Relationships

So this seems to be an ongoing question for anybody who's dating, like who pays. And I know it seems old-fashioned, but for most women, we're talking heterosexual relationships here, the enjoyment is feeling special and it's part of the courting process. And initially we would like the first date, the first series of dates to have the man pay. And in part, he's showing that he's fiscally responsible, that he's a good candidate, that we might be able to merge a life with him because he has something behind him. It shouldn't be abused, but it is lovely because it's the only time we're in the honeymoon phase, the courtship phase, because once you get into long-term relationships, two people that are both making money begin splitting the money. So it's a very brief window where the female can always feel a little special, desired, treated, and it's romantic.

Yeah, so I'll say, I think we're kind of getting more of an agreement. Because, yeah, I agree. I think it's a good default for a man to kind of be paying because of the kind of history and culture aspect, which is not necessarily wrong morally. But the fact that giving an option and some women taking that option, I think is totally fine. So my claim in this debate that a man should not necessarily always pay, I think kind of stands here.

Yeah, I'll take it that it's romantic. And I think that in the past in history, it may have made a bit more clearer sense for the man to be paying. In the past, women, for example, not always had even ability to work, right? And so there is a different power in terms of the just money. And therefore, if a female wanted to go out on a date, a man had to pay. There's no other way. So it made sense in history. But right now, we're like female are working and they make as much as men in some categories more. So at this point, kind of the history of that goes away. I think it's nice to uphold some traditions. It's nice. And I think for most cases, it's actually a good thing to do. But the claim is men should always pay. And that's not always the case, given the new circumstances.

So what would be an interesting spin on this is to have the man assume that he's going to pay and then ask her if she minds if he pays. It allows her to have that independence if she wants to know if a woman does pay for you on the first date, she's probably not going to sleep with you. I'll just tell you, that's the way it is. She looks at you as friend material and that's like code, or she's incredibly independent. You might have to fight for your position in that relationship.

I think that I'll just kind of hone in into that point of the word always. That's we're arguing for this claim, right? Many women do want kind of get treated nicely and romantically, and they feel good about it, etc. Not all of them, right? Some women will actually feel better if they pay for their half, right? Like showing their independence and sort of their equalness in the society to men. And for those women, it's fine. It's fine for some women to expect to be paid for, because there is a history and culture to that. It's fine if women don't, right? And my point is that it's not always that it should be the case. Like it's kind of up to the person.

Yeah, so here's the thing. I think, I understand what you're saying, and you're right, women pay. Women make more money sometimes than the male counterpart, but what happens is successful, independent, dynamic women that could pay don't want to attract a guy that wants to be taken care of. So it's that beginning initial setting up that I'm going to be the man, and forgive me because I know that's a loaded concept for a lot of guys, but a woman wants to be able to lean back and know that he's got it. She should not abuse that. She could take him out. To be reciprocal, she could make him a meal if she knows how to cook or do something with him to show appreciation.