<p>One of the things that raised a positive eyebrow about TheMom was when she suggested paying for half on our first dinner date. She said, “I think if I pay for half, I’ll get asked out twice as often.” It was done in a way that didn’t set up a power struggle but set an egalitarian tone that has pretty much marked more than 26 years of our relationship. (And no, not 24 of mine and 2 of hers.) </p>
<p>I personally find the notion of roles like the guy always pays to be confining and burdensome, for both parties. When both parties feel free and independent, they both have some security and flexibility isn’t the worst thing to have in a long-term relationship either.</p>
<p>I think my D would be aghast at a the-guy-always-pays approach. To the point where I think it would be an early deal breaker.</p>
<p>I think Drosselmeier’s posts are such a testimony to the enduring mystery of love and a great marriage, and Dross. I salute you.</p>
<p>I just have to add this note by mythmom’s D again, though, because I think it is so wise and funny/cynical.
I personally know more than a few people who followed Drosselmeier’s ‘strategy’, picked the best-looking person in the room, treated him/her like gold, dated chastely, got married, and surprise – discovered that their beloved is not only not interested in sex with the spouse, is not interested in sex with the other gender at all (gay, right). Sometimes the gay spouse is only vaguely aware of a same-sex attraction, due to religious strictures or self-will. A variation is: lots of pre- and post-marital sex, children and an otherwise normal life, and then the straight spouse is utterly sand-bagged by their beloved’s gay side emerging.</p>
<p>Because, actually, I do not believe people change that much as they get older, they just become more who they are. ‘Company manners’ or ‘dating manners’ are usually de rigueur in the beginning, and possibly for a long time afterwards. Things are gradually revealed. In the case of the Drosselmeier marriage, it was all good. In other marriages maybe not so much.</p>
<p>There could be a latent addiction that even the addicted spouse might not be aware of, addictions are not necessarily to drugs or alcohol: on-line gambling, for example, or food. Disorders like depression could be triggered by events like a death in the family, or post-partum, or pervasive health conditions of parents or children.</p>
<p>And even as you believe you married the nicest, most wonderful person in the world you can’t know how he/she will be as a parent. He could be distant, or abusive, impatient, jealous of the children, pushy, oblivious or just plain not there. Having children is a huge marital challenge, and children bring out personality qualities in parents that are not always the best sometimes.</p>
<p>Even so, I don’t know, I think everyone here would wish everlasting love and devotion in our childrens’ relationships and marriages, but I say you can use ‘strategies’ like finding “the shining angel” and still you just can’t know. Marriage is a huge leap of faith, and a good outcome is a gift and a blessing. For those of you like Drosselmeier who have had marital happiness, I would ask that you remember that others set up similarly have not had such good results. And that you think charitably and lovingly on them, and not be smug about your good fortune.</p>
<p>And plenty of us hope and pray every day that our children will rise from the ashes of their parents’ shattered lives and achieve greatness.</p>
<p>But why <em>should</em> the guy pay on a date? That practice harkens back to the days when women had no money, save mad money for a phone call, because they didn’t work. I guess expecting men to pay made sense, or they wouldn’t be able to go out at all.</p>
<p>There is no such situation in modern America (I don’t know whether Drosselmeir’s DDs’ work or not, however). Women are just as capable of working as guys, and they have their own money, to pay for their own dinner; whether or not sexual favors are part of the equation is actually unimportant.</p>
<p>I would never raise my daughter to expect that boys they date pay for “everything”. It would raise a million red flags to me (like I would think the guy over controlling, if he wanted to always pay…). Opening doors? Very nice. Paying? Not so much.</p>
<p>^^I agree in most situations, but not all. I still think if there’s a large disparity in incomes between a man and woman (in either direction), the better salaried person should be paying more. It’s unfair to establish social patterns that extract a huge percentage out of one person’s income but not the other. And maybe the better-paid partner wants to enjoy a better restaurant or concert ticket, at which point total equality limits them to diners and movie rentals.</p>
<p>But if the salaries are in close proximity, then I agree strongly today to go 50-50 for the costs of social dating.</p>
<p>My kids like to make it a little graceful, by saying something like, “You buy the movie tickets, I’ll buy the popcorn” since that’s almost equal, rather than parsing out coins at every turn with their partner. Or, they take turns paying for meals out, rather than split each check, once they’re going out steadily with the same person. It just feels more gracious to them.</p>
<p>They say the hardest moment is when they’re out with a crowd of kids who are wealthier, eating at a restaurant. If my kids order carefully according to their budget, and the rest of the crowd orders high off the menu, it’s hard to “split the check.”
We had to teach them to work that stuff out in advance with the server (ask for a separate check when ordering, even if the rest do not). That way they can join a meal with wealthier friends, in group socializing out at restaurants. It works fine.</p>
<p>To tell the truth, I find it just as odd to go out with a girlfriend for lunch and say, “You owe $12.72.” Very often, my friends and I simply take turns paying for lunch for the other, to avoid the above. </p>
<p>Yes, there can be graciousness, even in the splitting of bills.</p>
<p>My son loves to take his girlfriend out, and pay for things for her. But she is equally generous with him.</p>
<p>My older daughter went on 2 dates in HS - Junior and Senior Proms, and it was one too many as far as she was concerned. The JP date wanted to pay for their own expenses (tickets, limo) - that was a red flag to me. He ended up with someone else after the prom, which really embarrassed my daughter. On the SP date bought the tickets and flowers, assured me that he wouldn’t drink and drive, and his parents told my daughter that she was the prettiest one there. There was no romantic interest between them, but both of them had a great time. He was a gentleman and she was a lady.</p>
<p>My older daughter is a very attractive young lady (she’s been turning heads since 14). I think because of that she is very careful about guys. She wants a relationship that doesn’t start with a hookup. She is four weeks into her college life. She is beginning to meet some guys, but so far every time she’s slowed down the physical relationship, they have moved on to other “target”. She is not saving herself for “The Guy,” but I think she wants some courtship - dinner and flowers(paid by the guy). She is not sure if guys like that exists any more. She sees how her father treats me (he still gets me flowers and presents), and she doesn’t want anything less. </p>
<p>As far as who should pay. I am a firm believer that guys should pay in the beginning. It has been the ritual for many years. If a guy doesn’t pay in the beginning, I see it as been selfish and self centered. Once the relationship gets started, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for both of them to share expenses. But there is nothing worse than seeing two people on a date trying to figure out how to split a bill, ugh! My husband tells our girls, “There is never equality in a relationship, it’s always better to have the man to love the woman a little bit more.”</p>
<p>I was always taught that the “inviter” pays. If the guy asks the girl out, he should expect to pay. If the girl asks the guy, she should. Has nothing to do with how much anybody makes, and has to do with being host or hostess.</p>
<p>When I was younger (the dark ages), I agreed to go out with a guy I thought of as really nice and fun, but had no real romantic interest in. At the movie theatre, I took out my wallet to pay for my ticket, and he turned to me and said “this is a date!”, and promptly paid for both tickets.
We’re celebrating our 25th anniversary soon.</p>
<p>"She is not saving herself for “The Guy,” but I think she wants some courtship - dinner and flowers(paid by the guy). She is not sure if guys like that exists any more. "</p>
<p>Sure, they exist. They aren’t likely to be the guys that one finds at most parties where there is heavy drinknig. They also aren’t likely to be the guys who have the smoothest lines or who are the most assertive about getting dates.</p>
<p>There really are thoughtful guys who see sex and romance as serious things. They aren’t looking for quick hook-ups.</p>
<p>This is the case now. It was the case back during the sexual revolution,too.</p>
<p>Her being beautiful may mean that the nicer guys who aren’t looking for quick hook-ups are more hesitant at asking her out because of the lines of aggressive players who are probably obviously going after her. </p>
<p>Probably starting off as simply friends (i.e. no dating at all) is the best way to find guys like that. They take things slow. Get to know people through organizations, etc.</p>
<p>And I hope that she is saving herself for The Guy: By this, I mean that I hope she’s saving herself for someone special. I’d hope the same for guys. I don’t think it’s naive to plan for love and a real relationship with at least a commitment to exclusively dating each other to exist before one has sex with someone.</p>
<p>I think that with today’s women (appropriately) expecting the same career opportunities and financial rewards/responsibilities as men, the economics of dating would and should, logically, follow suit.</p>
<p>My D dates guys roughly her age plus perhaps a year or two and they are, like her, typically in their first jobs after college. They are handling rent, perhaps car or student loan payments, etc. Why should she, who fully expects to earn a salary comparable to theirs, be subsidized by them on dates? </p>
<p>(She dates guys in her (heavily male) field as that is where she meets people these days – actually only two since college so I admit this is not a large sample. She knows them a while from group situations well before going out on individual dates.) </p>
<p>D finds that the guys expect to pay on the first date, but she makes it clear that she plans to share expenses in any relationship that continues. She is treated well by the guys she has dated so far. What matters much more to her than money spent or who is spending it is whether they share and/or respect her preferences on how to spend time, are considerate, respect her parameters for the relationship, etc. </p>
<p>The guy she is dating now is a very good cook, she says, and she was delighted recently when he gave a barbeque and asked her to invite a girlfriend (in part to add more females to the mix as he has several male housemates). What really impressed her was that he not only cooked a great meal but also had put flowers out on the table, etc. She found the trouble he took very thoughtful. </p>
<p>My impression is that they tend to alternate paying for meals out. </p>
<p>Northstarmom - that’s very similar to what I said to her. I told her to to get involved with some organizations and try to meet people that way. Frat parties are not conducive for meeting people. At her school Greek life is a very large part of social scene. I think she is going to try to pace herself, broaden her circle of friends. This weekend she actually opted out a sorority party to hang out with some kids from her class. I am also very pleased that she is not doing random hook-ups. I guess some of our talks did stick.</p>
<p>annud. mom, your post is quite on target, as to what has occurred for many of us. Not in terms of turning gay, though I know people who have lived with that hard discovery, and luckily the HIV tests were negative, back in the '80s. In my case, the essential issue that lead to divorce was undiagnosed depression. Family life is difficult, economics forces hard times on many, and pathology does result from stress in many people. </p>
<p>I read Drosselmeiers’ post, and think, yes, that is how it should be, and is a lovely testimony to love, honor and commitment. What many of us wish for, were brought up expecting. That is civilization and human relationships at their best. Reality is a little, or a lot messier, unfortunately. The '60s changed things for me and many around me, and the divorced world has plenty of ups and downs. I like to be around people in good marriages, as I like the emotional health that rubs off, though the insight brought to situations by those who have lived through an interesting life makes for the best conversation. </p>
<p>Regardless of who pays for what, it is generosity of spirit that makes the best impression. Now my son in China, talks of endless and loud arguments regarding who hosts an outing. My kids the enjoy fierce angling for the bill that I participate in when with Asian family. But back here in the midwest, being a parsimonious American, I do resent paying for expensive entrees and alcohol consumption when splitting the bill with friends who are not single parents! But somehow that is more an issue with couples. Women friends are quite careful, and I appreciate that care.</p>
<p>My kids have traveled with large mixed gender groups of friends for the most part, little individual dating, for which I’m thankful.</p>
<p>My thoughts, as is probably obvious by now, are with -Allmusic-. Other posters have indicated how this equality can be graciously brought about. It is not an equality of dollars and cents, but rather one of spirit and intention.</p>
<p>D has an extremely wealthy guy friend at Yale, no romance here. They visit each other often. He insists of paying for many things, but she always plans an evening when she pays for everything. (She can arrange wonderful and exciting things within her budget because she is in NYC.) When sort of boyfriend,(don’t ask!) who is southern and attends WashU visited she made plans, hailed cabs, did “guy things” and she paid for most things (to his discomfort, though he liked her hailing cabs) because he had spent quite a bit on airline tickets. He did treat her to one special night. There’s not a calculator present in friendship or dating, just an understanding that both parties share the costs and benefits of the relationship in an equitable way that suits both. The idea that paying3 has of the wealthier paying for the tickets and the other buying the popcorn is a nice way to go about things, independent of gender.</p>
<p>Obviously, there are people who prefer a different model and see social value in the man paying for everything. Well, it does show a desire to support a woman which could be valuable in child bearing years, so I see the point here, though neither D nor I would be happy in that kind of relationship.</p>
<p>So he have Drosselmeier’s testimony and TheDad’s testimony that there are both philosophies out there in guys. We only have testimony that both ideas are abroad in the minds of women. People are probably dating like-minded sorts who operate on a similar model of what a relationship is about. Though of course, there are always negotiations.</p>
<p>D is also quite pretty anc curvy and attracts a lot of casual male attention until she starts talking. She is extremely verbal and very opinionated (don’t snicker, she IS more opinionated than I am) and very assertive, traits that surprise people since she is 5’2" and a size zero. She finds that this is enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. Those interested only in looks are discouraged pretty fast because she is more than they bargained for. The guys who stay interested are stout hearted fellows who really like an assertive woman (and in NYC she is also sophisticated, saavy and very independent.) I sort of think about it as the ring of fire around Brunhilde in Wagner’s opera.</p>
<p>I third Annudahmom and great lakes mom’s posts that not all of us get to live in a Disney fairy tale. However, even then, not all is lost. As the old saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you strong. My “disasters” in life have contributed to my mastery and confidence and I , actually, would not have it any other way.</p>
<p>Back to D’s other point earlier in the thread: Why does every one want to protect me from hurt. I’m here to have experiences and grow.</p>
<p>If we get the perfect ending with its happily every after, nothing wrong there.<br>
But if we don’t, another mountain climb. It’s okay.</p>
<p>But offering warnings that may help a kid avoid obvious, gratuitous emotional injuries seems to me like a mom’s job. (Even if a kid is warned, and careful, and selective, she’ll surely experience romantic disappointment and pain no matter what.) </p>
<p>I would classify myself as a realistic feminist. So I am not going to shy away from giving my D information about the unique ways women tend to operate, for example the fact that for women, orgasm= oxytocin= attachment. That information is pertinent and relevant and real. It is important to know that having your “eyes open” does not nullify your biology/hormones/dopamine/etc, that those sub cellular forces are powerful and can still blindside you. IMO girls who don’t have this information are at a huge disadvantage. Same with the girls that don’t realize delaying childbearing till their thirties can mean a closed window of fertility. Etc. </p>
<p>There are things like this that women are better off (and more empowered) knowing in advance, even if they tend to butt up against “you are woman, hear you roar.”</p>
<p>I absolutely agree that there are things that women should be well aware of, and consequences of sex, delayed childbearing, etc. are certainly within the parental domain to discuss. </p>
<p>OTOH, I really must agree with Mythmom (surprise, surprise!). Why do so many people believe in happy endings? Is this why so many Americans are depressed? Look, life has some bumps along the way. Failed relationships, poor choices, etc. are part of the fabric of life, and hopefully, one learns from heartache. One simply cannot expect to live a fairy tale life, or if one aspires to that, he/she is sure to be disappointed. </p>
<p>One can have a rich and fulfilled life, even if it doesn’t follow a Disney “happily ever after” script.</p>
<p>Why not prepare our children to be strong in the face of adversity, not to give up, to persevere, to put themselves out there, to risk emotional pain even, because they will grow, and perhaps even thrive, as a result?</p>
Come now. Upon each birthday my wife, kids, relatives and friends buy me gifts. My kids also make and serve me breakfast in bed. I gotta tell yathe stuff is typically horrid. Were talking boiled eggs with toast, and iced tea made from tea bags delicately squeezed with little hands to get the extra out of it. But I love awaking and having those special people showing me honor by doing little things that I could have done for myself. When a guy holds a door or a chair for a woman, he isnt claiming superiority. He knows the woman is an equal. What he wants to do is communicate esteem by doing a bunch of little things for her that she could have done herself. I think if a woman denies a guy opportunities to do this stuff, she kills something that could have been very special. Probably a lot more guys would be happier if they could sense themselves being more potent at bringing pleasure to their wives not only in the bedroom, but everywhere. I think, in fact, that the more pleasure a guy creates outside the bedroom, the more he will create inside it.</p>
<p>You know, guys and gals are different. Sexual dimorphism does exist in our species, and I think guys feel it. So why not help them express it? I dont think it is just a matter of machismo. Most guys feel their ability in these sorts of areas, and whether it is little things like opening doors and driving the car (note how often the guy drives, and not the gal), or bigger things like dying in a snowstorm as our wives and children wait for us to get help, we want to use our abilities especially for those we love. If women kill this, I think they in some sense kill what makes a guy a guy.</p>
<p>We do inhabit vastly different social spheres, you and I-- and I do not think that is a bad thing. We are all trying to live and enjoy the time we have here. If your way works for you, it is great. But I do not think your way is more valid than mine, or that mine is objectively more valid than yours. I think rather than dismiss the conservative way as some seem want to do, calling it closed, repressive, a Disneyland fantasy, we might try to see its merits and possibilities. As Sarahsmom mentioned, our way certainly does have its benefits, and when handled correctly, it can overflow with adventure. It is useful, I think, because there are a lot of people for whom their way obviously does not work. It is quite possible there are many guys who in their heart of hearts think like me, but who are in relationships with women who think like you, and who before committing to marriage will never consider the implications of what they do because our society increasingly belittles their wishes. For myself, I know for a fact I would not be happy with a woman who did not enjoy my acting toward her in the way I have described. I would not even think the woman attractive, regardless of how pretty she was externally.</p>
<p>Ahhh Last week I dropped my son off at college, and wondered how he would get on when it comes to girls. While at home he did not date much at all, you see. He is a very handsome boy, athletic, intensely smart, driven, not shy in the least, yet I can probably count on one hand the number of girls he has taken on a real date. He had little interest in the girls who approached him, and the girls who may have interested him seemed attracted to the swaggering nonsense often exhibited by young men of poor character. The boy would never act in this way, and so did not find even the attractive girls inwardly attractive. But recently, he has dated quite a few Asian girls. I had wondered why he attracted so many Asians, and now I think this conversation here has given me the answer. Each of those girls was very pretty, striking even. But they did not seem aware of their looks, were awfully kind to my boy, and respectful of his parents-- and they were quite appreciative of the boys demeanor. I think the reason he connected with them may have something to do with cultural conservatism in many Asian girls regarding sex and relationships. I have heard that MANY guys prefer Asian women for this reason, but I had never considered that my own boy was one of them. He has not told me this, but now that I think about it, I think it fits.</p>
<p>Thing is Dross, as much as I appreciate the sweetness of your story, it wouldn’t suit me. Viva la difference, eh? I have the same kind of faithful and adoring marriage as you have. 24 years strong and going the distance. I’ve never been tempted to even wink at another man–and I am surrounded by lusty men in my work.</p>
<p>Before I met H, I had four marriage offers altogether. My H was the best of those, on all levels. Only one of the other offers went on to have a similarily adventurous life as H and I have enjoyed–but that man was unsuitable for me on the physical level. I am thankful I had a chance to discover that.</p>
<p>That is the way. Many have what I have, and do not appreciate it. So they are unhappy. Others have what you have, and are unhappy with it. I think plenty would be able to find their way more efficiently if our society did not do to their wishes what the OP has done.</p>