S/O boys paying for dates....your thoughts re. equality..

[Isabella]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on men/boys paying for dates in the light of gender equality? I haven't really formed an opinion myself, so not wanting to debate with you all ;)....only hear your views.

[AdventureMoms]

I didn't see the prior threads, but I don't think it is reasonable for men & boys to be automatically responsible for paying for dates. I do think that the person who asks - especially if the asker chooses the venue - should expect to pay, unless it was specifically agreed that they would split it. If there is not a clear "asker" - ie the couple was set up by friends, or they agreed to go on a date without one person specifically asking - then I think they should expect to split it.

 

I wouldn't ever go on a date without being prepared to pay for my own half, however.

[momma2three]

I think there are two major problems with boys/men paying for dates, both of which people in the other thread brought up.

 

1) It makes girls feel like they "owe" something. I know that some people on that thread said they never felt that way, but many other posters said it did, and it would make me feel that way. I don't think the check necessarily needs to be divided evenly down the middle, but I'm not comfortable with the guy paying for everything. I think the boy saying something like "how about I pay for this date, and you pay for the next one?" is fine, or the boy paying for the tickets and the girl paying for snacks or something like that. Just so long as there's some effort to meet in the middle.

 

2) Since when do boys have an endless amount of disposable income to spend, while girls need to be treated to everything? Grand romantic gestures are cute and all, but I'd prefer my son not make them until he's actually ready to take the romance seriously, and I hope that's not on a first date in high school. It just isn't practical (or very nice) for the boy to pay for everything.

[Heather in Neverland]

I believe that the male should pay for the date and my ds will not date until he is old enough to pay for the dates.

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I think there are two major problems with boys/men paying for dates, both of which people in the other thread brought up.

 

1) It makes girls feel like they "owe" something. I know that some people on that thread said they never felt that way, but many other posters said it did, and it would make me feel that way. I don't think the check necessarily needs to be divided evenly down the middle, but I'm not comfortable with the guy paying for everything. I think the boy saying something like "how about I pay for this date, and you pay for the next one?" is fine, or the boy paying for the tickets and the girl paying for snacks or something like that. Just so long as there's some effort to meet in the middle.

 

2) Since when do boys have an endless amount of disposable income to spend, while girls need to be treated to everything? Grand romantic gestures are cute and all, but I'd prefer my son not make them until he's actually ready to take the romance seriously, and I hope that's not on a first date in high school. It just isn't practical (or very nice) for the boy to pay for everything.

 

:iagree:

 

I think dh would disagree with me, though. He mostly paid for all our dates, except if I specifically asked him to do something and insisted on paying for it myself. He made about 3X my salary though, so I didn't feel like I "owed" him for the dates. :tongue_smilie:

 

I think when my boys are older, I'll encourage them to be prepared to pay for the whole date, but not to take offense to their manhood if the girl offers to pay for all or part of it. In this day and age, lots of women are making more money than their male partners. We need to get over the stereotype and allow the person who has the means to pay.

[pbb119]

"how about I pay for this date, and you pay for the next one?" is fine, or the boy paying for the tickets and the girl paying for snacks or something like that. Just so long as there's some effort to meet in the middle.

 

 

I love that idea, and when dd begins to date, it will be something that I make sure she has the money on hand to be able to offer. I would expect her to make the effort to contribute to the date.

 

Having said that, with my boys, I will expect them to pay for dates. I will expect them to open doors and let the girl go in first. I like traditional attitudes/values/actions/whatever you wanna call it. I will expect them to walk to the door of the girl's home, meet her parents, say ma'am and sir. I will expect my sons to ask/discuss/state intentions to the girl's parents before proposing. While there are lot of people talking about gender equality, when it comes to romance, I still think *most* women enjoy being treated in the more traditional/old fashioned style. I personally wouldn't think too much of a guy who asked me out and then expected me to pay half the bill.

[DawnM]

I think I may be an anomaly. I never really "dated." I did have a few boyfriends throughout my life, but they were always guys that hung out in my "group" and we just gravitated towards becoming boyfriend/girlfriend.

 

In fact, my DH and I never really dated. We became very good friend over time in our group activities and when we finally decided we liked each other we decided we either needed to get engaged or not date as we didn't want to ruin our friendship.

 

So, there wasn't a whole lot of who pays for what. When I was in actual relationships we took turns paying quite often and that didn't bother me.

 

Dawn

[OrganicAnn]

I think who ever asks for the date should pay for it (which is often the boy). The girl should have the money and means to volunteer to pay for her part or volunteer to pay the tip (or the popcorn in the movie if the boy bought the tickets). I think the girl should have the means to pay her part especially if the date goes bad/awkward and she finds she doesn't like the boy or doesn't want to be 'in debt' to him.

 

Once the boy/girl or man/women is in a 'relationship', then I think they should try to split things as evenly as possible.

[Night Elf]

I was discussing this with DH and he said that back in the day, before gender equality, it was men who had all the means such as money and cars to date. Girls were treated to dates because they were being wooed, or whatever you want to say.

 

In that light, I think girls and boys are equal now considering teens can work while going to school. The problem is that old habits die hard. Males have traditionally paid for the dates so they are being held accountable to an old standard.

 

Personally I'm all about breaking some standards. Don't get me started on the ridiculous financial expectations of weddings!

[Dory]

Since I think that men are supposed to be able to provide for their families (I am not apposed to women working outside the home), I think that if a man is unable to pay for a date and prove that he is capable of providing for the people in his care, than he is not old enough to date. The girl should feel cared for. A little like a princess. I actually think that a daddy should be taking his little girl out on dates while she is small so that she knows how a boy should be treating her on a date.

[FaithManor]

I think my biggest problem with it is that it implies that the girl should take no financial responsibility for herself. I've seen so many young ladies that "date" traditionally and the boy pays for EVERYTHING. He goes into a hole big time and then she decides he isn't "the one" and it all starts all over again. The girls get off scott-free using boys for fun times and get treated to a lot of events, meals, movies, concerts, you name it, and the boy goes in the ditch financially when the relationship ends. It is a relationship that is not on equal terms and I am not in favor of this arrangement. It is one sided. If dating is supposed to be some precursor to marriage, then I am completely against the concept of one sided relationships.

 

During that discovery phase, things need to be on equal terms. They mututally agree upon an outing and they go dutch. If they both can't afford to go, they do something that is free such as a walk in the park or watch the city parade, or play cards at a parent's home. For heavens sake, go down to the soccer field and cheer for the AYSO kids or something. Don't start the potential relationship out already lop-sided and don't make obligations to each other.

 

The current dating model, go out, girl gets lots of activities paid for, break up, start all over again, get lots of treats, break up, start all over again...all it does is break the boys' banks. I don't see how this is healthy or right.

 

If we want our daughters to grow up and expect equal pay for equal work, respect for their abilities, and acknowledgement that they are just as capable as males, then these kinds of patriarchial models that put girls in passive, "I need a man to take care of me" modes need to die.

 

Frankly, if the girl can't get a job and pay her way to the movies, gas for the car, or dinner out, then in my book she is not ready for the adult world and shouldn't be dating either. If the boy shouldn't be dating because he isn't financially capable of "taking care" of her, then that should be true of the young lady as well.

 

That said, I am anti-teen dating anyway. I've seen nothing but trouble come from it and even in my "traditional" years, the angst my friends and I went through dating teen boys really was ridiculous and I'm sure we weren't significantly better for the boys either.

 

Faith

[LillyMama]

My husband and I are both traditionalists, to the point where he felt he needed to own a home before he could propose. And he now prefers to support me and allow me to stay home with the kids. We use the word submissiveness in the house without (too much :D) resentment from me.

 

That being said, when we dated, I was making six figures. He got laid off about two weeks after we started dating. I paid for A LOT of stuff when we were dating. And then he moved out of state, and I paid for lots of plane rides to come see him as he was saving up money for the house he needed to buy. ;)

 

What worked for us was just open, non-emotional discussions about money. We've always just considered ourselves a team, from the very beginning. So if one of us had access to more, we'd just share it.

 

We are pretty comfortable, and expect to be when our kids are teenagers, God willing. I would hope my son will be able to work and earn money, through jobs and us, to pay for his dates. But if my daughter wants to date a guy whose family is less well-off, I hope she'll be comfortable doing so and helping pay for things. Personally, I think people are just too sensitive about money and make it a bigger deal than it should be, but I guess that is probably a by-product of always being comfortable financially. I just don't judge people's self-worth by how much they have, so talking frankly about money is like talking about what color hair we have- it just is a part of who we are.

[Danestress]

I don't see it as permanent state of affairs, and I don't think there is one right way to do these things. But in general, I would say that a man who wants to date a woman should be prepared to woo her, and even if it's just a coffee date, if that's what he can afford, he should do that. I don't think he should spend more than he can afford, either, so if girl isn't happy with a man of humble means and coffee isn't good enough for her, then okay - better to get that out on the table early on.

 

After the two become more of a couple, I think things tend to get more casual, and the circumstances of the two people determine what happens. Maybe she loves to cook for him, and does that in lieu of paying for dinner out. Maybe she makes more than him and picks up the bills some. Maybe they both prefer to go dutch. At that point, they should be comfortable with each other and do that suits themselves, without worrying about what other people think "should" happen.

[angela in ohio]

I never had a concept of "owing" for a paid date, and I find it odd to see it mentioned so often in the other thread. I wasn't raised to equate sex with money, though. To me, prostitution is a distortion of the way sex is actually intended, and not the norm. Sex or other physcial intimacy is a shared activity between two people who equally want it and enjoy it. So it would never occur to me to want my dd to pay so she doesn't owe someone something. :confused:

 

When I dated, the young men always paid (and I'm not even *that* old!) I did my part by being as happy to go for fast food and a dollar movie as I was to go out for a nice dinner and an exhibit or such. College men had budgets all over the place. :) Once I had dated someone a few times, and I wanted to continue, I would sometimes make the plans, and then I remember buying tickets to an event, or paying for snacks if he bought movie tickets, or whatever.

 

I think that whoever invites should pay. In the circles we run in, that is usally the young man, I would think. After there is an established relationship, the girl might invite, so she would pay. We use the same rules we use for going somewhere with anyone: be prepared to pay, offer to pay if manners dictate, accept generosity with heartfelt thanks, etc. Luckily, we haven't had to worry about it, as 16 yo dd is focusing on her schooling and so far has turned away each young man that has attempted to pursue her. :D

Edited May 28, 2012 by angela in ohio

[JumpyTheFrog]

I don't really remember my dates paying for me in high school, except for one that asked me to a dance at his school. And DH and I each generally paid for ourselves on our dates in college. I don't think it really occurred to me to expect the male to pay for me just because he was male.

 

In the same way, I don't think it's fair for childless wives to automatically assume it's their husband's job to earn all the money, while they stay home. Now, if the couple agrees that this division of labor works best for them, that's fine. But I know a few families where there are no kids or the kids are all grown, and the woman won't work, even though the family really needs the money. To me, it makes more sense for each spouse to work 30-40 hours per week, than to expect the man to work 60-80 hours, while the wife does a few hours of cooking and cleaning.

[Jane in NC]

I don't think there are any hard and set rules here. So much of life depends on circumstances.

 

My husband and I began dating when we were poor grad students. Sometimes he would pick up the tab, sometimes I would. Often, to be honest, we did free or cheap things on campus. Our crowd loved to eat well but could not afford restaurants often. So we regularly had pot lucks for singles and couples--everyone was asked to bring a dish.

 

If some people feel better splitting things down the middle, go for it. If a person has the means to pick up the complete tab, then be generous.

 

High school and college students usually do not have a lot of extra cash. I think this is a good situation for say one to offer to pick up the movie tickets and a second buy the snacks. It would be tacky though to be asked to a concert and then presented with a bill for the ticket. The gracious thing to do here is to offer to pay for parking.

 

Thoughtfulness toward circumstances is always appreciated.

[Murphy101]

I believe that the male should pay for the date and my ds will not date until he is old enough to pay for the dates.

 

:iagree:

 

If they can't afford to take the girl out, then they aren't ready to be dating her.

 

I never paid and never felt I owed anything. He asked me out, so I presumed he wanted to spend time with me. If he didn't, or couldn't afford to, then he shouldn't have asked me out.

 

Of course one expects the date will reflect his income ability. Obviously a teen with a pt job isn't going to take her to a 5 star restaurant with limo driver. But they can likely afford a movie and snacks. Or putt putt or a picnic at a botanical garden...

 

And of course, if they go past being an occassional date to being a couple, going out won't always be a "date" so much as just hanging out together.

[pbb119]

I don't see it as permanent state of affairs, and I don't think there is one right way to do these things. But in general, I would say that a man who wants to date a woman should be prepared to woo her, and even if it's just a coffee date, if that's what he can afford, he should do that. I don't think he should spend more than he can afford, either, so if girl isn't happy with a man of humble means and coffee isn't good enough for her, then okay - better to get that out on the table early on.

 

After the two become more of a couple, I think things tend to get more casual, and the circumstances of the two people determine what happens. Maybe she loves to cook for him, and does that in lieu of paying for dinner out. Maybe she makes more than him and picks up the bills some. Maybe they both prefer to go dutch. At that point, they should be comfortable with each other and do that suits themselves, without worrying about what other people think "should" happen.

 

:iagree: absolutely

[Catherine]

We were both a bit poor so we tried to do cheap dates when we could. At first, we mostly had a system where the inviter paid-so if he invited me out for a movie, he paid, and if I invited him out to a party, I paid (for the hostess gift or whatever).

 

When we were more settled and planning to get married, we had a looser system where we tried to divide up expenses evenly. it made sense for us because we both had an income, a similar one, and both tended to frugality (or fear about paying off our educations LOL) and both worked about the same amount of hours (a ridiculous amount, I might add). YMMV. I try to teach my boys that it is absolutely out of the question to invite someone on a date and then make them pay for their own way. If it is offered, that's another story, and tact is called for.

 

I also though encourage them to talk money with their dates and try to get a feel for how they manage money, because it's such an important indicator of being "grown up" to be responsible with money, IMO. I have no issue with the young woman paying for the dates, if she's the inviter. It's just common courtesy. And obviously I have no issue with her being the inviter. Young men these days have to be more savvy about handling invitations gracefully, including those from the same sex! My eldest has had the opportunity to handle this already and I think he handled it pretty well. He's straight, obviously.

[Rebel Yell]

I am a mom of all girls, so I may be biased.... but then again, no one has asked Diamond on a date yet. :D

 

I would like the young gentleman to pay for their first date. Maybe even the second one. If it goes much beyond that, I would hope they would work out ways to take turns planning/paying for dates. If HE wants to go to big rock concerts and expensive events, he can pay for those. If SHE wants to pack a picnic lunch, go see the free Shakespeare in the Park, and buy ice-cream cones afterward, she can take care of those details. Or vice-versa.

 

If it is a "need a date or you can't go" thing and they are buddies (for example, Prom) then I am 100% in favor of splitting costs/paying their own way.

 

I also plan to have her equipped with some cash to pay her way, and she has a debit card that works as a Visa so she would be covered in any situation.

 

Oh, and as far as "he buys movie tickets/she buys refreshments" I'd much rather have her pay for the tickets- we can get those at a discount, but those snacks are horrifically expensive. :glare:

[Parrothead]

I was discussing this with DH and he said that back in the day, before gender equality, it was men who had all the means such as money and cars to date. Girls were treated to dates because they were being wooed, or whatever you want to say.

 

In that light, I think girls and boys are equal now considering teens can work while going to school. The problem is that old habits die hard. Males have traditionally paid for the dates so they are being held accountable to an old standard.

 

Personally I'm all about breaking some standards. Don't get me started on the ridiculous financial expectations of weddings!

This is where it all evens out. Guys pay for the dates, girls (or their fathers) pay for the wedding. :D

 

Not saying it is right, just how it is traditionally done.

[Night Elf]

If we want our daughters to grow up and expect equal pay for equal work, respect for their abilities, and acknowledgement that they are just as capable as males, then these kinds of patriarchial models that put girls in passive, "I need a man to take care of me" modes need to die.

 

Ah.. but there are parents who pepetuate this, and I think they see these two issues as separate.

 

They do expect the female to be treated like a princess but don't dare to say she can't have a job and be his equal in marriage. Not allowing the woman to work or work in traditionally male positions or be paid the same salary is seen as sexist. Expecting dating to be one-sided in the woman's favor is not. The guy woos the girls with dates that he pays for but things change when they get married. A woman who is continued to be treated like a princess after marriage is seen in a negative light. Think the whole 'sit around doing nothing but eating bon bons' attitude. Those women are considered ill-mannered, rude and spoiled.

 

They do expect the male to provide everything, but by gosh that wife of his better do her part by working outside the home and taking care of all household chores when she is home. Women have the right, and sometimes respect, to work outside the home and be seen as a partner in marriage. Yet they are also held to the old standards of a woman taking care of her man and kids in the home.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across clearly, but I tried. :)

[Tarreymere]

Ideally, I would like my daughters to marry a man who would be open to the idea of my daughter being a SAHM, since I believe that having a parent at home is a wonderful idea and that since women are the childbearing gender it makes sense for women to be the parent at home.

 

Men who are ready and willing to provide for a traditional family tend to be men who prefer to pay for dates, and prefer to do the asking. Men who believe that gender is only an issue in the bedroom usually do not prefer to pay for every date and are open to being asked on a date by a woman. These men do not usually see any value in the role of the SAHM and after marriage expect women to 'pull their weight' financially.

 

I have four adult daughters and two younger girls. All four of my adult daughters went into their adult relationships with men who did not behave like traditional men, I think because at that point in time having and raising children wasn't something they were concerned about. They all worked and at that point simply expected to continue to work full time after marriage.

 

Fast forward a few years. After that first baby they began to experience that confilict between going to work and being with baby that we all have experienced. All four of them now wish that they had waited and chosen men who were ready to be providers, specifically because they have found that they believe that raising their own children and making a home are very important to them especially now when they have younger children. They all have varying degrees of interest in continuing to pursue their own careers, but all of them do feel that at this point in their lives that raising their children should be more important than working full time outside the home and would really like to make the changes in lifestyle to make that happen. This has caused a lot of stress at home and in their marital relationships. One isn't married, two are married to men who feel strongly that their wives should 'pull their weight', and one is married to a man who struggles between wanting to be a traditional provider and wanting his wife to bring in money.

 

My younger daughters are watching their older sisters and learning. I have two adult sons. One is married and a traditional provider. One is not married, but I can see that he would probably prefer a wife that worked. I have two younger sons, and I have let them know that as far as I'm concerned they should plan to be the provider for their families and that dating means they should ask and they should pay. I want them to go into marriage expecting to be a provider, but to understand that the woman they choose to marry will be the final decision maker on whether she works or stays home.

 

In my life I know I've had 'seasons' when working or going to school or pursuing a career was more important than being at home, and 'seasons' when I really wanted to be at home and felt very strongly that it was best for my family at that time. The 'ideal' man, in my opinion, is one who is open to discussing what might be best for the family at any given time and also ideally a man who isn't afraid or resentful of being the sole provider if the couple agree the situation calls for it. I've also been the sole provider myself for a few years, because THAT situation called for it, and I would like my daughters to be able to fill that role too if they have to.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Rainefox

[FaithManor]

Ah.. but there are parents who pepetuate this, and I think they see these two issues as separate.

 

They do expect the female to be treated like a princess but don't dare to say she can't have a job and be his equal in marriage. Not allowing the woman to work or work in traditionally male positions or be paid the same salary is seen as sexist. Expecting dating to be one-sided in the woman's favor is not. The guy woos the girls with dates that he pays for but things change when they get married. A woman who is continued to be treated like a princess after marriage is seen in a negative light. Think the whole 'sit around doing nothing but eating bon bons' attitude. Those women are considered ill-mannered, rude and spoiled.

 

They do expect the male to provide everything, but by gosh that wife of his better do her part by working outside the home and taking care of all household chores when she is home. Women have the right, and sometimes respect, to work outside the home and be seen as a partner in marriage. Yet they are also held to the old standards of a woman taking care of her man and kids in the home.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across clearly, but I tried. :)

 

 

Oh, I get you completely! :001_smile: I agree. She's supposed to be spoiled rotten during the courtship process and then a workhorse afterward. It's just so crazy.

 

This is why we've taken a much different attitude than the standard about dating. Dh and I have a partnership...the two shall become one...give and take. We don't have a lop sided relationship. By in large, nearly all of the women I know have totally one-sided marriages. He makes money and that's it. She handles EVERYTHING and then has to beg for some of his money to spend on herself. It's very alarming.

 

I don't want dd to have her self-esteem defined in this way. If both she and whomever "the one" turns out to be, can enter the marriage on equal footing and without the sexist stereotypes, I think that they'll be much better off and I think it takes a lot of unnecessary pressure off the boy and that allows things to move forward or end more naturally.

 

I've always wanted more for dd than the cultural standard which has been historically that a woman needs a man to provide for her and she better land a provider and pretty dang tootin' quick too. I'd much rather she enter marriage for all of the right reasons and not because she's been raised to believe that she has to enter a marriage in order to get financial security.

 

And you are sooooo right - there is a lot of reverse sexism in our culture.

 

Faith

[Ellie]

It's part of courting. I don't have a problem with it. :)

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

Oh, I get you completely! :001_smile: I agree. She's supposed to be spoiled rotten during the courtship process and then a workhorse afterward. It's just so crazy.

 

This is why we've taken a much different attitude than the standard about dating. Dh and I have a partnership...the two shall become one...give and take. We don't have a lop sided relationship. By in large, nearly all of the women I know have totally one-sided marriages. He makes money and that's it. She handles EVERYTHING and then has to beg for some of his money to spend on herself. It's very alarming.

 

I don't want dd to have her self-esteem defined in this way. If both she and whomever "the one" turns out to be, can enter the marriage on equal footing and without the sexist stereotypes, I think that they'll be much better off and I think it takes a lot of unnecessary pressure off the boy and that allows things to move forward or end more naturally.

 

I've always wanted more for dd than the cultural standard which has been historically that a woman needs a man to provide for her and she better land a provider and pretty dang tootin' quick too. I'd much rather she enter marriage for all of the right reasons and not because she's been raised to believe that she has to enter a marriage in order to get financial security.

 

And you are sooooo right - there is a lot of reverse sexism in our culture.

 

Faith

 

The bolded part made me chuckle. Sometimes I feel like I have a totally one-sided marriage. Dh makes the money, and I do EVERYTHING else. But I don't have to beg for money. He gives it all to me. Well, the pay is deposited directly into my account, and then I give HIM an allowance. He asks me if he can money for a Vegas trip, etc. :D

[Jane in NC]

Oh, I get you completely! :001_smile: I agree. She's supposed to be spoiled rotten during the courtship process and then a workhorse afterward. It's just so crazy.

 

This is why we've taken a much different attitude than the standard about dating. Dh and I have a partnership...the two shall become one...give and take. We don't have a lop sided relationship. By in large, nearly all of the women I know have totally one-sided marriages. He makes money and that's it. She handles EVERYTHING and then has to beg for some of his money to spend on herself. It's very alarming.

 

I don't want dd to have her self-esteem defined in this way. If both she and whomever "the one" turns out to be, can enter the marriage on equal footing and without the sexist stereotypes, I think that they'll be much better off and I think it takes a lot of unnecessary pressure off the boy and that allows things to move forward or end more naturally.

 

I've always wanted more for dd than the cultural standard which has been historically that a woman needs a man to provide for her and she better land a provider and pretty dang tootin' quick too. I'd much rather she enter marriage for all of the right reasons and not because she's been raised to believe that she has to enter a marriage in order to get financial security.

 

And you are sooooo right - there is a lot of reverse sexism in our culture.

 

Faith

 

My husband is the bread winner of this family but he calls me the CFO. I manage not only the day to day finances but our investments--consulting him regarding major decisions on the latter. Frankly he does not have the time or energy for financial stuff and is thrilled to have me take care of these things.

 

If I had to beg for an allowance, I might be swinging a skillet at someone's head.

[coralloyd]

I never paid for dates. Never even thought to offer. I figured if they asked me out (I would never ask a guy out), he want to spend time with me so he would pay. Most of the guys I dated weren't very traditional guys either (a few ex cons and ex drug addicts). However, I think they realized I am a traditional girl. They treated me very well. I always had doors opened for me. They never pressured me for sex. Now, I know for a fact they did not treat all their dates this way. I was shocked when I saw how they treated other women. I think the way they treated me was a form of respect. One guy told me, I was the kind of girl he wanted to marry; not just the kind of girl he wanted to sleep with. So because of my experience I do want my daughters to be treated the same way.

 

Oh, and by the way my marriage is far from one sided. My dh still treats me like a queen, and with utmost respect. We are partners and best friends. But Mother's Day would make most women green with envy :D.

[AK_Mom4]

Here's how it works with my teens - the one who does the inviting pays. The invitee offers to pay for snacks or food. So when DD18 invited a young man to a dance, she paid for the tickets and he bought ice cream afterwards. When DS16 invtied a young lady out to a movie, he bought the tickets and took her up on her offer to pay for the popcorn.

 

This works pretty well for casual dates.

[angela in ohio]

The bolded part made me chuckle. Sometimes I feel like I have a totally one-sided marriage. Dh makes the money, and I do EVERYTHING else. But I don't have to beg for money. He gives it all to me. Well, the pay is deposited directly into my account, and then I give HIM an allowance. He asks me if he can money for a Vegas trip, etc. :D

 

This describes 95% of the marriages I know. He makes it, she manages it. I know very few couples where dh is in charge of the money and dw must ask for some. If you look at families portrayed on TV, movies, etc., I think the cultural norm is for the wife to manage the money. That's how I grew up, though we have chosen a very different model for our family.

Edited May 28, 2012 by angela in ohio
typo

[FriedClams]

I believe that the male should pay for the date and my ds will not date until he is old enough to pay for the dates.

 

:iagree:

[Remudamom]

I think worse than a girl worrying about if she "owes" a guy is a guy believing a girl owes him.

[JumpyTheFrog]

Men who believe that gender is only an issue in the bedroom usually do not prefer to pay for every date and are open to being asked on a date by a woman. These men do not usually see any value in the role of the SAHM and after marriage expect women to 'pull their weight' financially.

 

Has anyone else here seen this? It never occurred to me that men that like to go dutch would see being SAHM as worthless and would prefer their wives to work and put the kids in daycare.

 

When DH and I talked about getting engaged, I didn't especially want kids, but we agreed that if we had them, I would stay home with them, since I was always glad my mom stayed home with us. Of course, we both expected that I would work until that time. None of this had anything to do with how we paid for dates at the beginning. I wouldn't have married anyone who just assumed we'd put our kids in daycare.

[Zebra]

I think boys automatically being expected to pay for dates is outdated, sexist, and disrespectful to both parties. It came from an era where girls didn't have money, and it makes no sense nowadays. Teens today generally both have a minimum wage job, and generally make the same amount of money.

 

I also want to say that DH's father expected him to open doors for me and I was VERY FIRM in my dislike for that. I absolutely hate this whole "door opening" thing. My poor (future) DH was caught in the middle of this, and ultimately did what made ME happy. One time we went out with his parents and his father yelled at my husband for not opening a door for me. He was very mean to my (future) DH and I had no idea he was going to be like that about it, we were adults!!! So, I would caution those you who are saying that you DS must pay for a girl, and must open doors, to remember that maybe your DS's "lady friend" has a different idea about things. And she may turn out to be an good DIL despite that ;)!

[Zebra]

 

Men who are ready and willing to provide for a traditional family tend to be men who prefer to pay for dates, and prefer to do the asking. Men who believe that gender is only an issue in the bedroom usually do not prefer to pay for every date and are open to being asked on a date by a woman. These men do not usually see any value in the role of the SAHM and after marriage expect women to 'pull their weight' financially.

 

 

I hate to break it to you but I asked DH out, I didn't let him pay, and we've been married for 15 years. He's the breadwinner, I stay home and homeschool.

 

Ironically, my father was one of these traditionalists you speak of. And he expected my mom to work....FIL the same story. So, I guess in my own life I've haven't seen this to be true, at all.

[FaithManor]

If I had to beg for an allowance, I might be swinging a skillet at someone's head.

 

 

Jane, you and I think alike! This is what baffles me. The culture in our area is that women do not have their names on the deeds to houses, titles to cars, or have their name on a joint checking account with their husbands. Many of the men dh knows thinks he CRAZY!

 

Seriously if Dh started some sort of sexist, man dominated thing about the money, there would be iron skillet batting practice! :D I just do not get these women who are dormats. Dh doesn't get it either and was very determined that dd would not end up being one of those girls. I suppose that is why we have steered her away from "traditional" boys.

 

Faith

[regentrude]

I can not wrap my mind around the expectation that boys should pay. I am all for equality. My DD and my DS get allowance and jobs independent of gender. I expect women to be paid the same as men for the same work.

So, the notion that guys are expected to pay seems to be not in tune with current economic and societal roles of women. I can not think of a single reason that would make this necessary. It is a relic from times when women were not financially independent.

 

Totally aside, find the implication that boys pay and girls owe seriously disturbing.

[regentrude]

I never paid and never felt I owed anything. He asked me out, so I presumed he wanted to spend time with me. If he didn't, or couldn't afford to, then he shouldn't have asked me out.

 

So, in other words, if he is too poor, you would not have let him spend time with you?:confused:

What a strange concept.

I thought people spend time together because they like each other, not because they get a free meal or movie ticket.

[butterflymommy]

One of the most gracious things about my husband was that he paid for everything-- even though he had almost nothing-- when we first met. I remember telling him I had to go to a store for some household stuff (we were not living together) and he took out a $20 bill and handed it to me and tried to give me more.

 

I don't know if it has anything to do with "equality" or not but in my experience a man being financially generous is a sign of good character. I'm going to tell my son to expect to pay for dates when he goes on them and tell my girls to expect to be paid for, and if not, they should give the guy a hard second look. Of course, they could completely disregard my opinion.

[catz]

I think boys automatically being expected to pay for dates is outdated, sexist, and disrespectful to both parties. It came from an era where girls didn't have money, and it makes no sense nowadays. Teens today generally both have a minimum wage job, and generally make the same amount of money.

 

:iagree: When I was dating my husband 13+ years ago and we were both professionals, we'd take turns treating each other. We also paid for most of our own wedding.

 

 

The door opening thing does not bother me though. I don't wait for people to open the door for me. But I am gracious if someone does. I hold doors for people on a regular basis too.

[butterflymommy]

I hate to break it to you but I asked DH out, I didn't let him pay, and we've been married for 15 years. He's the breadwinner, I stay home and homeschool.

 

Ironically, my father was one of these traditionalists you speak of. And he expected my mom to work....FIL the same story. So, I guess in my own life I've haven't seen this to be true, at all.

 

That's true, I'm not sure generalizations can be made about a traditionally minded man being financially generous. I dated both very conservative and very liberal men and they all paid for everything, even one guy who said he'd never want a SAHM as a wife. I still hold to the notion that financial generosity in a man is, by and large, a sign of good character-- traditional or not. The stingy, cheap men were the ones to be careful around because they tended to be very selfish and looking out for #1.

[SonshineLearner]

:iagree:

I believe that the male should pay for the date and my ds will not date until he is old enough to pay for the dates.

[FaithManor]

So, in other words, if he is too poor, you would not have let him spend time with you?:confused:

What a strange concept.

I thought people spend time together because they like each other, not because they get a free meal or movie ticket.

 

 

My nephew is currently in just such a relationship and he's too dense to get out of it. She has very HIGH expectations in terms of monetary treats and though he desperately needs to save money for college, he spends every dime he can scrape up on her. It's soooooo unhealthy. I keep telling him to run like the wind, but he thinks he's in love. Sigh......

 

Part of this whole discussion is the issue of teen dating. I find that most college students, vo-tech students, and mid-20 somethings and higher are very realistic about monetary expectations. They don't date in the traditional way all that much unless they BOTH can afford the bill. They'll either spend time together that doesn't require money spent or they treat one another equally...I see more of that than the other amongst dd's 20 year old friends.

 

But, the teen/high school thing is just bizarre. Boys dumping large sums of money on girls who expect to be spoiled...parents who think their daughters ought to be spoiled and then turn around and complain about their sons' girlfriends and how much it costs their sons to have one :001_huh:. seriously it is very bizarre. However, that said, I'm learning that I live in a kind of rather backward micro-culture and if dh and I had it do to all over again, though we love our house (converted church from 1898) and we love being available to help my parents, we probably would not move here if it was a "do over". The culture around our home makes my head twitch!

 

Probably the person above was not saying she wouldn't spend time with a financially strapped young man, just that she would expect that he would not invite her to an event that he couldn't afford to pay for both of them. Likely, she did not mean to imply they couldn't do something together that did not require financial arrangements. That is my guess.

 

Faith

[PeacefulChaos]

I'd love to hear your thoughts on men/boys paying for dates in the light of gender equality? I haven't really formed an opinion myself, so not wanting to debate with you all ;)....only hear your views.

 

Well, I haven't read any of the other responses, but I don't think gender equality has anything to do with it.

I think that whoever asks for the date should plan to pay. I think that once the couple is comfortable enough with each other to discuss it, they can pay however they want. I do think that each person should always be prepared to pay for their half, whether they end up needing to or not.

I just think it's polite. I think that for a guy to ask a girl on a date and pay is doing something nice for her, a girl he likes. I don't see anything unequal about that.

All that said, what is gender equality anyway? I mean, I know what it is, but what is the generally accepted view of it nowadays? I get equal pay, equal rights, etc. But is there a stopping point to that? Or is it equal everything? Not trying to debate or hijack, just really wondering.

[jenangelcat]

One of the most gracious things about my husband was that he paid for everything-- even though he had almost nothing-- when we first met. I remember telling him I had to go to a store for some household stuff (we were not living together) and he took out a $20 bill and handed it to me and tried to give me more.

 

I don't know if it has anything to do with "equality" or not but in my experience a man being financially generous is a sign of good character. I'm going to tell my son to expect to pay for dates when he goes on them and tell my girls to expect to be paid for, and if not, they should give the guy a hard second look. Of course, they could completely disregard my opinion.

 

What about the girl's character? I wouldn't think much good about a person who always expected someone else to pay for them.

[PeacefulChaos]

Ah.. but there are parents who pepetuate this, and I think they see these two issues as separate.

 

They do expect the female to be treated like a princess but don't dare to say she can't have a job and be his equal in marriage. Not allowing the woman to work or work in traditionally male positions or be paid the same salary is seen as sexist. Expecting dating to be one-sided in the woman's favor is not. The guy woos the girls with dates that he pays for but things change when they get married. A woman who is continued to be treated like a princess after marriage is seen in a negative light. Think the whole 'sit around doing nothing but eating bon bons' attitude. Those women are considered ill-mannered, rude and spoiled.

 

They do expect the male to provide everything, but by gosh that wife of his better do her part by working outside the home and taking care of all household chores when she is home. Women have the right, and sometimes respect, to work outside the home and be seen as a partner in marriage. Yet they are also held to the old standards of a woman taking care of her man and kids in the home.

 

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across clearly, but I tried.

Wait... I am a princess. ;) I'm relatively spoiled by my DH - if people see that in a negative light, they're stupid. :D

I'm all for being wooed. I think DD will be, too - she's a total romantic. :)

 

This is why we've taken a much different attitude than the standard about dating. Dh and I have a partnership...the two shall become one...give and take. We don't have a lop sided relationship. By in large, nearly all of the women I know have totally one-sided marriages. He makes money and that's it. She handles EVERYTHING and then has to beg for some of his money to spend on herself. It's very alarming.

 

Faith

:svengo: For real?! That's nuts! I mean, yeah, DH makes the money, but that's where the similarity ends. :D We're more like this:

The bolded part made me chuckle. Sometimes I feel like I have a totally one-sided marriage. Dh makes the money, and I do EVERYTHING else. But I don't have to beg for money. He gives it all to me. Well, the pay is deposited directly into my account, and then I give HIM an allowance. He asks me if he can money for a Vegas trip, etc.

:D DH is always like, 'Can I go buy...?' :lol:

Jane, you and I think alike! This is what baffles me. The culture in our area is that women do not have their names on the deeds to houses, titles to cars, or have their name on a joint checking account with their husbands. Many of the men dh knows thinks he CRAZY!

 

Seriously if Dh started some sort of sexist, man dominated thing about the money, there would be iron skillet batting practice! I just do not get these women who are dormats. Dh doesn't get it either and was very determined that dd would not end up being one of those girls. I suppose that is why we have steered her away from "traditional" boys.

 

Faith

Wow. Just, wow.

I normally would say 'don't discount traditional boys though!' but in your area... well... look who they're learning from. :tongue_smilie:

I can not wrap my mind around the expectation that boys should pay. I am all for equality. My DD and my DS get allowance and jobs independent of gender. I expect women to be paid the same as men for the same work.

So, the notion that guys are expected to pay seems to be not in tune with current economic and societal roles of women. I can not think of a single reason that would make this necessary. It is a relic from times when women were not financially independent.

 

Totally aside, find the implication that boys pay and girls owe seriously disturbing.

I think the bolded is not the norm. I've only ever heard it on here, and not often.

[Zebra]

I'm all for being wooed. I think DD will be, too - she's a total romantic. :)

 

Maybe that's what it boils down to, personality types? I'm TOTALLY practical, I don't have a romantic bone in my body. I see it as "impractical" but if you have a more romantic personality you see it as "wooing"?

 

Hmmm, very interesting!

 

Also, it's not just a se*ual expectation when a guy pays. It's that, a boy pays for this whole date and then the girl legitimately learns she's not that into him, and then he's upset and the people in his life are upset on his behalf because...he spent all this money on you and sent you flowers and you don't want to go out with him again? You're a horrible troll, how dare you. I've had THAT happen to me. I can't believe more people haven't had that happen to them. And it's not fair to anyone.

Edited May 28, 2012 by MeAmy

[Gingerbread Mama]

I believe that the male should pay for the date and my ds will not date until he is old enough to pay for the dates.

 

:iagree:

[Night Elf]

I think worse than a girl worrying about if she "owes" a guy is a guy believing a girl owes him.

 

Maybe it was the area I grew up in but I really did date a few guys like this in high school. Well, let me clarify that. We went out ONCE. To be honest, they weren't interested in taking me out a second time either.

[DesertDweller]

I think whomever does the asking should pay. In most cases, I would expect it to be the guy asking the girl.

 

If they continue past the first date or two, I think the girl should help out or at least offer to pay for some. Once they've decided that they are going to date and/or see each other on a regular basis, I think they should both try to split things or take turns paying the cost of things.