etc.
“My 18 year old pays for his dates but he is not a serial dater.....so...I think it is the differing in values”
That misses the point that was being made earlier. It is no comment on a man’s values if he ends up going on a lot of first dates before finding the right woman.
“Gold digger I am not, my dates never have to test me on that part.”
Hmm… You test them, but rule them out if they test you? That’s pretty hypocritical
“After all, he might be courting for a future wife. He might as well get used to pampering his woman. I kinda like the ways of the past. There was a lot less problems as well because of the roles of the genders were clearly identified”
Perhaps that explains where the difference in perspective comes into play. You are apparently operating under traditional expectations. Hey, if you want a man to ‘pamper you’, take care of you, and be condescending to ‘his little woman’, then you are using the right approach to dating, but then don't think that you will be seen as an equal - you have placed yourself in a dependent position.
“Today's women are assuming man and woman's roles, not only she must be independent, she is also expected to shut up and be pretty and do what a woman should do.”
Gender roles may be different in today’ society, but the conflict you describe is not necessarily the reality. A man who expects a woman to be independent does not expect her to “shut up and be pretty”; the paternalistic, chivalrous attitude that you are looking for, however, does lead to that expectation.
“If a man has to struggle to pay for a date, we are not compatible on one level(financial), which could be potentially a serious problem, then I don't think he is for me”
You are, however, making an assumption that is not necessarily warranted. If a guy lets me pay my own way, it does not mean that he is struggling to pay for it. It could mean he’s treating me like a human being and not like a weak, dependent female.
“If a man wants asks a woman out on a date, then he should pay for the dinner. That's the proper thing to do, since he did ask the woman out. If he expects her to pay for the dinner, he's cheap.”
Sure, if *he* asks *her* out, then *expects* her to pay, he is cheap. However, if *she* offers to pay, and he lets her (perhaps in fear of potential feminist wrath), that is not the same situation. And if she offers not out of a desire to pay but rather as a *test*, well, he’s better off without somebody who plays games.
Gawd, I’m starting to feel sorry for men! No wonder they complain about women being confusing.
sv | |
|
libbyv
|
Joined: 8/17/2005
Msg: 52 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 12:40:02 PM | My parents raised me with the beliefs that if a man asks a woman out on a date, that he should pay for the date. Also that he hold doors open for women , etc.. I have never tested anyone offering to pay for my meal, etc on a date. If you get to know someone and maybe you might go dutch according to your finances. But in the initial stages, as I said if the gentleman wants to take a lady out, he'll have no problem with paying for the date.
Maybe you were raised differently them me but, this is how I was raised!. | |
|
yan612
|
Joined: 2/18/2005
Msg: 53 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 2:15:46 PM | Wow not so darling..that was very condescending and judgemental.
To a 30 year old man who might be into many relationships(new age) or looking for who is to date or to do next
Hope you weren't reffering to me..I said meeting people..not lots of relationships..and certainly didn't say who to do
I had a past relationship where I paid for virtually everything and that left a bitter taste in my mouth.(like the one you seem to have about a previous relationship)
When I first became single,I was not necessarily a serial dater but did meet quite a few new women and paid for at least the first 2 dates, especially if I asked her out. If a woman doesn't at least offer to pay for at least her share by the 3rd date..then I see that as a bad sign. With equal rights and equal opportunity come equal responsibility and I think that if you consider good manners, old fashioned values and being chivalrous with paying for a meal that says a lot about your values. I always open the door for my date, be polite, treat everybody as equals..
And about the paying for lousy dinners,
I meant that when i am seeing a woman and eating at her place then I fully want to pay for the vast majority of the outings, I think think things should be equalled out emotionally, financially etc.
For those who wish for the good old days, do you also wish that the equity between men and women vis-a-vis job opportuinity, salary, politcal power etc would also regress?
I believe in equity in all facets. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 2:47:22 PM | Msg 51,
Yes , the men would be confused if they are dating women from different eras(age groups).
We are all the product of our past- our upbringings, our life experiences, our personal successes and failures, our peers, our social influences, our knowledge and wisdom.
Men and women in 20s, 30s, 40s , 50s, or 60s-- each group seems to hold their own set of values on how to run a life and even have different views on dating etiquette.
Personally, I am holding on to my old-fashioned values on dating/courting because it is how I was brought up. I have dealt with many couples from all walks of life in different age groups for past 23 years. I can clearly see the differences between the couples who hold the old-fashioned values and the couples who don't. The couples who hold the old-fashioned values are those I envy because those are the couples who cherish, adore, respect and trust one another and are still together through thick and thin.
Being pampered and loved by a man is not making the woman a dependent. If anything, it would make the relationship more loving and lasting.
My view is a real man prides his ability in making money, how well he can treat his women, how good he is in bed and his home is his castle.
A woman can be pampered and loved. She still can be independent and has her own career, loving and pleasing her man and make the home a love nest.
I am done with this thread. NO. I am not a gold digger, NO, I am not a dependent, I never was and don't have the need to be one. Yes, I still hopeful to someday meet my special man, and he won't be cheap and not a loser in life. His home will be his castle/love nest.
Edited: Msg 53, I am done with this thread. We can all agree to disagree. What ever makes one happy, go for it, that is all I have say. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 3:21:42 PM | “Yes , the men would be confused if they are dating women from different eras(age groups).”
*sigh*
Why am I not surprised that you totally missed my point? Men get confused because women want it both ways – the message you are sending is that men must behave in traditional ways, except when you don’t want them to do so.
“I can clearly see the differences between the couples who hold the old-fashioned values and the couples who don't. The couples who hold the old-fashioned values are those I envy because those are the couples who cherish, adore, respect and trust one another and are still together through thick and thin.”
Those wonderful relationships are also found among those who respect their partners as equals.
But if you really want to look at the differences in relationships based on traditional vs. modern views: traditional, paternalistic relationships are those most likely to lead to domestic abuse, as the women are less likely to feel independent enough to stand up for themselves or leave. It’s no accident that domestic abuse gets more attention where/when women are more independent.
“Being pampered and loved by a man is not making the woman a dependent. If anything, it would make the relationship more loving and lasting.”
Being pampered and loved by a man does not require him to spend money on you. If you think that it does, I pity you for your materialism.
Again, I refer you to message #17: it is established that chivalry = sexism. You can’t expect to have one and not the other.
“My view is a real man prides his ability in making money, how well he can treat his women, how good he is in bed and his home is his castle.”
My view is that a real man is secure in himself without relying on materialistic wealth to determine his self-worth, he treats his woman (*singular*) well because he loves her – not because it’s a matter of pride, nor is his love-making about pride – it’s about love. He is a good man because the core of his being is good, not because he is motivated by pride. And that, I suppose, is where our values *really* differ.
sv | |
|
libbyv
|
Joined: 8/17/2005
Msg: 56 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 4:15:31 PM | Myself, I don't want to be pampered by someone, . That's too sufficating for my liking.There is a fine line. Also people referring to their mate as their man or woman, indicates posession to me. It makes me cringe when I hear it.!
As a person does not own another person .People are not possessions. They are human beings with feelings and rights. The right to be valued without trying to claim ownership of another!.. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 12/31/2006 5:13:06 PM | Msg 55,
Go read msg 37.
I think many misunderstood me. I am not materialistic, I have done well for myself.
If a man can pamper and love a woman, he is not a user and a taker, is he?
Therefore, the equal footing for me differs than most of you.
Pride comes from the core of a good person and/or one who truly feels good about oneself.
A loser or a bad person does not have any pride, does he/she?
I don't really want to further discuss anything else on this thread. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 1/1/2007 2:04:48 PM | “I think many misunderstood me. I am not materialistic, I have done well for myself.”
Materialistic: Materialistic people value material things. In common use, the word more specifically refers to a person who primarily pursues wealth and luxury. (wikipedia)
Your statements make it clear that you value material things: that is why you are concerned with the amount of money a man will spend on you. Were you not materialistic, you would not be concerned with either his financial status or whether or not he spent his money on you. Following the line of your other posts, it is clear that when you say, “I have done well for myself”, you are, in fact, referring to material wealth; hence, you are - by definition - materialistic.
“Therefore, the equal footing for me differs than most of you.”
Footing: position or rank in relation to others; standing. (freedictionary) Again, referring to the scholarship on this issue: chivalry is by definition sexist, placing the man and woman on two different levels.
Sorry, but there are established meanings for words and phrases. You might make yourself feel better by referring to a paternalistic relationship as one in which there is equal footing, but doing so completely ignores the actual meanings of these words. I can refer to myself as a blond all I want, that doesn’t mean that I am what is understood by the word ‘blond’.
“Pride comes from the core of a good person and/or one who truly feels good about oneself.
A loser or a bad person does not have any pride, does he/she?”
Pride is one of the seven deadly sins. It goes beyond 'feeling good' about yourself.
Pride. An inordinate esteem of oneself. It is inordinate because it is contrary to the truth. It is essentially an act or disposition of the will desiring to be considered better than a person really is.(www.ptypes.com)
Therefore: yes, as a matter of fact, ‘losers’ and ‘bad people’ *do* have pride.
“I don't really want to further discuss anything else on this thread”
Discuss, don’t discuss – it makes no difference to me. However, if you are going to discuss it, I recommend you do so without such disregard for established definitions of words and phrases; otherwise, I will continue to point out the logical inconsistencies in your argument.
Why? Because it’s what I do.
sv | |
|
tadger
|
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 59 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 1/1/2007 4:42:28 PM | | Cheap ... hard to know. Just to add my two cents: I have trouble knowing when I am cheap or he is cheap, because I was brought up to pay half, all the time (by my dad) and to never pay and always be taken care of (everybody else). So I have trouble knowing when I am not being too cheap, or when he is being too cheap. Stupid Generation Y ... Confusing. I pay as much as I can, but wish sometimes he would pay as the whole sitter thing saps my resources, not to mention the fact his income is about 10x mine ... Does that make me cheap? | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/1/2007 4:54:17 PM | Maybe splitting the cost of the sitter would be fair. I think that the "fairness" vs "chivalrous" aspect of things differ when dating a woman with kids. If the cost of the dinner/entertainment is going to be split, then in my view the cost of the sitter should be too.
I've had male friends who were single parents who tell me they're expected to pay for their sitter, pay for the meal for both of them, pay for the transportation, and pay for the drinks & entertainment. Ugh.
If one person is picking up the sitter costs, then the other picking up the dinner costs seems reasonably fair. | |
|
tadger
|
Joined: 7/11/2006
Msg: 61 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/1/2007 5:05:27 PM | ^^^^
Ah - a reasonable and intelligent approach to things. however, this would mean dating someone who does not have an issue with the fact the kids exist at all ...
Should your date have to pay because you had children with someone else? Gah - I think I am still hung over from last night, as I can't seem to stop splitting hairs. My kids are my responsibility, so I pick up the tab? i guess it makes more sense if you actually have a "relationship", but at that point I would expect your "date" might actually be willing to spend time at your house so you don;t always need that sitter...
I think I will give up the whole dating thing until I am done child-rearing: am I cheap because I would rather spend the $40 for the sitter on a dinner out with my kids? No, not cheap ... selective.
Okay, I'm done, as my wine-induced ramble is not helping the OP at all. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/1/2007 5:37:34 PM | OT: When you date someone with kids you're dating the whole unit, you just happen to be spending time with only part of it (in my case, the "Mom" part), at least initially. Any "date" has a cost.....and it's the responsibility of each party to "split" that cost. If someone drove up from Bridgewater to go out with me, heck, I should pay for dinner as a "fair trade" part of the cost...or offer to help cover gas costs (and ya, I've done that sort of thing before). It's a mutual respect thing. So, ya, it might "cost" a bit more to date someone with kids....so what?....if it turns into a "relationship" you also get the benefit of having the kids around. Bigger returns often require bigger initial investments. Of course, I *like* kids, so maybe that's why I see them as an inextricable (and not negative) part of the dating experience.
In my view, most of the time, a guy that doesn't offer to help cover the cost of the sitter is being 'cheap'....as long as he's been made aware that there IS a cost of course.
Tadger: In my view, someone with kids should never date anyone else who has an issue with the kids existing. A mom and her kids is a package deal.....to pretend otherwise would likely only cause problems later. And, spending $40 on a dinner with your kids instead of on a sitter seems like a darned wise choice to me....in many different ways. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/1/2007 6:34:33 PM | This was originally started as a place to post stories of cheapskate actions, and not who pays for a date. This slant is definitely more pertinent to most posters. It does make this a duplicate thread as there are several slants on the “Paying on Dates” threads in both the “Ask a Girl”, “Ask a Guy”, and the general “Dating Experiences”.
To see what the correct norm for dating is one can always go to one of many etiquette sites. In my experience the real cheapskates are the one who call others cheap. As long as their wallet is closed they’re best not to point fingers, actions speak louder than words.
If I ask a lady out, I am prepared to cover all the known expenses right down to the transportation. Part of this is in selecting a venue/location I feel is worthy of the relationship. If she offers to pay I’ll respect her independence and share the selection of the venue. Either way I will not let her pay for me, darn machoism. LOL
If she asks me out or expects to go somewhere extravagant, beyond what the relationship justifies, then she should come prepared to pay her share. Extravagance is a characteristic that I’m not looking for. It might not even lead to a date, let alone a second.
A lot of this is based on during the 1900’s the only place for an unwed lady was 1) at home 2) school teacher 3) nurse or 4) housekeeper 5) … None of these paid any more than room and board. Of course the man had to pay for everything, but he also dictated the venue. This is the 2000's and things may have changed.
Do what you feel is right. If the person you’re with is a match, they’ll be like minded. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/2/2007 3:09:04 PM | I suppose getting back on topic, I have never been in a relationship with anyone I would consider cheap.
My first 'real' bf was very generous with his money. I wasn't working at the time that we moved in together, but I was going to school, he was completely free with his money, we had a joint account for household expenses, which included any money I wanted to spend, and he had his own account for money he wanted to spend. He made sure that there was always money for the mortgage, always money for bills, food, insurance, gas for 'our' car, etc. And I never wanted for money to shop - but I was still very conscious that it was his money I was spending and was very frugal.
I have had a few short relationships in between then and now, my last relationship was around a year, and he too was very good to me, even though he was a student and really couldn't afford it.
When I meet someone cheap (errr... cheaper than me  ) I will be sure to post what it is that ticks me off, no names, I swear. | |
|
LBP
|
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 65 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/2/2007 6:55:10 PM | Let's just say I had some ex's so cheap that its not about me wanting to know so much the guy will buy dinner everytime (I like to treat too) but at least if he pays first its kind of an indication he's not likely to ask you to split the gas bill for coming to pick you up for the date.
I had an ex ask me to go on a trip with him and found out later it wasn't because he wanted to take me on a trip, but because he had already asked his friends and they couldn't go splits on gas. | |
|
libbyv
|
Joined: 8/17/2005
Msg: 66 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/3/2007 4:50:08 AM | I had an ex so cheap too, that he never wanted to go anywhere decent to eat a meal. He made alot more money than me at his job and he didn't want to spend too much money when he was out with me.
His idea of a good meal was the fast food restaurants. Not the most romantic guy on the planet. He always had an excuse about going out, but his friends were more important to him than I was and I'm sure he spent money when he was out with them. A #1 jerk he was.! | |
|
LBP
|
Joined: 12/27/2006
Msg: 67 | |
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/3/2007 5:49:36 AM | He took you out to supper? Geez hehe.
I remember one day I was kind of down before leaving from work. My boyfriend at the time gave me $5 and said, why don't you treat yourself to a little lunch to perk yourself up. Awww, only $5 but still a sweet gesture.
Then I got home and he asked for the $5 he "loaned" me back. I never met anyone as cheap as he was. Mind you, he didn't have any quams about spending my money. When it came to his money though, he was always looking for ways to get me to chip in to buy the things he wanted. I bought him a whole bunch of power tools for Christmas one year so he'd have hobbies while laid off over the winter. He loved them, then went out and bought a bunch of wood for his projects and charged me for half the wood.
His logic, well I'd have the pleasure of enjoying whatever he built as well. I guess the fact I spent a huge amount on the power tools and didn't actually want the things he was building didn't mean anything. | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/3/2007 6:11:43 AM |
Not the most romantic guy on the planet. He always had an excuse about going out, but his friends were more important to him than I was
Sadly I know many guys like that.
I've met many cheap men & females in my day but my jaw nearly dropped this year at my staff xmas dinner when one of my coworkers I'll call "K" gave another girl "R" her xmas present. Once it was opened, K was like "I don't think you need that gift bag do you...I'm going to bring it back home with me". Everyone just looked at one another in amazement. However, me being the brazen b*tch that I am asked if she was serious. | |
|
| |
| |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 1/5/2007 12:45:31 PM | Just my two cents , although I am generous so I will throw in three cents,
But... If a posting is a long one, does your point get lost? I myself think it does, as I love to read books but reading something longgggggg off a computer doesn't really do it for me.
Also if we are typing here, chances are we own a computer, or at least have access to one.
Therefore we are able to browse and find words in a thesaurus or a dictionary all by ourselves.
Is there really a need to cut and paste definitions? In closing I hope I am not appearing rude here, I am just making a point.  | |
|
| |
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 1/5/2007 5:05:25 PM |
Is there really a need to cut and paste definitions?
well, there is when people clearly aren't using their computers to check the definitions of the words they are using.
Which really has no relation at all to the subject of the thread. Hmmm... three posts in a row that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand... Now *that* I find interesting.
Hey, if you want to engage me in debate, go for it - that's why I'm here: for discussions. Well, that and the amusement factor...
sv | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when...
Posted: 1/9/2007 4:49:44 PM | | We'll. I make my significant other wait outside of the movie theater and describe the movie in detail to her when it's over. hehe ** Those smuggled in dollar store candy bars are great too. haha | |
|
| You know he/she is cheap when..(Happy New Year to All)
Posted: 1/9/2007 4:55:16 PM | True story:
My three buddies and I went to Vegas on time. We got lost and wandered off the strip into a nasty latino neighborhood. This was about 2 in the morning. There were guys sitting in there cars all over smoking..who knows what. Next thing a cab drives by and say's you guys shouldn't be out here it's not safe. We ask the cabby how much back to the strip. And say Ah no thanks we'll walk. We all ran full speed after the cab following it out to the strip. We were on a budget.
That same trip we kept turning down drinks in the casino cause we were to cheap until the last day we found out they were complimentary. Cheap and losers. hehe | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
